BristolUK

There is a rule on this site about not changing someone's quote in a way that changes what they said. Some time ago I raised the issue about when someone actually misrepresents what another person has says.

That's happening here isn't it. One poster very clearly said he doesn't resent something and kjmw is repeatedly insisting they do having been given the opportunity to backtrack.

Lion in Winter

It's strange. It's a short and very clear sentence that he seems to not understand.

I keep wondering if maybe I've had a stroke or something, or I think I'm posting but I'm really not

dave_j

So let's get back to the topic of Farage and knighthoods.
Farage, like him or not, led a popular movement that achieved something. It might be controversial but who can argue that it was successful.
Isn't this a better use of the award system than dishing out knighthoods to senior civil servants who do nothing but occupy a space in a building vacated by a previous waste of space?
If any of these 'valuable' civil servants dropped dead, would it generate even the slightest ripple in Whitehall where there are so many more 'wastes of space' clammer to throw out the body?
And, of course once you open this particular can of worms you have to start considering the so called 'honours' shovelled out to the various royals whose only claim to fame is either being born or knowing someone whose born.
Farage might be loathed by many but I'd argue that he, at least, earned it.

Red Eric

BuckinghamshireBoy

I agree, he has certainly earned my loathing.

DaveLovesDee

Did he?

He led a party that lied about the effect EU regulations have on the UK.
He was the UK representative on the EU Fisheries Committee but attended 1 meeting out of 42, yet made a big deal about how the EU isn't helping the UK fishing industry. And Brexit has done more harm to the UK fishing industry than the EU could have ever done, and he's nowhere to be seen unless your watching one of his wealth management ads on YouTube.
He's no better than a snake-oil salesman or a con-man, who'll tell people want they want to hear before disappearing after he's taken everything they have.

And it was the Tory ERG who got the referendum, the same ERG behind many of the Leave groups, and the same ERG members who stood to make millions from Brexit. The ERG led Brexit, voted against May's deal, who made sure Boris's 'oven-ready deal' didn't get it's cooking instructions read by Parliament, and who pushed Boris into waiting til the last minute before making a deal that Parliament also didn't have time to scrutinise..

If Farage deserves a knighthood, he'll just be another HoL member who barely turns up, collects his money, and sows division.

philat98

If Raab says no Brexit benefits for 10 years then no knightood for 10 years.

BristolUK

What if I were to re-write that part of your post.
See, you've just gone for a cheap shot on one aspect of the system when there are other good parts to it.

EnglishRed

Two things.

I don't resent paying tax for other peoples children to go to school, the same way that I don't resent paying tax for the health service when I rarely used it while others were in hospital for weeks/months. It is a contribution to the greater good so not a problem.

As far as a knighthood for Farage, and anybody else for that matter, it is an anachronistic awarded system that should be abolished along with peerages,and the the monarchy.

Jerseygirl

Lion in Winter

As far as your first sentence goes, everybody except K thingummy understood that

On the second, yes, they are all ideas whose time has gone.

dave_j

I don't think I disagree with anything you put, I merely compare Farage with less deserving recipients of 'honours'.
As for the 'cheap shot' jibe, like most if not all of my posts, I state what I want to say. If that leaves me open to 'cheap shots' for omission then so be it.
I don't as a rule expect, or try, to change other's opinions, I recognise that that would be a complete waste of time and effort.

mikemike

does this mean we are back in the EU in 10 years time, when leave has not shown significant benefits

MartynK

I agree, providing political parasites don't use rapacious taxes to 'punish' people who are 'wealthy' because of envy, or to curry favour with their support base.

Yes, I agree with this too.There's probably no harm in letting existing hereditary peerages remain in place until they die out naturally, but the House of Lords has to go. It's debatable whether this country needs an Upper Chamber at all, but it should be reduced to no more than 100 elected seats if it's retained.

I've been republican since I was growing up, so no issue with abolishing the monarchy. The sooner the better...

philat98

I think the US model is better than ours with 2 elected houses and voting every 2 years. It seemed to cope with Trump. I would have a president with powers more like Italy than the US.