Does this all sound aristocratic to anyone else but me? REH
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:31 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Status and Honours > > Keith, > > There is magic in secrecy but the drive to uncloak, to make transparent will > bring great changes. > > Transparency will affect all institutions: business and government alike. > > A recent issue of The Economist asserted that the new book "The Naked > Corporation: How the Age of Transparency Will Revolutionize Business" > provides the first "big idea" since management books slumped a couple of > years ago. Comparing Tapscott to management gurus Hamel, Peters and > Christensen, the article notes that Tapscott argues that greater > transparency is an unstoppable force: "It is the product of growing demand > from everybody with an interest in any corporation -- what he calls its > 'stakeholder web' -- and of rapid technological change, above all the > spread of the Internet, that makes it far easier for firms to supply > information, and harder for them to keep secrets." (Economist 16 Oct 2003) > http://www.economist.com/ > > > arthur > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:32 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Status and Honours > > > 211. Status and Honours > > The importance of status can hardly be exaggerated. In hunter-gatherer > times, the patrilocal instinct of girls leaving their group or tribe at > puberty and seeking sexual partners in a neighbouring group would mean that > they would preferentially select the alpha male, or at least as > high-ranking a male as possible that she found there. An extremely good > example of the modern survival of this practice is to be found in Michael > Palin's book, Sahara (and the BBC TV documentary) where the young women > from several different groups of the Wodaabe tribe select their lifetime > partners from the young men who dress up, wear lashings of kohl and > stibnite make-up on their eyes and lips, and prance about (in what, to us, > is an amusing way). Here, the girls are making their selection not on the > basis of status per se but on the looks, the imagination of the men's > dressage and bearing -- to them, as highly correlated with status > and likely future life-success of the males as modern girls are able to > assess by going to a night club and dancing and talking with possible > future boy friends. > > Every group, every institution, and every country develops clear visible > signs for status -- statues, memorials, rankings (civil service, army, > university), decorations, letters after their names, honorary prefixes, > medals, ribbons, lapel badges, hats and uniforms and so on. In England, > such rankings, formally initiated by William the Conqueror in 1066 after > the invasion, when he chose those who should be his barons (in exchange for > military services), have evolved ever since. Lloyd George, when prime > minister early last century, used to (privately) sell peerages. Prime > ministers ever since have sold peerages to those who contribute to party > funds (and perhaps to pirvate pockets). People, and particularly the males > (for instinctive reasons) are desperately eager for signs of status. For > most people, status is indicated in the goods they buy and, of course, the > notion of status goods is a central theme in my evolutionary economics > hypothesis. > > But for a minority in England, we have the honours system -- whereby titles > and decorations are given by the Queen on her official birthday and at the > New Year. As with so many state functions, the business of choosing who > should receive honours has been taken over by the civil service and, in > particular, by a small group of very senior civil servants, usually the > heads of departments, or Permanent Secretaries. The minutes of the meetings > in which they discuss those who should receive honours on these occasion > are normally considered state secrets. Even political leaders -- even the > prime minister -- are not allowed to attend these deliberations or read > these minutes, though the civil servants concerned will take notice if a > prime minister has particular preferences. The records are normally kept > secret well beyond the usual 30-years limits for state documents. > > However, someone has ratted on this secrecy a few days ago. A recent set of > minutes has been leaked to the press. There we have read the reason why > this person or that was chosen for this or that rank of decoration. Many of > these reasons are revealed to be quite trivial -- indeed, insincere. This > has caused a tremendous furore and will dynamite the secret procedures that > have applied hitherto. > > There are those who affect to believe that status is not very important, > particularly Americans who tried to overthrow all this royalty-derived > business when they set up their republic. Even now, an American who > receives an honorary knighthood from the British Queen is not allowed to > put "Sir" in front of his name -- but this doesn't reduce his enthusiasm to > go to Buckingham Palace and be tapped on the shoulder with the Queen's > sword while he kneels before her (on a comfortable cushion it must be said). > > Incidentally, over here, honours are affectionately called "gongs" by those > senior civil servants who affect not to take the matter too seriously -- > but who would kill if they were left out when their age and status > qualified them for a honour of the appropriate grade. > > Keith Hudson > > <<<< > SEVEN CENTURIES OF THE GONG SHOW > > Robert Winnett and David Leppard > > The roots of Britain's honours system can be traced back to the 14th > century when Edward III created the Most Noble Order of the Garter, an > order of chivalry that was available to only 25 knights. > > By the end of the century, King Richard II was handing out honours in the > form of gifts or gold n6ck chains as a reward for loyal service. Chains of > honour went to certain officers of the crown as a special mark of > distinction. > > Until the beginning of the 19th century, honours in the form of > appointments to the order of chivalry in England were restricted to members > of the aristocracy and high-ranking military officers. From then on, those > to be honoured were selected by the prime minister of the day and came from > wider backgrounds. > > Nowadays, the so-called "gongs" are supposed to recognise individuals who > have excelled in their professional lives or made a valuable contribution > to society. They are awarded twice a year, in the Queen's birthday honours > in June and at the new year. Some 1,500 awards are made each time, > including nominations from the armed services and the diplomatic service. > > Michael De-la-Noy, the author, once described the British honours system as > "the most complex, class-ridden and -- to all but a handful of civil > servants, courtiers and snobs -- the most baffling" of its kind in the > world. > > The structure of the system is reviewed every five years. John Major, the > former Conservative prime minister, was the last to make significant > changes to encourage more nominations from ordinary members of the public. > Tony Blair also vowed to open up the system and make it more representative > of the wider population -- for example, by giving higher honours to > teachers and nurses. > > MPs from the public accounts committee are attempting to scrutinise how > and why honours are awarded. Cabinet Office papers released to the > committee and published last month suggest a number of options for radical > reform. These include giving the system "greater transparency" such as > extending membership of the vetting committees to more people from outside > Whitehall. > > Members of the public can nominate outstanding individuals -- usually from > their fields of work or local communities. Those nominations eventually > produce 43% of the successful candidates, although most of these come at > the lower levels of honours. Each government department also has its own > honours unit which proposes its own names -- people in the professional > fields overseen by their department. In addition it "vets" applications > from members of the public. > > A provisional list of names is then forwarded by the honours units to one > of eight sub-committees, each chaired by a senior civil servant, covering > different areas from sport to medicine and local services. The departments > also forward a special "reserve" set of names, known as the "blue list", to > the relevant honours committee. The subcommittees have set quotas for the > number of people they can nominate for each of the five levels of honours. > > In ascending order of merit they are: Member of the British Empire (MBE); > Officer of the British Empire (OBE); Commander of the British Empire (CBE); > Knight/Dame of the British Empire (KBE/DBE); and Knight/Dame Grand Cross > (GBE). Each subcommittee sends lists of candidates for each level of award > to the main honours committee. > > This committee, chaired by the cabinet secretary, then approves and amends > the final list of more than 1,000 names which is sent to the prime minister > and the Queen. Changes after this stage are a rare occurrence. The Queen > has no power to alter the list. > The Sunday Times -- 14 December 2003 > >>>> > <<<< > HOW GRANDEES PICK A WINNER IN SECRECY > > Robert Winnett and David Leppard > > They are the gatekeepers of the Establishment. Twice a year, 10 of the most > powerful civil servants in Britain meet amid great secrecy to decide who > joins the honoured elite of British society. Led by Sir Andrew Turnbull, > the cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, these "great and the > good" of Whitehall choose who will be granted knighthoods and other titles, > and who will be rejected. > > Though the system is secretive, the public is given the impression that > honours recognise merit and confer reward for achievement. This weekend > leaked minutes of the most recent committee meeting reveal just how far > the system is manipulated for other purposes. > > They show that who gets a gong depends, quite apart from merit, on > celebrity, timing. Buggins' turn, political spin and how the insiders want > the overall list to be seen. Officials within the system claim the leaked > memo provides the first hard evidence of how, under Labour, manipulation of > the Queen's honours has reached new heights. > > As well as revealing that Tim Henman, Britain's top tennis player, has been > recommended for an honour to "add interest" to