New Year honours should reward achievement, not cronyism
|
Version 0 of 1. I'm not against honours. I think it's a good thing that a society celebrates its most distinguished citizens, those who have done something truly remarkable – whether grand and famous or quiet and unsung. In principle, all that is healthy. But, boy, do we do it wrong in Britain. Even if you look past the Downton Abbey flummery of titles that formalise and enshrine inequality, and even if you get beyond the absurd anachronisms that somehow endure into the 21st century – Commander of the British Empire – too much about the system suggests a society that has got its priorities skewed. Start with the entrenchment of class. You may think we got rid of the British Empire Medal – the old dinner ladies' gong – 20 years ago but it has crept back in, handed out to volunteers and doers of public good who somehow fall on the wrong side of the class divide from recipients of the MBE. The government says the BEM is for those whose contribution has been "hands-on", which sounds like a nice way of referring to those who work with their hands. It means the honours system stays true to the old British distinction between officers and men, gentlemen and players, grammar and secondary modern. Next comes the fact that, as the RSA's Adam Lent tweeted, "as ever, [the] best way to bag one is to happen to work for the government or the royal family". Among the most senior honours, the dominance of Sir Humphreys and courtiers is striking. There are gongs galore for the deputy director of this Whitehall department and the head of strategy group at that one, to say nothing of the pile of baubles handed to those who serve the Windsors, including someone whose job is to be the Queen's swan marker. Apparently he wears a hat decorated by a swan feather. There was recognition too of Her Majesty's chief cabinet maker – and I don't think they meant David Cameron. Perhaps the almost automatic honours granted to such jobs – bestowed as if they were part of the role's terms and conditions – would be fine if gongs were reserved for public service. They could be seen as an incentive scheme, to make up for the fact that the pay is often less than in the private sector (though I'm not sure the swan marker would be deluged with offers outside the palace). But that's not how it is. Instead plenty of people are honoured simply for doing private sector jobs that are already rewarding them very nicely. Note the OBE given to Cheshire property tycoon Peter Emerson for "services to business in the north-west". Or the CBE gratefully received by West Ham vice-chair Karren Brady. By sheer coincidence, Brady introduced George Osborne to this autumn's Tory party conference while Emerson gave £41,000 to the Conservatives, £31,000 of which went to Osborne's constituency party. It's not just Guardianistas who find this appalling. The Daily Mail's Tim Shipman has been raging against cronyism, admitting on Twitter that "The honours list always brings out my inner Marxist. It is a disgusting display of intra-establishment frottage; politics at its very worst." The awarding of honours should be a moment of national pride, celebrating those who have brought honour to their country. Today's list includes many who have done just that. But they are let down by a system that too often rewards not merit or service but those who already have the good fortune to occupy a nice perch in our hierarchy. Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |