This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/31/the-guardian-view-on-honours-time-to-rethink-a-shabby-system
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on honours: time to rethink a shabby system | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The honours system looked tarnished long before this weekend’s leak of David Cameron’s nominations for his resignation awards. Questions about such decorations are age-old: no recent case has matched the scandals of David Lloyd George’s era, when their sale was blatant. But they recur almost every time a list is published. In other cases, recognition looks still more ill-advised in retrospect: hence the discussions of Sir Philip Green’s knighthood. | The honours system looked tarnished long before this weekend’s leak of David Cameron’s nominations for his resignation awards. Questions about such decorations are age-old: no recent case has matched the scandals of David Lloyd George’s era, when their sale was blatant. But they recur almost every time a list is published. In other cases, recognition looks still more ill-advised in retrospect: hence the discussions of Sir Philip Green’s knighthood. |
| Repeated storms and resulting inquiries have done little to address concerns, and resignation honours have an unhappy history. Harold Wilson’s legacy remains shadowed by his notorious “lavender list”. Tony Blair, stung by the loans-for-honours scandal, did not produce one when he exited No 10. Mr Cameron would have been wise to do the same. The latest revelations underscore one of his shortcomings: his fondness for a “chumocracy” composed largely of well-bred acquaintances. Including Samantha Cameron’s stylist – even if she acted as aide as well as frock-picker – echoes the decision to grant Mr Cameron’s barber an MBE for “services to hairdressing” two years ago. | Repeated storms and resulting inquiries have done little to address concerns, and resignation honours have an unhappy history. Harold Wilson’s legacy remains shadowed by his notorious “lavender list”. Tony Blair, stung by the loans-for-honours scandal, did not produce one when he exited No 10. Mr Cameron would have been wise to do the same. The latest revelations underscore one of his shortcomings: his fondness for a “chumocracy” composed largely of well-bred acquaintances. Including Samantha Cameron’s stylist – even if she acted as aide as well as frock-picker – echoes the decision to grant Mr Cameron’s barber an MBE for “services to hairdressing” two years ago. |
| The list, and it is quite a lengthy one, also includes numerous advisers, two chauffeurs and four constituency party members. It is hard to see why so many hangers-on should receive a gong; there are plenty of private ways to demonstrate his gratitude and generosity to those around him. He has already – and rightly – been criticised for boosting severance pay to advisers despite official opposition. | The list, and it is quite a lengthy one, also includes numerous advisers, two chauffeurs and four constituency party members. It is hard to see why so many hangers-on should receive a gong; there are plenty of private ways to demonstrate his gratitude and generosity to those around him. He has already – and rightly – been criticised for boosting severance pay to advisers despite official opposition. |
| Then there is the inclusion of two businessmen – Ian Taylor of Vitol and Andrew Cook – who between them have given more than two and a half million pounds to the Tories, as well as considerable sums to the remain campaign. Like the knighting of Lynton Crosby at the new year, their nomination highlights what we all know: that whichever party is in charge, a system supposed to reward public service has a strange propensity to single out those who have helped it. Other aspects of the list appear quixotic. While knighthoods have regularly been awarded to sitting MPs, nominating four cabinet members is a little unusual. Does the chancellor of the exchequer, formerly foreign secretary, really need to be Sir Philip Hammond? | Then there is the inclusion of two businessmen – Ian Taylor of Vitol and Andrew Cook – who between them have given more than two and a half million pounds to the Tories, as well as considerable sums to the remain campaign. Like the knighting of Lynton Crosby at the new year, their nomination highlights what we all know: that whichever party is in charge, a system supposed to reward public service has a strange propensity to single out those who have helped it. Other aspects of the list appear quixotic. While knighthoods have regularly been awarded to sitting MPs, nominating four cabinet members is a little unusual. Does the chancellor of the exchequer, formerly foreign secretary, really need to be Sir Philip Hammond? |
| The underlying problem is the system itself, not merely how it is used or abused. Like so many British institutions, it is a fudge: an odd mix of personal patronage, political expediency and bureaucratic convenience, as well as deserved public recognition. As the public accounts select committee has argued, no one should be rewarded for simply “doing the day job”, be that running a government department or a large company – yet we all know that such nominations remain commonplace. Veteran politicians are recognised not just for their experience and wisdom, but to hasten them out of current roles. Sportspeople and members of showbusiness add a dash of stardust. | The underlying problem is the system itself, not merely how it is used or abused. Like so many British institutions, it is a fudge: an odd mix of personal patronage, political expediency and bureaucratic convenience, as well as deserved public recognition. As the public accounts select committee has argued, no one should be rewarded for simply “doing the day job”, be that running a government department or a large company – yet we all know that such nominations remain commonplace. Veteran politicians are recognised not just for their experience and wisdom, but to hasten them out of current roles. Sportspeople and members of showbusiness add a dash of stardust. |
| In theory, awards both embody and cement a nation’s values. They mark our communal appreciation of an individual’s service or distinction – the contribution they have made to society, perhaps inspiring through an eye-catching achievement, perhaps serving tirelessly but without attracting attention. There are always, of course, admirable choices, who have served the public in their local community or half a world away. Some have even been recognised for their diligence in challenging the government; Shami Chakrabarti springs to mind. But in reality, the meritorious look more like window dressing for honours than their raison d’être. Too many awards appear to be at best irrelevant baubles, at worst egregious favours, serving more to divide than to unite us. | In theory, awards both embody and cement a nation’s values. They mark our communal appreciation of an individual’s service or distinction – the contribution they have made to society, perhaps inspiring through an eye-catching achievement, perhaps serving tirelessly but without attracting attention. There are always, of course, admirable choices, who have served the public in their local community or half a world away. Some have even been recognised for their diligence in challenging the government; Shami Chakrabarti springs to mind. But in reality, the meritorious look more like window dressing for honours than their raison d’être. Too many awards appear to be at best irrelevant baubles, at worst egregious favours, serving more to divide than to unite us. |
| Further rounds of nominations will continue to prompt calls for reform. Tinkering is inadequate. If we agree that there is a real point to honours, we should enshrine that purpose – and, while we are at it, abandon the bizarre anachronism of handing them out in the name of a defunct empire. Giving the public a greater role in setting the criteria for recognition, and in selecting as well as nominating suitable individuals, would be a good start. It is not churlish to suggest a fundamental rethink. On the contrary, a return to first principles, restoring public confidence in a devalued system, would do far more for the truly deserving than these compromised arrangements. | Further rounds of nominations will continue to prompt calls for reform. Tinkering is inadequate. If we agree that there is a real point to honours, we should enshrine that purpose – and, while we are at it, abandon the bizarre anachronism of handing them out in the name of a defunct empire. Giving the public a greater role in setting the criteria for recognition, and in selecting as well as nominating suitable individuals, would be a good start. It is not churlish to suggest a fundamental rethink. On the contrary, a return to first principles, restoring public confidence in a devalued system, would do far more for the truly deserving than these compromised arrangements. |