To The Editor, East Anglian Daily Times

Dear Mr Hunt

There has been a lot of talk over the past year about “cleaning-up” politics. The government has promised more transparency with its Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.

The Bill contains an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act: at present, we may see correspondence between the royal family and politicians if there is a public interest in releasing the material. Under the new amendment, any communications from the monarch, the heir to the throne, and the second in line will be completely exempt. In short, the royal family’s interest will always take precedence over the British public’s.

We live in a constitutional monarchy, a system that requires the monarch to remain outside of politics. The Queen, and Charles as heir to the throne, the palace says, must maintain an appearance of impartiality. This bill however, ensures that royal lobbying will remain secret for many years. This does not promote or protect royal impartiality, in fact it ensures that they can go ahead and get as involved as they like.

What does the government want to hide if it is happy to reveal cabinet papers, but not correspondence with the royals? Voters have a right to know if decisions are being made in the public’s interest or in the prince’s interest.

yours sincerely

Pauline Godfrey

www.suffolkcoastalrepublic.org

These documents, the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act in 2006 by the Independent newspaper, contain previously secret correspondence about the use of public money for the maintenance of Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyrood House and other royal buildings.

The anticipated release of this information is very timely as the government and the Royal Household are known to be in negotiations behind closed doors about the next ten-year Civil List settlement. A deal must be struck by June this year. Any increase in Grant-in-Aid to the Royal Household is likely to be highly controversial at a time when tax increases and slashed public sector budgets are imminent.

Central to the new Civil List settlement is the upkeep of Buckingham Palace.  We are told that more taxpayers’ money is needed to make essential repairs to a crumbling building that is, apparently, becoming a danger to everyone in it.  The Palace is not, as many believe, the property of the queen but is owned by the nation as the official residence of the head of state.  As Prince Phillip remarked: “Buckingham Palace isn’t ours. It’s just a tied cottage.”

Facing increasing demands for Buckingham Palace to pay its way, the queen was finally persuaded to allow the doors to be opened up to the public in 1993.  Then, as now, eager tourists were allowed into a few carefully selected parts of the building for just a few weeks in the summer when the queen decamps to Balmoral.  However,  London’s newest tourist destination soon came in for widespread criticism for representing “very poor value for money“.  Back in 2000 the Consumers’ Association gave the Palace only one star out of five in its “Which? Guide to Tourist Attractions”, and it was singled out for particular criticism as a “right royal let down” and the editor’s least favourite attraction.

In contrast, properties such as Hampton Court, Kensington Palace and the Tower of London survive perfectly well without taxpayers’ bailouts because they operate successfully as tourist attractions that offer people a worthwhile visitor experience.  They are managed by Historic Royal Palaces, a charity that claims to be independent and which relies solely on the support of visitors, members, donors, volunteers and sponsors.

When the secret papers are finally made public they are likely to reveal a government critical of the Royal Household for not doing enough to maximise tourist revenue.   Buckingham Palace’s half-hearted flirtation with the commercial world reveals poor management, no real understanding of the tourism sector, and a general reluctance to have made the exercise work properly.  Instead,  the Royal Household stands accused of a cynical cash grab for the least possible outlay and effort.

It is right and proper that this iconic building is properly maintained as part of the nation’s architectural heritage.  But in the modern world we have to expect that greater efforts are made to capitalise on the obvious attractions of the Palace to visitors from across the world:

• there has to be year-round public access to far more of the property than at present;
• management has to get to grips with understanding the needs and expectations of tourists;
• there must be much greater efforts to promote Buckingham Palace much more aggressively as an attractive tourist destination.

