At last, a tabloid has noticed the ridiculous new plan to shower gongs on MPs. Andrew Pierce of the Mail writes;
When David Cameron and Nick Clegg stood shoulder to shoulder in the Downing Street rose garden at the birth of the Coalition, they pledged a ‘new era of politics’ with an end to the backroom deals and back-scratching that had characterised past administrations.
So how does this modern approach to party politics fit in with the recent formation of a new committee whose remit is to hand out gongs to . . . politicians?
The pompous-sounding Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee will, we are told, reward ‘people in politics who demonstrate selfless commitment for the good of the nation’. These ‘people’ are, of course, MPs.
Cameron, Clegg and Ed Miliband have put aside their differences to back this new wheeze, chaired by the Conservative peer and former MP Lord Spicer.
Chief whips of the three main parties serve on the committee to ensure their respective lickspittles and teachers’ pets get their due reward. Labour MP Paul Flynn is not impressed. ‘When I first came to Parliament in 1987, no Labour MP would accept an honour,’ he said.
He would continue that tradition, though with one exception: ‘I want a nomination that I can turn down,’ he explained. ‘Then I could use the title HRH: Has Refused Honour.’
********************
Peter Wilby in the Guardian has some refreshing comments on the monarchy that might dilute the sickening tide of sychophacy that passes for comment - even in Westminster.
If any other country were paying homage to an unelected head of state in this way, while the living standards of the majority of the population fall and schools and hospitals struggle with diminishing resources, we would call it "the cult of the personality" and probably think about invading.
The Queen never has to say anything controversial, allocate resources between competing claims, or take decisions that provoke disagreement. If your job is confined to uttering bland pleasantries, shaking hands and distributing gongs, it is quite difficult to be unpopular. Since you are exempt from freedom of information laws, you are not at risk of having your expenditure on moats and duck ponds highlighted in newspapers. Since you took office without election, you do not have to contend with the disappointed or disgruntled supporters of your rivals and, since nobody is paid to lead an opposition to you, you do not have to face weekly questions about how you discharge your duties.
Elizabeth II has understood all that. She deserves congratulations, though no more than others whose jobs require them to keep their opinions to themselves. It seems that her son and heir, who may have a lower boredom threshold, lacks the same grasp of what is required. By voicing a range of opinions on alternative medicine, education, GM crops, architecture, organic food and so on, he has made himself so unpopular that, if the succession were subject to an electoral contest, he would, according to the ICM poll, lose by nine percentage points to his son William. That is why, even if she were inclined to abdicate, Buckingham Palace officials and other pillars of the establishment will strain every sinew to stop her doing so, in the hope that, by the time she dies, Charles (if he is still inconveniently alive) will be sufficiently mellowed enough by age to change his ways.
Comments