You are here: Home » Comment »

The monarchy is the last taboo of British politics

March 20, 2012 12:06 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Despite being a Republican, I managed to sit through the Queen’s Westminster address today. In reality it wasn’t hard at all. The pageantry may have swung between the impressive and the totally baffling. The fawning coverage of every minor detail of proceedings might have grated. The pompous and overblown nature of the event may have led people to question how much this would all cost. But they got away with it, because of the Monarchy’s greatest asset. The Queen.

Unobjectionable, neutral (or at least neutral enough) and studiously professional, The Queen is the weapon that has repeatedly crushed any semblance of Republicanism in the UK. Any argument against the Royals is usually rebutted with a stout defence of Her Majesty. And she’s good at the job, so that, usually, is that. The existence of the monarchy is the settled will of the British people.

I’ve argued before that those who support the Republican cause should focus on the real iniquities of the constitutional monarchy – in particular the (thankfully theoretical) right of the Monarch to veto legislation. Then again, since some on the left see this as a legitimate campaign tactic, perhaps that’s something we should be more concerned about.

Similarly a trimming of the civil list seems sensible. Parentage seems little reason for a country struggling economically to bankroll one of the world’s richest families. These are the only realistic goals for the British Republican movement, even in the long term. The Queen is popular. There is no appetite for the end of the monarchy. Most conventional Republicanism is pushing against a door that is not only closed, but is also barred. Possibly with a golden mace.

Plans to demonstrate against the Jubilee celebrations are likely to be as effective as kicking manure up a hill, and as popular as rolling in it.

Yet what concerns me is that the popularity the Queen enjoys has neutered any sort of rational debate about either the monarchy. Indeed, as we saw just a few weeks ago, mild mockery of the kind our politicians are subjected to every day is deemed unacceptable when it comes to Elizabeth Windsor, and open republicanism is deemed to be career kryptonite by most politicians. Media coverage is near 100% positive. Fawning. Bowing and scraping.

And yet despite the overwhelming popularity of the Queen, there is still a sizeable proportion of the UK population who support a system of government based on democracy an merit, not parentage and privilege. Is there to be no outlet for them? No-one to speak up for them? Is Republicanism the last taboo of British politics?

You can do what you like in British politics it seems. Dismantle the NHS. Remove industry and manufacturing. Blight communities for generations. Cut pay for the poor and taxes for the rich. Increase unemployment while cutting away the safety net. And leaving the disabled and the vulnerable without the support they need.

But don’t ever question the role of the monarchy in a democracy.

Don’t ask why the country must fund a wealthy family.

Don’t question why such a system can exist in an otherwise enlightened society.

If you do that, then you’re on your own – there’s no room for snowflakes in British politics…

Related posts:

  1. The Monarchy: Labour’s last taboo
  2. The future of the British monarchy
  3. The constitutional monarchy is the elephant in the room of our politics
  4. The monarchy is popular – so we need reasonable Republicanism
  5. The monarchy is not ‘harmless’
  • AnotherOldBoy

    We do not bankroll Her Majesty and the rest of the royal family.  They bankroll us in that, on her accession, Her Majesty kindly gave the Treasury the benefit of the Crown Estate, taking the much lower income provided by the Civil List in return.

    • bustop

      My understanding is that that has now been reversed and that the Royals are once more funded from the Crown Estate, which, given the latest planning proposal, is likely to serve them well. 
      Mark – your list of “do what you likes” makes no mention of Secret Courts.  I am struggling to find any reference to this and Labours view of Clarke’s proposals.  Why is the party so silent?  Does it support Clarke?  It comes to something when the Daily Mail attacks the government and Labour do nothing. 

      • Dave Postles

         Sovereign Grant Act 2011.

    • Reality

      And where did the Crown Estate come from? OldBoy patently knows nothing of British history. Suggest he should start at 1066 and the Norman monarch’s seizing of all English property for hiself and his Norman buddies. He might also look at the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the land grab by the obscenely greedy HenryVIIIth. Indeed quite how he  thinks this Wettin family (a German family OldBoy)  monarch came by her obscene wealth is very strange. Maybe she or her predecessors tilled the land and did well at market. As if

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

        Why is her wealth “obscene”?

        By the way, a large part of the population of this country is descended from the Anglo Saxons. Where were they from originally? Oh yes, Germany. So why do people constantly bring it up when discussing the Monarchy?

        If you criticised someone on the basis of them being from India or Pakistan, you’d be (rightfully) slammed as being racist.

        • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

          But people from India and Pakistan haven’t perpetrated a massive land-grab and then, shamelessly, proceeded to lord it over us “by the grace of God.”

          We were getting along nicely before the Normans jack-booted their way in and went and spoiled our beloved Albion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

            So racism is OK in certain circumstances then?

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Who is being racist?

            My opposition to the Normans is grounded on political difference. In fact, I’d regard them as brother and sister if only they’d shoulder the yoke. After all,  as King William IV’s descendant has claimed, we’re all supposed to be in it together.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

            So why was there any need to bring up the German ancestry of the current Monarch?

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            But I haven’t mentioned German ancestry.

          • AnotherOldBoy

            No – you have just been rude about Scandinavians who spent some time in France about 1,000 years ago.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            I hope they forgive me.

            As an aside, in his Oxford History of England Sir Frank Stenton claims that the Anglo Saxons had the  only army that dispensed with their officer class and won.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

            How about the Israelis?

          • AnotherOldBoy

            They lost to the Normans!

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            400 years after their arrival and after a hard couple of weeks.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            400 years after their arrival and after a hard couple of weeks.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

            Ahhh so you didn’t. It was the other bloke. My apologies.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            No probs dude.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

            What if the Celts object to the Anglo-Saxon landings and conquest???

          • treborc

            We are use to it.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            I’d accept their objections as legitimate, though having dispensed with their officer class, would find it difficult not to sympathise with the Anglo-Saxons.

            Yet there are grounds for an anti-Roman alliance, particularly as the Anglo-Saxons went on strike against the Romans, in opposition to low pay (AD442).