Above all, Elizabeth Windsor must be made to understand that she cannot continue to stand in the way of much-needed reforms in the way the country makes use of its great buildings. In these difficult economic times we must all make sacrifices. The urgent need to preserve one of Britain’s most famous buildings must be placed before the desires of the sitting tenant.  Buckingham Palace is a great national asset.  Let’s make more use of it for the nation’s benefit.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

To the East Anglian Daily Times, 5th January 2010 (published 07/01/2010):

Dear Sir,

So Peter Mandelson wants us all to show our “pride and affection” for The Queen in 2012 with a public holiday. Well pardon me if I don’t join you all dancing in the streets. I find nothing to be proud of, or affectionate towards, in the House of Windsor. For me the monarchy represents deference, hereditary privilege and covert political influence.

The principle of an hereditary monarchy harks back to a time when everyone was expected to know their place and accepted their lot in life. But that is no longer a picture of civil life that most of us want to see in Britain.

Instead of allowing this celebrity family to have such a stranglehold on the nation’s mindset we should be looking to create a modern democracy fit for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.

I want to be able to elect a head of state that can represent Britain as a modern, forward-looking society in which a person’s skills and experience are valued more highly than blood lines and breeding. No nation that claims to value democracy should also value a national institution based on elitism and social exclusion.

If we all want another day off there are any number of occasions worthy of celebration or commemoration. The continuation of a medieval anachronism isn’t one of them. But a British nation in which in which we, the people, own, control and take responsibility for our political destiny : now that would really be something worth celebrating.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Steve Smedley

Blaxhall, Woodbridge

Read the original press cutting

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

When Andrew Rosindell staked his claim for the most sycophantic speech in the history of the House of Commons we all hoped that his outlandish call for the nation to be “appropriately enabled” to celebrate “this most important day” would fall on deaf ears.  Alas, not.  Lord Mandy has decreed. We are commanded to join together in 2012 to commemorate a sixty-year run of the same unelected head of state.

Thank goodness for our extra bank holiday so will all have the chance to recognise and give thanks for the Queen’s “remarkable achievements”. Would anyone care to list them?  Maybe I missed the Nobel Prize for Literature or the Oscar nomination for Best Picture.  Her tireless campaigning for human rights and the breakthrough discovery in medical science must have escaped my attention.

Elizabeth Windsor learned early on the best tactic for someone in a position of privilege but with very limited capabilities: keep your mouth shut, do nothing and present a blank canvas onto which people could project their own hopes, feelings and emotions.  And in this she has been spectacularly successful.  She must be congratulated in presenting the blankest of blank canvases.

In some respects you have to feel sorry for the woman.  She has lived her life against a backdrop of bowing and scraping lickspittles, flag-waving school children and the smell of fresh paint. Obliged to undertake a daily grind of small talk with the dull, the obsequious and the instantly forgettable, she has hardly led a meaningful life by anybody’s standards.  Her only remarkable achievement is that she has managed to not completely lose her mind (unless she already has – we will probably never be allowed to know).

I’m sure Mrs Windsor feels duty bound to maintain this Ruritanian pantomime for the good of the country and the tourists. But she shouldn’t. The country would limp along just fine without the hats, the waving and the smiling.  And, without the royal family to suck up to, our politicians might not be as easily distracted from the task of transforming Britain’s political system into a modern democracy fit for the 21st century – a democracy in which hereditary privilege plays no part.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

Prince Charles and Iraq: The News of the World trawled through its archives and rehashed an old story about Charles campaigning against Britain’s involvement in the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Arguably designed to increase pressure on Tony Blair before he appears before the Iraq Inquiry later this month, it actually served to raise the fundamentally important issue of political interference by the royal family.  In answer to calls for Charles to be called to give evidence to the Inquiry his’ office swiftly issued a statement making it plain that the Prince had no intention of doing so.  However that still leaves the existence of correspondence between the Prince and the PM which should be made publicly available.

DJ who criticised queen’s message is sacked: Birmingham DJ Tom Binns lost his job as a presenter for BRMB Radio after cutting off the queen’s Christmas message, with the comment: “Two words: Bor – ring.”  The actions of the radio station are being viewed as an attack on free speech and have sparked a Facebook group dedicated to reinstating the sacked broadcaster.  But as the results of this poll for The People indicate, he was only saying what we were all thinking. [Update, 19:12, 05/01/2010: Tom Binns is interviewed at spiked-online.com.]

