It appears that, as the ‘agreed’ list of Honours to be bestowed by the crown at the behest of David Cameron on his resignation is finalised, the right wing press has discovered some moral backbone in its condemnation.
The Honours system has had two distinct sides for many years now. On the one side- sunny, shiny, bright – acknowledgement and recognition of service to the community, to society, with an emphasis on more give than take. On the other side – murky, dank, reptilian – are the rewards for monies paid and favours done.
However, it would seem that Cameron has managed to tip the balance a little too far towards cronyism, even for his erstwhile supporters. And it does stink. And I don’t understand why there should be so much bellowing. What else did they expect.
Why should a man fed on the presumption of arrogant superiority show any humility at the end. The fact that he could establish a scenario that could cause huge potential damage, fail to achieve the result he expected, then scuttle off with hardly a backward glance, is a clear indication that he has no concept of the meaning of the word Honour.
The shame of the situation is that another peerage nomination, that of Shami Chakrabarti, has been caught up in it all.
I will put aside for the moment my opinion on the validity or otherwise of the House of Lords, and simply consider the experience, expertise and divergent opinions that she could bring to it.
Here is a woman who has achieved an enormous amount in the national and international Human Rights, shining a light on those areas and demanding clarity and justice from those who would prefer uncomfortable truths remained in the shadows.
And it strikes me as beyond ridiculous for her to discard that for a peerage. That is an insult to both her on an individual basis, and to all that has been accomplished over the years.
The timing is unfortunate, coming as it does hot on the presentation of an investigation report into antisemitism in the Labour Party, which didn’t uncover the institutionalised nature of it that some had hoped to be uncovered. Just because the report didn’t provide the information that either the Chief Rabbi or the Board of Deputies of British Jews expected to be there, doesn’t mean that she behaved in any other way than honourably. That word again.
As I said, the timing is unfortunate, but dishonour for Cameron doesn’t mean that every other honour needs to be devalued. There is potential, now more than ever, for a new style – and new approach – to politics. Her career speaks for itself, and that should be enough.
cherokoffdotcom 