        • KonradBaxter

          Indeed. Especially when people (idiots) yell about this ‘German Royal Family / German Queen’ despite the fact

          the Queen was born in London
          her father was born in Norfolk
          her mother was born in London
          her grandfather was born in London
          her grandmother was born in London

          How far back do we want to go with attacking people based on where their ancestors  were born?

      • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

        The Norman yoke just gets heavier and heavier, and now we’ve got Cameron, 5th cousin to the Queen, as PM.
        Just look at the resemblance to his ancestor, King William 4th:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_IV.jpg 

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

          I discovered recently I am a 28th cousin of the Queen…

          As is everyone else.

          • treborc

            hell of a lot of cousins, cannot wait to see what I get from the will.

      • AnotherOldBoy

        I know plenty of history and there is no need to be patronising.

        The Crown was supposed to run the government from its own estates and from such tax income as Parliament granted until the mid to late 18th century.  Then a deal was done that, in return for giving the government the income from the Crown Estate, the monarchy would be paid a fixed and lesser sum, i.e. the Civil List.

        But the Crown Estate was, and is, the property of the monarch.

        I assume you are a miserable republican (there is no such thing as a non-miserable republican) who would rather have Cherie Blair as our first lady, lending moral support to President Blair.  I am a monarchist, know my history and am able to enjoy myself.

  • AlanGiles

    I am not a Royalist – but – this 85 year old lady has a very strong sense of duty, and she has now been doing her duty for 60 years.  I really can’t imagine she is looking forward to this year being toured round the country.

    With respect, Mark, you say ”
    The fawning coverage of every minor detail of proceedings might have grated. The pompous and overblown nature of the event may have led people to question how much this would all cost ”

    Politicians have always been associated with pomposity, self importance and spending other people’s money. Isn’t it better to extend this  courtesy to our own Queen, rather than on the American President, especially the one that encouraged our former Prime Minister into taking part in unwinnable wars.

    When you say ”
    Media coverage is near 100% positive. Fawning. Bowing and scraping. ”

    Well, Mrs Thatcher and our beloved Tony have on occassion received similar treatment by their fans in the media.

    I would have no objection to the Monarchy coming to an end with the passing of the Queen – being truthful she will be a hard act to follow, but at least the Queen, as far as I know, has never cancelled a meeting with doctors so she could go to a football match. Neither has she ever pretended “we are all in this together”, or winked and told us “she is a pretty straightforward sort of guy”.

    And one last point – if we sacked the Queen today, would we have self-appointed busybodies like John Prescott and Paul Richards nominating themselves to become President, in case they lose out on those appointments as Police Commissioner?. We might even get Mandelson or Gove throwing their hats into the ring, or – if money talks – imagine  President Blair and Cherie as first lady – though they would always be fighting over who would wear the tiara.

    • Shereen

       Get ready for Charles holding his orb. If the past is anything to go on
      it will not be long before he puts his foot in it and utters some
      backward looking nonsense 

  • KonradBaxter

    “open republicanism is deemed to be career kryptonite by most politicians.”

    “The existence of the monarchy is the settled will of the British people.”

    I’d say that these two are strongly connected.

    “Is there to be no outlet for them? No-one to speak up for them?”

    Yes. There are outlets and spokespeople. No one is banned from being a republican, it’s just not popular. Unpopularity does not equal repression or a lack of representation. The fact that some anti-monarchy groups engage in, what can appear to be, attacking and bullying and insulting an OAP with an enormous sense of duty and decades of service does not help their cause.

    “But don’t ever question the role of the monarchy in a democracy.”

    You can question it and people do and this certainly happens but those asking the question often do not have a full answer to ‘what would you prefer / what would you suggest / why change a system that is flawed but works / do you really want to see ABC or XYZ as President’?

    • http://twitter.com/robertsjonathan Jonathan Roberts

      spot on.

    • Richard Ettey

      What, or who, I would prefer to replace the monarchy, or the Monarch, as a republican is not relevant. The British people should decide in an open and fair election.

      I trust the people to get it right. I suspect that if the Queen stood for election as Head of State she would walk it. Not sure about her heirs and successors though.

      • KonradBaxter

        If you want to change something it helps if you can say what you want to change to.

        The failure of republicans / republicanism to provide a good, consistent, viable alternative which would be popular is crucial and would – i believe – explain their often poor showing in opinion polls.

        ‘Tear this down and replace it with something mysterious which we know nothing about other than some vague ideas, and our absence of a clear idea will allow you to project your worst fears onto it’  just helps monarchists and maintains the status quo.

        More republicans need to have the courage to say what they would replace it with and be specific where possible on a ceremonial, legislative and constitutional level.

        The people always have the choice to vote for republican candidates – and they are there in both Houses – but generally it is unpopular. That is tied up a lot with the current Queen i most certainly agree.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

        How does an elected Head of State garner votes without making it a political role?  Who then has primacy?  Commons, Lords, or Head of State?  What you suggest has a wealth of unintended consequences.

      • Alexwilliamz

        This debate should be head when the Queen finally steps down or passes away. There need be no sudden rush to crown anyone and maybe a referendum on continuing with the institution as is or with a couple of alternatives. If a monarchy were to continue I would like to see it based around a 10 year stint after which the incumbent could step down, or put themselves forward to continue but again there would be some kind of simple referendum. I’d not be that keen on an out and out democratic appointee, as this would automatically make it political and would rather a group of individuals be nominated who meet some basic criteria around integrity and decency are simply put into a hat and picked by chance. Again I’d look for a ten year stint, with obvious ways of removing people through parliament in extreme situations.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

    No, no, no Mark, the last great taboo is House of Commons reform.
    No one ever dare asks about that. About how it might be better to have less elected politicians etc. The moment you do so you’re jumped on as some kind of Fascist. 

    “Dismantle the NHS. Remove industry and manufacturing. Blight communities for generations. Cut pay for the poor and taxes for the rich. Increase unemployment while cutting away the safety net. And leaving the disabled and the vulnerable without the support they need.”
    All the work of elected politicians in the House of Commons.

