勋章是共谋者的入场券，而承诺是给观众的scamHonours as Entry Tickets for Co-conspirators, Promises as Scams for the Audience
Keir Starmer 之前的表态很像一个追求“公正表达”的理想主义者：批评前任分封勋章，承诺自己离任时绝不搞这一套。但当他真正站在权力出口时，面对记者的追问，他给出的答案是标准的“We’ll look at that in the usual course of things”。这句话是典型的武器化表达，用模糊的程序正义掩盖掉具体承诺的死亡。这意味着他已经决定回归那个由男性中心叙事主导的共谋场域。
Resignation honours（离任荣誉名单）根本不是什么荣誉，而是一次大规模的共谋结算。它通过将政治盟友、执行者、以及在权力结构中扮演好角色的人转化为“爵士”或“勋爵”，完成一次利益的闭环。在这个闭环里，谁在名单上，谁就获得了被体制认可的“存在性”；谁被排除在外，谁就在这次权力交接的博弈中输掉了筹码。
Starmer 曾经攻击的 Boris Johnson 及其勋章名单，本质上是他在竞争对手面前的一次表演。当他成为那个可以定义“谁该获得勋章”的人时，他发现扮演一个“赏赐者”比扮演一个“正义者”能带来更高的最优解。这种从“批判共谋”到“成为共谋”的无缝切换，揭示了结构性暴力如何通过权力席位迅速驯化个体：只要你进入那个圈层，你就会发现维护这套潜规则比打破它更有利于你的生存。
最讽刺的是，这种共谋被包裹在“惯例”（convention）和“常规程序”（usual course of things）的文化外壳下，使其看起来像是一种文明的、理性的政治遗产交接，而非一次赤裸裸的利益交换。在这种元暴力的掩护下，公众被告知这是政治运作的一部分，从而在潜意识中接受了这种不公正的分配逻辑。
Keir Starmer’s previous stance mimicked an idealist seeking 'Just Expressions': criticizing predecessors for handing out gongs and pledging he would never do the same. But as he reaches the exit of power, his response to reporters—'We’ll look at that in the usual course of things'—is a classic weaponized expression. He uses the fog of procedural justice to mask the death of a specific promise. He has decided to return to the field of complicity governed by the masculine-centric narrative.
Resignation honours are not about 'honour'; they are a massive settlement for co-conspirators. By transforming political allies and structural executors into 'knights' or 'barons', the system completes a loop of interest. In this loop, being on the list grants a recognized 'existence' within the system; being excluded means losing the gamble of this power transition.
Starmer’s previous attacks on Boris Johnson’s list were merely a performance for his competitors. Now that he is the one who can define who is 'worthy', he finds that playing the 'bestower' offers a far better optimal expression than playing the 'moralist'. This seamless transition from 'critiquing complicity' to 'becoming a co-conspirator' reveals how structural violence swiftly domesticates individuals: once you enter that stratum, maintaining the hidden rules becomes more beneficial than breaking them.
Most ironically, this complicity is wrapped in the cultural shell of 'convention' and 'usual course of things', making it appear as a civilized, rational political transition rather than a naked exchange of interests. Under the cover of this meta-violence, the public is told this is simply how politics works, thereby internalizing an unjust logic of distribution.