AT LAST, THE BOOK THAT DESCRIBES HOW THE BRITISH MONARCHY AND LEADING MEMBERS OF THE WINDSOR FAMILY ENJOY THE BEST DEAL IN EUROPE COURTESY OF THE BRITISH TAXPAYER! MULTI-MILLION POUND ANNUAL INCOMES FOR THE QUEEN AND THE PRINCE OF WALES - TOTALLING NEARLY £29MILLION IN 2008 - PRIME STATE HOUSING AND A MINIMUM OF REGULATION THAT MUST MAKE THEM THE ENVY OF ROYAL FAMILIES ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE - CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO BUY NOW!!!!!
EDWARD'S NEW JOB AS BEATER HITS PROBLEMS.... 30/12/08
Obviously, when out on a shoot, the idea of a beater is to get the birds up, not to attack the gundogs. The Queen's youngest son, with a proud track record of subsidised uselessness, is in the news. In traditional fashion, we see the rural winter spectacle of excessively-tweeded armed men blazing away at over-plumaged chickens with special needs. Your average pheasant is not an intellectual heavyweight, and can't fly very well - hence it makes an ideal target. Sporting stuff....They're a bit of a fiddle to pluck and dress - a culinary tip: casserole them with Puy lentils, having 'skinned' the bird, getting the feathers off all in one go. These days, you increasingly tend to see shot birds chucked in ditches after shoots rather than actually being eaten. And the image of the Earl of Wessex trying to pluck a pheasant, let alone cook it ...Ugh.....
Now, it seems that Edward displays glaring incompetence in yet another field. Spotted laying into one of the Sandringham gundogs, he has been heavily criticized from an animal welfare angle. However, there is another which should equally concern us. This 'man beats dog story' is worrying in one crucial and generally un-noticed respect. Not only did the 'Earl of Wessex' have a stick, he's also got a bloody shotgun... When losing it and thrashing the dog, he didn't even break the gun. Instead, he kept it in his left arm, and in one or two of the pictures it's actually pointing in the direction of whoever was taking the pictures. Rule number one, Edward, you idiot, keep the gun broken when moving around, and ensure it never pointed at anyone - not even photographers. Unbalanced, he could have tripped or otherwise triggered the gun. someone such as this, prone to dangerous tantrums, is not the sort of person who should have a gun licence. He could have even shot himself by accident. Pity......
GORDON BROWN, HOW LONG?...... 30/12/08
Just how long can our unelected Prime Minister hang on before trying to face the electorate? Well, given our daft unwritten constitution in which the PM actually gets the choice of when to go to the country, it could be anytime up to 2010. Many think he might opt for a spring 2009 one instead. For a start, the economy isn't going to get any better for a very long time - probably 2011/2012 - so whoever gets in in, say, 2010, isn't going to face a pile of fun, anyway, and would want to wait and pretend to be in control of the upswing when it happens. A good option would be for Brown to try this spring, but he'd be unlikely to win. A 'hung' parliament is more likely, actually. Either way, his options are pretty rubbish.
As architect of much of the UK economy's problems (as Chancellor) Brown has slimily chosen to pile all the blame on the other side of the Atlantic. He could have limited access to credit, taken the heat out of the UK's stupidly inflated housing market using fiscal measures, in fact loads of things............But no, getting £40billion a year from equity release helped keep his magic economy in a state of levitation, and European-style limits - Germany's a good example - on the worst excesses of a financial services sectort would have been a good idea. That, however, would have meant facing the City - indulged to even a greater degree by a hands-off 'light touch' regime - down.
And don't mention those numpties on the Bank of England's MPC. Brown disconnected them from the government's reach over a decade ago, leaving them free to stare at their frosted-up financial crystal balls. They didn't see anything coming, and Brown studiously didn't want to. As was said once asked of the Queen's late sister: 'What is Princess Margaret for?', one could ask much the same of the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee. Mervyn King - and his predecessor Eddie George - has displayed a laid-back tone that suggests incompetence/stupidity as much as calm. Now, as the economy - heavily dependent on a financial services sector that is now vanishing into thin air - shrinks by the minute, the PM might have his only chance to face the public through the ballot box, but no time is now the right time.
Brown's employment success has been an increasingly bloated public sector taking up the slack from a shrinking private sector. Now what's left of that goes bust, there's nowhere to go. Whoever gets in will have no option but to slash public spending like a mad axe-man. And that includes the ridiculous public sector pension Ponzi scheme. The whole damn lot. Not just future employees, but all of the present ones. It's going to have to be dismantled to work, and it's going to hurt an awful lot. The current position is madness, no-one in the public sector should get a penny until they're 70. And house prices have to shrink too, back to a real linkage with earnings. Back to mid-90s values. And fast. In the midst of all this, not even David Cameron would want to get in, assuming the country would want him. Expect the country to choose no-one in particular. A series of coalitions, with Vince Cable as Chancellor of the Exchequer (and possibly Brown as minority PM to save his face) probably the best man to sort out the economy. This job is too important to leave to one partisan set of politicians alone.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL 'POSSESSOR' LATEST............. 17/12/08
Well, following written questions by Norman Baker to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alastair Darling,, answers were published on Dec 15th. They had enquired as to the identity of this mysterious character, the 'Possessor'. It turns out to be none other than the Prince of Wales himself. Odd. After all, Charlie is not the owner of the Duchy, just beneficiary of the 'surplus' by custom/Parliamentary over-generosity. 'Possessory' normally denotes 'ownership'.... So, it seems he assigned the rights in a public asset - the Duchy of Cornwall coat of arms - to the Duchy Originals Co. for commercial purposes using the Choughs Nominees Ltd 'front' company, though not actually being the owner himself - that's the State - and using the rather vague title of 'Possessor' to rather muddy the waters.
We could do with a lot more transparency regarding this whole area. What kind of price was paid by Duchy Originals for use of an ultimately state-owned logo, and for whose benefit - to whom did any money go - if any, in exchange for this valuable trading asset (until 2014 at the present time) ? If it was a lot, then we ought to know. If it wasn't, then was Charles in effect giving away rights to a favoured company on the cheap, in a case where ultimately the taxpayer should expect the best return? What about competitive tendering?
NO OFFICIAL CHECKS ON ROYAL GIFTS.....
Besides this laid back approach to state property in respect of assignment of trading logos, Alastair Darling also revealed that no record is kept of gifts to the monarch and royal family. What? How on earth can you then distinguish what's theirs and what's our's - ie; given in the course of performing official duties. And for that matter, how can you police what's going into the 'Royal Collection' - that's 'held' in trust for us, - when you aren't keeping a check what's going in before the spoils are divided up. we must be stupid.....
WHO ARE BEHIND 'CHOUGHS NOMINEES LTD' ?......
In written questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer put down last week, Norman Baker asked who the 'Possessor of the Duchy of Cornwall is, as well as the involvement of Choughs Nominees Ltd in relation to te Duchy. These are important matters. 'possessor' normally means owner, and it is the 'Possessor' of the Duchy who apparently, through Choughs Nominees, assigned the rights in the Duchy of Cornwall coat of arms for commercial (until 2014 at the moment) use by Duchy Originals Ltd. (Trademark 2379665) However, the state is ulimately the real owner of the Duchy - forget all that nonsense from the duchy minions in front of the Public Accounts Committee in 2005 - so was it Parliament that assigned the rights. If it were, why did the transaction need to be hidden in the way it has? This was first raised in my book, 'Living Off The State', (see above) and is a prime example of the secretive and privileged treatment of the royal family.
The use of a 'front' company - registered in Buckingham Palace Road and whose lawyers are Farrer&Co., the 'royal' solicitors, seems unneccessarliy opaque if there was nothing to hide. We need to clear up properly who this 'Possessor' is, and if it turns out not to be the state, then it raises some very interesting questions. Selling things you don't own is rather frowned upon by the law, and if the 'Possessor' turns out to be someone else, what actual right do they have to claim to be the 'owner' of an estate that is really publicly owned? The real question of the ownership of the Duchies needs to be clarified properly, and these questions could at last help us get there.
CRUMBLING ROYAL BUILDINGS...... 12/12/08
Complaints now from the National Audit Office that the true cost of renovating royal buildings is not known, with the Dept of Culture, Media and Sport having been in the dark - like not having gotten proper estimates and actually looked round the bulidings properly before starting work. The oft-quoted £32million to save these edifices seems actually to be a unilateral figure dreamed up by the Buck House Crew to maximise their 'hard done by' image. The truth is, the Govt are far too 'hands off' over the whole business, allowing the Royals to interfere when in reality the state should administer and maintain the whole lot, and cut out the 'Grant-in-aid' nonsense whereby the Palace get the cash to spend themselves, perpetuating the pretence that they are 'their' palaces.
It appears the cost of replacing old boilers at Clarence House (no jokes...please....) nearly doubled after Charles insisted that the new ones had to be future compatible for solar and biofuel use. A good idea up to a point, but it shouldn't be for him to interfere in refit policy of a building that isn't his - but that he gets for free. As ever, the royals get preferred access to all these places and then expect the state to pick up the tab. The Queen, as head of state, needs an official residence - ONE is plenty - of course. Charles, with no constitutionally defined role, doesn't - unless he wants to accept a contractually defined role as official deputy - and the rest can make their own arrangements...............
THE ECONOMY.........GOING DOWN.....
As the pound crumbles towards parity with the Euro, no doubt Gordon and his crew are convincing at least themselves that it will make UK Plc's exports cheerfully cheap. The problem is, exports of dodgy financial services are no longer booming, and such manufacturing as we have left doesn't really constitute such a vast share of the economy anyway. Manufacturing?, Ughh.., dirty business, put on a suit and re-sell iffy financial products to each other, or big up a service economy that depends on importing cheap labour to keep itself going, until even they realise that a) they're being taken for a ride, b) such mass labour importation has knock-on problems to infrastructure, social services, etc, and c) when the pound goes down those sending money 'back home' realise that the purchasing power of their wages has dropped through the floor and it isn't really worth all the hassle anymore....
And another thing.... those who were thinking that the property crash a) wouldn't and b) if it did, it'd 'all be over by Xmas', better think again. We're in for a really long haul, and those who overstretched - especially with interest-only loans - are really in trouble. Assuming that property would just keep going up and cover the capital at some far-off point in the future was always rather optimistic. Those prices might not well recover for 5-10 years now, and added to that, with a queue of ageing baby-boomers wanting to cash in to make up for rubbish pensions, if they're lucky to have them, then demographics could push the whole thing over......
BRITISH CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORANCE...
Listening to a late-night radio discussion on the monarchy really made me so annoyed. Not for what was said, but the woeful ignorance of basic constituitional awareness on the part of many callers. The fact that Charles may want to speak out on contentious matters as King is simply not on. That is not how our constitution works. For him to do so would by implication throw into doubt his ability to act as he otherwise should - as an impartial constitutional 'referee'. Until the Brits can talk about constitutions like grown-ups: US citizens spring to mind as far better informed, then one really does rather despair...
Not only that, this also applies to the whole Speaker business. It's time we got a written constitution, but that seems to be asking too much for a nation that muddles along in the 21st century without one. As I mention in my book, it's rather like the characters in Lewis Carroll's 'Hunting of the Snark' - travelling with a blank map...........'representing the sea, without the least vestige of land'. They might have thought they understood it, we're little better in 2008 with no written constitution and no proper Bill of Rights. Time for a revolution....
