A SAD CASE OF CONSTITUTIONAL IGNORANCE..............................3/10/09

Having done loads of radio/TV interviews on the subject of republicanism v. monarchy since the early '90s, I think I can talk with a fair degree of experience. On Thursday morning, 1st Oct, I was a guest on the Chris Goreham breakfast show on BBC Radio Norfolk, fielding questions on the monarchy, etc. I have to say, the general feel I got was that Norfolk is, attitude-wise, about a decade and a half behiond the curve with regard to the subject.

The worst thing is, callers were invariably justi8fying the monarchy on a purely emotive basis, in wholesale and total ignorance of the actual constitutional realities. The UK's sad track record in failing to educate citizens in this area means that it is actually very hard to have an educated debate, and Thursday morning was a classic case. Admittedly, I was on my own with the presenter, so was getting a high proportion of monarchists channeled through to preserve balance. This was due to the fact that - not unusually at all - the invited monarchists had failed to supply a guest. This was a problem years ago, and seems to be getting worse.

Put simply. I think we'll endure a few more years of a supposed majority of gung-ho monarchists assuming that the Queen will live forever and that change is both unthinkable and unnecessary. Then, suddenly, she'll go and they'll realise, probably after the Palace, the Accesssion Council, et al, that Charles is a total no-go head of state/loose cannon and he'll be gently persuaded that he won't be acceptable beyond a 6-12 month 'phoney-monarchy' period. During this time, large numbers of sane monarchists - yes, some are - will realise that the system will have to change big-time. Until then, they're all in denial and it will be hard to have a sensible debate. sad really....

JUST DON'T SAY 'CUTS'..............................................16/9/09

At least we are now be spared the ridiculous spectacle of the PM - or the Minister for Almost Everything, 'Lord' Mandelson - and assorted underlings trying not to use the word 'cuts' in relation to government expenditure. It was rather like some worn-out Radio 4 quiz with the ever-present threat of a buzzer or bell at each transgression. Some say that if we do cut much public sector expenditure we will simply enter an ever- decreasing downward spiral. That said, there's lots that could go. Aircraft carriers, Trident - but we'll still need some nuclear attack capability - etc, can go, but that and high taxes on bonuses won't save it all. 

No, the big debate on public sector pensions has to take place, and then they really have to be reformed. Now. The armed forces need amalgamating - merging together with a savage trimming of uniformed desk-polishers. The use of outside consultants by the public sector should be ended. They, after all, are 'consultants' themselves. That's what they're paid - and get big pensions - for. Ironically, we may have to throw a lot of the unproductive out of work now. 

The logical reform of the benefits system may be emerging through the Conservatives at last. Ian Duncan-Smith's proposals take us nearer to a blending of the tax and benefits system. What we really need is a negative income tax - pay everyone a basic rate - abolish the rest, and then recover it sympathetically and responsibly through the tax system when people are actually earning something worthwhile. Oh, and tax bank bonuses savagely. It won't yield that much but it'll make us all feel better................ 

 

THE DUCHY ORIGINALS SCANDAL.............................16/9/09

So, Waitrose have, in effect, taken over Duchy Originals, which, in strict terms, the Prince of Wales doesn't own, hasn't backed with his own plentiful cash. "Er...nothing to do with one, er.. really. One just wants to make a difference...Blah, blah, blah... And all the profits go to charity, you know..". The truth is, Charles Windsor has been the power behind the whole company in return for which he has milked every last drop of poll-ranking prestige, career PR and, oh yes, diverted its profits to charities which he runs and benefits from....etc, etc...

Duchy Originals uses the coat of arms of a public asset to push its products, to give them the high branding leverage conveyed by the British royal family. For the use of this valuable brand logo - a transaction which was never authorised by Parliament - it has never paid a penny to the Exchequer. Most MPs probably think, wrongly of course - as do most of the public - that the Duchy is 'his' anyway. So they can't see a problem.

So, a high-end commercial enterprise has been saved by a supermarket chain which will exploit the brand but without paying money for the use of the public asset - the Duchy logo. Nice... While civil servants are searching everywhere for cuts and new revenue sources that will save their own career skins, and help to balance the public books, here's something we could be asking a few million quid for in rental. Oh, and we could ask the real big cheese - Charles - to pay for some of the value the brand has yielded him too in recent years........

ARCHITECTURE AND THE PRINCE OF WALES: INTERFERENCE BY APPOINTMENT  ....17/8/09

Well, more proof that the heir to the throne is basically a biased, privileged, interfering fogey. A letter from 2005 demonstrates his propensity to act as self-appointed arbiter of architectural taste, using his very considerable influence in this case to stop developers Land Securities from appointing French architect Jea Nouvel to design their development near St Pauls Cathedral in the City of London.

Apparently 'HRH' "didn't want a modernist", so through using his considerable influence as son of the UK head of state he got his way. It has been known for ages that many high-profile develoopments are now in effect informally 'vetted' by Clarence House to ensure that they meet with his approval. This is nothing short of an outrage. The UK has missed out on works by architects such as Frank Gehry thanks to the interference and bloated ego of this unelected, over-state-subsidised individual. It's time that developers, architects etc confronted this man openly and put him in his place. Problem is, he's the next King, unless we wake up and make it clear that he has a simple choice; shut up or resign from the succession. Better still, resign and shut up..... 

THE GOVERNMENT COASTS ALONG.............................    7/8/09

It is the holiday season after all, but there is an all-pervading sense of drift. Parliament has had little to do, and the breaks have been getting longer, but more than ever there is no driving force, no ideals, no plan. Gordon Brown just coasts along to the next election, after which he will be lucky to escape from an electoral bloodbath. And the Conservatives may not do much better either. The Lib-Dems have an even chance of doing better than just surviving. Our politicians have become merely a managerial class, trapped by an over-powerful executive unless they are able to make a real stand. It's no surprise really, that the latest recruit - the new MP for Norwich North, is both young and a management consultant. 

Brown may possess valuable knowledge as a result of his position, but he could be the first ex-PM to find that nobody wants him when he has to step down. Blair got away with it, though there could still be a day of reckoning for him over the Iraq 'adventure'. He's made his money, but what's the outlook for Brown? Who is going to pay mega-bucks to hear the world's dreariest speaker, and what business is going to want him on the board, a symbol of mismanagement. He may have claimed to have saved the world, but he was a key figure in bringing it near to the brink of doom in the first place. It wasn't all 'global' and 'US self-prime' that caused the problem as he would like us to believe. 

Meanwhile, the banks continue to carry on much as before, relatively unchecked by their owners - us. True, they must build up reserves and lend cautiously, but they are not truly doing as they should - with a creative lending policy that will benefit small businesses. It's not so surprising, however, as the political class is largely detached from the mundane reality of making sums add up and turning out a finished product. The refusal to face the real debates that are needed - the pensions especially the public sector - crisis, a re-establishment of a solid manufacturing sector, and a sensible housing policy, and so on - means that little will change in a hurry, if at all. Yet it has to. Postal workers are striking for, among other things, a pension policy that was a fantasy years ago. The deficit's getting bigger - already £7bn or so down, is getting worse by the day. Where do they think the cash is going to come from?

The war in Afghanistan goes on, a misguided mess that will simply tie us up for many years to come, and for what? We all know the outcome; talks, a managed retreat, and leaving a country probably little changed form now. Plus a lot more dead. And now we learn that the MoD has suppressed the release of a report that, surprise, surprise, it's been wasting taxpayers' money by the million - or billion - on stuff that's not needed or doesn't work. Plenty have been saying that for years, with state-backed BAe swallowing cash merely to keep a few people off the streets. These days - and for ages in reality - the only hope is to buy from the USA, yet we pay many times the ticket price by deluding ourselves tha we have a 'defence industry'. Add to that a bloated MoD plus three separate services tripling the costs, and with a tottering pile of senior uniformed staff.

