Lady Kinnock

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by dollygee, Jul 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Listening to our local radio I heard that this unelected Uk minister for Europe is holding a cocktail party in Strasbourg for all the elected M.E.P."s from the U.K.
    However, the only 2 members not to recieve an invite were the 2 elected M.E.P."s from the british national party.
    If this unelected Lady is paying for this out of her own pocket( you must be joking!! ) then she can invite who she likes.
    But these two M.E.P"s were elected by the U.K. electorate, and as the cocktail party is no doubt funded by the massive amount that we all pay into the EU, They should have got an invite.
    I am not a supporter of the BNP, we should stop extremism in politics, but we should also have a long look at freeloaders like the Kinnocks.
     
  2. Like it or not, the Kinnocks have been “elected†to the Lords but by their peers and the Government. That said, I do think they are a waste of good victuals.

    I still find it amusing (well, actually, irritating) how many “democrats†only support the concept when it’s convenient to them. By snubbing the BNP contingent, they are equally snubbing the free and fair electorate who had the temerity to exercise their democratic right. Had this been hosted and funded by the Kinnocks, fair enough; they can invite/exclude who the hell they want. If it’s paid for by Public money, as you say, there should be no exclusions. If the BNP are invited, there’s no law beyond good manners that requires you to bother with them.

    I’m sure we wouldn’t be having this discussion if it had involved the Socialist Workers’ Party.
     
  3. I doubt if the Kinnocks had that much to do with the invite really. It is government policy that the BNP is excluded from the less formal side of the UK involvement in the EU. Whilst NuLabor may well consider the growth of the SLP as more of tha threat to themselves the problem would of course be they could not be exclude for publickly advocated racist measures.

    I suspect at the end of the day which ever way they had swung they would have got it in the neck from some one, and they have chosen to get it in the neck from libertarians and BNP fellow travelers which is probably from their point of view acceptable. Neither lot would be likel;y to vote for NuLabor anyway.
     
  4. Presumably you're not intending that to read as if you're conflating libertarianism and the BNP?

    Anyway, I agree, it really depends who has been doing the inviting, although that will also inform any discussion about who is funding the event. If it's either the labour party, or the bloc that the labour party MEPs belong to then they're entirely at liberty to invite who they want. In the absence of any evidence that it's centrally funded then that would appear to be the answer. If it is centrally funded then I'd question why, and then I'd question the invitation policy.
     
  5. The libertarians got their through their general inability to advocate sanctions agaianst any one no matter ho abhorant they may be.

    REgretably from your point though the invitation staus is a direct result of governemnt policy where BNP MEPs will only get the basic service, no goody bags, drinky poos etc. I understand their point because if they didn't they would be accused of in some way giving validity to BNP policies and they have chosen not to court that criticism. As I said they were in for it which ever way they span, I think though they from their point of view made the right descision.
     
  6. I say give the BNP every privilege enjoyed by the other parties. Let them have their equal share and their equal say.
    That is the only way their true agenda will be uncovered. What is forbidden is always attractive.
    On an aside how should we complain when an unelected head of state invites, on a state visit, the head of a state such as Saudi Arabia. Not exactly a country peppered with human rights; even the birthplace of at least some of the 9/11 bombers!
     
  7. It's more make your own decisions, take responsibility for your own actions, live with the consequences. In that sense the government policy is entirely reasonable, the consequence of the BNP position is that they get the minium that they're entitled to as elected representatives.

    If this is privately funded, by either the Kinnocks or the national party, then I think it's entirely reasonable.

    On a political front my inclination is that they should be allowed to participate as much as possible, to expose their position for what it is, whilst democracy has it's many limitations the way for it to work effectively is to expose the process to public scrutiny, and hold the representatives to account for their actions and behaviours. Clearly it doesn't always work with UKIP managing to still maintain a reasonable share of the vote despite the best efforts of their representatives in the last parliament.

    My perspective is limited by not knowing where the cash is coming from to fund this. The funding makes a material difference to my view of the invitation list.
     
  8. Karma

    Considering the party in question is a do hosted by a minister as a minister organised by our diplomatic staff I fail to see how you are confused about the source of the funding for the drinky poos.

    Equally the governement have openly announced that the BMP MEPs will not be invited to such events.

    Does that make your descision any easier.
     
  9. I would be amazed if the Kinnocks are funding it themselves. After all they are career politicians and politicians never pay for anything they can claim for. :twisted:
     
  10. I've found it buried in the Torygraph site, so it's an FCO funded thing. Fair enough.

    The approach bears some risk, and I note Griffin is already seeking to exploit
    the opportunity. He's equating being restricted from the diplomatic activity with being excluded from the activities of being a British representative in Europe. That leaves a grey area for him, breakfast briefings and the like aren't core to them doing their job but it gives them scope to complain, and gain publicity.

    My inclination would be to give them the rope, and let them hang themselves.
     
  11. Whether we like it or not the BNP have two members elected democratically. They should be treated exactly the same as any other elected MEP.......................................with contempt :twisted:
     
  12. AS I said at the begining what ever they did there was pain to be had, this solution though I think the pain is much more bearable than the alternative where they could be accused of being fellow travellers with the BNP.
     
  13. thanks and I would say that’s about as Public funded as it can get. This does Democracy no favours whatsoever and provides a 2 tier hierarchy; those who are acceptable to the majority of the majorities and those who are grudgingly tolerated because “democracy†requires it. What we are effectively saying to the British people who voted BNP is that they are no longer relevant until they see things the same as the rest of us. Why does the word “arrogance†flash across my mind. Perhaps we should require them to vote again and again until the get the right result.

    Maxi_77, I take your point that they would be buggered either way and they are politicians. Isn’t that the soft option, though, exposing the self interest aspect of politics to open view?
     
  14. NuLabour and democracy sit uncomfortably in the same sentence. Who else would "apppoint" people (like Lady Kinnock) to the institution so hated by socialists (the House of Lords) as there was no democratically elected bod available? The whole thing is unbelievable.

    I too am no supporter of the BNP but when we lose so many lives in various countries around the world in the name of democracy the least we can do is practice it ourselves.
     

Share This Page