New Zealanders balk at cost of royal visit: The debate over the future of the monarchy in New Zealand has been reignited after the cost of the forthcoming three-day visit by Prince William was made public.  The New Zealand Republican movement has seen a massive upsurge in support after it was revealed that the New Zealand taxpayer will be left with an £88,000 bill for the trip.  Recent figures suggest that nearly half the country now favours dumping the British royal family and creating a New Zealand republic.

Kents have to start paying their way: Prince Michael of Kent is to start paying £10,000 a month rent for his Kensington Palace apartment. The prince, a cousin of the queen, sparked outrage in parliament in 2002 when it was revealed he and his wife were paying only a peppercorn rent on their five bedroom apartment.

Duke of York’s “Christmas present”: Whatever you got for Christmas probably can’t compare to the gift received recently by Prince Andrew: a four-bedroomed villa in Abu Dhabi estimated to be worth at least £1 million.  The present from the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates is likely to raise further questions about the independence of the Duke of York in his role as Britain’s trade ambassador.  Prince Andrew is able to claim around £500,000 a year in expenses for his frequent international trips.

Some other stories we will be covering later this week:

• maximising the tourist revenue from Buckingham Palace;
• is the number of royal engagements as impressive as it seems?
• who’s paying for the queen’s private security?

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

Following the allegations published yesterday (News of the World, Sunday 3rd Jan) about Prince Charles’ behind-the-scenes campaigning to try to influence ministers in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, I strongly urge the Inquiry to investigate whether or not these allegations are true and, if they are, to take whatever actions are necessary to bring the Prince of Wales in front of the committee to give evidence.

The public has a right to know what influences were brought to bear upon the government from the heir to the throne and whether those influences were instrumental in helping to form policy.  The public also has a right to hear from Prince Charles why he thought it necessary to break the constitutional convention which demands the monarch and other members of the royal family retain political neutrality.

Steve Smedley

Prince Charles is already known to have lobbied government ministers on matters as diverse as architecture, the environment, complementary health and education.  If these latest claims are true, they raise the extent of Charles’ political meddling onto an entirely different level.

Denials have been issued by the Prince’s press office that Charles took part in any campaigning against the Blair government at the time of the Iraq invasion.  Yet because of the royal family’s favoured treatment under the Freedom of Information Act we may never get to know the full extent of Charles’ interference in this most contentious of political issues.

The story has resurfaced now because the ongoing Iraq Inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot, is due to receive evidence from Tony Blair in the next few weeks.  If the heir to the throne was actively involved in trying to influence government ministers and the Prime Minister over whether or not Britain should have joined the US in an invasion of Iraq, that must surely be something to which the Chilcot Inquiry must address itself.  But according to a “senior royal aide” Charles would refuse to cooperate with the Inquiry if called to give evidence.

The potential implications of Charles’ uncontrolled interference could have posed incalculable security concerns for the country.  Charles is thought to have briefed against the government and made inappropriate comments which risked jeopardising delicately balanced diplomatic relations with foreign states.

Charles continues to abuse his privileged position to give unrequested advice without being held accountable.  He strives to influence ministerial decisions in secret without having any personal responsibility for the consequences.  He insists on meddling in matters that directly affect the lives of all of us without having a democratic mandate from the people to do so.

Charles knows he can undertake all of these activities behind closed doors because, like other members of the royal family, he has extraordinary protection from public scrutiny under freedom of information legislation.  He also knows that whatever the result of his lobbying activities he is exempt from the ultimate sanction of loss of office and possible prosecution.