We need to argue this - and many other things - out properly, and Parliament ought to be at the centre of thiNGs. Instead, government has become more about suppression of issues and obfuscation. Our political class has becoming an end in itself - a career path that ensures that those in it DO very little, merely managing the process, with as little real intervention as possible. We need a wholesale re-examination of the entire bloated public sector. After all, it doesn't make any money, it merely consumes it. A shrinking tax base is expected to pay for a burgeoning protected elite. It can't go on, and don't forget, something not so far from this was happening in pre-1789 France..........      

 

QUEEN'S DUCHY INCOME SILENCE....................    21/7/09

It's the story that hardly anyone ever covers, yet in the year of the scandal of MP's expenses, this multi-million pound slab of public money barely raises a ripple. Up from £12.5million last year, the Palace line now is that it all goes towards 'official' costs not covered by the Civil List - and of course the 'Grants in aid', the 'security' budget et al, all amounting to well over £130 million. So what on earth do they need more money for? Most European monarchies are run for a lot less than a tenth of that, so why are we paying so much? Factor in the cash lost from both Duchies to the Treasury and you're looking at around £160million a year. And please, why can't this be released and debated properly, rather than slipped out when Parliament shuts. We're supposed to be a grown-up democracy......................

QUEEN'S DUCHY  OF LANCASTER BONANZA! ...........   20/7/09

£13,324,000 - Not bad for a year's 'work'. Why on earth does she get so much. We must be mad. 

PUBLIC SPENDING, PUBLIC FIGURES, PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS...AND REALITY..............9/7/09

You can talk in narrow terms, about the Queen, the Prince of Wales, or you can mention pbonus payments to senior police officers. You can talk about new aircraft carriers, a Trident replacement, or post office pensions, or burgeoning government quangos. The list could go on, and on, but we're talking really about one thing, and one thinhg only - public money.

Money raised through taxation is spent by government on our behalf, but all the above are examples of where past and present practice is increasingly out of sync with reality. Public sector debt is truly grim. It has reached epic proportions yet there seems to be little sense that the political class fully appreciate the scale of cuts necessary to bring things back into anything approaching balance. From an heir to the throne getting £16.5million a year out of a state asset, to senior police officers with semi-secret bonuses and incentives, and huge pensions they can access at 50, this all points to a loss of reality, a failure to grasp that public money is being handed out far and above what is responsible - or what is affordable.

Present Post Office workers face their own pensions failing to reach the pay-out levels they'd hoped. Their fund is facing a yawning gap, it's getting bigger by the day. Elsewhere, public sector workers insist that their pension deals - the envy of most in the private sector, whose final salary schemes are vanishing like mirages in the haze - are non-negotiable. The truth is that we all can't afford it. For all the talk of contributions, there are no ring-fenced public sector funds to pay out these fantastic deals. 'But we were promised..', they whinge. Sorry guys, there's no public money pit save for the taxpayer. 

In basic terms, if the economy were a sweetshop, public sector pensions are paid out of the till. Problem is, business has been bad and a lot of other money has been used to keep the storeowner and his family in an enhanced lifestyle. Gordon Brown has presided over a denial of reality, but he's not the only one. Thatcher gave away privatisation cash - through under valuation and fees - as well as North Sea oil revenues, in an equally irresponsible fashion. An economy reliant on 'services' increasingly took over, manufacturing was trashed for cash - or nothing - and so the stage was set for an unbalanced economy that was doing little more than taking in each other's washing. 

This nettle has to be grasped very soon. In fact it's already very late. However, the government seem shy of telling the banks - that they now effectively own - to shut up and do as they're told. To tell the armed forces - three sets of over-cosseted service chiefs and their heirarchies - that we need a brutally restructured military that is designed and equipped to do a job, not merely exist as an ornate social club with amazing privileges. We've got to tell the public sector that they're not going to be able to have their pensions - from today - on the scale they'd hoped. It's no goodthem saying 'but you promised...'. Those in the private sector have had to accept that they are not getting  what they hoped they would. The few private schemes that are still paying out in the traditional fashion cannot afford it. 

All around, this is about restructuring on a grand scale, to adapt public spending to what is available. Cuts, cuts - and more cuts. Areas that were thought as safe and unchallengeable have to be not only questioned - but cut. This isn't about the Palace asking for more money, it's about the Palace having to operate on a lot less. It's about police and fire service workers waiting until they're 70 for their pensions - front-liners will have to accept back-office roles for their last two decades of service. And no-one is going to get as much as they thought. If anyone imagines that they can spend their first two working decades paying off student loans and stocking up on housing debt, spend like mad to be good consumers, meanwhile handing out cash to their kids - and supporting them through their own first two working decades, and still pay in to a pension fund that they think will be sufficient to pay for retirement at 55 0r 60 so they can look forward to decades of swanning around in luxury - and late-life care - it really ain't possible. With most careers subject to gaps, uncertainties, earnings peaks and troughs, all the while expected to finance a total period out of work that is longer than the total period in, it doesn't add up. Welcome to the real world.....  

QUEEN'S DUCHY OF LANCASTER GRAVY TRAIN DUE SOON..................................................................6/07/09

Yes, it's that time of the year. The Prince of Wales has just recently announced his multi-million pound official annual income details, which means his mother's similar state cash bonanza payment from the Duchy of Lancaster is due soom. By tradition, this is announced very quietly, barely noticed by the media, and this is now usually helped by a convenient juxtaposition with some other big news event which will guarantee to put it in the shade. This year, an announcement the day following Michael Jackson's funeral might be a good opportunity. This way the demise of an over-hyped, delusional and extravagant figure can help to conceal the excesses of another.

Make no mistake, despite the protestations of parsimony - and this year's excess of ever so 'ard done by whingeing - the Queen's going to scoop a lot of money from the state. Expect around £13-13.5million, and then read the Palace small print that claims this all goes on 'official' duties. Trouble with the Palace, there is no detail, no breakdown, and the perennial problem that there is such convenient confusion of the notions of what is 'personal' and 'public'. Given that the official 'cost' of running the Windsor show this year was £41.5million, what the hell do they need any more for? It's still a convenient way for the Queen to use publicly sourced cash to support her various kids, while the 'Duke of Edinburgh' still gets a pay package straight from the Treasury. His money, by the way, is now claimed to all go on official duties (that was never the original intention) yet we never see a detailed breakdown of what he gets - nor past figures either - and where it all went.

A proper official salary for a head of state? In the USA it's around $400,000, in Germany it's about €199,000. Euro-monarchs tend to max-out at about the equivalent of £1.5million - pretty damn good - but £13million-plus? It's crazy............................... 

 

PRINCE OF WALES: THE ROYAL GRAVY TRAIN STILL RUNS ON TIME...................... 23/06/09

Speaking of timing, something at which the Clarence House crew are adept, funny how the Prince's accounts were released the day following one of the biggest media stories of the year - the election of the new Commons Speaker. Not surprisingly, given the poor performance of commercial property returns, Chazza's Duchy of Cornwall income only just scraped above last year's figure of £16.3million. How we will weep.... This year, our poor Heir has to struggle by on a measly £16.5million. The figure will of course be pruned by myriad 'expenses', etc. - all conveniently offsetting costs that the rest of us would be hard-put to claim - to make it appear that the bloke is little short of a total pauper. Does he really need around 150 staff?

While you got enraged at duck islands costing three grand or so, and other expenses that edged into five figures, HRH glides effortlessly past the lot of them with his multi-million pound state-backed lottery win, year after year, having won - as genetic successor to the Queen - first prize every time.

In the cheapskate stakes, the Duchy also comes in high up the list. With 'Bona Vacantia', that's the money recovered from those dying intestate within the Duchy, it collected £34,000. This year, instead of donating this to one of it's tame charities, it has held on to the cash, having deducted £30,000 - yes, you read it correctly - in respect of "ex-gratia and other associated costs" first. Some charities and other bodies have high overheads, but that really does seem to take the Duchy Original biscuit........

So, as I've said in my book, it seems amazing that we hand over public money on this scale to someone just for being the heir to the throne. And it is ours. Whichever way you look at it, the Duchy is ultimately a state asset. MPs have been - and will continue to be - given a really hard time over the juicy deal they've enjoyed at public expense. Not long now before the Windsors are given a similarly thorough going-over. It's time they met the real world. 

