IT’S not quite a call to abolish Christmas, but I suspect it will get me accused of sour grapes, cynicism or worse. But here goes.
The number of New Years Honours dished out to Olympic medal winners this week was little short of ludicrous. It was a ham-fisted attempt by an embattled establishment to wring a last few drops of credit from an admittedly wonderful sporting achievement.
It showed that that same establishment is never more out-of-touch than when it pretends it has its finger on the popular pulse.
Don’t get me wrong. The recipients of the two knighthoods, two damehoods, five CBEs and a host of other honours did us proud in London. They worked hard for their success, inspired others and most will go on to more glory.
But I have always understood the purpose of honours is to reward sustained – even lifetime – achievement. A few years back, all the talk was about David Beckham receiving a knighthood. Too early in his career came the official answer.
Well, of course it wasn’t too early for Chris Hoy around the same time or Bradley Wiggins this year. For the life of me, I can’t see why they get knighthoods and Beckham doesn’t.
I mentioned the Olympians doing us proud, but they did themselves proud too.
They are all out-and-out competitors.
Whatever they might say in the interviews about Queen, country or the folks back home being their inspiration, on the track, field or in the saddle they do it for personal fulfilment – for themselves. There is no harm in that. It is only by being so focussed – ruthless, some might say – that they reach the heights they do.
To get there, they have sacrificed a great deal of what we would call a normal life.
Their example will also inspire others.
But public service, which is what honours are supposed to recognise, are all about selfsacrifice.
They should be about the volunteer who makes sure the football pitch is playable and the changing room clean for the under-tens; about the teacher who kindles the spark of talent in the unlikeliest place, the nurse or social worker who sees the worst in life and the best in people.
These are the people who are at the back of any queue because they never push themselves forward. They are unsung, under-represented and unrewarded. The sad and the wonderful thing is that they don’t really mind because that’s the kind of people they are. But we should mind and do something about it The honours system embodies the haves and have-nots hypocrisy of our society. It does not distinguish between the achievers and the place seekers, the givers and takers.
So, Hector Sants gets a knighthood despite apparently being “asleep at the wheel” when in charge of the Financial Services Authority.
Terry Bramall and Michael Heller are honoured for their charitable work and absolutely not for their donations to the Conservative Party.
I’m quite sure the faceless framers of the honours list felt it showed they were in tune with the popular mood. In the sense that we welcome anything that can cheer us up a little bit.
But I don’t think they did themselves or the Olympics any favours by this overkill. The Olympics were a proud moment and we celebrated in style. But the moment has passed and maybe we should move on. Former glories are no guarantee of future success.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here