It is for these reasons that the role of Britain’s head of state and, by implication, those who aspire to the office should not extend to dabbling in political matters. Yet Charles seems unwilling or unable to understand the obligations of his unique position and instead chooses to flout this constitutional convention at every turn.  His actions serve only to underline his apparent contempt for the democratic process and the principle of  public accountability to which all others in public office must adhere.

If Charles wants a career in politics there is a very clear path he must choose: relinquish his hereditary position, submit himself to due democratic process and stand for election as a member of parliament.  Otherwise, he should keep his views to himself.

Take action: Here are some other reasons why removing the royal family’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act is so important:

• How Prince of Wales’ aides tried to influence Labour ecotowns policy
• New Charles lobbying shows need for FOI rules to stay
• As good a reason as any to change our constitution
• The Canadians can teach Britain something about Freedom of Information

So what can you do? Write to your MP today asking them to support Early Day Motion 83 and the removal of the royal family’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. You can also make sure that the issue has as high a public profile as possible by writing to your local newspaper.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

Supporters of a republican Britain share a profound belief in the importance of democracy at all levels of the political system.  Yet in one particular public office the democratic principle is conspicuous by its absence.

Monarchists would have you believe that among a population of more than sixty million individuals, only one is capable of doing the job of head of state to the exclusion of all others, not because of any particular skills or qualities, but merely on the basis of a chance combination of sperm and egg.

We do not appoint doctors, university professors or lawyers on an hereditary basis.  That is plainly silly.  In business, academia, and the professions, people rise to the top based on merit, not on birthright.  The important position of head of state should be no different.

You can express your belief in a better, more democratic Britain today by becoming a member of Republic, the campaign group for an elected head of state.  By doing so you will be joining like-minded people across the country from all walks of life who already support the growing movement for real constitutional change.

The New Year is a time for changes, for new commitments and for new directions.  So make 2010 the year you stand up for what you believe.  Make 2010 the year you were proud to become a republican.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

What has this got to do with the monarchy?

It will almost certainly not have escaped your attention that Prince William has recently been in the news for spending an evening “sleeping rough” on the streets of London to raise awareness for a London-based homeless charity.  In fact the online world is still ringing with plaudits for this generous, public-spirited act of self-imposed hardship.

Chances are, though, that you won’t remember the name of the charity he was supposed to be promoting.  Because the real reason for this cynical PR stunt was not to raise awareness of the plight of London’s homeless, but to raise awareness of just one very privileged young man.

His experience with road sweepers and cold pavements may have provided him with some amusing stories to tell his old school chums, but when the real benefits of his empty gesture are counted up they will amount to 10% of fuck all.

Meanwhile,  the plight of the Daylight Centre has slipped almost completely beneath the radar.  At the sharp end of Britain’s homelessness crisis, staff in Wellingborough will be serving up the last meals this evening for people who have absolutely nowhere else left to go.  For these people a night on the streets is not a jolly wheeze: it’s a way of life.

It costs £750 a day to keep the Daylight Centre open.  Yet in secret negotiations with the Treasury, William’s father was able to net himself an annual windfall of £700,000 a year by claiming the cost of William and Harry’s official “duties” against his personal tax allowance.  To have to point out the massive gulf between these two ends of the social spectrum is surely not necessary.

Anyone who is able to read this without felling a deep sense of disgust is as cynical as the spin doctors in the Buckingham Palace press office.  How much longer are we supposed to take all of the patronising crap about “charity work” from the Windsor family?

The next time you get the officially sanctioned bullshit about what a tremendous job the royals do, remember New Year’s Eve 2009.  Remember the homeless in Wellingborough, for whom life’s essentials of a hot meal and a warm bed have been denied for the want of the cost of a royal butler.

And then picture, if you can, a man who has had everything handed to him on a plate, who needs for nothing, and has never had to put his hand in his own pocket for any of it.  A man who thinks that a few hours of discomfort, under the watchful eye of his bodyguard, are enough to salve his privileged conscience.