The Prince of Wales's official expenses are up too - to a total of £3,033,000 - by 23.5%.  Take off around half a million for running Clarence House and the rest is travel by air and rail. Plenty of European monarchies are run in their entirety for less than that! This is only the tip of a financial iceberg that now exceeds £160million a year. Rip-off Britain Rules as usual! 
     

 

RICHARD ROGERS HITS OUT AT PRINCE OF WALES... 18/06/09

Well done to Rogers for speaking out over Prince Charles's outrageous circumvention of the planning system. Nothing new, of course, in that the pampered Prince likes to speak out as if he were nothing to do with the monarchy, yet insists on being taxed in the same way as a politically neutral head of state.

Not long until this year's Duchy earnings are released. No doubt down a bit as yields will have taken a bit of a tumble, but expect pretty much the same as last year's £16.3million. All dressed up in charitable hokum, the accounts will seek to portray him as combination of saint, deity and business wizard. Just remember it's all public money from a state asset.......

MP'S EXPENSES: THE EXHUMATION GOES ON....................18/06/09

Let's face it, if we'd paid these people a decent amount within a properly administered system, we wouldn't be in this mess... But that's the British system all over. What is interesting is that we're creeping towards a written constitution in a very British way; slowly, piecemeal, and very reluctantly. If ony we'd had a proper popular revolution centuries ago............. 

CONSTITUTIONAL SCRAPPAGE: THE WHEELS COME OFF THE WESTMINSTER JALOPY............................ 3/6/09

Get real. This Isn't really about expenses, that was just a catalyst for the upheaval that we're struggling through. The British Constitution has been broke for generations - an ideal candidate for 'scrappage'. Recent events just demonstrate that the old model the Brits romantically cling to ought to be crushed. An over-powerful executive leads to an isolated power-mad recluse in the No10 bunker with the means to choose when to call an election. Brown always proposes consitutional reform reform when he's backed into a corner, then let's it slide when the heats off. Meanwhile, the deckchairs are being re-arranged as the ship of state lists heavily.

We've got a useless electoral system, an unelected second chamber - who the hell voted for Mandelson? - and a Prime Minister who wasn't voted in either. Crass anti-European etc fringe parties seem likely to collect votes in the elections tomorrow as the Brits retreat into a kind of trash-nostalgic belief that they can shut out reality in a form of post-imperial isolation.

This time, people will have to become interested in constitutional reform - it's vital, and they have to get excited about it. And do it fast. We're now likely to crash into a general election in a kind of shambolic slow-motion fashion within the month if Labour falls apart totally after the 4th. After a general election though, we'll face the likelihood of a hung Parliament, and our unelected hereditary monarch will have to 'choose' a PM. No doubt the Queen will try to claim a moral high ground but that too is an illusion. The Windsor family too is long overdue for serious reform, or more. The aftermath of a hung Parliament could trigger momentum for reform of the monarchy too as it becomes evident that they too have been doing very well indeed, and that a reformed constitutional outcome will trim them too.

The Queen could find herself in a tricky position after the next general election as it could well expose the long-evident faults in our antique system. And if you think she's inappropriate to be choosing a PM, wait til Charles gets in........... At least it could generate a momentum for across-the-board reform of the constitution. I remember the hopes back in the late 80s/early90s when campaigning with Charter88 and later with Republic. This system is really falling about our ears, and the failings of individual politicians are a symptom of that failed system, not themselves per se.     

 

NEXT IN LINE FOR CRITICISM - THE MONARCHY?             29/05/09

Much has already been written about the current crisis affecting Parliament, and yet we are probably at a relatively early stage. However, it may not be appreciated quite how far criticism of our other public institutions may suffer in the fall-out from this constitutional earthquake. All those who have been seen to benefit at public expense will fall under suspicion. The effect on our system of government will be commensurately seismic. It is perhaps easy to overlook the seductive atmosphere of Westminster. Anyone who has experienced the world behind those doors, however briefly, cannot fail to have felt some of the aura of exclusivity, the old-style 'club' feel. Who, if they were not brutally honest, could not say they might not have resisted the seductive tones of the courtiers - from the doormen with their flattering welcomes to the fees office, urging members to 'take the money', 'it's yours, Madam', 'it's in the rules, sir...' - urging them to take advantage of their new-found status.  

So it has gone on, for year after year, decade after decade. Well, perhaps not as long ago as we are often persuaded to think. The present 'rules' are but two decades old. So much of our constitution, 'unwritten' in part, persuades us of its time-steeped nature. Closer examination reveals that much is actually recent - the grandiose State Openings of Parliament for example. The Palace of Westminster itself was rebuilt in the first half of the nineteenth century, but in a deliberately pastiche, 'ancient' style by Charles Barry, replete with pseudo-mediaeval interior decor.  All the while, constitutional talk is prefaced by allusions to 'a thousand years of history', with notions of a relatively static process, whilst the reality is of considerable, if not tumultuous change.

Parliamentarians are now blamed for their high living at public expense, and felt to be out of touch with an increasingly angry electorate. It is wrong that the state has paid for their bath plugs, 'duck islands' and adult videos. Many have profited outrageously from mortgage expenses on 'second' homes, pocketing capital gains paid for by struggling taxpayers. All this follows the spectacle of rich bankers being publicly pilloried for excessive risk-taking and outrageous profiteering. Now the nation is a major bank shareholder, having saved these temples of buccaneering private enterprise from their self-inflicted glimpse of oblivion. The public have had enough, and the anger that was first vented on the financial community is now turned on our political class. Much strong feeling is also targeted at the public sector with its privileged pension structure, providing returns that are unsustainable to the public purse and increasingly far in excess of most of those in the private sector. As ever, taxpayers are funding an elite caste yet getting a poorer deal themselves. Has our system not handsomely rewarded one other, even smaller, even more privileged group? Indeed it has, the one family that provide our heads of state, our hereditary monarchy. 

The Windsors have enjoyed high living for generations at public expense. Their personal wealth derives too from the taxpayers of yesteryear. Sandringham and Balmoral were bought with money deviously 'saved' from the Civil List expense account. The division between 'public' and 'private' means that their personal lives are subsidised by the taxpayer - both directly and indirectly. The Queen and the Prince of Wales derive multi-million pound annual incomes from the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall estates respectively. Yet these are ultimately public properties.

To say that the next year will be difficult for Parliament will be an understatement of epic proportions. It could also be a trying period for the royal family. Next year Parliament is scheduled to debate plans to review royal finances. This is a regular process each decade, but some reviews are more searching than others. This time, the monarchy and its supporting family cast of privileged travelling players, will be viewed through heavily jaundice-tinted glasses. Members of Parliament - those who have survived the expenses trauma and a general election that could leave a very different political landscape from the one we are presently used to - will be smarting from financial constraints imposed in the aftermath of present events.

What of the Windsors? The most expensive monarchy in Europe by a very long way.  Add up the cost of all their European counterparts and you still wouldn't reach the levels of state largesse - that's the taxpayer coughing up tons of cash, year after year, generation after generation - that keeps the Windsor family in the manner to which they have become accustomed. And on a level which puts MP's enrichment truly in the shade. However, not, I believe, for much longer..........

 MPs EXPENSES                                                                    22/05/09

Well, what can one say? It's all very easy to get cought up in the whole witch-hunt atmosphere, but lets not forget a few things -

- Anyone who has ever made an expenses claim that was perhaps a little iffy should think before they speak. As case of 'casting the first stone...'

- The appalling, grovelling atmosphere at Westminster, reeking of our 'cultural cringe', with toddying courtiers pressing MPs to claim for everything in sight : 'It's yours', ...'It's in the rules..', 'Go on, you're entitled to..'. The whole culture is just a facet of the supposedly wonderful '1000 years of history' - in reality it's an outdated edifice that has needed to be changed for generations. Yet when anyone has suggested serious reform it's 'Oh, you can't touch it, it's so wonderful, 'If it an't broke...etc'.