the list, the document > reveals other, if not arbitrary at least contentious methods. It says that > efforts will be made to give an honour or peerage to the academic Anthony > Giddens, one of Tony Blair's mentors. > > In one telling note, the committee considered the award of a CBE in > Scotland. A candidate called Susan Whyte was "held back" in order to make > way for Ross Lorimer. Why? Because it became apparent that Lorimer was > retiring as president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of > Glasgow. If he did not get his gong now it would be difficult to give it to > him later. > > In another case the, committee considered a candidate called Bates. ."He > had certainly delivered more than might be reasonably expected" in his > achievements, the committee noted. So why should his name not go forward > for an honour? Because it did not fit with other plans. "The committee > could not agree that he should receive a G [an elevated knighthood] at the > expense of a Kt [knighthood] to someone else." > > In another case, the desire to give two rival football teams equal billing > took precedence over individual merit. Lady Cooksey, a former British > fencer who is now a high-profile charity volunteer and author, was in line > for an honour but the committee tried to reject her. Why? Because it was > already awarding an honour to a candidate from Celtic football club and it > was felt that, instead of Cooksey, it would look better to give an honour > to someone from Rangers, the arch rivals of Celtic.In the event. Rangers > were unable to come up with a "suitable alternative". > > The gong-giving mandarins also seem to look after their own. The longest > section of the document deals with civil servants, and their chance for > honours seems to be expanding. The committee noted that "for future > reference 2nd Permanent Secretaries [those just below the head of a > government department] would be considered for a Kt [knighthood]". It noted > that John Taylor, the outgoing director-general of UK Research Councils, > was being pushed forward by Turnbull for the erroneous reason that "all > previous holders" of his office had been knighted. > > The committee approved a proposal, too, that "those who were likely to > achieve higher levels should be held back to make way for those who were > unlikely to go further". In other words, give lesser civil servants a gong > now while they have the chance. > > In all, the note reads like a discussion overheard in a London gentlemen's > club or the Kremlin: a small group of omnipotent grandees bat about names, > promoting some and exiling others as if they are mere pawns. > > When Labour came to power it made much play of making the system more open > to ordinary people. Instead, the most notable change has been "spinning" to > make the most of celebrities receiving honours. > > A whistleblower reveals how the process is dominated by the need to > generate good headlines and flatter the government -- rather than to simply > acknowledge outstanding achievement. The source said: "When the honours > team discusses names, they are aware that they need to find high-profile > people. If the list hasn't got that many news-worthy names then [a senior > official] would look at the list and say that more names were needed. > "Newsworthiness is really important. The reason Mick Jagger got put forward > was to make Blair look cool. > > "Political searches form part of the biographical checks..This is really > about saving face for the government. People are not put forward if, for > example, their political thoughts and actions were anti-Labour." > > There is increasing pressure for reform. The main committee consists > entirely of senior, middle-aged civil servants. As well as Tumbull, the > "gong masters" include Sir Hayden Phillips, permanent secretary at the > Department for Constitutional Affairs, and William Chapman, secretary for > appointments in the prime minister's office. Other members are thought to > include Sir Richard Mottram, the permanent secretary at the Department for > Work and Pensions. > > The group was recently criticised by a parliamentary report for lacking > diversity. Whitehall insiders who have spoken to The Sunday Times hope that > the disclosure of the internal workings of the system will help lead to its > reform. > > They point out that other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand have > recently made their honours systems much more open and accountable. Fraser > Kemp, a Labour MP and government whip, has previously called for a radical > overhaul of the system. He wants to see''a single honour -- the Order of > Britain -- given to all suitable candidates. > > However, Blair has publicly rebuffed all proposals for radical reform. > Instead, departmental honours units have privately been given "quotas" to > increase the number of women to 50% of the list and ethnic minority > candidates to 5%. More awards should also be made to disabled candidates. > The Whitehall source said: "The system should be fairer and doesn't need to > be so cloak and dagger. "It should be like the Oscars, where people know > who else is being considered." > The Sunday Times -- 14 December 2003 > >>>> > > > Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