  • GuyM

    The Queen is not in any real way part of the democratic process. It is all show and pomp, nothing more.

    We have a head of state removed from the political process, one that provides a link to our cultural heritage and a beacon for a lot of tourism spend. The UK is near unique in the world for this and it is a large part of “Brand Britannia”.

    In every way you consider the alternative, the possibility of President Blair or President Jordan, the issue of conflict of powers (can you see a political electected President keeping quiet?), the whole tedious issue of yet more elections every few years… it simply is not an improvement.

    Anyway Elizabeth II is my Head of State, to be followed by Charles III and then William V, no matter what happens regarding the republican movement.

    • DaveCitizen

       Bit presumptuous of you Guym – what will you do if C3 of W5 want a different life. Surely you believe in their right to choose even if you don’t believe in the right of the rest of us to choose them (or not as the case may be)?

      • GuyM

        The chances of that are smaller than slim.

        Charles will  follow Elizabeth and so on, no one will want to be the one that seriously damages the monarchy.

  • Hud434

    I wonder if this lot will privatise the Monarchy. They have sold nearly all the nations assets off.

  • Owen Edwards

    Oh Mark, you know as well as I do the Civil List is more than paid for by the Crown Estates turned over to the Government, so that’s a classic whingey red herring. And remember – a democracy of “merit” has produced the butcher Thatcher, the grey man Major, the war criminal Blair, the unfortunate Brown and the slime Cameron.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

    Mark,

    In a sense, you are correct. On its face monarchy is a ludicrous institution.

    From an anthropological point of view, however, it is your comments which are absurd. Across time and culture monarchy is one of the most frequent and repeated institutions in human culture. Unless you are prepared to argue that we have (because of the Enlightenment perhaps?) transcended all that, I predict it will recur in all future human history.  Curiously, in the US, which abhors monarchy in its constitution, political dynasties are much more prominent than here, Sweden, the Netherlands etc.   

    Perhaps it is a good thing we displace all our monarchical impulses into, well, a powerless but nevertheless poetic monarchy.

    While I for one, am all for massive state-enforced wealth redistribution (including land and capital ownership), and the end of the honours system (including Labour peers and knights – Miliband could end the position of the House of Lords overnight simply by stating he was unwilling and would refuse to appoint any Labour members), in the non-revolutionary meantime, I rather enjoy the quite real link with the past, with tradition, and so forth than the monarchy represents.

    Does that make me double-minded on the issue. I suppose it does. But before the eschaton, we – all of us – probably are condemned to be double-minded on some issues.

    • trotters1957

      “Across time and culture monarchy is one of the most frequent and repeated institutions in human culture”

      That’s a strange and incorrect assertion.

      Apart from Europe and the puppet monarchies set up in the Middle East to protect the oil for us after the end of European Imperialism there are very few hereditary monarchies on the planet.

      Even if you take into account the false pathetic institution we know as the Commonwealth.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

        Well what you say is only true if you exclude Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, Cambodia, Japan, Tonga, Lesotho, Swaziland, and so forth.

        Much of the world is, of course, nowadays composed of ex-colonies of European empires, but even there (as in ceremonial “kingdoms” in Africa – e.g. Buganda, etc; various shadow monarchies in India) monarchies continue.  Elsewhere, and I do not necessarily approve, the formation of putative monarchies is clear – N. Korea, Pakistan (the Bhuttos), India (the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty), Syria, and so on.

        In the future I am quite sure others will arise.

    • GuyM

      “state enforced welath distribution”…. never going to happen.

      It would fall foul of all sorts of legal challenges and at the first wiff of it capital and wealth would leave the UK overnight and then there’d be nothing you could do about it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697126564 Paul Halsall

        I would really like to see land ownership try to leave the UK…

        • GuyM

          I think you’ll find that for the seriously wealthy not many tie up a large percentage in UK property.

          What you would have is a lot of people leave the UK and divest themselves of their homes, probably causing a sharp drop in price at the upper levels. But my guess is they’d write that off.

          Think about it, are you going to worry too much about a reasonably small loss on a property transaction when property maybe only forms 10% to 20% of your wealth and the remainder is under threat?

          And of course what you propose is a one stop shop… you try it on once and then never again is anyone really fooled. So you’d make the UK a pariah in terms of significant levels of inward investment.

          Certainly if i had say £100 million in wealth with a £10 million home in the UK, I’d be more concerned about escaping a wealth tax on the 90% than the 10% tied into the property. First sign of a Labour government looking to legislate on a wealth windfall and I’d transfer assets and myself out of the UK and place the house on the market.

          Or do you really think the internationalised multi millionaires are going to sit still and wait to be hit?

  • Adele

    When do we get to privatise the Queen?

    • Jeff_Harvey

      I agree. Let’s monetise the House of Windsor. Pronto.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gary.hills1 Gary Hills

    I
    am a proud republican and I am not a subject of the Queen and never will be.
    The Royals should have come to an end when the House of Commons was formed.
    There is not place for an un-elected head of state its time this deliberate snobby
    went.

    How can it be ever right, that public services, community groups and charities
    have their budgets cut, when the Royals can have hundreds of millions wasted on
    them for a Jubilee? It’s sickening and wrong. If people want to celebrate the
    Royals then let them pay for it, it should not come out of taxpayers’ money. A
    large chunk of the population is just like me and do not support Royalty I care
    not if people do not like such views being raised as this is meant to be a free
    democratic society and there should be no taboo.

    There is far too much pandering and fawning to make out the Royals are more
    important than any of us, they are not special and never will be. What’s more
    young or old all of them are involved in or back bloodsport. Killing animals
    for fun does not make a decent person regardless of who that person is.

    I will be protesting in June, because the Republican Movement is growing and
    getting more notice. It’s an issues the vast bulk of people do back but it is
    the media and poor judgement by senior MPs that its implied we should do
    nothing but pander to them. Well no, the Royals are irrelevant and its time
    society was brave enough to have a real debate about an elected head of state
    and not a sickening one side PR stunt to make out the Royals are supper humans.

    Labour members, MPs and supporters should not back Royalty  as it goes against everything that social
    justice and equality is meant to be about. I a citizen on the United Kingdom, I
    am not a subject of the queen and never ever will be.

    • AnotherOldBoy

      Bad luck – you are a subject of Her Majesty.  She will protect and serve you as long as you are British.

      It is not a waste of money to indulge in a national celebration to mark the fact that our beloved Queen has reigned over us so well for 60 years.  If you were not miserable (as all republicans are), you would be able to enjoy the celebrations, cheer up and have a good time!

      • Brumanuensis

        “Bad luck – you are a subject of Her Majesty. She will protect and serve you as long as you are British”.

        What, personally? Not sure if she’s quite up to that job tbh.

        “Our beloved Queen has reigned over us so well for 60 years”.

        Doing what precisely?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

      How can it be right for all those things to be cut when we spend £12 billion giving aid to military dictators and corrupt politicians in Africa?

      Or 32 billion on an unwanted high speed rail line?

      “I a citizen on the United Kingdom”

      Which makes you a subject of the Monarch.

      • Brumanuensis

        “Which makes you a subject of the Monarch”.

        A term which has no legal standing and is therefore purely adjectival. The term British Subject refers to a particular class of people, who by definition are not British Citizens.

    • AlanGiles

      Gary: Just imagine this. It is 1952 and you are 25. Your dad dies in the night and first thing next morning, you are told you are obliged to take over his business. You will never be allowed to retire, not even when you are in your 80s or 90s. Furthermore, even though you are a model of restraint yourself, for the next 60+ years every indiscretion, every wrong word, every crass thing any member of your family does will be plastered all over the newspapers, and implicate you.  Every personal detail of your family’s life will be poured over and gossiped about.

      I was still quite a young lad when the Queen came to the throne – since then I have finished my schooling and my entire working life, and though I am much younger than the Queen, I am now happily retired and tending my rose garden. I couldn’t be happier.

      Do you really think anybody would choose the life of the Queen?.  Politicians put themselves forward for election – like the rest of us they can retire.

      I do sincerely believe the Queen has a very strong sense of duty and commitment – she must have, or otherwise she would not have agreed to undertake all the travelling she will do this year alone.

      I wouldn’t have done it – and frankly couldn’t have. If Alan the First had been on the throne instead of Elizabeth the 2nd I would have been off the day I reached retirement age.

      I think, at the age of 85 and after so many years of impeccable service she is entitled to our respect and admiration even if you don’t like the concept of Monarchy – it’s not her fault she happened to be the Kings eldest daughter.

      • William

        There you go- the Queen’s wonderful but Chuka Umunna is beneath contempt. You sure you’re not working for the Tories?

        • AlanGiles

          For Christ’s sake Bill. I have said nothing about Chuka today and made only one comment yesterday – the inadvisability of listening to Mandelson.

          Last night you insinuated that I was prejudiced -though you didn’t quite have the guts to say it straight out.

          I responded to your allegation, and I notice you haven’t commented on that, but you come back again on this thread to carry on about the other thread.

          Give it a rest, and if you have nothing truthful or sensible to say, say nothing would be my advice to you.

          You are not clever and your are not funny, you are just being a mischevious bore.

          • William

            I have commented on it. It’s a democratic site. I am entitled to give my view just the same as you are entitled to give yours.

          • AlanGiles

            Just above this Bill you wrote: ”
             Chuka Umunna is beneath contempt”, implying I had written such a statement.

            That, as you well know, was NOT what I said, NOT what I  implied, and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this thread about the Queen.

            It seems to me you just enjoy making mischief. Show me where I wrote Mr Umunna is “beneath contempt” – I merely pointed out that it was not advisable for a new minister “untainted” was the word I used in connection with him, to appear to be too close to a very discredited former minister who divided opinion in the party.

            If you want to stir up trouble, do it with somebody else, because I am not interested in your pathetic little games.

          • Jeff_Harvey

            You need to give Alan a break now Billy-boy. Your behaviour is getting worryingly Stalker-like shall we say.

      • William

        There you go- the Queen’s wonderful but Chuka Umunna is beneath contempt. You sure you’re not working for the Tories?

    • KonradBaxter

      I’d say the republican movement is getting more notice because of the Jubilee. Not for their own efforts, but because this year there will be a celebration and the usual rent-a-protest republicans can be guaranteed to give good copy and some amusing photographs with their hilarious costumes, props, slogans and badges. How many guillotines will be at this protest? Will there be people in rubber masks? Perhaps some sort of commemorative mug will be made?

      Republicans generally seem to do better when the Royals mess up as opposed to convincing people with the weight of their own viewpoint and argument.

    • GuyM

      I’m  asubject of the monarch and ever shall be.

      I’d never give allegiance to any British republic or president.

  • Mark Myword

    Although not a Republican, I am not a fawning monarchist either but I can accept that the monarchical system we have has grown out of our history and seems to go with the grain with most of the British people, and it works. However, the crucial issue for republicans is the mechanism by which the monarchy is to be abolished and a republic established. As far as I can tell, monarchies anywhere have only been abolished after some form of climactic violent upheaval: war or rebellion. It is true that some Commonwealth countries declared themselves republics without violence against the monarchy: South Africa, India etc, but they are still members of the Commonwealth of which the Queen is head. The only attempt to remove a monarch by referendum failed (Australia). If Scotland goes independent, the SNP have said that the Queen would remain has their Head of State (presumably Scotland would join the Commonwealth). So my republican friends, if it were to be done, how is it to be done?

  • trotters1957

    Where are the Sex Pistols when you need them?

