David Cameron's resignation honours list has caused a stir - but this is not new. Such lists cause controversy every time they occur. In Cameron's case the list included numerous advisers, two chauffeurs, four constituency party members, two donors of considerable amounts to the Tory party and the Remain campaign, and four cabinet members.
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.
Is there still a need for the honours system? If yes, it needs a radical rehaul.
The Guardian view on honours: time to rethink a shabby system. Editorial https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/31/the-guardian-view-on-honours-time-to-rethink-a-shabby-system
The Daily Mail and The Guardian agree: honours system is a disgrace by Roy Greenslade https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/aug/04/the-daily-mail-and-the-guardian-agree-honours-system-is-a-disgrace