- outside scrutiny takes us, at last, nearer to an written constitution

- The real elephant in the room - that's the monarchy!!!

THE SPEAKER GOES  

And so he should, but we need to think this all through - end the cash-culture bonanza of state pensions for old time servers who may have been kicked out on their ears.

THE BUDGET - THE REAL CHANGES YOU WON'T SEE.....                                                                 21/04/09

So, what will Gordon tell Alastair to say? Expected growth rate in positive figures, bit of green tax/car scrappage, blah, blah,.. Wake up. this is what we really need:

- abolish benefits and replace witha negative income tax - pay everyone a flat social wage, and when they exceed it, claw back through the tax system.

- start tackling excessive pay/pensions by a special income surcharge - it won't raise much but it'll make everyone feel better - except those on £150k-ish and above

- start slashing public sector jobs. initially, just sack every tenth person on the list, whoever they are. Then the following year, do the same thing all over again....

- start slashing public sector pensions NOW. The country can't afford it at the moment, let alone in the future. If ex-public sector employees exceed a reasonable pension level compared with the private sector, then make them ineligible for the state pension. After all, they'll already be getting a bigger 'state' pension anyway...  

- sort out the defence sector. Make BAe fend for itself. If it makes expensive rubbish, which it generally does, let it go bust. We pay over the odds for almost everything, it has to stop. (Should have bought US F-15s years ago/Apaches direct from the US. Aircraft carriers? - what, just to satisfy Gordon's Scottish constituents - and we can't afford any aircraft to go on them anyway

- impose an extra surcharge on Tony Blair's earnings until he's paid off the cost of the Iraq war to the UK taxpayer, or when hell freezes over, whichever comes first.

 
AT LAST - ROYAL SECURITY COSTS REVEALED.......................                                                               20/04/09

The Palace, and politicians, are traditionally secretive about the royal family's security costs. Ridiculously so. There has been an unwillingness even to quote an overall figure, the claim being that to do so would somehow prejudice the safety of this privileged group. Instead, for years, it has been necessary to resort to a system of 'guesstimation' in order to assess just how much Windsor Plc. costs the long-suffering taxpayer to guard them each year on their many and varied travels - as well as 'at home' in their many and varied residences.

Back in the early 1990s, it was reckoned that a figure of some £35million a year was about right, but with changes in the Royal Household, due to divorce, age, and so on, this figure was always regarded as very much on the low side. Then came '9/11', and with it a considerable ramping-up of security needs, perceived or real. Since then, 'security' has joined 'health and safety' as a reflex phrase in the official lexicon, accompanied by a consistent refusal to reveal how much royal security actually costs the taxpayer.

Now, significantly, things may be changing. Buried within yesterday's 'Mail on Sunday's article on one of Prince Harry's many late-night outings to often less-than-salubrious party venues - with their attendant security implications - a quote from a certain Dai Davies finally let slip a figure when he asked this brief rhetorical question: "What is the point of the taxpayer spending £50million on the protection of the royals?". 

At last, a figure! And who exactly is this Mr Davies? Well, no less than the Palace head of security until 1998, so he ought to know. Admittedly, Dai Davies may have been somewhat distanced from direct involvement for a decade, but his figure can at least give us a well-informed indication of the picture in years past. With a younger royal generation starting to travel around individually, and the ever-increasing costs of new security technology and manpower, the cost is no doubt rising at a considerable rate. When in July 2006 it was estimated that it was going to cost around £2million just to provide security measures at the Duchess of Cornwall's weekend retreat at Lacock, one need not be a financial expert - or Alastair Darling - to be able to extrapolate such official spending to arrive at a very high total for the family as a whole. When it might cost £250,000 a year just to 'shadow' Princess Beatrix between Harvey Nicols', Bouji's and other shopping and party venues, it is easy to see how an estimate of a total £80-100million is far from out of the question.

And has Mr Davies forgotten some of the 'extras', those items with which we are all familiar but tend to overlook when estimating everything from a restaurant bill to the cost of servicing the car? As we know, it's all those 'sundries' not just the 'big-ticket' items, which tend to do the damage. Council taxpayers - especially in heavily royal-populated counties like Gloucester and Norfolk - have to bear a disproportionate share of the policing burden. The MoD had to shoulder the £50,000 cost of Prince William's Chinook army helicopter trip to attend a stag party. The Prince of Wales may agonise about saving the planet, but he seems happy to enjoy the comfort of a Bentley provided for his exclusive use by the Metropolitan Police. Don't look at its showroom price tag of around £250,000, remember that to kit it out with a host of high-tech security 'extras' can easily double that figure. What about the Duke of York's safety on the golf-courses of the world? Whilst it is of course reasonable to pay to guard our head of state - the Queen - should we be paying for minor family members at all? 

In my book, 'Living Off The State: a critical guide to royal finance', I preferred the estimate of a total of around £80million as being the present annual cost of providing security to the royal family. It is, of course - and can only be just that - an estimate; this country's habitually secretive official culture needs to change. Whilst for operational reasons a reluctance to reveal a meticulous breakdown of costs might have security justification, there is no reason why a total figure should do so. If officialdom does not like the 'guesstimated' figures, the answer is simple. Tell us the truth. After all, it is we who, in these difficult economic times, must pay.   
 

PRINCE OF WALES OUGHT TO STEP DOWN.........           12/03/09

Well, would you believe it? Of course. Despite the persistent protestation that the monarchy is 'above politics', we find that the next in line, the 'Prince of Wales', is once again interfering where he shouldn't. He always likes to say that as he's only 'waiting' then rules on political neutrality shouldn't apply, but he still likes to rely on the famous '1913 legal opinion' (see my book) that enables him to get preferential treatmentand be taxed 'as if he were the monarch'. 

The 'hands-on' Prince, who is said to be involved in the minutiae of his many and varied interests can't claim with much credibility that he didn't know of the £10K gift to 'Women 2 Win', the Tory campaign group, from the Princes Trust. How political do you have to get? This ought to be grounds for resignation alone - it is absolutely outrageous. Supporting a political pressure group with £10K is about as political as it gets.

And now Prof Edvard Ernst, whose career was threatened in the past by the Prince's office for daring to criticise Charles's espousal of very hard to prove 'alternative therapies' which he has used his position to promote, has accused Duchy Originals - of which Charles is essentially a 'shadow director' - of flogging pricey herbal remedies (but don't worry, I hear you say, the profits go to charity) on the basis of exceedingly tenuous claims indeed.

The Prince's use of his position - and the millions he gets from the public purse via the Duchy of Cornwall - to promote himself, his charities - great for his PR image - and his commercial Duchy Originals operation (never mind that a residue of the profits go to 'charridy') is a scandal. £16.5million from the Duchy last year alone, a 'branding' image that rides on the back of a constitutional institution, the promotion of what is little more than quackery...... He should step down now, and repay to the taxpayer some of the millions - and there's a lot of them - that hes's done so well from for so long..........

GORDON STILL IN DENIAL.......                                         4/03/09

It's still nothing to do with Gordon. It's all the fault of 'globalisation' and 'trans-Atlantic sub-prime', etc...  He can't accept the fact that his 'light-touch' regime and the obsession with 'financial services' left the UK particularly exposed when the inevitable crash came. This seems like more than political opportunism, it's a pathological denial of reality. Nothing new there, then.....

HOW TO GET THE CASH OFF FRED GOODWIN.......                        4/03/09

So much has been written about the outrageous way in which Goodwin was able to get away with such a ludicrously large pension, totalling over £700K a year, but something ought to be said about getting it back. Legally, he seems on firm ground, excluding the possibility of action for negligence. Morally, he's on thin ice. There's a really simple way for the Government to exact revenge on behalf of the taxpayer and help offset in some small way the gross damage he helped cause. For 'Sir' Fred and those like him, we could simply introduce personalised income tax rates targeted at individuals - say, a 99.9% rate on any pension income over £50,000 a year. Problem solved.........