William, when you celebrate New Year this evening, I hope you choke on your champagne.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

General election
Politically, the year will be dominated by an election campaign that some believe will see the issues of social class and inherited wealth rise to the top of the agenda.  Most commentators believe the general election will be held on 6th May which will coincide with local government elections.  This will require the dissolution of parliament to be no later than 12th April.

In Suffolk Coastal, for the first time in over 30 years there will be no incumbent seeking re-election following the decision of John Gummer to stand down.  Suffolk Coastal is such a safe seat for the Conservatives that you should expect to see Central Office trying to parachute in someone from the national party list in preference to a local candidate.

Freedom of Information
By the end of January Gordon Brown must have decided whether or not to accede to the ruling by the Information Commissioner to release of correspondence between the royal household and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport about the cost of the upkeep and maintenance of royal palaces. I don’t think that it’s overstating things too much to say that this one decision could set the tone for the whole issue of transparency in government for the duration of the election campaign.  So expect the government to release as few documents as it thinks it can get away with while still trying to appear open and accountable.

Expect to see calls from local authorities and others for restrictions on people’s right to access information under the FOI Act due to the rising costs of handling requests.

The Civil List
Negotiations for the next Civil List settlement must be completed by June, so if any deal is to be struck between the government and the royal household before parliament is dissolved it will have to be completed in the next four months.  Otherwise negotiations will have to be carried over into the next parliament which risks making the Windsors’ lavish taxpayer-funded lifestyle an election issue at a time when all political parties will be competing with each other over how best to make savage cuts in public spending.  So expect to see an uncharacteristically tough deal announced by April which will see public access to royal properties significantly widened to help generate more revenue for the buildings’ upkeep.

Political reform
The POWER2010 campaign will be drawing up its list of constitutional and electoral reforms to which all parties and candidates will be asked to pledge their support.  Abolition of the monarchy is unlikely to be on the list of proposals.  Suffolk Coastal Republic will be doing our bit in the run-up to the general election by inviting all of our local candidates to make personal statements about these issues.

Politicians will find ever more elaborate ways of avoiding making any sort of commitment to democratic changes in the British constitution.  The words most likely to be heard from your local candidate will be: “The current system has served us well for many generations, I see no reason to change it.”

Hung parliament?
If the result of the general election is inconclusive, the profile of the head of state will be raised because of her role in selecting who should form the next government.  That an unelected hereditary monarch should be allowed such overarching powers over the country’s democratic process will add further weight to the argument for an elected head of state.

The cult of celebrity
Like it or not, 2010 is likely to be the year of Prince William.  Expect to see him deployed as the royal family’s public relations doomsday weapon in an all-or-nothing bid to regain the Diana factor.  Following an initial excursion to New Zealand in January/February as part of his training programme in official waving and hand shaking, expect to seem him unleashed on the British public in a relentless summer of photo opportunities and an onslaught of public relations spin in all of the usual royal-friendly celebrity media outlets.

To create the impression of nationwide support for the monarchy William will undertake engagements the length and breadth of the country to the accompaniment of screaming teenage girls.  Then expect to see Buckingham Palace exploit the growing nationalistic fervour in the run up to the 2010 World Cup by announcing William’s engagement before dispatching the happy couple to South Africa to help promote England’s 2018 World Cup bid.

The imponderables
No doubt that this time next year we will be talking about none of these issues, but about something completely different that came out of left field.  Aside from the purely celebrity-driven gossip, what might the more substantive stories be?  Here are a few ideas*:

• a public outcry over the continuing excesses of the royal family while public services are slashed;
• the media decide that William is old enough to take his share of the personally-directed anti-monarchy flak;
• a scandal over Prince Andrew’s financial affairs: the UAE or Azerbaijan;
• the personal wealth of William and Harry becomes an issue in debates about inheritance tax;
• another revelation about Prince Charles’ political interference;
• health issues: the clock is ticking and neither Elizabeth of Phillip are getting any younger.

* This is pure speculation.  None of this has actually happened – yet.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.