The Lemon Fool

I nearly chocked into my cornflakes this morning to hear on the radio that utterly discredited politician Liz Truss had released her resignation honours list. Cronies and more cronies. It is a disgrace.
Sheesh. I don't know what is worse/more worrying- a government that is so out of touch with public opinion it sanctions any of Truss's list or a government that knows these honours will upset a lot of people but couldn't give a stuff.
Our rescue dog Alfred has been loyal to us these last six years.
Can he be given one?

Agreed, especially since one of the new knights is reported to have made two separate donations to Liz's campaign. If that doesn't stink, I really don't know what does.

One of the suggestions in the FT comments section is that the new appointees' terms should be capped at 49 days. Another is that they should ennoble a lettuce instead.

BJ

1. At various times in history it's been a mission of Prime Ministers to bring the system into (further) disrepute.
2. In recent times, there's been disrepute-inflation. Albeit with the occasional outlier: weren't May and Brown relatively restrained?
3. Johnson and Truss seem to have taken it a step further from what Blair and Cameron had done.
4. On the upside, this may be what finally brings about long-overdue abolition.
5. On the downside, politicians of the day are likely to replace it, and what we end up with doesn't bear thinking about.

Beerpig wrote:I nearly chocked into my cornflakes this morning to hear on the radio that utterly discredited politician Liz Truss had released her resignation honours list. Cronies and more cronies. It is a disgrace.

I'm inclined to think that the Lords should be capped in headcount, not to exceed the Commons.
It has become a bloated sinecure, not at all the repository of intelligence and experience that it should be.

V8

88V8 wrote:It has become a bloated sinecure, not at all the repository of intelligence and experience that it should be.

V8

"should be"?

Part of the trouble is, we can all project a "should be" onto it, but to agree on a detailed proposal would be an entirely different matter.

Perhaps it "should be" something from a golden era ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHvuc12hoG4

I can go along with honours for notable achievements, but not simply supporting a political party or any particular leader - especially one who did so much damage in so short a time.

It's an outrage and it shows just how out of touch the former PM mus be - She and her like simple do not care what people think of them: any normal person would want to curl up and crawl into a ditch rather than brazen it our as she has.

Arb

88V8 wrote:

Beerpig wrote:I nearly chocked into my cornflakes this morning to hear on the radio that utterly discredited politician Liz Truss had released her resignation honours list. Cronies and more cronies. It is a disgrace.

I'm inclined to think that the Lords should be capped in headcount, not to exceed the Commons.
It has become a bloated sinecure, not at all the repository of intelligence and experience that it should be.

V8

I think that's Labour Party policy to bring the numbers down.

But all of this is not the honours system itself. These are honours arising from the outgoing PM and as such of course they are going to be personal gifts from the PM. So donors to her cause are likely to be recognised. That seems to be the point of them.PM’s patronage pure and simple.

I do not care who the PM honours. My concern is with the honours system itself where although there are undoubtedly many on the list who richly deserve the honour there are many who are merely time serving lackies doing what they were paid to do. Many in the Civil Service but I am sure lots of others as well.

Dod

If she had an ounce of humanity, humility or just plain common sense, she would not have produced a list at all.

It tells us all we ever need to know about her, her acolytes, and her Party.

Arborbridge wrote:I can go along with honours for notable achievements,

... whereupon we all set to arguing over what is a notable achievement.

(There will be a few on whom we can all agree, but a far greater number of grey-area nominees, as well as the seriously-controversial).

Dod101 wrote:But all of this is not the honours system itself. These are honours arising from the outgoing PM and as such of course they are going to be personal gifts from the PM. So donors to her cause are likely to be recognised. That seems to be the point of them.PM’s patronage pure and simple.

I do not care who the PM honours. My concern is with the honours system itself where although there are undoubtedly many on the list who richly deserve the honour there are many who are merely time serving lackies doing what they were paid to do. Many in the Civil Service but I am sure lots of others as well.

