News

Charles Windsor, who will become Britain’s head of state on the death of his mother, has again been accused of using this status to exercise undue influence on government policy. The charge was made in a Channel 4 documentary.

Mr. Windsor was said to have easy access to government ministers and to have written frequent letters to them lobbying for his personal policy objectives. It was claimed that one result had been national health service financial aid for a controversial publication on complimentary medicine. The correspondence of members of the Windsor family is exempt from public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Windsor was also accused of trying to silence a critic by putting his employment as a university professor in jeopardy. The programme makers claimed that Windsor’s refusal to keep his views on controversial matters to himself could lead to a constitutional crisis when he became head of state and put the monarchy at risk.

As heir to the office of head of state Mr. Windsor is expected to be politically neutral.

Attention was drawn to Mr. Windsor’s exemption from income tax on earnings from the Duchy of Cornwall. The programme stated that the Duchy’s property holdings belonged to Mr. Windsor. In fact they are state property that he is allowed to benefit from.

Mr. Windsor was said to live extravagantly and to be hypocritical in his environmentalism. He provided bikes for his staff while travelling short distances by helicopter and private train. The programme questioned whether Mr. Windsor was good value for money.

The documentary failed to point out the contradiction that many see between recognising an individual as a "prince" and criticism of him for behaving as one. Nor to the how the oath of loyalty that Members of Parliament swear to Mr. Windsor’s mother and family members might encourage them to expect privileged access.

03:20 PM | | (0) | (0)

On the eve of an historic decision, the Financial Times has called on Members of Parliament to vote for a fully elected second chamber. In an editorial with the sub-heading "A second chamber that is chosen by and reflects the people", the newspaper said that the mixture of elected and appointed legislators supported by government is "the least intellectually coherent" of the options put forward in the White Paper published in February.

Although the newspaper believed there was a case to be made for an appointed legislative chamber it concluded that "to hand over responsibility for choosing who can legislate to a group of establishment figures offends democratic sensibility. The spectacle of the great and the good choosing from among themselves is an unedifying anachronism".

It concluded that "in a mature democracy - particularly in one that has so preached the virtues of government by the ballot box to the rest of the world - an approach that relies on the judgements of individual electors must be preferable to one that does not trust them. MPs should vote tomorrow for a fully elected upper house".

Although this is not the strongest imaginable endorsement of the right of the people to self government, it compares favourably to the half-hearted words of Labour Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw who likes to refer to "the public" rather than to "the people". Mr. Straw, who is the minister responsible for reform of Parliament, said recently that "In a modern democracy, it is difficult to justify a second chamber where there is no elected element – where the public has no direct input into who sits in it". He favours a second chamber that is only partly elected.

The Financial Times also outlined what it saw as the role of the second chamber, a chamber "which would look at government proposals with a degree of independence and concern for liberty that the executive-dominated lower House does not consistently display".

MPs will vote on Wednesday after a two-day debate.

06:24 PM | | (0) | (0)

Charles Windsor, son of Britain's hereditary head of state, has made an extraordinary suggestion that the McDonald's fast food chain be banned. "That's the key" to reducing the consumption of high-fat foods he said during a visit to Dubai, a monarchy classified as "not free" by Freedom House.

McDonald's said that it was "disappointed" by Mr. Windsor's authoritarian proposal and defended its restaurants. In the past Windsor has had some success using his dubious status to have his own way on issues in the public eye. He was able to block a modern design he disliked for an extension to the National Gallery in London. His call for the banning of the American restaurant chain is not being taken seriously however.

Republic, Britain's largest anti-monarchy organisation, commented "This is the nonsense of the monarchy system - Charles should be free as the rest of us to speak his mind, but because he is going to be our unelected and unaccountable Head of State he has to waive that right." It said that it would ask the Department of Constitutional Affairs to give an assurance that this would be explained to Mr. Windsor. The Republic spokesperson added that it "would be the first to support Charles if he decides he would rather make a commitment to political and social issues - but he must decide what role he wants for himself - activist or prince."

06:31 PM | | (0) | (0)