Gongs

[pandop]

Are any of us any where near as bothered about this as that mad committee seems to be?

What is it with this government and British Tradition? Why are they so keen on breaking (sorry modernising) things that no one is really offended by - instead of actually pulling their finger out and running the country?

Hazel

[skanky]

The honours system is a pretty good form of corruption. "Do us a favour (or toe the line) and you'll get an honour". The whole thing should just be scrapped. There's a few celebraty awards, but far more go to "captains of industry", civil servants, arms dealers, ex-politicians and the like. However I agree that there are probably more important things on the agenda - however a government should be capable of multitasking, they employ enough people to do so.

No government in my memory bothered running the country (well), they spend their time merely propping up their own interests and attempting to get an increasingly disinterested electorate to put it back in power every four years or so - the rest of the time that electorate can go to hell (even at election time it's merely a cosmetic nod to some popularised interests). The current government is merely the latest in what has been an increasing trend, and I don't see that changing for the next government (in whatever form it takes).

[pandop]

It just irritates me that they are so bothered about it all

Hazel

[skanky]

Fair enough and I can see your point (I feel the same about other things). It's the problem with people focusing on single issues. They're simply looking at the honours system, thus magnifying what is actually a minor part of the whole problem. When that happens it can make trivial issues seem rather overblown and make the people concerned look a little petty.

One problem is that sometimes those people, or other interested parties push what may only be a minor interest to further their cause. the tunnel vision of the media helps them, but magnifies the affect.


(That was a rather ugly way of putting it, but I hope it makes sense)

[John Self]

As a rule of thumb, if something is attacked as being an example of "political correctness gone mad", assume it is a good thing until proven otherwise. After the news broke about the proposed change of the OBE to the Order of British Excellence rather than the Empire, it didn't take long for the first person to complain on the BBC website that this was "yet more left wing bunkum from the PC brigade". At least one reason to think it a thoroughly good idea then.

It is true that the Order of British Excellence sounds a little daft and contrived. But how sensible did the Order of the Bath sound when it was first proposed? Did no one think that the Order of the Companions of Honour was a bit of a meaningless mouthful?

The proposed change seems to me to be a splendid example of another great British tradition: evolution by compromise and fudge. This way we get to keep the OBE but lose the reference to empire which so many find offensive. The fact that the change will also annoy just the sort of person who has no respect for the feelings of many people with historic ties to the lands we colonised is simply a bonus.

[pandop]

Which is another reason not to approve ... The Guardian does!

I have been thinking about this, and what I most object to is the way that they go after these traditions because the are 'old fashioned', 'discriminatory', 'elitist', whatever, and have no idea what to pu in their place.

They haven't even sorted out what they are doing with The House of Lords yet

Hazel

[John Self]

First we need to determine what is meant by "they" (as "they go after these traditions..."). The proposed reforms of the honours system are not a government policy but a report from a cross-party group of MPs.

As for the terms 'old fashioned,' 'discriminatory' and 'elitist,' I'm not sure where these quotes come from as I browsed through most of the report (here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/21202.htm)) and couldn't see them. Of course an honours system by definition must be discriminatory, ie discriminate between people to honour some and not others, and in that sense elitist too as it is aimed at rewarding those who excel in some public service or other - which could be one definition of an elite.

Certainly the system is old fashioned but I would counsel against the retention of something simply because it is well established (which the Committee found was the main argument from those who submitted opinions wanting the system retained as it is untouched), just as much as I would oppose changing something for the sake of it to make it New.

In any event the honours system has regularly undergone significant changes to reflect changing society as the Committee found:

By the mid eighteenth century, the British system of honours was both elaborate and restricted. In ascending order of precedence, it consisted of knights bachelor, the Order of the Bath, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of the Garter, baronets (essentially hereditary knighthoods) and peers (in five levels, ascending from baron to viscount to earl to marquess to duke). This was an exclusive and hierarchical system, which recognized and supported aristocratic authority and military prowess. Knighthoods were not hereditary; baronetcies and peerages were.

Since then, the British honours system has undergone two great phases of elaboration and re-invention. The first (and lesser) was from the 1780s to the 1810s, which saw the creation of the Order of St Patrick for Ireland (matching the Thistle for Scotland and the Garter or England), the extension of the Order of the Bath for military service in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars against France, and the creation of the Order of St Michael and St George. This was still, essentially, an aristocratic cum military system, partly hereditary, partly not.

The second (and greater) phase of expansion lasted from the last quarter of the nineteenth century until the First World War, and witnessed the creation of a much more complex system, which was imperial rather than national, and (in some areas at least) was open to a much wider spread of the population.

The OBE itself is less than a century old, having been created in 1917 and was intended for services connected with the First World War. John Major in his evidence to the Committee told how he had changed his view since 1993, when he could "see no advantage or purpose in changing the Order of the British Empire." Now he says:

Although that argument still has force I believe it is now out of date. In order to remove one of the persistent criticisms of the system, I would now be inclined to propose an "Order of British Excellence" with Awards at the level of Companion (i.e. CBE), Order (OBE) and Member (MBE). This is minimum change for maximum effect. It retains the familiar abbreviations whilst removing reference to an Empire that no longer exists. It does have an awkwardness with Northern Ireland, but no more so than now.