'DISPATCHES' PROGRAMME SLAMS PRINCES ANDREW, WILLIAM AND HARRY....25/2/09

Attitudes are starting to harden regarding Princes William and Harry, with the exceedngly obvious fact that they cost a lot of public money - that secret 'security' budget - yet most goes on trips to and from Boujis, and looking after them at vast expense when 'raising money' for charridy yet costing vastly more in the process. As for Andrew, the 'Duke of York', well, the conflicts of interest inherent in his position are all too evident -see my book! - as the UK's 'Special Trade Representative' and Golfing Ambassador.

as economic conditions worsen, the Windsors will have their work cut out to justify their position as Europe's highest subsidised royal family by a mile, and the Prince of Wales's sone in particular, lambasted by Channel 4's programme for doing next to nothing in duties, are beginning to lose the glossy image with which they were hitherto regarded by the public. Much more of this and the whole family will have to be seen to make some very serious financial sacrifices - and not before time.......

ANOTHER QUEEN MOTHER MEMORIAL......                       25/2/09

As if London needed another imperial-style statue... Was the 'Queen Mother' really the nation's favourite grandmother, or were people persuaded to fall in line with the accepted cliche? History was conveniently tailored to boost the image of someone who only once went to the East End to meet Blitz victims - and her photos were airbrushed to take the pounds off. (That's weight, not money). Looks like the statue has a suspiciously svelte waistline too....

When Buck House was hit by a stray bomb that overshot the usual Victoria Station Luftwaffe target, she felt that she could at last 'look East Enders in the face'. Not quite the same though, as the royal family commuted to the West End from Windsor every day. A set of ludicrous gates were erected near Hyde Park Corner as one 'memorial', with public donations failing to meet the bloated price tag for a structure nobody really wanted. Wasn't that enough? Surely in 2009 we don't need to wallow in such nonsense, spending around £2million of public money on someone who lived off the state for decades, living a life of ridiculous excess. A rent-free palace for life, £649,000 a year, tax free from the UK taxpayer, and still she managed to run up a seven figure overdraft at Coutts. She embodied a world which the nation needs to escape from, although the profound lack of interest suggests that they may, thank goodness, have started to do so. Perhaps it is certain key public figures with too much influence - and no doubt members of the Windsor family as well - who need to move on. If you want a statue for your Gran, Charles, pay for it yourself and stick it in your own garden. Another pseudo-Elizabethan bronze simply reinforces an image of the nation as a theme-park dumping-ground for reminders of an over-privileged hereditary monarchy still dwelling in an imperial past. Difficult economic times may profoundly change this mind-set, and with it a hardening in attitudes. Today, bankers are the new social pariahs, tomorrow, it could well be the Windsors.....

 

JON NORTON REMEMBERED.............                               23/2/09

It was a profound shock to hear of the death of Jon Norton at the age of just 53. We were amongst the founder members of the Common Sense Club in the early 1990s, formed to discuss republicanism with journalists, politicians, and other figures. Jon had already had great experience in fundraising for the Labour party, and his enthusiasm and great sense of humour was a key part of those memorable meetings at the Etoile in Charlotte Street, with their often seriously 'conspiratorial' air. The fact that such meetings were as secretive as they were underlines how far we have come since them, though there are times when it feels we are starting to go backwards at times. However, the end iof his financial career was undoubtedly a profound shock, given his seniority, and his profound change of direction to become an artist marked a sense perhaps of his determined isolation from the commercial world. Meanwhile, his wife, Mo Mowlam, was busy negotiating the tricky territory of Norther Ireland as Home Secretary. This change in his life could never have been easy, but he was a supportive and devoted husband, all the more so as the extent of Mo's ill-health gradually became apparent. Retreating in the final years to the isolation of a Kent coastal farmhouse, it is clear he must never have recovered from the shock of losing Mo all too soon. He, too, will be sadly missed.

 

GORDON BROWN - A POSSIBLE 'DIAGNOSIS'........        9/02/09

Gordon Brown is, as the months go by, a seemingly changed man. From a decidedly shaky start as Prime Minister, he appears to thrive as economic adversity deepens. There is, as so many commentators have noted, a definite spring in his step. He smiles - not a hitherto frequent sight - and has restyled his hair. It is as if, as the economic graph heads down, his sense of self-esteem travels in an equal and opposite direction. A 'Newtonian' explanation, or could there be a more complex, and ultimately rather sinister one? The health of leading public political figures has always been a sensitive area. In both physical and mental terms, the fitness of our leaders to lead is one which is difficult to broach and hard for the 'system' to admit. Differing political cultures cope in different ways. The USA, with a traditionally more open political culture, requires an official medical for its head of state, for example, while the UK, innately secretive, does not insist on such a transparent process for, say, the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Harold Wilson is said to have stepped down as his own awareness of the decline in his mental faculties became evident. Sir Winston Churchill's serious medical problems that occurred during the Second World War were kept from the public, and his subsequent brief period as PM in the early 1950s was little more than a charade, his fitness for office compromised by a stroke. More recently, Tony Blair suffered a mild heart condition during his period in office. But what of our present Prime Minister? Eye problems suffered in his late teenage years following a rugby injury no doubt had a profound impact on him, but limitations to his vision have not, and need not in any way, affect his ability to perform his job. Otherwise, he seems perfectly fit physically, but is there something else we ought to consider more closely?

Gordon Brown makes much of his experience as the 'son of the manse', his early years - before a 'hothoused' education - lived under the roof of his father, a Scottish minister. He acknowledges the lessons learnt as part of a household regarded as a pillar of the local community being a crucial pointer to his subsequent political career. Indeed, he seems to have felt that he, too, had an almost hereditary mission to administer a social role to his father's parishioners. This sense of innate 'duty' has an almost regal tone, as if he felt himself in some way burdened by an ordained responsibility for others. 

Whilst he is now Prime Minister, there is still a sense that he is predominantly still 'the Chancellor', having performed the role for a decade and still, it seems, more comfortable in dealing with the economic issues of the political spectrum. At the present time, he is keen to apportion the 'blame' for current problems, or at least those experienced in most acute form in the British economy, to 'trans-Atlantic' issues and 'globalisation'. Despite being Chancellor of the Exchequer for a decade, there seems little willingness to acknowledge that his own legacy might be in any way part of the problem. Instead, there is a strong sense that he feels himself profoundly identifiable as the solution. Again, rather like the 'son of the manse', he feels duty-bound to shoulder a heavy burden, but a challenge which he evidently relishes as the weight increases, so to speak. Some may be highly critical, seeing his period in charge of the nation's finances - and which, as 'first Lord of the Treasury today, he still is - as a key determinant in why Britain has suffered so acutely compared to, say, its European neighbours. The Government's 'light touch' financial regime has appealed to bankers and financiers in the City of London, increasing its competitiveness compared to mainland Europe. His failure to use fiscal measures to reign in the housing boom and allowing easy consumer credit to keep the economy buoyant - letting up to £40billion a year in equity release make up for deficiences elsewhere in the economy. An over-reliance on 'financial-services' as a predominant component of the economy, at the expense of manufacturing has now, with its rapid decline, dealt a major blow to the UK economy.

Despite his protestations to have ended 'boom and bust', he seems in strong denial that this is anything but the case in reality. As the economic crisis has deepened, he seems to relish the increasing challenge. A noble quality, or a matter of profound concern? Could Brown himself be as much the problem as the solution? There seems to have been a profound conflict between Gordon Brown's policies and their outcomes. Even, as a key 'New Labour' figure, embodying a fundamental dichotomy between its embrace of the free market - the Thatcher legacy - and undeniable socialist ideological underpinnings. Such tensions were never resolved, and are beginning to resurface. Insisting upon his innate 'prudence', daring even to claim to have 'saved the world' from its economic woes, does he have a dangerously inflated view of his own prowess, despite so much evidence to the contrary. It might be even worse. Could our Prime Minister be suffering from a kind of economic 'Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy'? Might he be rather too keen to be around to try to revive an economy that he himself has been a key player in - as many see - its very downfall?

