So it’s that time of year again. The New Year honours. Various smiling individuals crowd our screens. Assorted lefties decry an elitist process based upon a notional myth of empire. But deep within the endless lists of the lucky, there perhaps lie some deeper truths. I’d like to say congratulations to the Blackpool winners – but I can’t see any. Maybe yet another example of Labour turning its back on the town? Maybe I just haven’t spotted them yet – am sure the Gazette will dig them up in time.

So what should we give honours for? I am not sure I know the answer. It is far easier to say wat we should not dish out honours for. It amazes me how many public servants are rewarded for doing their jobs. I am sure that the former head of the radioactive substances division at DEFRA is a good, kind and conscientious man. But why get an OBE for having done his job to the best of his ability? Indeed why do we have a radioactive substances division at DEFRA. Is this something I should be worried about? Do I need to buy a Geiger counter?

Many awards are opaque. One name is followed merely by “Grade B1, MoD”. What does this mean? A touch of Spooks, perhaps?

Honours were meant to reward public service in the days when jobs in the public sector were less well-paid than the private. This is no longer the case, removing one justification for the preponderance of the public sector in the list. Just the other day, Eric Pickles highlighted the obscene levels of pay some council chief executives get – yet I see a few council chief executives picking up honours.

There are too many chief executives of this public agency, that quango and the other being honoured. And I am – perhaps controversially – going to include some charities’ chief executives in this. Many get private-sector levels of pay as that is the only way to attract candidates of sufficient calibre. Many charities have also become campaigning bodies rather than focused on service provision. Many would argue the chief executive is getting their gong on behalf of all who work for the charity – but can the volunteers themselves not fulfil that criteria? A volunteer at SSAFA, which works with service families, has deservedly won an award, as has the Chairman of St Dunstan’s, who care for blinded servicemen and women. Why can’t those who give their spare time for no pay be considered as representative of a charity’s work as the chief executive? That is not to say that no charity chief executives should be considered – long-standing pre-eminence in a field must remain a consideration.

I would rather see a slimmed down honours list which focused on fewer people, but which allowed the stories behind the awards to be told. I was fascinated to see that Lui On Lee received an MBE for services to the Chinese community in the Forth Valley, Stirlingshire. I didn’t know such a community existed? I wonder what drew them there in the first place, what they have done since, and what work Lui On Lee has done?

Honours should be for long-standing pre-eminence in a field which has enhanced civil society in this country, or for exceptional voluntary service in a specific field. It should not be akin to a Strictly Come Dancing popularity contest. Fewer honours mean more attention for those worthy recipients who are honoured. Our national story is contained in these lists in the life histories of exceptional individuals, and to build up our sense of national cohesion, those individual stories need articulating,