Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that you shouldn't get a knighthood just because you've been a long serving MP?

24 replies

kalapattar · 17/06/2018 10:43

Theresa May on Marr.

Marr - Sir Christopher Chope voted against the minimum wage, a repeal for Alan Turing, voted against equal marriage and filibustered a bill against revenge evictions. Why did you give him a knighthood 6 months ago?

May: Let me be very clear. All those things have gone through Parliament.

Marr: Why did you give him a knighthood?

Seems he got a knighthood just for being a long serving MP.

OP posts:
Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 10:49

For what should a knighthood be given, if not a long and successful career in politics?

DrDreReturns · 17/06/2018 10:55

I'd abolish the honours system completely.

Original poster
kalapattar · 17/06/2018 10:56

if not a long and successful career in politics

How are you defining success? Merely being voted in again and again shouldn't be rewarded with a knighthood.

A knighthood should be for people who go above and beyond duty, not just because they have had a long career in politics.

OP posts:
MereDintofPandiculation · 17/06/2018 10:58

For what should a knighthood be given, if not a long and successful career in politics? A long and successful career in politics already has its reward in a lifetime of lucrative board appointments and speaking opportunities. Why is any reward needed other than the satisfaction of having influenced your country in a way which you consider is for the better?

Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 10:58

kalapattar

But why do people get voted in? He is clearly doing a job that satisfies a large proportion of his constituents. It is a job that involves making an integral contribution to the lives of many thousands of people.

I don't understand, in any case, why you think he was given it solely because he was elected again and again? May didn't say that.

Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 11:00

MereDintofPandiculation

Who said anything about it being needed? It was given. Knighthoods are discretionary, based on one's contribution. Like it or not, many MPs make a substantial contribution.

Again, to whom should they go, if not people who have contributed through (just as an example) a long career discussing and making our laws?

KurriKurri · 17/06/2018 11:01

I'd have thought a 'long and successful career' (if that is what Chope has had) would be it's own reward.
No one really needs an honour or award - they are ridiculous. People get them for just living a long time.
And Chope has shown himself to be a homophobic misogynist - even if I agreed with honours, I would be against him getting one. Appalling man.

DeloresJaneUmbridge · 17/06/2018 11:03

He is in an area which would elect a chimpanzee if it wore a blue rosette Pengggwn , it’s hardly an achievement is it?

The man is an arse and needs kicking out by the women if his constituency. Sadly I think they will be too stupid and blinded by blue loyalty to do so.

Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 11:03

KurriKurri

I don't understand you. Are you suggesting nobody who has had a long and successful career should ever be put forward for a knighthood, because they have already been rewarded?

Sometimes, and the more I read on this site, I think some people just like stirring up trouble.

steff13 · 17/06/2018 11:04

Well, I suppose you could argue that he's spent many years serving the public. I mean, what does someone like Anthony Hopkins contribute that's deserving of a knighthood?

Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 11:04

DeloresJaneUmbridge

I know very little about the man. With that said, I don't think giving a knighthood to someone to honour their contribution to the vital field of politics is inappropriate. At all.

And I would cut off my arm before voting Tory.

Coffeist · 17/06/2018 11:08

It's a disgrace. If he had done something meaningful during his career in politics, I would understand but it just doesn't seem the case.

Just in case someone hasn't seen it yet, here is link to petition to remove his knighthood: www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-remove-sir-christopher-chopes-knighthood

ForalltheSaints · 17/06/2018 11:13

I don't think any politician should be honoured at all, except any military honours. Perhaps after a period of say 10 years after they have retired, if they have done particular charity work or supported a cause worth honouring.

Angrybird345 · 17/06/2018 11:14

Most knighthoods are undeserved and given to people for just doing their jobs. Some knighthoods are given to people who really don’t deserve them at all.

KurriKurri · 17/06/2018 11:15

Pengggwn
I am suggesting that no one needs a knighthood or any other honour.
I believe that having a successful career, or doing something you love or working for charity or whatever, are things that bring their own rewards and are things that you do because you choose to. No one needs a public pat on the back for basically getting on with their life and doing the best they can.

And of course if you have an honours system, you get people like Chope, who is very undeserving and unpleasant, being rewarded.

Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 11:17

KurriKurri

In that case a petition to abolish public honours might be your starting point? Anyway, I disagree with you wholeheartedly and think the practice of publicly recognising people for their contributions to culture, politics, charity, sports, business etc., is great.

Original poster
kalapattar · 17/06/2018 11:19

But why do people get voted in? He is clearly doing a job that satisfies a large proportion of his constituents

I wonder if being a Conservative MP in what seems to be a reasonably safe Conservative seat helps?

OP posts:
Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 11:20

kalapattar

Of course it helps 😂

The people voting are Conservative. They elect a Conservative. He makes decisions they agree with. They elect him again. As is their right.

Original poster
kalapattar · 17/06/2018 11:21

and think the practice of publicly recognising people for their contributions to culture, politics, charity, sports, business etc

He doesn't seem to have contributed much, does he?

OP posts:
NewYearNewMe18 · 17/06/2018 11:22

I ralise Chope is very much slagging flavour of the month at the moment, pitchforks at the ready. But he has a history of stopping private members bills for one very good reason, two actually (a) they are read on a Friday afternoon when everyone has buggered off back home (there were barely 20 MPs in the the HoC when this bill was read) and he think rightly or wrongly that matters of legislation derive a proper and fair hearing by the majority of the house. (b) it was poorly written, full or errors and duplicated arts of another Act, there fore in its present state, not fir for purpose.

Clearly I haven't read the Bill, neither have I read all the other relevant Acts, but I don't think democracy rests on the 20 that bothered to turn up.

Incidentally, if it hadn't been stopped it would have been sent back by the Lords for reason (b)

KurriKurri · 17/06/2018 11:24

That fine - we can agree to disagree, I wasn't expecting to change your view, nor do I believe you should.
Thanks for the suggestion of a starting point, but I started supporting change long ago - I haven't just plucked my opinion out of the ether this morning in response to OP's thread, I've held it for over 45 years.

Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 11:24

kalapattar

I have no idea what he has contributed.

Pengggwn · 17/06/2018 11:24

KurriKurri

Great. Mine is different.

Original poster
kalapattar · 17/06/2018 11:29

But he has a history of stopping private members bills for one very good reason

And yet he seems to have sponsored 31 Private Members Bills this year...

metro.co.uk/2018/06/16/sir-christopher-chope-hates-private-members-bills-but-has-created-31-in-the-last-year-7636993/

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page