CHARLES TO 'SPEAK OUT' AS KING... 17/11/08
News brought to us by a member of that hereditary broadcasting dynasty, the House of Dimbleby, suggests that Charles - once King - will insist on 'speaking out' on a wide range of politically contentious subjects. This would be a clear break with accepted constitutional practice. Were it to happen, we would be but a short distance from a full-blown constitutional crisis. An unaccountable monarch refusing to grant royal assent to parliamentary legislation that did not take his fancy would be likely to be little more than a kamikaze mission for the monarchy. The Prince of Wales has form on this one, having made clear that, had he been King, then he would not have granted assent to the bill outlawing hunting with dogs.
So, is it to be a wholesale unilateral reconfiguration of the British constitution prompted by a spoilt, arrogant individual that no-one has voted for, or just time to tell Charles to put up and shut up? If he doesn't like the way we run the country, he can always resign his position and stand for Parliament. The problem is then that he'd have to start arguing against other people on a more level playing field, which isn't really his style. Consuming millions of pounds of public money whilst 'hanging around' - great 'Strangler's' track by the way, wasn't it - is the price for keeping quiet and being neutral, as if he were the monarch. If he's going to throw the rule-book away entirely, then that would, in effect, constitute a findamental breach of his contract with the nation. Whether or not one agrees with all or any of his views, he has to understand that political interference by a non-executive head of state is a non-starter. If you want to speak out, Charles, you're not doing it as King......
PRINCE'S BIRTHDAY - BORED ALREADY....
As the day looms, glutinous overkill from the BBC - as described on the 'Republic' site, and the news from the Queen that she's backing her son for the top job to the max. Still place bets on Charlie chucking it in once he becomes King - not before. The alternative, as described here below, would mean losing out on all the Duchy of Cornwall money. Forget the 'duty', that's what they're really in it for, cash - and lots of it. They are the most ludicrously over indulged monarchy in Europe. And all that 'charridy' work, handily subsidised by the UK taxpayer to keep the PR image polished up. Don't forget, on past figures, and even adding in a drop for the next two or three years, Charles will, if the Queen carries on for another ten years, will have cost the taxpayer over a QUARTER OF A BILLION POUNDS in Duchy cash alone. no wonder he's so happy...........
HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE LATEST...
Gripping stuff on 30th October as the ermine-caped crusaders argue over the monarchy in a debate initiated by Lord Taverne. As ever, the usual unctuous contribution from Lord St John of Fawsley, rambling on about the Queen being 'the most constitutional and Christian monarch' in our history. Well, one could really say neither more nor less than any of the others. They're all constitutional, being part of the system's structure, and Christian by law. Lord Maclennan touched on the inappropriateness of our terminology regarding the 'royal prerogative', suggesting instead the term 'Prime Ministerial presumption'. Bit cumbersome, how about abolishing the powers altogether and let parliament decide?.... Check the debate out HERE IN FULL!
'HEIRY BIKERS' UPDATE (STOP PRESS).........
Well, it seems the estimated charity take for the dynamic duo on their trek across the velde is going to be around £750K. Wow!! That's about two weeks's income for their father out of his Duchy of Cornwall gross takings for last year, all courtesy of the taxpayer, whose money it really is in the first place. That's assuming they do actually raise the anticipated amount. Don't forget those grotesque 'Queen Mother Memorial' gates up near Hyde Park Corner. The Palace expected them to be funded by donations from a generous and grateful public but the money didn't exactly flood in. Not sure whether or not the Palace had to stump up a bit to meet the shortfall. Perhaps it could happen again..........READ DAILY MAIL ARTICLE HERE
WILLIAM AND HARRY GO OFF-ROAD....... 18/10/08
What excitement, and all for 'charridy' too! The 'Windsor Chapter' bikers are apparently off for a week of off-road thrills across South Africa, and expecting to raise a quarter of a million pounds for good causes. Very worthy. How much? - Actually, £250,000 isn't, in real terms, all that much, especially when one considers how much it has all taken to organise over the past year. Time off from military duties - but no doubt regarded as 'career-building', no doubt more than a handful of back-office and support staff, shipping costs, travel, no doubt an add-on security detail to prevent terrorists kidnapping the royal 'bruvs' en route, and you probably wouldn't see much change out of £500,000 - or perhaps much more. Those other biking dare-devils, Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman, on their various 'Long Way Up/Down/Across/etc' treks required a veritable army of supporters in order to just bike across the world's great wastes, doing their transcontinental 'Easy Rider' thing.
Frankly, it's a disingenuous sham. Listen, guys. You're rich, so why not just go on a biking holiday? Africa? Cool. But no, that would just look like a couple of trustafarians on holiday. So, once again, it's 'hoist the charity shield' time and pretend that good causes are the real aim. Rather, why not just get the sponsors - no doubt there are many - and don't forget the taxpayer's contribution too, and write out cheques. Even Wills and Harry could chuck in a bit out of their giant trust funds too, but that might just show they've got so much cash to spare. Just spare us the pretence.
QUEEN VISITS GOOGLE...... 18/10/08
How cool, Ma'am. Even the Duke of Edinburgh's really switched on to 'Google Earth'. 'One's on 'YouTube' too, you know'. It's just that if you put 'UK royal finance' in the search box you'll just get a load of banking sites, and barely any sign of the Buckingham Palace crew. At least not on page one. Perhaps they should improve their 'SEO' - search engine optimisation? On the other hand, perhaps they prefer things the way they are.......
LORDS REFORM? 16/10/08
The picture of 'Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool' just demonstrates what happened to New Labour. For all the talk, all the promises, so little really changed. Old cronies never die, they just go to the House of Lords. It really is time to consign those titles, pantomime clothes and sinecures for life to the dustbin of history. Checks and balances? - no-one would notice if we scrapped the lot and went for a unicameral system......
THE KENTS STILL HAVEN'T LEFT THE BUILDING........ 6/10/08
It seems that those famous 'royals' Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are still ensconced in state property Kensington Palace. Having paid a minimal 'service charge' for years that would be the envy of nearby students in halls of residence from University College, they are to start paying £120,000 a year in rent for their luxury apartment. Originally, they were to have been evicted back in 2007, but now enjoy a reprieve. MPs insisted that they would have to start paying, the Queen having previously picked up the bill for a while.
Quite why they are tolerated there at all is a mystery. They aren't legit 'working royals' as Prince Michael is not in the line of succession. However, they have made a career out of trading on their (public) titles, cadging a great housing deal off the taxpayer for decades. Perhaps they ought to be made to pay the back-rent now, and a decent royalty to the taxpayer for the 'hire' of their titles for their own personal enrichment over the years.
CHARLES: NOT ONE BIRTHDAY BANQUET, BUT TWO....
As if one 60th birthday banquet wasn't enough. It seems the Prince of Wales is to have two lavish feasts to celebrate another year of a life spent hanging around at the taxpayer's expense. Whilst ordinary mortals will be wondering how to pay their bills in November, Charles will be hosting a pair of no-expense-spared events. Apparently, he really thinks it's all too much really, but tellingly has shown no sign of toning down the entertainments. Hopefully, he will remember to raise a toast to the hard-pressed British taxpayer from whom he received £16.3million this year (from the Duchy of Cornwall) - plus Grant-in-aid expenses for travel and upkeep of Clarence House (which the taxpayer did up for over £3million and spends around half a million a year to run).
If he really felt it was all too much, then he could just say so and call it off, out of respect for all those who are really suffering in these appalling economic times. Ego-centric, spoilt, it sums up the attitude of a family who are spectacularly over-indulged by the British taxpayer and almost, it seems, completely detached from reality.
MELTDOWN: THE STORY SO FAR....... 31/9/08
Well, don't say that you weren't warned. Felt it only proper to refrain from updating the growing financial disaster. The derivative / credit fuelled boom was never going to last, and given the increased sophistication of financial trading, when it was going to go out of shape, it would really do so with a vengeance. The progressive nationalisation of Western banking marks a profound shift, and the world may never be the same. The balance of power has already moved from West to East. All that is needed is for everyone to realise it.
House prices: in the absence of credit, it's back to a relationship with earnings. Real ones, not pretend ones or 'averages' boosted by ludicrous top-earners. Used to be said that a crash would mean a fall of 40% from the peak - but things have changed more fundamentally. It could mean figures back to 1990s levels - possibly a quarter of where they stood a year back.....
THE 'FRUGAL' MONARCHY....... 26/09/08
Well, if you believe that Britain has a 'frugal monarchy, as the Palace might wish us all to think, then you're probably seriously detached from economic reality. It's an appealing image, with Her Maj' shuffling around Buckingham Palace in frayed carpet slippers late at night switching off the lights. The truth is, we've got an institution which costs vastly more than its European counterparts - put together, by the way - and is also far from transparent in its financial affairs. Not only that, but we've got institutional enrichment bulit in to the system to ensure that the Queen and the Prince of Wales get multi-million pound annual incomes from state assets. They simply do not need money on that scale to do the job.
Now, as the global banking system faces meltdown, they've decided to play the 'hard-done by' card and try and cadge millions more from the grossly overstretched' British taxpayer. They will have to face a genuinely frugal reality sooner than they think. It will not be easy for them. They will have to manage on less - a lot less - and this could ultimately demonstrate whether they're really in it at the moment out of a sense of duty, or for the massive amount of money they presently get...
PALACE DEMANDS MORE MONEY - AS USUAL... 25/09/08
It seems from today's 'Independent' that the Government and the Palace are arguing over cash. This is not a good time for our over-indulged monarchy to start waving the begging-bowl. There will be little or no sympathy in either the country as a whole or No.10 in particular. The oft-quoted figure of £40million is just the tip of the iceberg, £160million a better estimate, but one which tends to be camouflaged by a fog of ignorance, arcane language and secrecy. My book - out soon in just over a fortnight, will explain the real cost of this extravagant institution. Not long now.....!
GORDON'S ' 'FIGHTBACK'............
Are we really convinced by Gordon Brown's attempt to prevent his almost inevitable disappearance from the political scene? No. There's nothing new, not even anything appealingly 'warmed-up' for what promises to be very difficult times. The fact that there wil be no special one-off energy payment is not entirely surprising, but the 'promise' to invest in energy-saving solutions - with often very long pay-back times - will be of little consolation for the financially hard-pressed. Let's not forget the fact that this country has for year's dragged its feet on encouraging alternative energy take-up is at best abysmal compared with, for instance, Germany, which has for years given huge tax incentives and encouraged development which makes the UK look like something out of the Stone Age. Campaigns to encourage insulation are few, and often illusory and Byzantine in practice. As for windfall taxes, it's all too short-term and knee-jerk in tone. The truth is that UK Plc is now suffering more than most through having the so-called 'better' free-market solution to energy. The rest of Europe treats energy as a strategic commodity, with proper buffer stocks, whereas ours sees it only from an accountant's eye. It's a bit like hospital bed shortages, this is an area where life is more than just the bottom line.
As for stamp duty, let's not forget the basics: this country has very low property transaction tax rates compared to our European neighbours - and many others besides - and a property sale is one of the best points at which to levy tax. The truth is, if you can't afford the stamp duty, you probably can't afford the house. The painful truth is that any interference in the market will have serious longer-term effects. People have to realise that, ultimately, prices will have to fall back to something approaching those of perhaps a decade ago in order to restore a proper relationship to earnings. We will see prices fall back in the next year or so by at least 30%, more likely 40%.
How long for Gordon? Yes, two month's probably is right, and now the talk is of Labour shoe-ing in another leader without actually asking the country - again. If Labour go down this route, it could provoke a real hurricane of criticism across the political and electoral spectrum which would be as damaging as keeping Gordon and sinking pretty fast with him clutching the helm. Don't like it?, well, perhaps you ought to have listened to all of us who have been arguing for a written constitution, not the ad hoc shuffling of supposed precedent and custom, nods and winks, that make up our present shambles. In this country, constitutionally, the rule is that half the time there aren't really any rules, just whatever those in charge can get away with. And we still let them....
COUNTING HIM OUT...
It is hard to know exactly what was meant by HRH's latest rethar emotive outburst. OK, we may not all be fully paid-up fans of GM crops, but it appeared he was getting just a bit confused. Where's the conflict between food production and food security, exactly? Frankly, it was all a bit too emotive and rather badly thought out. As for the 'count me out' bit, what the hell was he on about? Has he really had enough and wants to step down from the succession and go and live ion a Greek monastery? What is certain, he's still being far too political for an heir who might soon be King. He needs to get things sorted out, firstly in his own mind, and tell us where he stands. These recent remarks merely raise more questions than they answer......
QUEEN CLEARS £12.5MILLION FROM DUCHY OF LANCASTER....
No surprises, in fact my prediction of the Queen's income this year from the Duchy of Lancaster of £12,506,000 was spot-on. In line with commercial property returns in general, this multi-million pound state salary for the head of state is however absurdly disproportionate to the sums payable to heads - hereditary or presidential - of other Western democracies. It is time this ridiculously over-generous system - including the similar Duchy of Cornwall payment to the heir to the throne - was reformed. READ MY ' COMMMENT IS FREE ' ARTICLE ON THE GUARDIAN WEBSITE HERE.
GLASGOW EAST - TOWARDS THE END OF THE UNION?.....
The disastrous result for Labour is likely to hasten further fall in the 'fortunes' - if indeed there are any - of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It will further increase the tensions around his attempts to preserve the Union and will inevitably boost the cause of the Scottish independence movement. This will add to the sentiment for an English Parliament, and logically, the question of where the House of Windsor - entirely dependent on the Union for its existence unless it is prepared to accept serious down-sizing - ha sany real long-term future.
RICH AGAIN - AS USUAL....
Any day now, you will probably miss the second 'fat-cat' news story of the year. Coated with lots of right-on environmentally-friendly gloss, the Prince of Wales grossed £16.3million this year - less as many deductible reasons to make it look rather more modest - and less tax. Of course. Any chance of criticism was challenged by the release time - rather late in the day, which also happened to be the day Mugabe went to the 'polls' and the results of Labour's Henley by-election debacle hogged the headlines. Now, we're waiting for the Queen to slip her Duchy of Lancaster earnings - expect around £12.5million this time round (commercial property yields ain't what they were) into the public domain. A lot better than her hard-pressed 'subjects', HM benefits from this cash whilst her PR machine whines that some of this - sometimes, it implies, virtually all - is spent on 'performing her official duties'.
Really? What did Windsor Plc get £40million of public cash for the 'Civil List', 'Grants-in-aid' etc, plus a lot, lot more besides, for? How much do these people need?Already the most heavily subsidised monarchy in Europe by a mile - and then some - the British monarchy is now starting to do its regular 'hard done by' whining routine. They pulled this old trick back in the late 60s, and the government fell for it - coming away with a superb inflation-proofed deal in 1971. If, now, they're really paying out of their own well-lined pockets (filled in the first place thanks to Joe Public) then lets's hear exactly what they are spending it on. If they ever dared say, it would be on things that are really personal, but because they can't tell the difference between 'public' and 'private' anyway, they think the taxpayer ought to cough up anyway.
THE END OF BOOM AND BUST?.......
Er, well,...not really. Gordon's famous boast is starting to look rather ambitious as the economy, already 'nosed over', starts to gather speed. The property market is now staring at future reality, and the developers are starting to whinge. They want some help. Typical of the free-market 'buccaneers'. Like the banks, show them a boom and they'll stoke it in any way they can with a variety of imaginative schemes, theories and good old-fashioned hot air until it spontaneously combusts. These incompetents simply want the money to start another piss-up in a new brewery, for the government to get out the taxpayer's chequebook and start scribbling furiously. It won't work. This one's got a long way to fall - about 40% in total - so a lot of the UK's houses are set to lose another 30% off their bloated valuations. Sadly, it will be the many taxpayer set to lose their jobs that will tip the market into the ground. And that's not counting the effects of another oil hike, not from commodity speculators, who are propping it up now, but any likely action on Iran.
NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS....
Talking of defence, Britannia looks set to start constructing, at great cost to the rest of the struggling armed forces, the biggest aircraft carriers it has ever had. Why?. Firstly, it's a Gordon Brown wheeze to try and buy disappearing votes in Scotland, where much of this kit will be built. Secondly, it's likely to be a delusion of grandeur - and please, why the hideously unoriginal names - that of the Queen and the heir. Our troops go poorly equipped to fight in a country which will. in time, drive them out in the same way as it did their Victorian ancestors and the Soviet army in the early 80s. Battles are usually won or lost on mundane levels. The simple stuff. Metal fatigue, decent boots, radios, the wrong clearances in a breech assembly, even escape hatch sizes. It took to the end of WW2 for British industry to produce a decent tank. most of the output was mediocre, some models unusable in action. We tend to be OK building high-end stuff for a rich minority, but less adept at more accessible products for the majority. Even the Land Rover was a Jeep rip-off - the prototype used the latter's chassis.
Back to the carriers. The jury is actually out on quite how necessary these really big vessels are. Smaller ones perhaps, but these big showpiece ships are more doubtful. It's OK if you're the US, park these things well offshore and play the neighbourhood bully. The problems start when countries equipped with Russian new-generation big ASCM's (anti shipping cruise missiles) actually use them for what they were designed back in the Siviet era - to take out big carriers. Numbers (a big aircraft can stand-off launch four) can easily overwhelm the layers of air defence vessels you need to surround each carrier with. So where are the Uk's layers of defence vessels? We haven't, and won't have, them in time for these monster carriers. So the 'Sunburn', 'Kitchen' 'Alfa' and ' other missiles - and their Chinese 'clones', which are bigger and faster than their NATO equivalents (sort of, but they're much smaller, and shorter range) present a colossal threat to them. Oh yes, one other thing, as 'aircraft carriers', what about the aircraft? Well, there aren't really any, and probably won't be for ages. Harriers? Not really, you could fly them off a converted bulk carrier. JSF's (US Joint Strike Fighter)?. Not ready, and no go-ahead for those needed on the carriers, and besides, they're so pricey we can't afford enough to really make any difference. Present arrangement will be like using a Rolls-Royce to deliver pizzas.
Land-based aircraft are a better bet in the long run, carrier planes always have as many disadvantages as advantages. Even China is in now hurry to join the carrier club, though there are now likely to build two to accompany their 'Shi Lang' test model - a half-built ex-Soviet scrap bargain. The only solution that would make sense would be for the carriers to form a piece of a large, unified European defence force 'jigsaw', but on their own - run entirely by the UK, no way...
QUEEN PLEADS POVERTY
Yes, it's that time of the year when Buckingham Palace finally releases its accounts - soon to be followed by those of the Prince of Wales and the Queen's Duchy of Lancaster earnings. Interesting, too, that 'events' always seem to coincide at those release dates. From Mugabe's vicious and sham election and the aftermath of Gordon's latest train-wreck by-election at Henley. Last year's Duchy of Lancaster accounts were 'drowned' in the midst of the flood disaster and barely reported. Strangely, the Queen wasn't complaining that she'd got a 10%+ increase taking her gross earnings up to £11.6million. Wait and see how they try and submerge the figures this time - commercial property returns may be down - but their problem will more likely be to try to camouflage a figure that will be an embarassment of riches. The Prince of Wales's spin machine has already been feeding the media for weeks with a steady trickle of 'good works' to deflect the fact that his Duchy of Cornwall gross earnings will likely be £16million plus this year.
As ever, the media adopt their usual tone - adopting the Palace spin that 'er Maj is bearing up in the face of the same pressures as her ordinary subjects - and re-sprayed to match the imagery of the 'credit-crunch' era. As usual, the inevitable confusion of who really owns the Palaces with the pretence that they are 'her's' means that rational discussion is difficult. The only answer is to completely disconnect the Royal Household from the actual running of the Palaces. Just let them use the bits they really need, maintain them at State expense, but radically rationalise the whole process. From property to travel, things are pretty much the same as last year. The same goes for money spent on facilities for the Royal Collection. It's not 'her's', so why not admit it properly, and get the state to run it, separate from any Palace involvement.
The Palace, for all their protestations of parsimony, still seem to be spending up to a lifestyle than saving down to a price. If it's going to cost half a million to patch up some cottages in the Castle for the 'Royal Knights of Windsor', why not ask, sensibly, why we're still providing tied cottages for people with pantomime roles? The Queen does less yet the amount taken from the Civil List Reserve has increased. Yes, costs have gone up for everyone, but why the hell does the UK need such an expensive monarchy? If Germany can do a Presidency for a nation of 100million people for £9.9million, all in, why can' we do a slimmer monarchy on a par with our European neighbours? Why on earth should our's cost over £160million?
All the commentary tends to imply the palaces are 'her's', thus tending to imply it's all some kind of personal burden for her. It isn't . They aren't, the taxpayer gives her the money to spend on them. However, the present method means that they can become bargaining counters in the 'game' between Palace and Exchequer and thus 'spun' to provide ammunition to Europe's most grandiose monarchy to help it stay far ahead in the spending league.
THE REAL ZIMBABWE CULPRITS
Mugabe is a cheap amateur in the dictator ratings who has been allowed to get away with it for far too long. The grotesque 'election' pantomime merely confirms the weakness of a grand array of characters who have let him steer a once great African nation into a hyper-inflated basket-case. The next stage may well be an Angolan-style bloodbath. It could even provoke destabilisation in its neighbours, too. And whose fault? One nation above all others has propped up Zimbabwe through misplaced loyalty: South Africa. Thabo Mbeki is a limp appeaser who makes Neville Chamberlain, with hindsight, look like Attila the Hun. And behind him, officially out of the picture but still a key player, is the man who continues to walk on water everywhere he goes; Nelson Mandela. To criticise him may still be the world's one last taboo, but his properly chosen words could have pulled the rug on Mugabe long ago, and saved countless innocent lives. Even this week, his comments were limp and pathetic. An old-school African aristo, Mandela commands a respect that is now wholly undeserved. Old former terrorists are still afraid to confront the fact that the world - and even Africa - has moved on. For every concert and statue in his name, don't forget those who have died in both Zimbabwe and South Africa itself - and those who will die in the weeks and months ahead - through the failure of any proper 'statesmanship' from this god-like figure.
Mugabe was stripped of his knighthood last week - why so long? What about the 'great' Commonwealth', if it had any clout left at all then this should have been brought to bear ages ago? Well-connected investors in Zimbabwe - based in the UK and elsewhere, still have much influence, but are happy to keep quiet. And the elephant in the room? Chinese money has paid for Mugabe's palace and numerous other projects. China is prepared to further their interests and look the other way. The continent has to stop blaming everyone but itself and act in a mature fashion. Sadly, the indicators aren't good.
GORDON BROWN - BEYOND THE END
Blair may have been personally deluded, but at least he had a bit of charm. And while the smarmy front-man kept the crowds rteasonably happy, Brown was fiddling with the levers in the back-room. Now all his efforts are coming back to haunt him Brown doesn't even get that far. His reliance upon the credit boom is coming back to hit him in the face, as the economy slides, along with house prices. So much for 'prudence'. It's going to get worse. Next thing to watch out for is the commodity crash. Commodities are the latest home for the billions sloshing around the world as banks, property, and its derivatives don't look so appealing any more. Oil, wheat, copper, the lot. They may be in big demand, but not quite to the extent many might have you believe. They're going to go sometime soon, and it could make the derivatives business look like a picnic. The mammoth funds will take a big hit, and they'll have next to nowhere to go. Fund values will drop. And drop. Meanwhile, Brown has two years to go, in theory. It may not be all his fault, but he so really wanted the job. Now he's got it, for another two years. That's 104 'long times' in politics. Don't hold your breath, this is going to get really difficult....
RECESSION, OFFICIAL.....
So Alastair Darling is certain there won't be a recession. Hmmm.. As US banks and hedge funds crs attempts are made by the Fed to bale them out, the Chancellor's Budget speech revealed complacency - or worse. "If you can keep your head", as the saying goes, "while all around are losing theirs, it is likely that you don't appreciate the seriousness of the situation". We're doing so well. Really. Funny how if you add up the numbers of families with children below the poverty level, those claiming incapacity benefit - let alone those on or near the minimum wage -and so on, that almost seems to account for most of the population. Thank goodness the super-rich are here to pay for everything. Except they're not in the sense that they're suddenly elsewhere when demands for tax come in. Inequality reigns supreme. We'll go abroad, say the non-doms, but the truth is that the UK is one of the few democratic locations that will pander to them - not the USA or the rest of Europe, for example. It's like the claimed 'international' market for top UK executives who collectively bid up each other's remuneration to unreal levels but always seem only to ever get employed in good old Blighty, and then mostly in the public sector, or something 'private' that depends on the taxpayer to keep it all going. Their threats to go seem to mostly leave them with the option of going to places like Dubai or Jersey, hardly the last bastions of equality or democracy.
The country that's doing so well can't afford to keep a handful of rather antiquated Tornado jets maintained by the RAF itself. Instead, the work will be hived off to the private sector who can then make a killing on the contract. Don't forget the Qinetic deal for its directors. The cost at the moment, by the way? we're talking about £10 million a year - that's the price of a couple of small - and I mean small - Chelsea cottages. Money is tight for everyone except the recipients of public money, the array of 'consultants', upper-echelon 'executives' with job descriptions even Jean-Paul Sartre couldn't understand, and so on who turn public millions into unseen Powerpoint presentations and glossy reports - and their own pockets. Squeeze the poor - they pay proportionately more in tax than anyone else, and the shrinking 'middle' class, whilst the rich get really rich. The money vanishes offshore. The real 'waste' in the system is often the outside consultants called in to find it. This is a sick system.
Iraq and Afghanistan are now costing us over £3billion a year, but it's either not enough to do the job - whatever that might actually be - or too much given that it won't be sufficient and thus wasted in the long run. Meanwhile, our economy - more than our European neighbours - is now highly vulnerable due to the over-reliance on a financial sector that is showing real signs of collapse. Don't look to our manufacturing sector to take up the slack, it was sold off....North Sea oil revenues were squandered or given to banking friends in the City through the Thatcher privatisations. Now we've got the sub-prime aftermath to cope with over the next few years, and what's it secured on? Why, the over-inflated housing market, of course. Add to that rising repossessions and the credit crunch and a dollar that's devaluing steadily - half the reason oil is going up in price - and things don't look quite as good as through Alastair Darling's magic spectacles. This isn't the end, it's just the end of the beginning......
MAKE THAT 'OATH' COMPULSORY FOR EVERYONE.....
So, is Lord Goldsmith - and by implication our 'Great Leader' - so totally deluded to imagine that anyone would have greeted the idea of an oath of allegiance to the Queen as part of some kind of 'rite of passage' citizenship event with anything other than scorn and derision? Obviously, yes. The idea would, if subjected to just a few minutes of exposure to those who inhabit the real world, have been rapidly kicked into the weeds. Consumer testing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was evidently not undertaken, and if they weren't going to play along, what about good old 'Ingerland'. Most of us would - if not off already - would rather be somewhere else, from France, Spain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, Florida, etc, etc..., and many are, in any case, for tax purposes.
The idea that still seems to persist is that Britain - well OK, England - is some sort of Ruritanian theme park, a weird hybrid of Austin Power's 'swinging' London, Richard Curtis's cheerful and prosperous Notting Hill, with a dash of heritage-steeped Sherlock Holmes, headed by a monarch who, Gawd bless 'er, we all adore and fawn over. It doesn't actually square with the reality. The truth is, most of us are rather fed up with the whole antiquated shambles, have either left or can't wait to leave, and have no intention of swearing allegiance to an over-privileged pensioner and her dysfunctional tribe who have grown rich at the taxpayer's expense. The problem is, most people are too inhibited or ignorant of the facts to take the logical next step and consign the Windsors to the recycle bin of history. The reaction to Brown's half-baked 'citizenship' ideas is proof that this was a desperate attempt to try to glue together a country that looks almost anywhere but to itself for a sense of identity.
The answer? Well, the world has changed, but our backward-looking, over-centralised country with a constitution that was looking a bit rusty two hundred years ago just refuses to adapt. Whose fault? The system?, the politicians? No. Actually it's the people themselves. We're all too complacent really, and if we'd spent a bit more effort on ourselves in the nineteenth century having a proper revolution - rather than trying to run half the known world - things might have been very different. The empire didn't make us half as rich as we tend to think, and when it all folded most of our overseas investments were worthless. Trouble is, we still think we're an imperial power, and the monarchy perpetuates the whole sorry outdated 'Great Britain' edifice. Nothing will changed, symbolically and beyond, until it has gone. If only everyone in the country, not just eighteen yearolds and new migrants, was asked to swear allegiance to the Queen, it would soon become apparent what we all think of her.
Actually, making everyone swear allegiance to the Queen would be the best opportunity to get a real idea of public opinion. It would make the irritating 'don't knows' and the genteel 'soft' monarchists put their money where their mouth is, and the preceding debate could well persuade them to decline to symbolically grovel to an hereditary anachronism. Without overwhelming support it would constitute a massive 'no' vote on the monarchy. The republicans' best bet could be to actively endorse the oath, but it now looks like we can't be bothered to have one....
OVERPAID, UNDERWORKED, AND OVER HERE..........
Heard much of our esteemed head of state recently? Probably not. In fact, unless you've spotted some miniscule press items regarding pheasants and a small Fenland nature reserve you might have forgotten about her entirely. The Queen was spotted wrestling yet another dead bird from the jaws of some gundog at Sandringham, as part of her now almost permanent semi-retirement. Let's hope the local hen harriers are OK. Well, she is over eighty, you say. Fair enough, but while she's now effectively pensioned off - on an official income of nearly £12million gross last year - the taxpayer is still stumping up the full amount for the Civil List, palace and travel expenses, security, and so on as if she were doing the full job.
Yet if you study the 'Times' Court Circular, you'll note that she's not exactly putting in the hours. When an official job, like meeting a foreign ambassador, needs doing, for example, they increasingly get palmed off with some Court stand-in, a retired military official or something 'representing' the Queen. Might as well hire Jeanette Charles, the renowned regal 'lookalike'. For a hard-working foreign diplomat just retiring, it must be like saving up to go to a big West End show and finding an understudy in the leading role for the evening. More importantly, she's still head of state. If she can't do the top job, just admit it. There's no shame in stepping down.
Meanwhile, what about the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne. The man who often acts as if he's the monarch, and, importantly, also likes to be taxed in a unique way as if he actually was, seems rather reluctant to step in and do some of the work. When Sir Edmund Hillary died recently in New Zealand - a man who conveniently helped to sum up the spirit of the new 'Elizabethan Age' in 1953 by conquering Mount Everest with Tenzing right on cue for the Coronation - who would the royal family send to pay the nation's respects? Well, nobody, in fact. Not one of the overpaid, over-indulged Windsor family who are so handsomely paid to get out of their luxury beds in the morning to represent the nation could be arsed to make the effort. That alone must have multiplied the Antipodean republican head count by a factor of ten if nothing else, so some good came of it after all. Not only could Prince Charles not be bothered to go, but neither did any of his pampered siblings.
As if you thought that royal diaries were filled in years in advance, think again. News came that sending a royal to represent the nation at one of the world's biggest gigs just months away later this year - the Beijing Olympics - might again be too much effort for the pampered Windsor crew. The Queen presumably didn't fancy a long flight, and the poor old dear doesn't have a tax-powered royal yacht any more for the proverbial slow boat to China. What about the heir then? No. Without a proper reason, da Prince - who now gets paid over £15million a year from the taxpayer - didn't want to go either, presumably on idealogical grounds. "Tibet, er...the Dalai Lama - such a good friend, and Hong Kong, er.. used to be ours, you know,..so tragic... terrible business er, well, I really don't want to er ...". You know the sort of thing.
Now, other people can have principles, but being paid to be a royal means you have to keep those firmly to yourself and just do your politically neutral job. That's how it was in the past. Now, it seems, they want - to borrow Madame Antoinette's phrase - have their cake, and eat it, too. Despite wanting to play at being stand-in monarch when it suits him, Charles isn't playing this one. No-one can pretend that China is the nicest regime around, and Tibet isn't one of their better examples, but we better face some facts. Increasingly, the lion's share of the manufactured goods we buy here are made there. Our industries -such as they now are - depend on their sub-contracting work. If you thought China is important today, that's just a taster for the future. Not to mention, as you read this, you're within range of a Chinese nuclear ICBM. And, talking of gateaux again, they are increasingly after a bigger and bigger slice of the world's energy cake. You had better to be nice to the Chinese. They are very big and very important. Respect. They expect a big name. If you diss them, they won't like it. Sending, for instance, the Earl of Wessex to Beijing would be like sending a nonentity there to insult their intelligence. On second thoughts, not 'like', it actually would be...
Next up, the much travelled 'Duke of York', who we are constantly told - and supposedly another of these politically neutral royals - such a great ambassador for British trade, has decided to speak. Very unwise. Just before going to the USA to 'sell' UK Plc. , he decides to criticise American foreign policy. This man has evidently never had to sell anything to earn a living. Sales Lesson Number One, Andy : - It really doesn't help to publicly slag off your clients just before making your pitch. OK, you may not agree with the Iraq war - who did - and, fair enough, he does know what the dangerous end of a battle zone looks like, but this is not, and should not be, royal territory. Travelling the world and its golf courses for a living at the British taxpayer's expense, he should know by now that the price for all that is political silence. Each of these overpaid individuals should realise that the price of that over-indulgence is a) keep your principles to yourself, and b) make an effort to properly represent the taxpayers who fund them. Perhaps it's time to renegotiate their contracts.
A 'NAZI', THE 'CROCODILE' AND OTHER CONSPIRACIES...........
As the 'Diana Show' grinds slowly onward, to the delight of the media and, no doubt, a tantalisingly inexact conclusion, we have now been treated to the spectacle of the still grieving Mohammed Fayed's performance. Despite the absurdity of some of the accusations, it cannot exactly be said that the 'British Establishment' has played the best hand to divert conspiracy theorists. If anyone is entitled to feel bitter, having been denied a passport to being snubbed by the very royal family who were only too happy to buy his goods, no doubt as ever, on the keenest of terms, then it is he. After a decade of dithering, the shifting of Coroners for somewhat implausible reasons, and the need to bring in SIS operatives to testify, the scene had truly been set for those who believed that the tragedy contained all the classic elements of a plot.
By no means all that unreasonable. Since members of the royal family were central to many accusations, why on earth weren't they required to pitch up and speak for themselves. And as for conspiracies, the ability of the Windsors - and the 'Establishment' in general - to close ranks and shut up like a clam with lockjaw, has been evident for so long - Duke of Kent's wartime air crash, Dr David Kelly, to mention but two..... There was even the faint whiff of rodent in the case of Harry's incident of the hen harrier and the gunman no-one ever noticed. No doubt, the Diana inquest will conclude that it was a terrible accident, because basically everyone involved, and in the case of the royal family, their loyal representatives, when asked, simply said that it wasn't them. If they say so, then it must be right, because they're fine upstanding members of the less well illuminated parts of our secretive society. All the conspiracy theorists will, of course say that proves there was a conspiracy after all. And who is to say they don't have a point. Either that, or they're just trying to bore the conspiracy theorists away..............
ANOTHER SATELLITE DOWN........
So, the United States decided to knock out spy satellite No.193 in order to protect us all from hydrazine fuel. How gallant. Well, its not the sort of stuff you want to get on your skin, but then you have to be pretty wary cutting up hot chillies and using paint stripper. Bucketfuls of the stuff have been sloshing about for decades - the Germans used hydrazine hydrate as a rocket fuel component in their Me163 interceptors in WW2 and it's a pretty standard liquid fuel for missiles - you've got to get your oxygen from somewhere - and even for torpedo power units. OK, the satellite was rather big, and a couple of chunks might have made it through the atmosphere.
The reality is, of course, rather more prosaic. On January 16th, 2007, China decided without warning to knock out one of its own old satellites. This proved that the GPS system upon which the US military and most of modern society - including idiot drivers on SatNav crashing into low bridges and dead ends , and your parcel deliveries - depends, was now very vulnerable indeed. Theories vary as to the Chinese motive, from getting rid of a hazardous bit of old junk (by, incidentally, creating a lot of very small ones), to trying to push the USA into signing up to a treaty banning space weapons. The best one though, simply, was to demonstrate that the US (plus a rather now impoverished Russia) wasn't the only space show in town, and that GPS wasn't the untouchable monopoly it once was. As a result, America just had to show that it could shoot one down too.
OVERPAID, UNDERWORKED, AND OVER INDULGED..........
Heard much of our esteemed head of state recently? Probably not. In fact, unless you've spotted some miniscule press items regarding pheasants and a small Fenland nature reserve you might have forgotten about her entirely. The Queen was spotted wrestling yet another dead bird from the jaws of some gundog at Sandringham, as part of her now almost permanent semi-retirement. Let's hope the local hen harriers are OK. Well, she is over eighty, you say. Fair enough, but while she's now effectively pensioned off - on an official income of nearly £12million gross last year - the taxpayer is still stumping up the full amount for the Civil List, palace and travel expenses, security, and so on as if she were doing the full job.
Yet if you study the 'Times' Court Circular, you'll note that she's not exactly putting in the hours. When an official job, like meeting a foreign ambassador, needs doing, for example, they increasingly get palmed off with some Court stand-in, a retired military official or something 'representing' the Queen. Might as well hire Jeanette Charles, the renowned regal 'lookalike'. For a hard-working foreign diplomat just retiring, it must be like saving up to go to a big West End show and finding an understudy in the leading role for the evening. More importantly, she's still head of state. If she can't do the top job, just admit it. There's no shame in stepping down.
Meanwhile, what about the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne? The man who often acts as if he's the monarch - and, importantly, also likes to be taxed in a unique way as if he actually was - seems rather reluctant to step in and do some of the work. When Sir Edmund Hillary died recently in New Zealand - a man who conveniently helped to sum up the spirit of the new 'Elizabethan Age' in 1953 by conquering Mount Everest with Tenzing right on cue for the Coronation - who would the royal family send to pay the nation's respects? Well, nobody, in fact. Not one of the overpaid, over-indulged Windsor family who are so handsomely paid to get out of their luxury beds in the morning to represent the nation could be arsed to make the effort. That alone must have multiplied the Antipodean republican head count by a factor of ten if nothing else, so some good came of it after all. Not only could Prince Charles not be bothered to go, but neither did any of his pampered siblings.
As if you thought that royal diaries were filled in years in advance, think again. News came that sending a royal to represent the nation at one of the world's biggest gigs just months away later this year - the Beijing Olympics - might again be too much effort for the pampered Windsor crew. The Queen presumably didn't fancy a long flight, and the poor old dear doesn't have a tax-powered royal yacht any more for the proverbial slow boat to China. What about the heir then? No. Without a proper reason, da Prince - who now gets paid over £15million a year from the taxpayer - didn't want to go either, presumably on idealogical grounds. "Tibet, er...the Dalai Lama - such a good friend, and Hong Kong, er.. used to be ours, you know,..so tragic... terrible business er, well, I really don't want to er ...". You know the sort of thing.
Now, other people can have principles, but being paid to be a royal means you have to keep those firmly to yourself and just do your politically neutral job. That's how it was in the past. Now, it seems, they want - to borrow Madame Antoinette's phrase - have their cake, and eat it, too. Despite wanting to play at being stand-in monarch when it suits him, Charles isn't playing this one. No-one can pretend that China is the nicest regime around, and Tibet isn't one of their better examples, but we better face some facts. Increasingly, the lion's share of the manufactured goods we buy here are made there. Our industries -such as they now are - depend on their sub-contracting work. If you thought China is important today, that's just a taster for the future. Not to mention, as you read this, you're within range of a Chinese nuclear ICBM. And, talking of gateaux again, they are increasingly after a bigger and bigger slice of the world's energy cake. You had better to be nice to the Chinese. They are very big and very important. Respect. They expect a big name. If you diss them, they won't like it. Sending, for instance, the Earl of Wessex to Beijing would be like sending a nonentity there to insult their intelligence. On second thoughts, not 'like', it actually would be...
Next up, the much travelled 'Duke of York', who we are constantly told - and supposedly another of these politically neutral royals - such a great ambassador for British trade, has decided to speak. Very unwise. Just before going to the USA to 'sell' UK Plc. , he decides to criticise American foreign policy. This man has evidently never had to sell anything to earn a living. Sales Lesson Number One, Andy : - It really doesn't help to publicly slag off your clients just before making your pitch. OK, you may not agree with the Iraq war - who did - and, fair enough, he does know what the dangerous end of a battle zone looks like, but this is not, and should not be, royal territory. Travelling the world and its golf courses for a living at the British taxpayer's expense, he should know by now that the price for all that is political silence. Each of these overpaid individuals should realise that the price of that over-indulgence is a) keep your principles to yourself, and b) make an effort to properly represent the taxpayers who fund them. Perhaps it's time to renegotiate their contracts.
BACK TO LONDON...........
Well, back from rural France on November 17th, despite the threat of no railways as 'la greve' took hold. Actually, the Toulouse train was running about an hour late, and got into Austerlitz at 19.00. So far, so good. Only to discover, not surprisingly, that most of the Metro wasn't running, and in particular the line to Gare du Nord. Nothing for it but to join the crowds and start walking, Cars, bikes and rollerblades vied for boulevard space, but it all seemed to function reasonably well. Only took an hour, so actually plenty of time before the Eurostar left. However, Paris with a strike seemed to be running nearly as well as London without one. Saturday-night West End traffic highlighted the contrast between the two capitals. Even with its problems, Paris retained its legendary style. London, however, just looked bloody tacky. Tasteless stretched limos clogged the traffic, along with partying drunks wandering aimlessly between vehicles, and those annoying tricycle rickshaws. Despite the alchohol, the mood just seemed rather morose. Buses were diverted, a result of a large hole in Oxford Street, a laughably narrow thoroughfare that makes one yearn for the appearance of a British 'Baron Haussmann' in the 19th century. To be fair, we have to thank Caesar and his successors for Oxford Street in the first place, for if the woad-plastered natives had been left to it, it would probably have resembled a cross between a small ditch and a drunken snake.
Getting across to Liverpool Street by bus on the 21st wasn't much better. Despite clear weather and no obvious reason, everything just gridlocked in Whitehall and stayed that way. Decided to bale out and walk it, en route trying to see why the famous Trafalgar Square was proving so problematic. The only clue was what appeared to be a glimpse of the top of an oversized Swiss chalet. Now, Trafalgar Square in its new, extended form is an impressive public space - probably London's best - but the alterations mean that just a stray cardboard box in the carriageway on the south side can be enough to bring most of the West End to a grinding halt. The clue - that 'structure' - is actually representative of an increasing problem. Whilst Continental cities have pavements that look like boulevards compared to our roads, they can cope with the odd delivery truck, but in London even a badly parked bicycle can impeded the traffic. In the old days, an event in Trafalgar Square needed little more than a soapbox and a crowd of thousands, but now a monster sound stage, lighting and video screens are pretty much obligatory. Now, I'm not objecting to the march of technology, but this constant erection and re-erection of rock-concert-scale infrastructure does play hell with the traffic.
Perhaps it's time for a reality check. If such an area is to be used on such a regular basis, why not....build it all in permanently. Tastefully done, it could look - and work - better than the rather tatty temporary structures that go up and down with tedious regularity. A similar situation prevails outside the Natural History Museum in South Kensington. Numerous 'London Fashion Weeks' necessitate the construction of a high-end shanty-town, with trucks bringing flat-packed sheds complete with aircon units and catering facilities, most of it apparently clocking-up carbon miles all the way from the Netherlands. This then denies the public the opportunity to sit, stand, walk or breathe on a convenient public space at the junction of the Cromwell and Exhibition Roads for sometimes weeks on end. Surely the capital already possesses sufficient buildings in which to hold these events. The V&A seem to manage rather well, for example. Royal Parks are now the regular venue for a stream of ever larger music events which necessitate a mass of Portaloos and temporary fencing. Why not just accept things and build an appropriate, permanent stage facility - the Glastonbury equivalent of a Victorian bandstand. Hell, it could even be neo-Classical to pander to the fogeyish pretensions of the heir to the throne. The toilets, for example, could be underground to avoid spoiling the view.
If not, then at least start charging the organisers of these events for the knock-on cost and chaos they bring to an already congested capital. Just 'doing it for charity' isn't necessarily enough to offset the cost of missed appointments, deliveries, flights and so on. It is time we accepted that if such events are to be held in such locations on such a regular basis, then why not build it in rather than have convoys of trucks and vans bringing tons of gear in and out, screwing up the traffic and, even when it's all set up, just making the place look untidy...............
ROYALS UPDATE...............
So, it seems that while I was away the Prince of Wales, who increasingly pretends he's the monarch half the time, decided that he didn't want to pay Israel a visit on some tenuous pretext. No such worries, however, when hobnobbing with his old mates from the House of Saud. Tyrannical, repressive, etc, no problems. Blue blood is evidently thicker than crude oil. They have other things in common too, both Charles and Prince Bandar do pretty well, directly or indirectly, out of British taxpayers' money.
Oh, and the Harry/hen harrier business. Funny how, despite the obvious presence of publicly paid security professionals - probably disguised as beaters - and if not how could one put such a precious national asset at risk, did nobody see anything? In any case, the 'night-clubber in succession' said he didn't do it, nor did his mate, so they must be telling the truth. Right? Were they not afraid of tweed-clad Purdey-toting Al Qaeda operatives skulking in the Norfolk hedgerows? After all, we spend about £100million on 'security' for the royals, but then it seems that unseen, unknnown guns can blaze away in close proximity to an HRH and it's all a total mystery to everyone concerned. And those dead hen harriers mysteriously vanished too. I bet if anyone else took off to the rural expanses of the Sandringham estate for a spot of poachiing they'd be spotted on sniper-scopes, day or night, before they'd got through the hedge. Perhaps it was fortunate that Norfolk Police decided not to charge Harry, after all, that means now that a DNA sample would have to be taken, and retained, whatever the legal outcome of the case.............
BARGEPOLES AND DOLLARS...............
Don't say this wasn't being said - including here - ages ago. The real reason why Iran is so unpopular with the USA isn't nuclear weapons - it's not a nice prospect but it's the technology of the mid-20th century - every science schoolkid knows the theory and half the practice - and its the delivery systems that are the weak link in the chain. No, it was the Iranian proposal - as a certain Mr Saddam of Baghdad had done a few years previously - to start trading oil in Euros. If that were to catch on, well, the world's most debt-raddled currency would go out of fashion as quickly as the market in Gary Glitter's back catalogue. Bring on Hugo Chavez too, and it looks like the idea of getting an asymmetric swipe at Uncle Sam is very much in fashion. The UAE started dumping dollars ages ago, and if big players like China pile in too - they'll need Euro's for their colossal oil bill from Iran - then the Euro could rise at the dollar's expense. Interesting that Iran has recently said it would consider shutting down its nuclear facility. That would expose any likely US attack in the next 12 months as having an alternative motive. Only the Saudis would try to hold out, but the rest of the Middle East would happily get out of dollars, and even Putin has talked about it. Others could follow, as its decline only exacerbates the oil price rises, and general fears of a really big recession. Which will happen any way..........
Queen's giant pay rise.................
So, 'er Maj has managed to get over £11.6million out of the loyal taxpayers this year. Did you all see it splashed across the papers? Er, no. only those sad enough to hover over the Duchy of Lancaster's website financial pages will have noticed the Pdf appear very. very quietly a couple of days ago. Handy having floods and stuff to swamp the news that her Duchy income going to the 'Privy Purse' was a very grand £11,627,000. That's a rise of over 10% on last years figure. The Duchy is very much a public entity, forget the nonsense from royal retainers about the 'private estate' bit. That's apart from the Civil List income, etc.
Loyal subjects will protest that she needs all the cash to maintain the 'honour' and 'dignity' of the institution. Believe that and you'd believe anything. It's time the whole business was sorted out once and for all. As long as the people of this country still want a monarchy, let's at least make it a reasonably priced one....
Charles and the 'Princess Royal' to visit flood victims...
Just when hard-pressed residents of Gloucestershire had enough to do clearing up the mess or just trying to get back to their submerged homes, the Windsor's dynamic duo have decided to go and visit them. Don't worry, it's not far to go from just outside, er, Gloucester, actually - and cheer them all up. In any case the taxpayer will pay for the ride. Highgrove's built on higher ground, no flood plains for the super-wealthy. Presumably Charles will be giving lessons on how to build a coracle - it's so important, one must keep these craft skills alive........Let them drink Duchy bottled water....
Turbulence ahead............
It looks as though times are going to become - as the Chinese term it - rather more 'interesting'. On the international level, there seems little chance of any satisfactory resolution of the problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. The more one looks at it, the more it seems as though the 19th century imperial 'Great Game' is simply picking up where it left off - if, in a sense it ever really did - following the 20th century interruptions of two world wars. US Republicans still seem very hawkish on Iran, so the tensions are still there too to complicate the mix in that region. A reinvigorated Russia, thanks to booming energy revenues, is beginning to push its weight around, and now it has the cash to expand its military on a larger scale than in recent years. It needs to. Its own energy resources don't look too great in the long term, unless it can secure some of its old-time central Asian satellites. China has already upped its stake in that area, as it is also doing in Africa, and it too is re-arming on a truly impressive scale. It's no longer just a question of having lots of manpower, it now has the technology to fight an increasingly high-tech conflict in its own region, and the reach of that power is getting bigger too at great speed. Expect nothing until after the 2008 Olympics, it wouldn't want to spoil its image, but if the Chinese stock market suffers an upset on a grand scale then it might need to give some of the newly wealthy members of its 1.3billion population something to take their minds off their investment miseries. Taiwan is still the target, and around that time the China-US power differential is at its likely lowest. China may seek to push its luck against a new US President who may not be feeling as over-confident as his predecessor. China also needs to guarantee its oil supplies from Iran in the event of any conflict there… The EU is going to have to get its collective defence policy sharpened up pretty fast and then start re-arming on a big scale. Unfashionable talk perhaps, but that's the likely future.
Nationally, what has Britain got to look forward to? An unpopular Prime Minister who has gone abroad to stay out of trouble until he hands over to a man who is himself keeping nearly as low a profile – why not at the G8 talks, Gordon? . Blair is looking to his rather selective legacy - much of it is truly grim, and much inexplicably unfinished - and Gordon Brown will have to make what he can of the poisoned chalice. Many of the contents are his recipe anyway. No-one quite believes the optimistic economic spin - its only OK for rather fewer than might admit. Too many agree only on an aspirational basis, their debt levels are the raw reality. Soon Brown will have to face the public and they probably won't like what they see, patience could be very limited.
Expect a Bank of England independence style headline-grabber, probably in the constitutional line, for starters. However, that will probably be all. Regard him only as a stopgap until circumstances force a real realignment. Labour don't want an election because they're broke, and the longer the Tories expose Cameron to the daylight the less they - and the British public - seem to think of him. Brown was there in the shadows pulling the levers for ten years, so he can't emerge to say that the present - and future - problems weren't anything to do with him. As if all he needs for Christmas is a house price crash, but things really could pan out like that. Perhaps Boris Bereszovsky might have to be traded to Moscow in order to get the gas to cook Christmas dinner. The middle-class natives are restless in any case, with increasing disquiet at low or no tax for the rich, let alone the super-rich - and those resident non-domiciles. Now even a few voices in the City regard it as indefensible. Not for nothing did Government researchers recently predict the next revolution as coming not from the bottom but from the middle. If the housing milch-cow keels over, and with it the buy-to-let market, what will the middle-classes be doing for their pensions? He'll have to promise a new state pension solution for a great many pretty fast, or risk possible meltdown. People are at their worst when they feel they have nothing left to lose. With more job losses to come - a predicted 11,000 from the likely Barclays-ABN Amro merger - this merely reflects the continuing offshoring trends as a whole. OK, so the figures were from business - and merger - rivals RBS, but they'd be doing the same thing if they succeeded too. Things are shifting East, and we don't mean the Thames Gateway. The Greeks managed to finish their Olympian millstone on time - just - and will pay for it for many, many years to come, but the UK's Olympic project can't even get a decent logo sorted out for starters. So, can we really build the whole development on time for 2012 on a flood-plain (with rising sea-levels at its edge) and without a proper transport system in place for an event that few actually seem to want, let alone pay for?
Talking of the super-rich, the Windsors had better watch out if national sentiment for their luvverly lifestyle wavers in the light of a big downturn. Unlike most of the country, the royals don't have mortgages or credit card debts, and only stay rich because the loyal taxpayers give them such an easy time - and the money. As the Union looks increasingly fragile, their long-term career prospects are starting to look flaky. Even Prince William isn't the nation's favourite that he was. The Queen keeps taking the money but maintaining a low profile - why not just retire, no-one would object. However, the weakest link, Prince Charles, continues to live it up whilst playing the eco-hero. His after-tax official earnings dwarf even the pre-tax incomes of many international CEO's but his image of reticent renaissance man with modest country lifestyle won't last for much longer. 'Doing it all for charity', perhaps, but they're his own charities and are designed to benefit his own image as much as anything else. He's due to take the top job in just a few years time, so you might have to be prepared for the sight of the King of England - the rest of the nation's constituent parts may have deserted off by then and hooked up directly to Europe by then - watching the Olympic flame being lit on a Thameside building site with the runners dodging cement mixers and scaffolding. That's assuming the Russian's will let us have any gas........
Let them eat organic cake....
It would seem that you're unlikely to meet HRH Prince of Wales down at your local branch of McDonalds. Using his usefully privileged platform as heir to the British throne, Charles has let it be known that, in more absolutist circumstances, he would ban such 'junk food' in favour of his preferred organic alternatives. No-one is suggesting that a diet over-high in the products of the golden arches is any more beneficial than one reliant on quails eggs and foie gras, however well produced, but the whole thing rather reeks of organic smugness - and the ocassional burger when out with their late mum probably didn't do his two sons much harm - they probably learnt more about real life sitting on those plastic seats than cocooned at Highgrove nibbling Home Farm oatcakes.
What is most important about all this isn't so much his particular dietary preferences, but the fact that he sees himself as proto-guardian if the nation's health and spiritual well-being, and takes advantage of every opportunity to pull self-awarded rank in order to make sure everyone knows it. Last year HRH managed to blag his way to the podium at a meeting of the World Health Organisation in Geneva, and to the consternation of the professionally highly qualified medical audience, proceeded to tell them how to do their job. His constant resort to the 'angst-laden, unlistened -to, layman' persona is the favoured resort of someone who is due to inherit a top constitutional job irrespective of any discernible ability. Note, too, that many of these tirades are delivered in often more autocratic climes. From Malawi, with a human rights record that barely registers on any scale whatsoever, to the kingdoms of the Middle East, where disagreement with the ruling familes - no parliaments there, thanks - is very definitely to be avoided, HRH evidently feels more at home than back in the UK. His self-obsessed website reads like a one-man party political promotion, with the Prince lauded in terms that begin to approach the sinister-comic delusional world of the late leader of Turkmenistan.
