There are many reasons why it isn’t fun being in opposition , but one of the bigger ones is that money is suddenly much harder to come by. For whatever reason, commercial partners are suddenly much less willing to splash the cash on events at your party conference. Likewise, philanthropists who’d appreciate an honour in recognition of their charitable work seem less inclined to make seven figure donations to party coffers. This, at least, is the uncharitable narrative some will apply to the Government’s decision to announce an extra honours list this Easter. (It’s also why the Conservatives will be chary of calling an
election before getting this October’s conference – likely their last in government for a while – over and done with.) Of course, there is usually at least a whiff of hypocrisy when politicians in opposition (of either party) get on their high horse about honours. After all, their party usually ended up dishing out a few gongs the last time they were in a position to do so, and will almost certainly end up doing so again when they return to office. Practised to excess, such things degrade the honours system , which for all that some think it old fashioned remains a remarkably effective (and cost-effective) way of recognising genuine service to the nation for the price of a bit of metal and a measure of ribbon. But there is an argument that whilst an evil, it is a lesser evil. Following the end of mass politics a few decades ago,
British parties are largely dependent on large donations – and those are never free. Given the choice, a knighthood seems to be at the less sinister end of the possible things your average multi-millionaire could ask in return. Yet even this very generous argument only gets you so far, and the Conservatives have without doubt been reckless with the honours system in the past few years. Both
Boris Johnson and Liz Truss (perhaps especially Truss, given her premiership is measured in days) overused their resignation honours egregiously. Read Next The proof that Tory votes won't return while Sunak is PM There was, at one point, an opportunity for Rishi Sunak to mark a clean break with that tawdry period. He might not only have been judicial in his own appointments, but perhaps even foresworn a resignation honours list if he lost the election, on the sound basis that the system was not designed for the instability we have seen over the past few years and only a prime minister who had served a full term should get to make such appointments. Yet it would be an extremely optimistic analysis that expected such a noble posture to make a serious dent on the party’s dire polling in the face of an ongoing cost of living crisis and mounting pressure on public services. Few politicians of any stripe can resist the temptation of patronage; we have no grounds to be surprised that the Prime Minister is not one of them. Moreover, the limited salience of this issue cuts both ways. Tory canvassers might find Mohamed Mansour’s name coming up on the doorstep now and then , but if so it will probably only be because the story has cemented in the voter’s mind an impression they had already formed. Rare will be those who think the Tories have the better answer for their personal circumstances but nonetheless draw the line at one knighthood too many. Of much greater concern to CCHQ will be the prospect of losing hundreds of councillors in May, as voters react to the increasingly dire state of local authority finances and take their traditional opportunity to give the incumbent government a mid-term kicking. As memberships shrink, councillors – and those
Friends and family they dragoon into campaigning on their behalf – are increasingly the bulk of each party’s ground machine. A hammering at the local
elections will damage the Conservatives’ election campaign in ways no amount of money can fix. Henry Hill is the deputy editor of ConservativeHome, a political blog that is independent of the Conservative Party