THOMAS PAINE - TWO CENTURIES ON......................          30/01/09

Well, it's now 200 hundred years since the death of the great Thomas Paine - and where have we Brits got? We still have a hereditary monarchy, an unelected second chamber full of cronies and a fair number of herditaries, and a Prime Minister we still haven't had a chance to vote for. Progress?Read Harvey J Kaye's article here for a sense of the contrast between our antique system and the one which Paine helped to found. The UK has a long way to go ... CITIZENS NOT SUBJECTS 

HOUSE OF LORDS - THE UNRESOLVED MESS.........                            27/01/09

Gosh,..I say......Fancy that! Members of the 'ouse of Lords involved in allegedly dodgy dealings. But these are 'aristos', whether hereditary or appointed - they've got titles after all - and as such must surely be automatically regarded as fine, upstanding, members of the community - and our legislature - who couldn't possibly do anything wrong. Well, except 'Lord' Archer, that distinguished peer of the realm. The 'hereditaries' now of course disingenuously use the term 'elected' for themselves, which its true, in a sense, but hardly an apt description of how they originally got there to be candidates for being voted in by their fellow 'hereds' in the first place. A notoriously 'light touch' regulatory regime applies to the Lords compared to MPs - hence the problems with the latest 'cash for legislation' row. The UK has this bizarre idea that the higher you climb up the social/constitutional ladder, the less rules ought to apply as, by definition, one ought to be above common, unwholesome, dealings. Hence, the Lords have a voluntary interest declaration system, and the royal family, further up the social 'tree', have none at all. A good reason, by the way, for including leading Windsors in any extension of declaration of interests to peers in any reforms. The 'Duke of York' with his post of UK 'Special Trade Representative' is a classic candidate, by the way.

Tony Blair's half-arsed Lords reform was always going to result in problems - not to mention the principle of the thing. Of course, it's handy for government, you can appoint people to ministerial office who probably wouldn't have a hope in hell of actually getting elected to the Commons (er...'Lord' Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool), or are, ditto, electorally unsaleable plus being loyal party toadies who no-one has ever heard of ('Lady' Shritti Vedera, 'Baroness' Scotland, et al). One notable point of the latest business is that few could probably have recognised any of the peers in question, and most of them were old party lags who'd been around for ages. Aside from the fact that a modern democracy is still prepared to give pantomime titles to members of the legislature, the whole business stinks. We have no proper mechanism to remove these people from office if they do foul up, and they get a job for life with a pretty much 'no questions asked' expenses and 'allowance' process. OK, they don't get a proper salary, but perhaps it's time they did, with a large slice of accountability as a quid pro quo. Defenders of the place praise the 'quality of debate', but if these people want to ramble on - often into and beyond their dotage - they could just go to the pub.  

It may sound dangerously revolutionary for 2009, but what about abolishing Ruritanian titles, rename the House of Lords, and elect the members of the second chamber? Properly thought out, you can even have a unicameral system - experts can be co-opted onto select committees as required on a specific, structured basis for legislative review, etc. The old, 'unreformed' House was ridiculous - and fundamentally wrong. Blair's 'Lords Mark Two' was little better. It was tiresome having to write this sort of thing a decade ago. Commenting on 'Lord' Wakeham's Lords reform years ago (that's right, the famous Enron director...) one was countered with the old 'if it ain't broke..' line. Well, it is. It's bust, stuffed, knackered and long overdue for proper reform. Now it's time to really sort it out..........

'NOT ME GUV' - GORDON 'BOOM 'N BUST' BROWN SPEAKS OUT....                          23/01/09

Interviewed this morning on the BBC's 'Today' programme, Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused to answer Evan Davis' question. Gord's favourite mantra, that the whole economic mess is the fault  of 'globalisation' and sub-prime lending 'on the other side of the Atlantic' perpetuates his refusal to acknowledge any responsibility as UK Chancellor for a decade while he allowed the City of London to play a key role in stoking the over-leveraged bonfire that we're all now warming ourselves by. 'Not me,Guv', is the constant refrain. Why is the UK so especially badly exposed? Why? Our lenient 'light-touch' City regime, and Gord's enthusiasm for the benefits of 'inwards investment' - ie: loadsa foreign cash playing roulette with the remains of UK business - a little of it actually industry - was the extension of old-style asset-stripping of the days of yore except that this time round there aren't even any assets to strip when the shop shuts.

Why else was the City so popular? Why are Kensington and Chelsea stiff with US and other foreign bankers? Because our benign tax regime - both on a personal and other levels - meant that London was the place to come and work. Mainland Europe may be badly hit, but the UK has really suffered. We simply allowed the market to breathe a little too free here, and also basked in the glow from huge-scale equity release from our stupidly inflated housing market -which could have been easily checked fiscally. Gordon needed £40bn a year from financial hot air from UK housing equity to keep the 'service-based' economy rolling with consumer spending power. Did he not see it was stoking up what anyone normal would have - and did - call a 'boom'. And what happens when you have a 'boom', children? Yes, that's right, as sure as night follows day, a 'bust' arrives soon after. Even 'Gord', the class swot, ought to have learnt that one, but didn't. Now, he's locked in an eternal denial phase.    

Also, he constantly bangs on about having 'boosted public investment'. The basic translation is this: 'Since Thatcher allowed the UK's industry to be sold off down the river,etc, leaving us with a 'service-heavy' economy, now that's heading south (and East). I, the great 'Gord', have forced the shrinking private sector - manufacturing and service - to bear an increasing tax burden and pay for a boated - and bloating - public sector. That's where all the slack was taken up - Gord's public sector employment 'Ponzi' scheme: Ever more public sector employees, paying tax to expand the public sector, to absorb the lay-offs from the private sector. And so on.... That's Gord's version of 'boosting public investment'. What a genius he is!  

Except that that public sector boost hasn't even been targeted on concrete 'big' projects. No, it's been in more service sector work. We still haven't got 'Crossrail' and a thousand other badly-needed works. Not a transport network you can travel better on, better roads ( - yes, we still need them), public sector housing on a suitable scale,proper alternative energy policy like Germany's, for example - and so on. No, it's gone on a myriad of jobs of indeterminate or negative value the descriptions of which no sane person could ever decipher. Jobs with better pensions and benefits that the 'real' world can support. News now arrives that private sector final salary pension schemes are beginning to be withdrawn even from those still in work at present. Though Sir Fred Goodwin is OK, thanks, with £8.73million for his RBS 'pension pot'. The nettle has to be grasped. The public sector has to be made to face the reality  too, and that means those still in work there will have to accept a later retirement age and lower pensions. If they were contributing themseves, they couldn't afford it. They - and those left in the private sector - are, and they can't ...... 

TOM PAINE IS BACK.........                                3/01/09

Good to read Ben Macintyre's 'Times' article yesterday, acknowledging Paine's presence in Barack Obama's inauguration speech. These are the fundamental values that have undepinned America from it's inception, though it has been a far from imperfect progession. However, Obama seems to have really resurrected and updated Paine's values for his new government. Quoting Paine in his speech was the sincerest statement of this intent. But what of the UK? Who has even heard of Paine? Sadly, few indeed, and he has never been properly recognised here. Perhaps the best candidate for the 'empty plinth' on Trafalgar Square, but not until we've taken on board some of the values that Obama reiterated in his speech, here in the UK. Proper 'republican' values that are so long overdue. There's a lot to be done...........    

OBAMA TAKES OVER...........................                    20/01/09

America's first black President will be inaugurated today. It is a truly momentous moment, and one which will uplift in an utterly unique way the feelings of a huge section of US society that has hitherto never felt fully connected to the system. As a Democrat, many others will have strong hopes, irrespective of their colour, that he can in some way mend some of the worst excesses of the Bush era. However, it remains to be seen whether hopes can be attained to satisfy those who are disillusioned with the nation of which Barack Obama is now Head of State. From America's reputation across the globe, the wars, the financial disaster area that has yet to be fully revealed, yet alone resolved, the lack of a proper healthcare system for millions of Americans - all these, and more, are formidable challenges for anyone to face. Will he become a Mandela-like figure, with unrealistic hopes pinned to him, ultimately failing to follow through, indeed, unable to deliver. He is after all, only human, but that humanity is apparent in a way that his predecessor failed to demonstrate. George W Bush's faux 'homespun' veneer sought to conceal a spoilt rich East-coast kid who was no more than a cipher for a neo-con gang who held sway for two terms. Now Obama has to heal that legacy. It's a tough call.............

