When I first heard this, it struck me as odd. There are guidelines for this (aren’t there always?), and they state that the Committee should “consider cases where an individual has been jailed for more than three months or has been struck off or censured by a professional body for failings relevant to the granting of the honour”. Pryce was sentenced to eights month in prison, as was her husband, and served two.  However, there is no suggestion that she has brought the world of economics into disrepute – our erstwhile politicians are doing a fine job of that on their own. Instead, the length of the sentence was her undoing in this matter.  And so I find myself asking again, has there ever been a more catastrophic outcome from taking a family member’s speeding points than this? I can’t say I was hugely impressed with any aspect of this case from the reports of Huhne’s somewhat bullying manner, to Pryce’s vindictive desire to ruin him whilst remaining anonymous herself, to the extraordinarily manipulative behaviour of the Sunday Times journalist who investigated the story, and finally to the sheer amount of time and money wasted on a trial that meant nothing to anybody with a life of their own.  But it’s over now, so why keep hounding Pryce? She may be a nightmare ‘former wife’, but she is an excellent economist, and if we’re going to start removing honours from people who have personal flaws, even when they create such epically chaotic scenes, then I think the Stripping Committee is going have a busy summer.  And what moved Gwynne to write such a strangely pompous letter of complaint in the first place, in which he says: “I have no doubt that the vast majority of the public will find it profoundly unacceptable that a convicted criminal with such disregard for British justice continues to hold such an illustrious honour.”  Well, not me, mate, and while we’re on the subject, I’m getting a little sick of politicians asserting that they are speaking “for the vast majority of the public”, when in fact, as the last General Election made clear, there is no such thing as ‘the vast majority of the public’ at the moment – if there was, we would not have a Coalition Government.  Firstly, I don’t have a problem with concept of a convicted criminal holding an honour for their work – each case should be dealt with on an individual level, and try as I might, I can’t get that worked up about the whole Pryce/Huhne debacle other than to say that the British Justice system of which Gwynne so lovingly speaks should have just told them both to bog off and sort it out in their own time.  Secondly, nothing Pryce has done affects her ability as an economist, and that is what her award was for. If she had been given an honour for taking the breakdown of her marriage with calm, dignified grace, then perhaps they’d have a point, but when we mingle the personal and the professional like this, I think a lot of our MPs may find the palace of Westminster suddenly turns to glass and that big pile of stones they were about to start throwing will look rather less tempting.
Vicky Pryce is still deserving of an honour given to her by the Queen for her   services to economics, in spite of her prison time and being a nightmare   ex-wife, writes Katy Brand.