But the main complaint about the current system according to the Committee is that too many honours are restricted to civil servants, diplomats and so on who are awarded them for no reason other than appointment to or long service at a particular post. It is this "automaticity" (John Major's cumbersome term) - as prevalent now as it was in the late 70s when the recently repeated episode of Yes, Minister entitled "Doing the Honours" was first shown - which I believe is the main engine behind change.

The Government has not in fact responded to the report yet so we have no idea whether it will be implemented in full, in part or not at all.

[pandop]

The words were mine. But they are often bandied about by politician, lobbyist types, and anyone who has an agenda against a certain thing.

Yes honours are discriminatory, and I feel that is one reason why they may be under threat - do not forget it is only as a result of growing levels of child obesity that this goverment is moving away from the 'all shall have prizes' mentality, and realising that competition can have a role. The same applies in education - I was incredibly lucky to have been at school before the worst of this happened, and was therefore encouraged to do the best that I could. Friends of mine, however, were discouraged from reading ahead, as it would make the other children feel bad!

Certain elements in the government and some left wing groups and media outlets do feel that any form of elitism is wrong (except for themselves of course) and this leads to complaints about selection in schools, the desire for more and more people to go to university (whether they want to or not) - and those regular headlines about so-and-so not getting into Oxbridge!

Oh - and there was a good suggestion in The Telegraph (I think) today, that an Order of the Commonwealth could be formed, as this would emphasise our ties with those countries. I think this could work (although I do feel the need to add, if the Empire was so bad, why do so many countries want to stay in the Commonwealth, and there has been at least one country who was not in the Empire that has asked to join)

Hazel

[skanky]

The Empire and the Commonwealth are not the same things.

Why have any honours? What's the point? They exist as I said merely as a method of corruption. Of course, if it's suggested in the Telegraph, it's a very good reason not to like the idea :wink:

[pandop]

Yes I know that the Empire and the Commonwealth are not the same things, but the later did grow out of the former.

Just because something is corrupt in it's application, does not mean that it should be abolished (see the UN conversation) but that it does need reformation. You could keep exactly the same honours, and award them less corruptly just as easily as you could change the system and honours and apply them just as corruptly - if that makes sense

Hazel

[John Self]

It is only as a result of growing levels of child obesity that this goverment is moving away from the 'all shall have prizes' mentality ... The same applies in education - I was incredibly lucky to have been at school before the worst of this happened, and was therefore encouraged to do the best that I could. Friends of mine, however, were discouraged from reading ahead, as it would make the other children feel bad!

Again with the reference to "this government", I can only reiterate that connecting that to the proposed honours reforms is misleading as they do not come from the government and are not government policy.

I am often confused by references to the "all shall have prizes" mentality, usually cited together with the term "trendy teaching methods." I was at school between 1977 and 1991 and never came across them. Isn't something like discouraging children from reading ahead something that would be imposed by individual teachers or even local schools authorities, and nothing to do with central government?

[skanky]

Yes, but there are some fundamental differences that make entrance to one far more appealing than entrance to the other. I doubt many countries asked to become part of the Empire. Once the direct exploitation of resources was removed, then certain economic factors make it more appealing for the various heads of state to enter or remain. The model of the Commonwealth is certainly not one to be completely discarded, but surely it would have been better to just go straight to that model, missing out the empire?

As for the honours, well you could keep them, but what's the point in them? Unless they're voted for by the whole population (and then everyone who can be voted for needs equal billing), then they're no more than a few people's opinions. Once you get one, you get to say that a lot of people voted for me and said I did good. Which would be nice, but no more than that.

Fine, if most other people thought that was a good idea, then fair enough. They're not something to lose too much sleep over.

[NottyImp]

Let's not forget the "People's Peers" fiasco of not so many years ago. Most of them turned out to be the usual suspects.

[pandop]

Again with the reference to "this government", I can only reiterate that connecting that to the proposed honours reforms is misleading as they do not come from the government and are not government policy

Yes I know - but they are all connected!

I am often confused by references to the "all shall have prizes" mentality, usually cited together with the term "trendy teaching methods." I was at school between 1977 and 1991 and never came across them. Isn't something like discouraging children from reading ahead something that would be imposed by individual teachers or even local schools authorities, and nothing to do with central government

I was at school a little after you - and it was getting worse. The National Curriculum has a lot to answer for - as do some of the things they have taught teachers on their training courses (universities have a lot to answer for)
My Mum went back to teaching just as you left school - and there had been a real change in the focus since she started, sometimes for good, but not always - and as there were fewer teachers of her generation, so the newer methods were becoming more prevalant.
Class sizes were bigger when mum first taught, which was bad, but less kids came out of primary school functionally illiterate, which was good.

