THERE has been an exquisite pleasure in watching the establishment squabble about the rights and wrongs of the defrocking of Sir Fred Goodwin, the ex high priest of bankers’ obscene bonuses.
It is absurd to remove Fred Goodwin’s knighthood and leave his fellow incompetents, at the Royal Bank of Scotland and other banks and financial institutions, with their gongs.
It would be outrageous for the man who precipitated the recession, by steering the Royal Bank of Scotland to the biggest corporate disaster in this country’s history, to maintain the right to be called Sir. After all, the £45 billion bailout of this bank cost every man, woman and child in the country around £750.
This populist argument is strongly supported by the Prime Minister, who instructed his poodles on the obscure Forfeiture Committee to remove Goodwin’s knighthood. Even though, that supposedly independent body had decided not to do so two and a half years ago.
This is victimisation and scapegoating claimed Cameron’s opponents. The removal of knighthoods has previously been reserved for spies (Anthony Blunt 1979), dictators and mass murderers (Nicolae Ceausescu 1989, Robert Mugabe 2008) and paedophiles (Cyril Littlewood 2004) as well as other assorted convicted criminals. Goodwin maybe a loathsome fat cat but he is not guilty of any of the above.
The pleasure in watching the great and good tear into each other is that the arguments on both sides can easily be reduced to absurdity. It is absurd to remove Fred Goodwin’s knighthood and leave his fellow incompetents, at the Royal Bank of Scotland and other banks and financial institutions, with their gongs. He is no better or worse than these other venal ‘masters of the universe’.
Fallen Knight - Despite Heavy Disguise Fred Goodwin's Honour Is Unhorsed
It would also be absurd to allow him to retain his knighthood, which are awarded for ‘distinguished service or outstanding achievement’.
There is of course an unstated unity of purpose between both sides; they are looking for the best way to defend the honours system. This whole farrago points to a much better solution; abolish the honours system. The current honours system is corrupt and corrupting - maybe not in a legal sense but certainly in a cultural and political sense.
The last New Year’s honours list for instance rewarded four leading Conservative supporters, who between them had given the party close to a million pounds. One of them Paul Ruddock, a hedge fund manager who made money from the collapse of Northern Rock, received a knighthood.
I have seen senior executives distort their company’s priorities in order to achieve a personal honour.
It is impossible when there is a coincidence between honours and donors not to suspect that influence is being purchased. What other reasons can there be for continuing to reward hedge fund managers, bankers and financiers who are recognised as the prime cause of our economic woes? Giving a third of all honours to bankers and businessmen is rubbing the noses in it for the poorest people in our society.
One also has to be sceptical about the award of a knighthood to the troublesome backbench Lib Dem MP from Colchester. I bet his inclination to vote against this awful Conservative led coalition will be much diminished now he carries the burden of being a Knight of the Realm.
Ireland manages without a civilian honours system. France and the United States abolished titles after their revolutions. It is the titles that are the most odious part of the system and the scramble for them by people with political and financial power which is the most corrupting.
Rich people paying large sums of money to political parties can at the very least appear to influence unfairly the party’s priorities. It also works the other way. I have seen senior executives distort their company’s priorities in order to achieve a personal honour. This year the Conservatives presided over an indefensible list. Labour’s record was far from perfect by not declaring loans from recipients of honours.
I am always delighted when community activists from my constituency are recognised in the Queen’s birthday or New Year honours list. These people should continue to receive an honour from the Queen, at Buckingham Palace
However I have never criticised (and will not) anybody for accepting an honour, many recipients are excellent people with no stain on their record or character. Just for the record, when I was offered a title some time ago it took me about two seconds to decide not to accept. Now is the time to get rid of titles, because they exacerbate division within our already divided society.
Plain old Fred Goodwin (née knight)
What about our unsung heroes who get very little reward or recognition for putting time and effort into their community? I am always delighted when community activists from my constituency are recognised in the Queen’s birthday or New Year honours list. These people should continue to receive an honour from the Queen, at Buckingham Palace, similar to the MBE or OBE but without the use of the word Empire.
New honours then for lollipop men and women, community activists and volunteers in housing associations, but no titles or honours for MPs and the captains of industry, after all they have the privilege of representing people and often being filthy rich.
Graham Stringer is the Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton. He was the leader of Manchester City Council from 1984-1996.