Backing all of this up, though, is an almost complete lack of any real accountability to Parliament, a lenient tax regime, and no requirement to declare potential conflicts of interest on Charles Windsor's part. Deriving oodles of kudos from his right-on, 'one's giving the profits to charity' policy (though not without first deducting some very healthy overheads first) from his Duchy Originals business, it is easy to overlook the fact that his multi-million pound Duchy of Cornwall income deal means that, unlike his commercial competitors in the sector, he can easily afford to be so generous, and gain PR brownie points all the way. Don't forget that Duchy Originals is a slick 'royalties only' operation. There are no armies of industrious Duchy elves turning out all the goodies. No, the truth is that the regular, familiar, niche producers on your supermarket shelves pay Duchy Originals a handsome royalty in return for the use of the value-adding branding of a (public property, don't forget) coat of arms. You didn't get the former Lord Chancellor releasing his own brand of Parliamentary flock wallpaper. And Charles doesn't even put his name on the DO letterhead - he doesn't appear as a director, though close friend, secretary and financial adviser, Sir Michael Peat fills the gap - but Companies Act legislation could still deem him to be a 'shadow director' if necessary as he is undeniably the big cheese policy driver of the enterprise. If the pampered Prince wants to operate as an organic entrepreneur, let him do so, but without the benefit of unique tax treatment, a multi-million pound income (over £14million gross last financial year) from what is effectively a state asset, and subject, assuming he wishes to still one day soon be Head of State, full declaration of interests on a par with our Members of Parliament. Otherwise, Charles, chuck in the Crown, stand for election to the Commons, where you can air your views to your heart's content - or shut up...
Part of the Union........
So, Gordon drapes himself in the Union Jack in an attempt to drum up a bit of popularity south of the Border, but will it do him any good? Tony may cling on to power, but it's by no means certain that the long-awaited 'seamless transition' will actually happen. The heir apparent to Number Ten - far from charming the voters in general, and Labour party members in particular - may find the prize cup, Tantalus-like, pulled beyond his reach just as he tries to clutch it. In any case, the economy and the housing market may start to turn to maggots just as he gets the key to the door at No10. As for the shroud-waving terrors which he has proclaimed would be the outcome were the increasing demands for a resolution of the famous 'West Lothian question' met by that most logical of outcomes - an English Parliament - actually to come about, it seems that perhaps the rest of the population are less scared. On the contrary, they seem to relish the prospect. A BBC 'Newsnight' poll has now suggested that a majority of the English rather fancy the idea, and the Scots seem happy with their increased independence and might like quite a bit more. The likelihood is that English separatism will become the most acceptable form of populist focus for what is in effect a vast resource of bottled-up resentment, sublimated ethnic prejudice and other greivances that pervade those - and there are many - who feel their country becoming less equal and slipping from their grasp. The ultimate assertion of whatever power they might feel they have could be focused into a desire to conserve the notion of 'England' in all its rather nebulous forms. 'England' could become a metaphor for the fate of 'Great Britain', a brand whose time has surely gone, and many may seek to assert what they can while they can. Brooding resentment could result in a move to rid themselves of, firstly, Scotland, with its Barnett formula tax favours, followed by that perennial problem, Northern Ireland.
All the constituent parts can then re-negotiate to join the EU, adopt the euro, and would probably become the second phase of a 'Celtic Tiger' resurgence. This would force the England and Wales that remains to confront the reality from which they have hidden while masquerading as 'Great Britain' - their world role, Europe, currency, et al. And the best news of all?, dismantle the Union and the Windsors would have to reapply for their old jobs, this time with a multiplicity of 'new' employers - and would anyone actually want them, especially at the kind of prices they currently cost us?. Northern Ireland could be their best bet, if the price is right. No-one else would probably be bothered, and in any case, the Windsor family might find that it, or any other possible contracts, might not quite have the cachet that the old, overblown 'Imperial-style' United Kingdom had to offer.
Prince jumps on green bandwagon....
Afraid that his profligate lifestyle that struggles along on just £14million gross per year - though doubtless even more next year - was looking simply too extravagant, Charles pulled out the magic 'green' PR card to deflect any unwanted criticism. However, what was touted by the press as a wholesale shift to sceduled public transport - as if! - didn't actually pan out that way on closer examination. So far there has been a carbon-shovelling trip to the USA which required the large part of a 747's first-class capacity to accomodate da Prince's entourage. all that for a quick 'there and back' to collect an environmental award. Did the guy really need forty-odd hangers-on to go with him? Just a couple of seats would have done, but first class was block-booked and then left part-emoty to give Charles a bit of extra legroom - not so environmental after all. The Clarence House spin factory used the magic words 'where appropriate' when detailing exactly when HRH might decide to take the bus instead of a helicopter/limo combo as per usual. Naturally, the ever-handy 'security' cover-all means that mixing it with the hoi-polloi might not be the thing very often at all. So, swapping his fleet of Audi's for oil-burning Jags - bio-diesel, natch...- which are allegedly a bit more planet-friendly is about the best he's done. How many green angels can dance on the head of a pin? Never mind that any other nods in the green direction are so much easier when capital and income are no problem. Oh, and it's only the staff at CH who are expected to use the new fleet of two mountain bikes for in-town use. Don't do as one does, do as one says....
Duchies latest......
So, we get to the end of October 2006 for the Public Accounts Committee to ask again for the National Audit Office have a butcher's at the accounts of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. No real news since the Duchies' respective admin crews got a mild grilling from the PAC back in Nov 2005. It still irritates that the press - and others - still refer to the Duchies as the private property of their respective beneficiaries. They ain't, it's just the income from them that's theirs. Otherwise, on any half sensible inspection, they're as public as the Crown Estates, the Treasury, et al all are and ought to be properly and openly administered as such. Just let's get the whole thing sorted with a written constitution and give the monarch and heir - while they're still with a job - an official salary, plus some expenses and an (just the one, and not too big) official residence each, along the lines of the PM. The Duchies could just be absorbed into the Crown Estates which is all they really are part of any way. For more, patience - the book is coming soon!!!....
Taking one's eye off the ball....
Sorry for the distinct lack of recent site updates!.. This is entirely due to the need to press on with the forthcoming book on the monarchy. Dealing in particular with the financial aspects of this British anachronism, from the strange and privileged world of the Duchies which provide multi-million pound annual incomes for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to the use of these assets for politicised campaigning by the heir to the throne, the book is intended to follow up the valuable examination of the duchies by the PAC last year. Now it's time to actually get something done!
Meanwhile....
From a Prime Minister who doesn't know when to give up - what about fixed term Parliaments and two Prime-Ministerial terms only? - to political parties floundering in the financial mire, all we need now is a serious financial downturn. The credit-fuelled 'boom' can't go on for much longer - the US housing market is nosing over already - and even the Chinese economy is getting far too warm for its own good, will Gordon really want to stick around when Tony goes to clear up his own mess? Give Blair until Christmas, no longer...
More soon, promise...
Charles faces credibility gap in new poll...
One year on from the royal wedding you've already forgotten, a Populus poll for 'The Times' (April 5th 2006) shows that the public are underwhelmed by Charles Windsor's new wife - though the (94% to 61%) drop in approval ratings of Camilla to Diana a year on from their weddings does rather smack of a chalk/cheese comparison. Camilla isn't Diana by any stretch of the imagination - she is the spouse of a future monarch though, and could even play a big part in the event of his becoming unfit to continue in his post. Back to the polls...there's still that popularity gap between Charles and his son, William, too. While 37% (up 6%) think he should succeed the Queen when she goes - that is the current system, after all, like it or not - 39% put their money on William. So the monarchist vote remains well and truly split, so on the 'divide and rule' principle republicans should remain cautiously happy. So, there would seem to be doubts over the viability of the traditional succession system, and support for the view that the idea of an 'elected monarch' might be the fall-back position of the establishment next time around. Proof, if it were needed, that the genetic lottery isn't all it's cracked up to be. The idea of Camilla as 'Queen' remains a big turn-off for the public - only 21% in favour, 56% going for the watered-down 'Princess Consort' label. So, Charles and Camilla remain a hard product to sell, while the newer William brand seems a better bet. That supports the author's view (detailed before on this site) that William could be substituted for Charles by a Palace ( after a technical accession for tax reasons - don't forget all that money) keen to improve short-term popularity ratings and long-term existence. This option could prove more appealing to the political classes who may not relish the prospect of future run-ins with an increasingly 'Mr Grumpy of Highgrove' sticking his nose into political areas that he should stay out of. Expect to see more of Charles as the much-vaunted 'charitable entrepreneur', as his charitable works make for easy votes - the 'you can't criticise me, I'm doing all this for charity' approach. However, further scrutiny following the Public Accounts Committee's report towards the end of last year on the financial position of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster may make life a little less comfortable for him - expect suggestions from the Treasury and the National Audit Office in the near future that may seek to rein in the indulgent way that the taxpayer supports the Queen and heir in their ring-fenced sinecures.
Arab banks dump dollars....
News that Arab banks are beginning to change dollars for euros on a big scale is a sign that tension is mounting further across the Middle East. From UAE (inc. Dubai, upset at recent US port takeover hostility) to Syria, euros are being bought just days ahead of the opening of the new Iran Oil Bourse which will trade oil in euros. All this will hit the US economy harder than anything else, and any further US interventions will only make things worse. Watch out.....
Trouble on the horizon.....
While the newspapers are full of stories that grip their readerships, from the Blairs £4million mortgage debt to that noted man of letters, Wayne Rooney, and his £5million book advance, and if things weren't enough of a mess in Iraq, the next problem could have an even bigger impact. The only thing is, you'd be pushed to find it in the papers. If you're lucky, it may get a brief mention next week. For that's when, on Monday, March 20th, Iran launches its new oil bourse, but with a new twist. All that oil will be able to be dealt with in euros, not the dollar. OK, so it's only Iran, and they're in a spot of bother over possible nuclear proliferation, aren't they? Well, yes, but it could be that the spot of bother is due to their fairly lenghthily trailed proposal for this re-alignment in oil dealing rather than the rather more headline-grabbing nuclear business. Don't forget that the last person to try the oil/euro route back in 2000 was a certain Mr Saddam Hussein of Baghdad, and we all know what happened to him, don't we?
Oil dealing in euros on a big scale, which this move certainly won't be, to start with at least, worries the one nation that really benefits from dollar oil pricing, the USA. Vladimir Putin has already proposed euro oil pricing from his own country's point of view, and big oil consumers like Japan and China - the latter getting bigger by the day - would jump at the chance to diversify their currency reserves in which they have to hold mostly dollars in order to buy oil. And the USA certainly needs everyone to keep playing the game on their terms with their colossal, and growing, current account deficit. Pricing oil in euros would give the euro one hell of a lift, boost the EU's financial and power status, and literally destabilise the dollar, denting its status as the world's reserve currency. This is the one thing that Washington fears most, and with its debt held largely by China, which if it sold dollars to buy euros, well..., they'll go for any threat to their position, and that means Iran. Saddam wasn't a threat to oil supplies themselves, but oil in dollars, and dollar hegemony. Britain, with its rather lukewarm Euro-enthusiasm, and clutching the coat-tails of Uncle Sam, could be stuck in an uncomfortable position.