Hazel

[pandop]

Yes, but there are some fundamental differences that make entrance to one far more appealing than entrance to the other. I doubt many countries asked to become part of the Empire. Once the direct exploitation of resources was removed, then certain economic factors make it more appealing for the various heads of state to enter or remain. The model of the Commonwealth is certainly not one to be completely discarded, but surely it would have been better to just go straight to that model, missing out the empire?

Yes, but then we are inflicting our morals/world view on the Victorians, which is a little pointless - and the Empire wasn't all bad. For example, would it have been as easy to abolish slavery (yes I know we shouldnt have had it in the first place) in a Commonwealth as it was in an Empire? Not to mention the influence to get rid of it elsewhere?

Hazel

[skanky]

What other mnorality would we want to prohect on the Victorians? I have to disagree as well that most (if not all) of the supposedly good things that came out of teh Empire could have come out of a different, trade based model. The point is, that you cannot (as you did earlier) use the Commonwealth, and any success it has, as a justification for the Empire. Any good that may have come from Empire was vastly out-weighed by the bad and otherwise why move to the commonwealth model from the empirical?

Most slaves were used by the colonial powers within the colonies themselves, so abolition of slavery elsewhere was minor in comparison to the ending of that created by the empires. Some of this other slavery was initially caused by the various colonial regimes, even if it had a life of its afterwards. That slavery still exists, and existed before the European colonial times, does not justify anything (I know you didn't say that it did, just trying to cover everything).

Most of the good supposedly done by the Empire - say the infrastructure, was done for the benefit of the colonial powers. Even now there is still better infrastructure supporting international trade, in parts of Africa, than internally - e.g. linking African countries. The West could have helped these nations far more by working with them on an equal footing than subjugation and genocide.

[pandop]

Err .... I don't really think you can blame the British Empire for slavery in the US, and the associated problems, they really ran with that one themselves.

Nor did we invent slavery - I dont think it would necessarily have occured to us to capture slaves, if we first hadn't been offered them for sale!

Yes the Empire was set up for the benefit of the colonial powers, but we were nowhere near as genocidal as we were made out to be, or as African and Asian peoples are to each other.
Also, with a few notable exceptions, no one from our former colonies seems to want to blow us up (unlike say France and Algeria) despite having ample opportunity - which does suggest we werent that bad. Not to mention the vast majority of our former colonies have now become successful democracies - India's recent elections seems to have had less controversy than ours (and no the postal voting form was
not that complicated)

There has recently been moves to reassess the Empire (led by Niall Ferguson amongst others) and there is increasing recognition that it may not have been as bad as it has been painted.

Hazel

[skanky]

we were nowhere near as genocidal as we were made out to be

So that's alright, then. :wink:
There were conflicts and wars in Africa before the colonisation periods, but the shoe-horning of the many states and tribes into just a few, arbitrarily created countries (with boundaries that even split existing tribes) didn't exactly help. Even the roots of the Rwandan genocide(s) were based in the Hamitic myth and Belgian colonial theory.

Not blaming the UK for US slavery, just that there was plenty of western self-support in it. The western powers didn't invent slavery no, but that doesn't excuse its use to use it.

The development should hve been carried out on mututality then the local populations would have gained most of the benefits rather than a few of the benefits.

I'm not saying that people in Africa and Asia were not happy to have their own conflicts and oppression, but that does not excuse the invasion, occupation, slaughter and enslavement carried out by the western powers.

There's an increasing movement to look back on times of empire with rose-tinted glasses, and in ten years time the pendulum will swing back the other way. Whatever. The thing is that no benefits were gained by the colonised countries that couldn't have been gained without invasion, and many datrimental effects were result of it. Also, some of the so called "benefits" were not as beneficial as is often stated.

[Stace]

Reformation of the honours system is needed.......not total abolition. I've gone on record as having said this before, and I will reiterate. How many more pieces of our heritage and tradition must we lose before people will say

'We've lost it all'

[pandop]

Yup -I said that too

Hazel

[NottyImp]

Out with the old, in with the new!

[amner]

You old anarchist, you.

[NottyImp]

"The passion for destruction is also a creative passion."

Mikhail Bakunin. :D

[skanky]

Tradition: Anachronisic practice performed, despite it's reasons and original intentions being lost to popular consciuosness, mainly as a sop to patriots.

:wink:

[John Self]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

- Samuel Johnson

[skanky]

PATRIOT, n. One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of anyone ambitious enough to illuminate his name.
In Dr Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
- Ambrose Bierce


Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.
- Emma Goldman


Patriotism is the conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
- George B. Shaw


To me it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography
- George Santayanna


You'll never have a quiet world until you knock the patriotism out of it.
- George B. Shaw


Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons
- Betrand Russell


The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders... All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism.
-Hermann Goering

Some of the most patriotic people you'll meet are the ones who will never do any of the patriotic dieing. Of course they have good reason, they are too busy editing newspapers.