Dod

I think you do the "time serving lackies" a disservice.

On your point about doing what people were paid to do, that extends to many other groups, including those in science and medicine, - not just to the hard working civil servants that keep government and country going. One might, by extension, wonder why anyone needs a gong over and above what they were being paid to do. But they we are - some people quite like the idea that folk are recognised in some way other than by income.

Which reminds me - books on employment practice often tell us that employees respond to being rewarded, but not just in moentary terms. i.e. you can encourage people by recognition. Isn't that what happens in the honours system, but on a more impressive scale? I'm sure you will come back with a "but"

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Arborbridge wrote:I can go along with honours for notable achievements,

... whereupon we all set to arguing over what is a notable achievement.

(There will be a few on whom we can all agree, but a far greater number of grey-area nominees, as well as the seriously-controversial).

when I wrote that, I did think someone would point out that wrecking the economy in a matter of days was in itself a notable achievement!

What is an outrage is that so many non-entities have been honoured over the years and yet Nigel Farage, who has brought about the significant change, has not been rewarded.....?

also an outrage that one Jeremy Corbyn ever got to be 'leader of her majesty's most loyal opposition'

bluedonkey wrote:I think that's Labour Party policy to bring the numbers down.

And how do they propose to do that?

Firing squad?

My first wife's father was at some time on the Civil Service committee for dishing out honours. I remember him telling me that the way to get an honour was to be the chairman of whatever. When I asked why not the secretary or treasurer, he said they do all the hard work, whereas the chairman doesn't and gets all the credit.

Mike4 wrote:

bluedonkey wrote:I think that's Labour Party policy to bring the numbers down.

And how do they propose to do that?

Firing squad?

There's already a mechanism in place, for the 400+ hereditary peers of which only 92 can be active in the House of Lords. The Tory, Labour, LibDem and crossbench peers can each elect a proportion of those 92 active hereditaries - so you could imagine that the quota of active peers from each party was reset after each general election to match the makeup of the Commons (plus a generous slug of crossbenchers), and you could imagine going further and giving a separate quota to peers from each party from different regions to balance it a bit more geographically.

Enforcing retirement at say 85 wouldn't hurt either.

Arborbridge wrote:It's an outrage and it shows just how out of touch the former PM mus be - She and her like simple do not care what people think of them: any normal person would want to curl up and crawl into a ditch rather than brazen it our as she has.

Arb

Id go further - its not just truss. I perceive (probably in a group of one ie just me ) that by the time anybody reaches the heady heights of PM - especially in such a .... bizarre ... period that 2022 turned out to be "politically" when basically the Tories had already used up anybody that could actually do the job even vaguely competently - they have lost all connection with the reality of what actually happens for the ordinary UK resident, or what normal social and work protocols are. As evidenced by repeated cases of MPs and their ilk "getting way with" stuff that would see anybody normal placed on gardening leave if not summarily dismissed.

The system is so broken its beyond redemption. And I'm not sure it can actually replaced with anything meaningful now. We're phuqqed.

#illbedeadintwentyyears

didds

Arborbridge wrote:Which reminds me - books on employment practice often tell us that employees respond to being rewarded, but not just in moentary terms. i.e. you can encourage people by recognition. Isn't that what happens in the honours system, but on a more impressive scale? I'm sure you will come back with a "but"

Possible derail here ... In the past various "staff surveys" have had a question about how staff would like to be recognised. I always reply "pay me more" - that's the bottom line. Then I can spend the money on what I really want ... not some voucher for a national food chain I'd never ever eat in through choice and the nearest outlet of which is 30 miles away from where I live

scrumpyjack wrote:also an outrage that one Jeremy Corbyn ever got to be 'leader of her majesty's most loyal opposition'

well you'd have to ask the Labour Party that.

Or even Tory supporters that allegedly joined the labour party on their "join for a fiver scheme" thing (or whatever it was) to deliberately vote him as labour leader.