We have scanned the Honours List but couldn’t spot any Lib Dems this time.
Of course, members may be honoured for their professional as well as their political achievements, so do please tell us of anyone we should be congratulating. Drop an email to [email protected] and we’ll add them to this post.
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
10 Comments
I will be pleased if there are no Lib-Dems on the list and will be even more pleased when there are no Labour Party members or Conservatives on the list and when the list no longer exists, I will be delighted.
Hear, hear
Thank you, John. You speak for me, too. Back in March, ‘The Week’ magazine published an interesting article from which I can quote :
“David Lloyd George enjoyed an illustrious political career, including serving as prime minister from 1916 to 1922. But the Liberal PM found himself embroiled in a major “cash for patronage” scandal over his resignation honours list in 1922. Although the purchase of peerages was not illegal, Lloyd George was accused of raising funds for his party through the sale of peerages, as well as using the honours system to (unsuccessfully) avoid criticism from newspapers.
It was the brazenness of Lloyd George’s “price list for peerages” that caused a scandal. They were arranged through political fixer Maundy Gregory, who sold peerages “ranging from £10,000 (more than £400,000 today) for a knighthood up to £40,000 for a baronetcy”, according to The Guardian”. (‘The Week’, 4 March 2022,reporting Sir Gavin Williamson receiving a knighthood as consolation for being sacked).
A forensic article in the excellent Liberal Democrat History Journal would make for some very interesting and entertaining reading.
The House of Lords is another issue.
I understand some of the criticisms of the honours system, but not all.
First, the reference to the British Empire is clearly offensive to many people and it needs a name change.
Second, any abuse of the system should be investigated and addressed.
But do the critics really want to abolish a system that recognises people for their community and charitable work, mainly voluntary? Many of these are proposed by members of the the public, others through civic society organisations. What alternative would you suggest? The blanket denigration of the honours system does seem very disrespectful to all those recipients.
@Mary Reid
“First, the reference to the British Empire is clearly offensive to many people and it needs a name change.”
Indeed – but if the culture remains unchanged – honoring people (who have done genuinely good works) in the spirit if no longer the name of an entity (Britain) which became wealthy and powerful through exploiting people nothing will have been achieved.
“I understand some of the criticisms of the honours system…”
I agree with what you’ve said here in your whole comment, Mary.
The issue, in my opinion, is when people don’t want to talk about the justified criticisms of the honours system and want to pretend every facet of it is “the best of Britishness”.
On a less publicised recognition of service more than 400 people, including key workers, charity volunteers and members of the armed forces were at St Paul’s cathedral, in recognition of their contribution to public life and were treated to .Johnson giving a reading..The reading (from Philippians 4 of the New Testament) said: “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure … think about such things.”
King Herod reading a passage on childcare would have been as apt.
Rewarding people who have selflessly volunteered for years, or decades, with little or no reward makes sense, but to have them given, what are often seen to be relatively “minor” honours, while in the same system, rewarding well paid people for simply doing their jobs, and in that same system, giving Knighthoods and Peerages to friends of Prime Ministers, party donors and often failed politicians, what are seen as “major” honours, or seats in the Lords along with an income for life, is something we should all oppose.
Quite right, John Barrett and especially, when giving it to dodgy Russians like Lebedev and other such.