Last updated at 12:05 AM on 2nd January 2012 Another new year, another honours list and yet another unseemly uproar. At least six of the recipients on the New Year’s list who were honoured for their philanthropic activities just happened to have donated big bucks to political parties. Paul Ruddock, James Wates, James Lupton and Doug Ellis, who gave the Tories almost £1 million between them, received two knighthoods and two CBEs. Rod Aldridge, who secretly lent the Labour party £1 million in 2005, was knighted for services to young people, and Denise Coates, founder of the online betting company Bet365, and who gave £330,000 to Labour, was appointed CBE. Tory Donors: Former Aston Villa chairman Doug Ellis, left, is to receive a knighthood while James Lupton, right, gets a CBE Sound familiar? Of course. How could any of us forget the great ‘cash for honours’ controversy that consumed British politics under the Blair government, when the public was outraged by honours bestowed on those who had bankrolled the Labour Party? And who could forget David Cameron’s pledge in opposition that he would clean up British politics in the wake of that surfeit of sleaze? Yet with these fresh gongs for donors, it seems to be New Year groundhog day all over again. Downing Street has hastened to say that the Prime Minister had nothing to do with the names on this latest list, which were approved by an independent committee. This seems more than a little disingenuous. Nominations for an honour can come from anyone. The Cabinet Office then makes recommendations to eight committees covering areas such as the arts, the economy, education, sport and science. Details of political donations are pointed out to committee members. Donations: Paul Ruddock, left, has given more than £500,000 to the Conservative party. Donor James Wates (right) has received a knighthood The recommendations are scrutinised by an over-arching body, chaired until now by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary, from whom names go forward to the Prime Minister and then to the Queen. So the honours list remains deeply enmeshed with the political process. Furthermore, the Prime Minister explicitly used this list for political purposes by calling it the ‘Big Society’ honours. Given all that has passed, you’d think that when it came to selecting fresh honorands, enough red lights would be flashing over party donors to be spotted even from the International Space Station orbiting the Earth. Yet astoundingly, no one in Westminster seems to have noticed them. The Cabinet Office said: ‘It is an entirely independent process. Someone who gives money to political parties would not get any preference.’ How unfortunate, therefore, that so many who had done so just happened to be included in the list. For like Caesar’s wife, the process must be above suspicion. But the fact that these folk are major party donors means that cannot be the case. So it is hardly surprising that Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, has warned that the inclusion of so many big political donors threatens to devalue the system in the eyes of the public. Controversial: Ex-convict Gerald Ronson, the great survivor of the Guinness share-trading scandal, is appointed CBE. He is pictured here with his wifeGail It creates the uncharitable suspicion that philanthropy is being used as a fig-leaf, on the basis that good deeds are held to trump everything else. All you have to do to rise above suspicion, cynics might well conclude, is to give generously to academy schools or chair the trustees of a prestigious museum or art gallery. Certainly, such thinking seems to lie behind the honours given to people on this list who have criminal pasts — awards accordingly dubbed by wags the ‘rehabilitation honours’. Gerald Ronson, who was appointed CBE, was jailed for his part in the Guinness share-trading scandal, though he has always denied he was involved in any wrongdoing; and Chris Preddie, a former drug dealer turned youth worker, was appointed OBE. Mr Preddie also happens to be a cousin of the two brothers found guilty of killing ten-year-old Damilola Taylor in 2000. Understandably, Damilola’s father has bitterly criticised Mr Preddie’s award. It may, however, be thought rather rough to say that whatever good deeds a person may do, his past misdeeds must disqualify him from any honour for all time. After all, there is no question about the many millions of pounds Mr Ronson has given away to charitable causes. And Mr Preddie has devoted himself to steering vulnerable youths away from crime after renouncing his own gangland past. One also One also thinks of John Profumo, the war minister who resigned from Parliament in 1963 after lying over his affair with Christine Keeler, the call-girl who was involved with a Russian spy. Yet just over a decade later, Profumo was appointed CBE for his charitable work, which he pursued tirelessly for 40 years. Mr Profumo, however, progressed from sinner to near-saint in the public mind because of his patent remorse demonstrated through a life of humility and good deeds. He thus showed himself to be a good person who had made one terrible mistake. If someone really redeems himself through remorse and a subsequent life of good works, that in itself is surely worthy of recognition. But such redemption has to be genuine and transparent. For good deeds in themselves don’t necessarily signify a good person. And the honour goes to the person rather than the deeds. However generously they may give to charity — and plenty of outright rogues also give to good causes for all kinds of reasons — surely people should not be awarded a national honour if their character is in question. To pretend that such a question doesn’t exist is one of the hallmarks of our culture of sentimentality, which uses superficial appearances to sanitise unpleasant truths it prefers to ignore. But there is yet a further cause for concern from this honours list — the knighthood conferred upon TV producer Peter Bazalgette for ‘services to broadcasting’. This is surely akin to giving Harold Shipman an award for services to medicine, or honouring Kim Jong-Il for services to politics. For Mr Bazalgette’s main claim to fame is to have given the UK Big Brother — the show that not only launched reality TV, but institutionalised the disgusting culture of voyeurism, humiliation and cruelty which has so degraded television and the society it serves. But none of that mattered one jot to those who selected him for this honour. They were transfixed by the mere fact that his appalling show has proved so popular. Doubtless in previous ages they would have knighted his predecessors for similarly entertaining the masses through bear-baiting, gladiator slaughter or throwing Christians to the lions. Appalling: Big Brother creator Peter Bazalgette is to receive a knighthood Indeed, so complete is the rout of Reithian values by ratings that Mr Bazalgette has been clasped to the bosom of the political establishment as a visionary of the small screen. A year ago he was made a non-executive director on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport board for his ‘business acumen’ and ‘particular insight into a broad spectrum of media issues’. Maybe that’s why one critic has accused him of doing more to ‘debase TV over the past decade than anyone else’. His knighthood is a symptom of a culture in which excess has been normalised, brutalisation lionised and coarse-ness idolised. Such an honour also perfectly mirrors the political scene, in which principle is nowhere to be found and all that matters is winning power by pandering to the whims of fashion. Add to that the whiff of corruption from the inclusion of party donors and the result is a bad smell that taints the honours system and risks diminishing the awards to the truly deserving. Big Society? Oh please. This is the honours list for the shameless society. m.phillips@dailymail.co.ukParty donors, and the perfect honours list for a shameless age
Suspicion
Sinner
Cruelty
Monday, 2 January 2012
Posts