Could it get really bad? Of course, and this could make the 1929 Depression look like a slightly damp picnic by comparison. Would OPEC really go for euros not dollars? If another Middle Eastern nation were to get picked on by the not entirely popular USA, possibly using Israel as arm's length hit-man, then the Muslim world might collectively retaliate in the most dangerous way possible, by striking at the petrodollar, using as an excuse a rather emotive 'jihadist' attitude. This could be the 'big threat' touted by the Iranian President rather than a military attack of any kind. It would certainly hurt far more than any physical attack, and confront the West with some pretty difficult questions. As leading exponents of the art of big deficits and consumer debt, the USA and UK would be right at the front of the queue for big problems. But is Iran important enough? In a word, yes. As China's biggest oil supplier, and overlooking that oil 'chokepoint' supreme, the Straits of Hormuz, and supported by China (investment, big-time infrastructure), India (the new Chahbahar port infrastructure to rival Gwadar in nearby Pakistan - and big energy customer) and others, including Russia, there's a lot riding on a series of very delicate power balances in which Iran is pivotal. Oh, and Iran has some rather important gas pipeline links into the European network, and the UK is at the end of the pipe - with a whole lot of supply problems of our own, having gone down the laissez-faire energy route and no strategic reserves unlike our rather more far-sighted EU neighbours.
So blowing up a couple of nuclear facilities will really stir up the hornet's nest but may be seen as a way to stall for time and pre-empt an assault on the dollar. Another war to attack spurious 'terror' claims in which the latest victim is portrayed as public enemy no.1. when in reality they're simply trying to free themselves from the grip of a currency which has allegiance one nation, and an unpopular one at that. There's another thing too - the perception generated by the decision of the US Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 money supply figures - too embarassing if it starts to print money to inflate its way out of the debt swamp - and you know there really could be conspiracies out there. We're really entering choppy waters. Suppose it's time for a cup of tea, if there's any gas.......
Charles 'I'm a dissident' Windsor...
So, having rather unwisely decided to challenge the Daily Mail in the courts - over the publication of his private but widely distributed 'limited edition' green-ink ramblings - the heir to the UK's throne now, it seems, regards himself as a kind of 'dissident', jousting on the edge with the political class who, unlike him actually were elected. With his lamentations on the end of Empire and being forced to slum it in steerage on a 747, it all sounds like an out-take from the BBC's 'Grumpy Old Men' series, only even more personal. He seems to forget that Hong Kong went back to China for the simple reason that, all quite legally, the lease ran out, and that if he'd wanted an even comfier seat, he could have actually used a teeny bit of the £13.3 million that he earns in a year from his Duchy of Cornwall state sinecure to get an upgrade.As usual, its all back to the familiar 'why have they all got it in for one' reprise, just for the failure of the Government to jump to and implement every one of his suggested schemes. OK, some of his ideas are fine and in accord with popular thinking, but the truth is that he's just annoyed that not everyone in his little world does exactly as he says. Arrogance does, of course, rather go with the whole regal trip, but this time he's playing in the political arena, and that spells trouble for heirs to thrones in constitutional monarchies. He should have learnt all this by now, but obviously hasn't, and the time is coming when enough elected politicians are going to tire of such behaviour. That could mean, despite Tony Blair's indulgent comments regarding Charles' latest rants, that his eligibility for the job could be seriously questioned. He may not approve of China's policy over Tibet, few of us do, but as a generously paid-up royal, he was paid to meet and greet some of the 'appalling old waxworks' and should have got out of bed for the London gig in question. And as for his interminable whingeing as he lamented the end of his family's tax-payer-funded floating gin-palace, HMY 'Britannia', don't get me started. So will the Savile Row clad Prince swap it all for a Che Guevara T-shirt and a life on the road? If he wants to be a proper dissident (check out Aung San Suu Kyi, HRH, if you want to know what a real one looks like) he'll have to give up the succession, give up the Duchy income and get campaigning for real. Don't hold your breath....
Getting there, a bit.....
So 'New Conservative' David Cameron might just perhaps want to challenge the 'elective dictatorship' that is the UK Prime Ministership. It's taken the Tories quite some time for the penny to drop, but at least they seem to have seen a glimmer of the light at last. It's either that and a few other U-turns or off towards electoral oblivion. Whether it will really translate into something genuine is, of course, another matter. Is it another version of the 'One more heave' Theory tempered by the view from the Last Chance Saloon? It sits in an untidy pile of policies that are being clutched at like the proverbial last straw. It's all part of the knee-jerk political culture in which every event results in the clamour for another situation-specific Act. We've got more than enough legislation in the system already, but what about a real written constitution for once, or is that still too radical for the Brits, whatever their political complexion?
Even that supposed radical 'leader' in the shadows, Gordon Brown, suggested reforms but couldn't bring himself to suggest that a constitution might be what's really needed. Perhaps Gordon should propose it and Dave would immediately steal his electoral clothes and campaign for one not daring to originate the idea himself.
The future of Spain's monarchy in doubt............
Following a poll in Spain's 'El Mundo' newspaper, there are doubts as to the long-term future of the monarchy there. This writer has always long maintained that the current institution was little more than a convenient 'stop-gap' measure designed to tide Spain smoothly from the Franco dictatorship to democracy, and more of a 'life-presidency', the future of which would always be in doubt. That said, it has performed its task admirably, but now the poll shows that a quarter of Spain's population now consider themselves to be republicans, and that signifies that its future could be uncertain. The poll shows an increase of 50% in the last five years and is the consequence of a surge in republicanism amongst the 18-29 year old age group. As with the case in Britain, it is these younger generations of voters who will decide the future of the monarchy, and once the 'critical mass' of voters starts to consolidate steadily at the one-third mark, politicians will start to see the issue as having electoral, and hence political, significance. It should be remembered that, unlike Britain, Spain has had experience of republican governments more than once in its relatively recent history.and this, in consequence, means that the monarchy is less 'embedded' than is the case in the UK.
Perhaps a judicious abdication of Juan Carlos could be on the cards while the institution is still in the ascendant in order to keep the monarchy on the rails for at least one more generation. However, as with Britain, the young generation of royals are being inducted into mainstream 'celebrity' culture rather than existing in the more 'institutional' part of the social heirarchy. This leaves them vulnerable to popularity swings which are in themselves a form of electoral process. Modern democracy means they are increasingly isolated, the popular consent that keeps them in their place owing more now to a social culture 'barometer' than any innate belief of their right to a place in a constitution as a result of birth alone. Crown Prince Felipe may enjoy the popularity of William Windsor in the UK, but neither can take their long-term future as wanna-be Kings for granted. They will play a careful media game to polish their image, but the voters of the future appear not to have the respect for them that their predecessors have enjoyed, and dispute their right to rule in principle. Young apprentice monarchs should start looking for another job now.
Bob Houston...
It was with profound sadness that I learnt of the death of Bob Houston. An experienced and respected journalist, he was latterly editor of 'Royalty' magazine, and as a result of that we often found ourselves called to speak on countless programmes, I representing the republican cause,and Bob that of the monarchy. Sometimes we met in person, sometimes via the microphone, and he was at all times a good-humoured adversary, with whom one could guarantee a high standard of debate. We spoke some years ago at an Oxford Union debate, and afterwards, with his wife, spent an enjoyable evening - the discussion turning, I seem to remember, as time progressed, to the virtues of the Citroen hydropneumatic suspension system! - a common cause for enthusiasts of the French marque. It was always a pleasure to be asked to appear with him, and his contribution to the republic/monarchy debate will be sadly missed. My profound condolences to his wife, Judy, and their family.
A critical period for the cause.......
Republicans should think very carefully. The Windsors have had a bad few years, but there are signs that they are settling in for a long, rather more comfortable time. Charles has remarried, the public are gradually warming to his new wife, the Queen is retiring from public life - not officially of course - but is a developing a profile so low that she is barely noticeable. OK, so it's the quiet season, but just take a look at some of the recent Court socials. talk about money for nothing..... At her age that might be OK, but it's a job for life, and she doesn't show any signs of less work meaning less pay. Talking of money, even Charles' protestations of our collective need for the simpler life isn't exactly matched by his multi-million pound annual earnings, but the public don't seem to mind the hypocrisy. His interference in political areas is tolerated, and meanwhile his high-end trustafarian sons are settling in too.
And this is where it gets hard for the republican cause. With William in a stable relationship - married or not, it doesn't matter - and a kind of seamless monarchical handover from mother to son already under way, the deckchairs are already nearly rearranged. But the royal Titanic isn't sinking any more. The republican cause has made great strides in recent years, but it now faces a tough challenge. On the basis of my experience, I firmly believe that republicans have a 'window' of no more than five years in which to make their case, sell it to the British public, and get this country re-configured as a modern, European focused democracy shorn of its pantomime Ruritanian trappings. Any longer and the Windsors will have re-branded and settled in for decades under a new King William. All, perhaps in a less European friendly UK. Charles will just be a transitory monarch - never officially crowned - but just long enough to qualify for his 1993 tax deal bonanza, ( 'no inheritance tax, please, we're royal' ), and hand over to his son, doubtless muttering about destiny and the good of the nation, all dressed-up with a big helping of personal sacrifice and fake angst.
This may not sound encouraging, or positive enough for those addicted to motivational guru-ism. But its the truth. As one who has spent years campaigning to get Britain an elected President, I don't like it either, but the situation does need to be spelt out. The 'steady progress' approach could well see republicans relegated, and absorbed, as our unwritten constitution is so adept at doing, into to a kind of permanent and tokenistic role. 'And on the left, as the King processes, we see the republicans dressed in their Puritan garb, waving their fists in symbolic protest as the carriage passes...' Don't laugh, the English system has a long track record of coping with its objectors, hence the absence of a populist revolution. Republicans need to be very aware that this could effectively be their last opportunity for a very long time - they've got to hit the beach running and focus their efforts and resources on the short term. Having come so far it would be so dispiriting for so many for the campaign to lose momentum. Whether the recent efforts at the party conferences net real gains will take time to be realised in our notoriously conservative political landscape. It is by no means over yet, but time is of the essence. Sorry to be cynical, but I'm just back from a republic.. Vive La Revolution!.....
Charles in it again....
Complementary medicine is fine, but it is as well to listen to those in the medical profession with proper qualifications and years of experience. Or, if you are the heir to the throne, you can use your position - and money - to commission a report on a pet subject and try to influence the health policies of a democratically elected government. Not so good. In fact it has all the makings of a real constitutional argument. Apprentice monarchs with too much time on their hands should get real. If Charles really wants to get involved, resign from the succession, get stuck into a real debate with the experts, and maybe even stand for Parliament. But of course he won't, it would mean having his views challenged with the danger of loss of face, and ego, rather than speaking to the usual coterie of sycophants and then complaining if anyone else dares to disagree.
Backyard globalisation....
Some things you really can offshore, some things you can't. But BA's Gate Gourmet dispute demonstrates that companies anxious to pare wage costs (except for senior staff and directors, curiously) are prepared to try to bring in the cheapest labour possible, and put them up in dormitory accomodation, the rent docked from wages. (Doesn't this get us into Truck Acts territory from the 19th century? - perhaps more later). Beware the alternative though, too, where meals will be prepared at the cheaper end of flight destinations - packed in Mumbai, flown to London, served on the return route. However, the cheap factory operatives , and the proverbial 'Polish plumber' can only be London-based 'loss-leader' employees for a while. After a short adaptation period, they have to meet the capital's, and the country's, high-cost housing etc as they stick around. Only the very short term Eastern European student labour can stick out such hybrid conditions for short periods and still make a real profit. For the rest, we have to do some serious thinking about work, pay, the preservation of social standards, and transnationals and their satellite companies paying a fair price for the costs they impose on the rest of society...
Public Accounts Committee gets tough at last.....
Looks like Charles Windsor is to face a serious demand to review his cosy life of luxury and preferential tax status. He is rumou |
