Almost certainly this is a storm in a teacup, openly percolating so it can be gently replaced with a milder brew. But since we have seen some reckless strategies emerge over the past few weeks, it probably deserves a brief comment just in case – not least as a Downing Street source is reportedly involved.
I believe such brutalism goes beyond a simple attack on the hereditary system, a soft target which has now become almost de rigueur to vandalise. I think it is also another blow to our historical ties with the Commonwealth.
It is true that there has been a steady and huge decrease in the number and style of British honours awarded to non-Brits. Measures to end the awarding of peerages were pushed in Ottawa as early as 1919; the Order of Canada has been around for 40 years; Australia’s for 30; and even Victoria Crosses now come in distinct national forms. The shift was not helped by past British governments. In 2003, we saw the crass absurdity of a British Prime Minister awarding MBEs to an entire British rugby team, an honour not subsequently offered to their Commonwealth opponents.
So the weakening of those particular ties may have been going on for the last 90 years. It is after all an understandable feature of a country seeking to assert its own independence from imperial dominion, underlining its own sense of identity and loyalties. But it is not, however, in our national interest today to actively encourage the few remaining formal links to ebb away completely – which is of course why we still have a number of OCTs regularly represented on the Queen’s List.
The real reason for the proposed change is twofold – Lords Black and Ashcroft. The measure, bluntly, is personal. But if it’s personal, then why not add to the scales the examples of Lord Beaverbrook, Baron Strathcona, or Lord Thomson of Fleet? I’m sure readers can think of others.
Let’s not confuse the issue of tax exiles with that of honouring our fellow subjects overseas. Surely if our ties with a country are good enough, say, for a foreign national to serve without problems in the British armed forces, his compatriot should be considered loyal enough to be co-opted for his advice in the House of Lords? I can think of fewer proofs of Britain’s continuing goodwill and close feelings towards our closest Commonwealth friends that we should be able to offer a tiny handful of places in the Upper House to those whose opinions and input we could most surely value – including, I suggest, a representative of Gibraltar.