    God save the queenThe fascist regimeThey made you a moronPotential H-bombGod save the queenShe ain’t no human beingThere is no futureIn England’s dreamingDon’t be told what you wantDon’t be told what you needThere’s no future, no future,No future for youGod save the queenWe mean it manWe love our queenGod savesGod save the queen’Cause tourists are moneyAnd our figureheadIs not what she seemsOh God save historyGod save your mad paradeOh Lord God have mercyAll crimes are paidWhen there’s no futureHow can there be sinWe’re the flowers in the dustbinWe’re the poison in your human machineWe’re the future, your futureGod save the queenWe mean it manWe love our queenGod savesGod save the queenWe mean it manAnd there is no futureIn England’s dreamingNo future, no future,No future for youNo future, no future,No future for meNo future, no future,No future for youNo future, no future

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

      That most manufactured of bands.

      • trotters1957

        When there’s no future How can there be sin 
        We’re the flowers in the dustbin 
        We’re the poison in your human machine 
        We’re the future, your future

        • GuyM

          Horrible music, horrible band, horrible fans, horrible look, horrible everything really….

          • Brumanuensis

            Goodness GuyM, I had you down as a punk rocker. The distaste for political authority seemed like a major clue.
            I shall have to shelve my mental image of you typing away with a safety pin in your ear and brightly dyed hair*

            *I have no idea what punk fashion is. It all rather passed me by.

          • Brumanuensis

            Goodness GuyM, I had you down as a punk rocker. The distaste for political authority seemed like a major clue.
            I shall have to shelve my mental image of you typing away with a safety pin in your ear and brightly dyed hair*

            *I have no idea what punk fashion is. It all rather passed me by.

          • GuyM

            I am very much in favour of political authority, but where it is light touch and acknowledges it is there to serve the people not bother the people.

            I was very young in the punk era, but Rock was my thing then and still is, along with Trance. Punk to me was just another example of teenagers (including 20 something teens) trying to look “different”.

          • Brumanuensis

            I quite like some forms of Trance too…

            See Guy, you do have some things in common with Labour supporters!

          • GuyM

            Was a Trance DJ for a few years a decade or so ago, only minor but I still have a large collection of cds (including a few white labels), added to now by a lot of Spotify downloads.

          • Brumanuensis

            I quite like some forms of Trance too…

            See Guy, you do have some things in common with Labour supporters!

          • GuyM

            I am very much in favour of political authority, but where it is light touch and acknowledges it is there to serve the people not bother the people.

            I was very young in the punk era, but Rock was my thing then and still is, along with Trance. Punk to me was just another example of teenagers (including 20 something teens) trying to look “different”.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            His asocial raving does resemble Johnny Rotten’s childish anarchism.

          • trotters1957

            Hmm, I think you miss the point really, bit subtle for you?

          • derek
      • Jeff_Harvey

        More manufactured than the Spice Girls, Take That, Girls Aloud, Boyzone, S Club 7, Steps, Westlife, Hearsay… blah, blah, blah. Shome mishtake, shurely?

      • Jeff_Harvey

        More manufactured than the Spice Girls, Take That, Girls Aloud, Boyzone, S Club 7, Steps, Westlife, Hearsay… blah, blah, blah. Shome mishtake, shurely?

  • Jim R

    Well, having read all of these comments I have to admit to being flabbergasted. I never realised there were so many ways to argue for something so fundamentally elitist as the monarchy. Surely nobody is arguing that the monarchy is unrelated to our rather significant power, class, economic and social divisions? So they’re worth it, right? Best option of a bad bunch? No wonder Labour has lost its way. 

    • trotters1957

      Jim, Labourlist is read by far more Tories than Labour supporters.

      • Jim R

        I hope you are right because I can’t get used to this idea that these blue-blooded folk are simply better than us lot.

        • AlanGiles

          Jim. Would you be prepared to work well into your 80s and be forever in the public spotlight whether you wanted it or not?

          Let’s be frank about it, if we are talking about “significant power, class, economic and social divisions”, politicians of all parties are above the law (or think they are – and only 6(?) went to prison for expenses frauds), and most of them come off a privileged background – they are not exactly “one of us” Blair went to Fettes which is the Scottish equivalent of Eton, many had private education and have never worked in a real job since they came down from Oxbridge. They don’t understand life at the bottom rung of the ladder, and they have no desire to find out.

          • Jim R

            I certainly don’t want her working in her 80s nor would I want anyone else to. I agree about the political class. It is hardly representative but I don’t see the monarchy balancing that. On the contrary, I  think the monarchy is part of the framework that legitimises that kind of privelege and encourages subservience and the sense that power naturally belongs in the hands of elites who rule by right and access.     

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

      What’s wrong with elitism? 

      • Brumanuensis

        Note to conservatives: ‘meritocracy’ and ‘elitism’ are not synonyms. Meritocracy nominally refers to a system governed exclusively by a measure of merit. Elitism to a system where superior privileges are held by a group with similar characteristics, usually exclusive of the overwhelming majority of other people. This generally refers to wealth or right, separate of ability. It is hypothetically possible to have a meritocratic elite, but given that merit fluctuates and elites tend to be self-perpetuating, it’s hard to think of an example.

        Also, ‘elite’ and ‘elitism’ mean slightly different things. Elite can be good or bad – elite surgeons are good, for instance. An elitist surgeon is generally bad, because their criteria may exclude perfectly good successors. An elite of historians is useful, an elite of politicians is…well, variable. The ‘elite’ referred to in relation to the monarchy is an elite selected according to heredity. Therefore it is not exactly a beneficial form of ‘elitism’ to prefer members of that elite, for the position they intend to occupy, i.e. head-of-state.

      • Jeff_Harvey

        Armin Meiwes asked exactly the same question in respect to cannibalism.

  • bustop

    Fascinating debate about the monarchy but not an imminent issue – unless things change very quickly.  I do not want to hijack this forum but as I asked three hours or so ago,can someone please tell me Labour’s position with regard to the Secret Court proposals that Ken Clarke has put forward?  I must be missing the elephant in the room because no-one wants to talk about it.  Does this mean Labour supports the proposals?  Just a line on this from anyone who knows would help.

    • Dave Postles

       Clarke has, in all respects, been very regressive in almost everything which he has touched at the MoJ.  The special counsel consider it a very retrograde step and, having listened to them, I can’t disagree.  I hope that their representations are heeded.  I should like, from the start, to dismiss any idea that theirs is special pleading from a closed profession.  They seem to do an admirable job. 

      • bustop

        Dave

        Agree with every word.  Even the Daily Mail agree but what are Labour saying officially?  As far as I can see nothing.  Why?  I have a nightmare vision that their stance will be driven by vested interests – political and even personal.  Heaven help us if so.

  • david

    There’s a difference between a taboo, which may be an important issue but which people feel squeamish about discussing, and an issue where the vast majority are perfectly happy to discuss it but feel strongly that it shouldn’t be changed.

    The British monarchy is the latter not the former. British people are perfectly happy to discuss the monarchy but the vast majority don’t think it would be a good idea to get rid of it. Most Labour supporters are in that majority: http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/yg-archives-pol-prospect-monarchy-240311.pdf

  • Dave Postles

    Subject is less than citizen – please don’t conflate the two.
    With monarchy persists hereditary principle which is also basically gender-specific (by privileging males) and sectarian.  The last two could be altered by reforming the rules of succession.  I am fundamentally opposed to it because it is a symbolic support for the principle of the transmission of wealth and ‘honour’ from one generation to the next which reinforces social closure and confirms inequality of opportunity. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Collins/100000033820132 Stephen Collins

      ”
        I am fundamentally opposed to it because it is a symbolic support for the principle of the transmission of wealth and ‘honour’ from one generation to the next ”

      You don’t give money to younger relatives I take it?

      • Brumanuensis

        Yes, but I don’t give them political power.

      • Dave Postles

         Centrepoint; Greater Good Network; Marie Curie; Action for ME; Fire Service injured firefighters; Crisis; and British Red Cross all receive money on monthly direct debt.  Costa baristas receive large gifts in the summer and at Christmas.  University of Leicester has received over £20k.  A hardship fund is being established at the University of Hertfordshire (£3k with ambition of £10k).  My sibs also receive some in their lifetimes.  Any further questions?

      • Jeff_Harvey

        I think the point relates less to pocket money and more to estates and titles, e.g., the loathsome Mark Thatcher becoming a “Sir” by inheriting a title from his late father Dennis Thatcher, or Prince Charles being made Duke of Cornwall in order to suck an income of £18,800,000 per year from rents and similar gathered from the natives of England’s poorest county, like an absentee landlord, never visiting his holdings or investing much of his great wealth in order to better the lives of his struggling tenants.

      • Jeff_Harvey

        I think the point relates less to pocket money and more to estates and titles, e.g., the loathsome Mark Thatcher becoming a “Sir” by inheriting a title from his late father Dennis Thatcher, or Prince Charles being made Duke of Cornwall in order to suck an income of £18,800,000 per year from rents and similar gathered from the natives of England’s poorest county, like an absentee landlord, never visiting his holdings or investing much of his great wealth in order to better the lives of his struggling tenants.

    • GuyM

      Whereas I’m for 0% inheritance tax.

      I work during my lifetime for my family, not yours or anybody elses and I intend to give my family as much of an advantage as I can. I am not responsible for anyone elses family or offspring.

      • Jeff_Harvey

        When I lived in San Francisco I used to hear members of the Church of Satan say exactly the same things repeatedly and tiresomely, as if reiterating their message for the thousandth time would finally convince the world that the Satanic Bible was true. I thought it was bollocks then and still think it’s bollocks now. Whoever says it. Religious or not.

        • GuyM

          A large percentage of the UK population are obviously satanists then.

          What was the thing  Osborne did to spike Brown’s plans for an early election? Yep launch a policy to increase the IHT threshold.

          Most don’t like the concept of IHT, it’s double taxation and it sticks in the throat of bereaved family members to have a blood sucking member of HMRC snooping about when someone dies.

          If you are free to earn and pass the benefits of that earning onto family whilst alive then there is no moral reason to restrict the final chance to exercise that freedom upon death.

          • Brumanuensis

            “If you are free to earn and pass the benefits of that earning onto family whilst alive then there is no moral reason to restrict the final chance to exercise that freedom upon death”.

            Indeed. Which is why 94% of the population are able to do so, under the current IHT rules. 

          • Jeff_Harvey

            Out of interest: Do you carry an organ donor card in your undoubtedly well-stuffed wallet, Guy? Okay. Now I’m being silly.

      • Dave Postles

         You won’t be working for my offspring, mate – I have no kids (except the kids at Centrepoint).  I expect some of my tax is directed to yours, though, however independent you may suggest that you are.  You might have thought that you were meritocratic – I don’t know – but your statement reveals that you are not. 

  • Brumanuensis

    I’m a republican and I dislike the hereditary principle as much as the next egalitarian. However Mark is right. Aiming for the abolition of an institution as popular as the monarchy is Sisyphean in its futility. Removing the monarch from the political process would be better. Let it glisten like a nice little bauble to draw in the tourists and permanently sever any connexion with the approval of laws or ‘consulting’ with the government.

    After all, if the monarchy’s attraction is its perceived distance from mere politics, then what purpose is served by having the monarch as Head of State? He or she doesn’t actually do anything indispensable within the system, other than formally approving laws, which is done on a pro forma basis anyway.

    I have no love of presidents, nor any antipathy towards the current occupant of Buckingham Palace, but the ludicrousnous alone of the hereditary principle is enough to dispense with it. Let King Charles III retire to a nice organic farm in Cornwall, where he can say whatever he likes without political consequence, and let Parliament govern in its own legal right. I doubt much would change, either for the better or the worse.

    • GuyM

      The hereditary principle though would go on, there would be many like myself who would recognise Charles as Monarch and Willian in turn.

      You could get a majority of the UK public to vote for a republic and I’d ignore it in terms of where my loyalty lay. Not whilst I breathe would I ever owe allegiance to a British Republic President.

      • Brumanuensis

        One word: Jacobites

        Another five: ‘The King over the Water’

        • GuyM

          Or in this case “the King in Sandringham” (or balmoral etc.)

          • Brumanuensis

            Touche.

        • Dave Postles

           The GuyM over the water – when he’s in Bermuda or wherever.  At one time, I believe it was to be the USA, but perhaps President Obama has obstructed that idea.  I suppose that, given his declarations here, it will have to be a commonwealth country, if such still exists then.

          • Brumanuensis

            There are the Commonwealths of Virginia and Massachusetts I suppose?

      • Brumanuensis

        One word: Jacobites

        Another five: ‘The King over the Water’

    • trotters1957

      The Queen still can use the Royal prerogative and has used it twice in recent decades.
      Firstly when Heath took us into Europe  in 1972 and then when Thatcher went to war over the Falklands. Parliament did not vote on either occasion until after the events.
      She still has the power to declare war and of course is the head of the army and all our armed services swear allegiance to her.

      In my view, if the public realised she still has these powers they may take a different view of her.

    • trotters1957

      The Queen still can use the Royal prerogative and has used it twice in recent decades.
      Firstly when Heath took us into Europe  in 1972 and then when Thatcher went to war over the Falklands. Parliament did not vote on either occasion until after the events.
      She still has the power to declare war and of course is the head of the army and all our armed services swear allegiance to her.

      In my view, if the public realised she still has these powers they may take a different view of her.

      • Brumanuensis

        Fair point about Royal Perogatives, but in practice the Queen’s power here is still very limited. Since the ‘Case of Prohibitions’ case in 1607, the monarch has been unable to create new ones. In practice, in any case, the power is exercised by the governmen, with or without the monarch’s consent.

        The vesting of this power in the government’s hands is another problem.

        • Brumanuensis

          *Prerogatives

  • Brumanuensis

    What should happen to the Queen, in my opinion, is what happened to Charles I after the Civil War…

    Send her to the Isle of Wight. Lots of lovely sea air, pretty countryside and I hear Newport is a very pleasant town. She could enjoy the Island Games too. Who’s with me?

    • http://twitter.com/sprogglie Sprogglechops

      And then chop her head off?

      • Brumanuensis

        Not necessary, I dare say.

  • Jeff_Harvey

    Does anybody really think that Prince Charles will ever be king?

    • GuyM

      If the Queen dies first then yes, 100% he becomes Charles III.

      There will be a huge coronation that will get London partying and William and Kate will look like a perfect King and Queen in waiting.

      Republican’s haven’t got a hope in hell.

    • GuyM

      If the Queen dies first then yes, 100% he becomes Charles III.

      There will be a huge coronation that will get London partying and William and Kate will look like a perfect King and Queen in waiting.

      Republican’s haven’t got a hope in hell.

      • Jeff_Harvey

        I bet that the succession will skip a generation and the next monarch after Elizabeth II will be King William V. On the off chance you happen to be right, Guy – and there is, as they say, a first time for everything – what happens to the current Dutchess of Cornwall? Will she be crowned Queen Camilla the First? Stay as the Dutchess of Cornwall? Or have some novel, new, freshly  made up title bestowed on her?

        What fun.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

          Very unlikely – the monarchy survives because it doesn’t do this sort of thing. I think it will have to modernise and become more on the Dutch/Scandinavian/Spanish lines in future – although I am a republican by choice. 

          • Jeff_Harvey

            It will be interesting to see what they try to do as per Camilla as Royal Consort if the Clown Prince actually gets coronated. It is quite possible that his mother may outlive him and remain on the throne for another decade or more. (She’s currently 85 and her mother lived until she was 101.) Some movement towards a royal model similar to the Dutch, Spanish or particularly the Scandinavian royals would be an improvement certainly, although I suppose our own royal family will remain largely a bunch of talentless, unattractive dullards compared to their continental counterparts. 

      • derek

        Hmmmm, of course he’ll have to be crowned at Scone.

      • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

        “William and Kate will look like a perfect King and Queen in waiting.”

        They’ll have a long wait. They’ll probably be past retirement age before they’re crowned – if it happens.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Here’s a suggestion.  How about an Act of Parliament that states that upon the death of a Sovereign, there must be a referendum of all of the people of the UK, asking whether the people are content that the Monarch’s successor should be crowned as the next Monarch?  That will at the least encourage the Monarch and his/her successor to rule well, and prepare to rule well, and it will preserve an active link to assent and democracy.

    Should the people declare their support for ending automatic succession, the last ever Royal Commission could investigate the options for selecting a ceremonial Head of State, with the current Prime Minister acting as Head of State until a new one was in place (using whatever criteria the Royal Commission chose).  The Monarch’s son or daughter would continue to be Head of the Commonwealth for the rest of his or her working life, which as an institution I see great merit in, and in that role receive the full support of Government and appropriate payments, as well as live in the Royal palaces except for Buckingham Palace, which becomes the official residence of the Head of State.

    The Head of the Commonwealth would along with the Prime Minister of the day prepare for the selection of the next Head of the Commonwealth from the 60th birthday, with the expectation that the next Head of Commonwealth would be chosen by all of the countries of the Commonwealth, and not necessarily a Briton.  It would be nice to see a revered figure of peace, dignity and a long record of public service appointed to that role.  For example, Nelson Mandela could have been a fine candidate, or Lester Pearson from Canada, the father of modern peacekeeping.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Here’s a suggestion.  How about an Act of Parliament that states that upon the death of a Sovereign, there must be a referendum of all of the people of the UK, asking whether the people are content that the Monarch’s successor should be crowned as the next Monarch?  That will at the least encourage the Monarch and his/her successor to rule well, and prepare to rule well, and it will preserve an active link to assent and democracy.

    Should the people declare their support for ending automatic succession, the last ever Royal Commission could investigate the options for selecting a ceremonial Head of State, with the current Prime Minister acting as Head of State until a new one was in place (using whatever criteria the Royal Commission chose).  The Monarch’s son or daughter would continue to be Head of the Commonwealth for the rest of his or her working life, which as an institution I see great merit in, and in that role receive the full support of Government and appropriate payments, as well as live in the Royal palaces except for Buckingham Palace, which becomes the official residence of the Head of State.

    The Head of the Commonwealth would along with the Prime Minister of the day prepare for the selection of the next Head of the Commonwealth from the 60th birthday, with the expectation that the next Head of Commonwealth would be chosen by all of the countries of the Commonwealth, and not necessarily a Briton.  It would be nice to see a revered figure of peace, dignity and a long record of public service appointed to that role.  For example, Nelson Mandela could have been a fine candidate, or Lester Pearson from Canada, the father of modern peacekeeping.

    • trotters1957

      You don’t seem to understand the word “hereditary”,.

      Why can’t I be King? Seriously.
      I’ve got more O levels, A levels and degrees than any of them? 

      • Jeff_Harvey

        I wouldn’t want to be King but bump it up to Emperor and I just might be persuaded to consider the position.

        • AlanGiles

          Given what we have to put up with, from a couple of LL posters, I wouldn’t mind being Prince Philip, so I could REALLY tell them what I thought of them! – you can probably guess who I am thinking of Jeff – “friends” of yours too, I think :-)

          • Jeff_Harvey

            Forgive them, Alan, for they know not what they do.  ;-)

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Maybe I was not very clear.  What I propose is an orderly transition from monarchy to a properly (s)elected Head of State if that is what the people want, which also gives an orderly transition for the role of Head of Commonwealth (and broadens that to include all of our partner nations’ citizens), and which allows anyone to one day become the Head of State, or Head of the Commonwealth, to add to the existing chances anyone has of becoming Prime Minister.  

        It is the opposite of a disorderly transition.  It is dependent on the will of the people, who would have a guaranteed referendum.  

        I did not mention the details I would also support:  in the event of the Monarchy becoming disestablished through peaceful referendum, the Civil List becomes tapered down over the years, and the work of the Royal Household becomes dedicated to becoming in effect the “Department of the Commonwealth”, properly funded by Government.  Maybe the current Civil List or Crown Estate* could become instead the income the Department of the Commonwealth needs to support annual activities, and thus be focussed on supporting many billions of people and not one family and their retainers.

        All of the ceremonial stuff which so many people love could become Commonwealth ceremonial.  It is a way of gracefully ending a way of life for not just a family but an institution that has endured for over 1000 years with a short break in the 17th Century, but also preserving the best in the institution of the Commonwealth.  Professional diplomats would take over the day to day running of the Commonwealth, and in time the Head could be an Indian, or Australian, Jamaican, or a Kenyan.

        I am neither a Monarchist or a Republican.  I believe that what I propose is a way of converting the nation from one way of life to another, if that is what the people choose, with grace and without losing the positive aspects of the current institution.

  • treborc

    Do you know what struck me to day, was watching MPs and minister sitting in a room, listening to a Royal family talk about nothing really, MPs and ministers many of whom voted to take this country to a war. The Ministers MP’s all wearing expensive suits or designer clothes all listening to the queen cheering laughing.

    What struck me was a saying.

    They Shall be remembered

    Because not to far away six coffins were returned to this country after giving all for Queen and country…….

    Shame really because all eyes to day should have been on these young men….

    ah well never mind.

    • bustop

      What a poignant and heart-rending comment – well said.
      I have asked twice on here today and several times here and elsewhere about the prospect of Secret Courts and how they might deny these poor lads and others a fair inquest.  From where I am sitting the Labour Party prefers to debate the F*****g monarchy than the monstrous proposals that the Justice Bill wants to introduce.  
      Never mind TREBORC – they never will mind.

      • mikestallard

        While we are on the subject of secret courts, has anyone on this site been to the family courts recently?
        It would be great fun to hear if they have.

  • mikestallard

    The real question is this:
    What holds our multicultural country together?
    Could it be religion?
    Could it be a love of socialism?
    Could it even be our white causasian race?
    Or our common class system even?

    Actually no.

    Could it be Her Majesty the Queen?

    And would Harriet Harman do it better do you think? Or Alex Salmond? Or Bayonce? Or Jeremy Kyle? Or even Kirsty Wark?

    • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

      Beyonce is probably the most popular of those you mention, she’d certainly get my vote.

      • Brumanuensis

        “If you like it then you should put a [crown] on it”.

      • madasafish

        Pity she’s American :-)

Latest

  • Comment Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    By Glenys Thornton

    Monday saw the first day of Committee on the Same Sex Marriage Bill, where it became clear after a three hour debate on how to distinguish Same Sex Marriage from so called “traditional” marriage that opposition to this bill has not gone away. Despite a huge defeat on Second Reading, opponents reheated and repeated their earlier speeches, in part because their arguments rely on belief and prejudice not evidence or fact. So we sat until 11pm debating conscience clauses, Registrars [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    By Mark Ferguson

    Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]

    Read more →
  • Video Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Last week it was revealed that the government discussed secret plans to hike interest on pre-existing student loans, meaning that anyone with a student loan will be expected to pay far more than expected. Today, the Prime Minister was asked about this – he spoke for nearly a minute but wouldn’t answer the question. What does he have to hide? How much more does he expect graduates to pay?

    Read more →
  • Comment Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    By John Woodcock

    Across the industrial north, it is striking how old pit villages and industrial towns are proving far less willing to embrace renewable energy than the noisier, more polluting fossil fuels and industries which shaped their identity. Energy companies are getting a nasty shock after mistakenly believing that these communities would not bat an eyelid at a few wind turbines on the surrounding hills because they had been content to make huge slag heaps part of the landscape in decades past. [...]

    Read more →
  • News Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. Put reckless bankers in jail Britain’s banking bosses should face jail if their decisions force fresh bailouts, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says today. The commission’s hotly anticipated report urges the Chancellor, George Osborne, to oversee the [...]

    Read more →