Talk:Neil Kinnock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Re. Neil Kinnock. Was he already Transport Commissioner when he was first convicted of exceeding the speed limit on a British Motorway? What was the date of his first conviction and what was the fine?

I've cut the section which gives details of the wrongdoings of other members of the Commission, and then says that NK was completely innocent (in which case there's no need to bring it up in the first place). Markalexander100 04:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Inserted headings, but the details around the mid-eighties still seem jumbled. Philip Cross c22:11 (GMT)

Shame there isn't a photo. Could someone who's experienced with the copyright annoyances and setting up a nice image box do this? http://europa.eu.int/comm/mediatheque/photo/commprodi/kinnock/kinnock_1_h.jpg is reasonable, here is copyright info: http://europa.eu.int/comm/avservices/copyright_en.htm --- don't know if this could be made to work. Perhaps an earlier picture would be more appropriate anyway.

Contents 1 The age Neil Kinnock joined the Labour Party 2 Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty 3 Earlier biographical information? 4 We're not all right? 5 Kinnock and Devolution 6 Succession boxes needed 7 Nuclear disarmament

[edit] The age Neil Kinnock joined the Labour Party

According to Robert Harris, 'The Making of Neil Kinnock' (Faber and Faber, 1984) at page 32, referring to a family friend called Bill Harry: "Kinnock first met him when he was fifteen .. Kinnock remembers him as the man who first persuaded him to join the Labour Party". Inconceivable then that he could have joined at 14. David | Talk 22:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am starting to think you are doing this on purpose David. Inconceivable? I have a handwritten letter from Neil Kinnock himself confirming that he joined the Labour Party at the age of 14. The letter is dated 1984, it is in Neil Kinnock's handwriting, entirely written and signed by him. Will you accept this as evidence, or must you see something 'in the press'?

If by 'in the press' you mean publicly available, then yes we must. A private letter, which has never been published, contradicts published sources and only ever seen by you (and possibly Neil Kinnock if he did indeed write it) isnt a valid source for a factual encyclopedia. Iain 13:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've also checked the more recent Martin Westlake biography which states that Kinnock joined the Labour Party as soon as he was able to. That's "as soon as", not "before". David | Talk 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding of the licence that those photos are perfectly OK for WP use. I may be wrong. If I am, revert me. Ben-w 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty

According to Proteus and Dbiv, Neil Kinnock is not Lord of Bedwellty. According to them, the BBC is wrong in referring to mr. Kinnock that way. Are the British Council and Cardiff University wrong as well? In other words: what do they base their certainty, that Neil Kinnock is not Lord of Bedwellty, on? Would they be so kind as to share that with the rest of the Wikipedia community?

Crown Office

House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW

28 January 2005

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 28 January 2005 to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon the Right Honourable Neil Gordon Kinnock by the name, style and title of BARON KINNOCK, of Bedwellty in the County of Gwent.

There you go. (Yes, the British Council and Cardiff University are also wrong. And he's "Lord Kinnock", not "Mr Kinnock".) Proteus (Talk) 21:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As a Dutchman, I have no experience with the British peerage system.

So I hope you will pardon my ignorance on this. I have two questions:

1. Is there a vital difference between Lord and Mr?
2. According to your (highly relevant) source, Lord Kinnock will become

(or has become, rather) Baron Kinnock, of Bedwellty in the County of

Gwenty. Doesn't that make him Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty, or is that a

too liberal interpretation? Aecis 08:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to the first question, he's a peer below the rank of duke, so should referred to as "Lord Title" (in this case "Baron Kinnock", so the reference is "Lord Kinnock"). "Mr" is only used for men who have no higher title (or who have very low titles such as "The Honourable" which are not used in speech). As to the second question, this problem comes up a lot here, so I've just created an article which I hope will explain it: territorial designation. In this case the title is "Baron Kinnock" and the territorial designation (a feudal relic which is not part of the actual title) is "of Bedwellty in the County of Gwent". If he were "Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty", the "of Bedwellty" bit would be in capitals and before the comma in the announcment in the London Gazette I quoted above. Proteus (Talk) 09:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. I stand corrected. Aecis 09:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier biographical information?

Aside from the talk page's rather impassioned discussion of when Kinnock joined the Labour Party, there seems to be little information here on Kinnock's life before entering parliament at age 28. Anyone want to contribute? Ferg2k 05:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We're not all right?

Does the article underestimate Kinnock's personal responsiblity for Labour's 1992 defeat? Surely the disasterous Sheffield rally's pivotal moment wasn't so much the general "triumphalism" but Kinnock's almost jaw-dropping personal rock star vanity ("We're all right!"). Kinnock may like to claim that Labour looked like losing the election before the rally, but I wonder if that's wishful thinking on his part.

I can think of only two other moments in recent years when a politician's prospects have so publicly reversed in mere seconds: Ceausescu in front of the Bucharest crowd just before the December 89 revolution and Howard Dean's unfortunate "...send him back to Crawford, Texas" rant in 2004. Ferg2k 05:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kinnock and Devolution

Nothing here about how Kinnock was against Welsh devolution in 1977, sabotaging the process and setting it back 20 years, which in turn led to the fall of the Labour government. Not being an expert on the subject of Kinnock, i do know he was rather instrumental in the 'No' campaign of '77, though this is not reflected in this article. GarethRhys 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a little on it. I am no expert either, so I took all the facts either from the Wales referendum, 1979 article or from the BBC. There's a couple of recent(ish) interviews with him where he still expresses doubt about the Assembly, in a "well, we have it now, so we'd better make the most of it" way, but I couldn't see an appropriate place to mention those. I don't know how closely connected the no vote was with the 1979 election results (by comparison with, eg, "winter of discontent", general swing to the right in several countries) so I omitted that. Telsa (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes needed

for numerous things. - Kittybrewster 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear disarmament

I would dispute the claim that the British people favoured nuclear weapons. I don't think that that there was majority for Trident nor do I accept that most British people favoured Cruise missles. I think Kinnock just abandoned his principles on this like on everything else. SmokeyTheCat 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Cruise but I've never seen an opinion poll which showed majority support for unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain but I have seen polls which showed majority support for Britain's nuclear deterrent. The reason Kinnock "abandoned his principles" was because they were unpopular and in order to have a chance of winning a general election he needed to adopt more popular policies.--Johnbull 13:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If we accept that the majority of Britons didn't want Cruise missles how did Kinnock abandoning his principles to accept them make him more electable?SmokeyTheCat 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about policies over a whole range of areas, not just defence. I guess by the end of the 80s when the Labour policy review was operating Cruise wasn't as big an issue as it was earlier in the decade.--Johnbull 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)