BRITAIN, 2020, A GLIMPSE OF THE FUTURE.............      20/01/09

Imagine the scene, a decade hence. The Queen is dead, long live the King. A nation that barely avoided bankruptcy in 2012 has struggled to hold itself together. Scotland has separated, a now fully independent European nation - prospering, albeit in a muted way to match prevailing broader economic conditions, with the Euro as its currency. Inflation in Britain now stands at around 15%, clinging to a currency that persistent 'save the pound' campaigners have managed to preserve despite the futility of the process. A seventy-year old monarch appears at the balcony of Buckingham Palace - a small crowd of about a hundred royalist fanatics waving Union Jacks. their cheering barely audible as London's traffic goes about its business. His mother had become a reclusive figure, her resolve visibly wilting as Scotland voted almost unanimously to cede from the Union. A campaign to find a new name for the country struggled, with suggestions from 'TescoAtlantis' to 'Littler Britain'. 'Britain', devoid of the 'Great', became the chosen option. 

America has chosen its President, but what will the UK do in the next few years? Await the heir to the throne to 'succeed', having received a quarter of a billion pounds from the taxpayer in Duchy income since the turn of the century. Rich, perhaps more eccentric than ever, this will be the man to represent the UK. The very embodiment of an unequal society; rich, and not from private enterprise but by public levy, over-privileged, elitist. Charles Windsor sums up so much that is wrong with Britain. Facing backwards, we approach the future unwilling to change. We will not experience the hopes, the euphoria - some perhaps wildly over-optimistic perhaps - that the USA can experience as it sees a new head of state take office. Instead, a stale, outdated, unfair, undemocratic constitution embodies so much that America's founding fathers sought to create a quarter of a millenium ago. No system is perfect, but ours is so far from appropriate that we should be ashamed. An antique constitution will deliver a past-his-sell-by-date monarch to a disillusioned country. could we change it? Yes, we can, if enough of the electorate could be arsed to get bothered about it. Revolution? Only if you could text in from your sofa while watching 'Strictly'. The British couldn't do 'revolution' if it involved any effort. Best bet, change what you've got left into euros and get out ......          

MYSTERY VIRUS HITS UK MILITARY........                                20/01/09

What could possibly have happened? UK military computers go pear-shaped, from airbases to warships. Another case of 'Titan Rain', perhaps? Looks like someone's wielding the 'Assassins Mace'. This is the new warfare. Your GPS won't operate and all the hi-tech stuff you paid BAe a fortune to send you won't even boot-up. Read the '24-character strategy'. this is the beginning of a long game. Sun Tzu for a new era.................

FINANCIAL MESS? 'YEAH', WELL, 'SPOSE SO........          20/01/09

These are really difficult times. Looks like the country could be bust soon, after all, we entrusted the whole thing to a bunch of smart-arsed bankers.  No grubby manufacturing, this was the logical progression of the Thatcher dream. 'Financial services' could mean that the rich banking gurus could re-cycle each others washing and then force the country to borrow it all on the back of stupidly inflated asset values. One such, 'Sir' Peter Birt, was on this morning's 'Today' programme. It was a pathetic performance. 'Sir' Peter ( ...and can't we get rid of these bloody stupid titles?....) sounded as though he hadn't got a clue. Probably never had had, either. It was a real 'Dunno, P'rhaps',... 'Not us , Guv' performance. Rather than  extensive eloquent explanations, this bloke shambled through a string of short answers that betrayed the truth. Not so much 'Master of the Universe', more a clueless arse who had been swept along with a bunch of other tricksters who believed they had discovered the secret of turning base materials - or just fresh air - into gold. Sadly, for a while, it seemed they had succeeded. These 'New Alchemists' have got us to the mess we're in, and still they quibble as to why the nation shouldn't take over the entire banking system. We throw billions at them and still they want the best seats on what's left of the gravy train. Sorry, guys. we own you. Shut up, do as you're told, Oh, and by the way, they ought to be on the minimum wage until this mess is sorted. Peculiarly British, the 'Sir Peters' manage to pretend through a veneer of establishment gravitas that they are somehow qualified to run the place, yet they are not the solution, but the problem. In a stricter system, these guys would be tried, and if guilty, taken out and shot. It might help thin out the gene pool of arrogance and incompetence that we British seem to pride ourselves on.      

PALACE SHOULD FEAR THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE........15/01/09


Well, it's getting nearer to 2010 - the date of the next review of royal finances, and in preparation for this the Common's Public Accounts Committee is due to get started now probing the Windsor's privileged taxpayer-funded lifestyle. The Palace(s) should be worried. As we start to enter very tough economic times - 'not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning' - patience with the royals will plunge as the public really suffer. It's no use whingeing for more cash. we should be looking at wholesale pruning down to European-monarchy levels. That means, roughly, cutting to around one-tenth of present levels, to say, £16million, still leaving them the highest costing by far, though. Public sector cuts are needed on a vast scale, and the Windsors can't be allowed to escape without suffering too. It's time to prune the Queen's Duchy earnings, or better replace entirely with a proper official salary, hack the Civil List, abolish Charles's Duchy of Cornwall cash in return for an officially defined role, salary (about cabinet minister level, say) and a contract. The rest, well we'll just have to let them go, like so many in the country are finding out, every day....


PRINCE HARRY - RACIST LANGUAGE AND ROYAL BULLYING......... 12/01/09

Well. as if dressing up in Nazi uniform - and allegedly shooting down hen harriers - wasn't enough, we now have video evidence shot by Prince Harry himself, no less, of him using seriously politically incorrect language. 'Paki', 'raghead' - and a number of other ****ing words too unacceptable to be broadcast - were uttered by the third in line to the throne. Oh, and , of course, a fine upstanding British army officer. No-one should pretend these words are never used, but Harry's position - and his supposed coaching for his royal role - should have rammed home the importance of being aware of the great responsibilities placed upon him.

Despite efforts to boost his PR image through military prowess and 'charridy' work - mainly in order to counter the 'spoilt rich kid rolling out of Bouji's nightclub in the early hours again' picture that so many have of Harry - not to mention his past foul-ups, it looks like it was all wasted. Ironically, this comes on a day when Alan Milburn was appointed by the Government to counter employment opportunity problems facing so many and in which there were accusations of many career sectors - including officers in the military - remaining predominantly the preserve of the middle classes, and beyond, and, most tellingly, owing most of all to 'accident of birth'. There can be no better illustration of such innate privilege than Harry's path to fame and fortune. He can, you all say, not choose his parents (Hmmm...let's not go there...Ed.), but really ought to know better by now. As someone who, we were all told, was looking at a long-term military career, there was really no excuse, and it seems that his long-term military prospects may now be in doubt.

There are those - including Michael Binyon on the BBC's World Service - who sought to play it all down by emphasising that the targets of these comments were 'friends', and that it was all said in 'good humour'. That's not really good enough. Does that mean that it's OK to insult and swear at people as long as one does so in a plummy 'RP' ('received pronunciation') voice, yet if the same thing is said in a less aspirational dialect then there are problems? Not only that, those who were the 'targets' of the insults on the video may have found themselves encouraged by complex social pressures to 'laugh it all off', whilst being perhaps less happy about it personally. On the BBC's 'Today' programme, the guests all missed the crucial point : This isn't about classifying insulting words on a 'points' basis, it's about our tolerance of a social and cultural elite who think they can get away with it because of who they are by birth - and our system itself endorses it.

The truth goes deeper. This is not just the use of racist terminology, it's about bullying - social and cultural bullying. The royal family are past masters at the use of their social position at the top of the cultural heirarchy to get a sly, or perhaps more open and cutting, dig at those who they wish to have a go at, all the while knowing that social conventions and 'respect' (some people still do, I gather, 'respect' the Windsors) effectively preclude a response. Past experts include Edward VII, as Prince of Wales, with all his 'pranks' - and serial philandering, taking advantage to force his corpulent attentions on the wives of his social 'inferiors'. The Queen Mother also excelled, as did Princess Margaret. They aren't the only ones and they won't be the last as long as this socially and financially privileged elite sit at the top of the UK's constitutional heirarchy. Anyone coming into contact with this ludicrous bunch will be familiar with the particular brand of restrained forced laughter that greets every inane utterance of anyone with a bit of Windsor DNA in their system. Not to laugh in these circumstances marks one out as a po-faced leftie who will thereupon be shunned for the rest of the day. In Harry's case, the guys he had a go at couldn't get back at him on a level playing field. They may all be 'fellow officers', but there's a crucial difference: one of those 'officers' happens to be third in line to the UK throne, and in a setting where these things are important, that's a very big difference. If you're the butt of the royal 'joke' and you don't laugh, it won't help your career.

As part of Britain's financially and socially over-privileged royal family, Prince Harry really isn't doing them any favours. Don't forget, this guy is only a couple of pedestrian/bus accidents away from being head of state. This man is an up and coming (or at least was) member of the country's meet and greet team. Not all foreign heads of state, politicians, etc. coming from the Indian sub-continent or the Middle East may be that prepared to overlook his crass utterances. Given that this region of the globe is pivotal to the world's prospects for peace and stability - and the track record isn't too bright - then all those in positions of importance, and sadly that includes Harry, like it or not, have in particular to tread carefully. Now that's really scary. And as the economy turns down, tolerance of such behaviour will diminish sharply. All we need now is another royal scandal of more serious proportions - and don't worry, it will happen - as will Parliament's review of their finances is due in 2010, and they may have to adjust to markedly more reduced circumstances. About time too.....

BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY AVOID THE BAD TIMES...... 09/01/09

Despite the Queen's claim that she and her family are being forced to make economies to get through these difficult economic times, how genuine is all this? Well, the royal family enjoy the ultimate in career stability - not merely jobs for life, but jobs in perpetuity. Not only that, but they get well paid too. OK, perhaps it looks on face value that the Queen and the heir to the throne are the real winners, with the rest getting 'allowances' paid for ultimately by the monarch, the truth is that 'er Maj's huge Duchy earnings from the Duchy of Lancaster prop up this state-subsidised clan. That was £12.5million last year, way in excess of what is in any way appropriate. The disingenuous claims that much of this goes on 'official' expenses are never properly detailed. We just have the Palace's word for it. Besides, it's just too much anyway. But then, of course, 'official' can mean pretty much anything to do with the family, or even the monarch in an individual capacity, such is the convenient 'blurring' of the notions of 'public' and 'private'. Plus, indulgent past treatment means they're privately wealthy thanks to taxpayers long since dead.

Most of the 'economies' relate to the areas covered by the State anyway, and we're starting from a pretty over-extravagant base anyway. Official expenditure figures total £40million, which conveniently excludes the money given from the Duchies (£29million in 2008) and which is lost to the Exchequer. They are not, despite the repeated ludicrous claims of the Palace and the Duchy minions, 'private' - that's total rubbish, and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee has said as much. Not only that, there's the bloated - but undisclosed - 'security' budget that could reach £90-100million. We have the right to know how much it really is. There are also other potential 'lost' costs from say, the Royal Collection's under-utilisation, but let's for the time being assume a real annual cost of around £160million.

The Prince of Wales got £16.3million last year from the Duchy of Cornwall. That's totally over the top. Stupid, ridicuously over-generous. Absurd. And don't mention 'charity'. He could do that if he wished without direct and indirect state subsidy at all, but the present situation suits him just fine. It's the only thing which saves him from public criticism. The Queen's £12.5million is crazy too. Behind a veneer of supposed frugality - 'turning off the light's' in the Palace is a popular cliche - they all do very well, thank you. The fact that the Duke of Edinburgh (taxpayer supported to get rich from 1947 onwards to rack up a fortune estimated at £28million in 2001) or the Prince of Wales may have their tailors alter a suit or a pair of trousers they've had for years isn't parsimony - it's the disingenuous pretence of the rich. By the time one's driver has driven said items up to Savile Row from the country, the carbon footprint's starting to rise - and you can bet 'Parker' may well be combining it with 'official' business too. Not only that, when the bill arrives, a cringeing toadie from the Palace will ring to say the 'HM', 'HRH', or whoever was rather surprised/confused, etc at the price and was there any mistake..? Basically: 'Send us a miniscule invoice or, better, none at all. We're doing you a bloody great favour, your Royal Warrant is up for review soon...etc, etc.' All said in a unctuous and wheedling tone. The pressures are great. Result, a pair of tweeds that have only been worn half a dozen times in three times as many years wil be altered for 'nothing'. Hence, great claims of parsimony. It goes on all the time, across the board, and the Palace are past masters at this bogus sleight of hand.

Meanwhile, underneath it all, the increasingly hard-pressed taxpayer props up this bloated edifice of subsidised high living. However, as things start to bite really hard in the coming year, it will be ever harder to sustain this crazy situation. With the next review of royal finances due in 2010, this will mean a Palace demanding money when the economy could well be worse than it is even in 2009. No Government will want, or be able, to devote millions in this way. Severe public sector cuts on a still unenvisaged scale will have to be enacted, and the Windsors will be in line for some big cuts too.We pay over £160million a year for a bloated over-indulged family. That's a lot. If Germany can do a President - office, salary, costs, the lot, all in for under £10million, or other European monarchies for even less, perhaps half of even that, we're doing something verywrong. Now's the time to do something about it......




'CREDIT-DETOX': INFLATION - THE NECESSARY EVIL......? 08/01/09

As bank rates fall further towards the zero level, and the only logical way for the Government to get the banks to extend lines of credit is to force the bastards to do so - after all, we now effectively own them - talk is of deflation. However, lurking in the wings like a pantomime villain is our old friend; inflation. The government has little choice but to start to think creatively to put money into the system - 'qualitative easing', 'helicoptering'...and so on, and inevitably concerns that this will set off inflation. Remember the old Thatcher-era obsession with regular checks on M3 money supply figures, too much being liable to set off an upward inflationary spiral. It does work - try playing 'Monopoly', let the bank lend large, and let players bid what they like for property.

So it's all bad then..? Well, scaremongers will always hoist up the favourite example of Weimar Germany, and most recently, Mugabe's Zimbabwe shambles. However, these places were/are up against more than simple economic forces - turning into true basket cases for much deeper reasons. Inflation isn't all bad. One could say that, in the absence of more fundamental destabilising factors - though in fairness really high rates can themselves have grim consequences - it does have its plus points. Best of all, and this has been evident in the past - eg; the 1970s - it's the best sure-fire way of taking the sting out of high debt levels.

Facing unprecedented debt levels, especially in the USA and UK, stoking up some fairly high inflation could be the necessary price of allowing business and consumers to go through 'credit-detox'. It will burn off the credit mountain ( and that'll have to be kept down by good old-fashioned credit controls), but asset levels will have to be held down too - probably by fiscal means. The old party can't be allowed to get started again. And others will suffer. Those on pensions/fixed incomes, for example, but as the over-indulged public sector seems unwilling to accept the necessary tough medicine of their unaffordable post-retirement lifestyles at the expect of the few left in real jobs, will feel the pain. They need to. Meanwhile, the state pension could be allowed to rise whilst pegging the rest - almost anyone but the most privileged in the private sector will need it. Don't expect this to be presented as a policy - that's too tricky given inflation's 'virtual 'taboo' status. Expect it all to be subtly 'allowed' to take hold, and for the sake of the economy, much sooner than later. Now. Inflation, even on a large scale, would be the lesser of two evils...





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...............