Heroes: ‘Reflections’ 

 

‘Through the hollow of my tears 

I see a dream that’s lost’ 

 

We start ‘Reflections’ where we left off last week, with the royals. A state within a state seemingly able to do what they wish, while the rest of us are left picking up the crumbs. In this day and age they are expensive luxury we no longer need, they serve only themselves, and are incompatible with the 21st century. 

 
In truth we know little to nothing about them, other than what they want us to see. They are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and hide thousands of official records beyond scrutiny in their archives in Windsor. 

They continuously and ruthlessly exploit their status and position, using tens of millions of pounds each year to cover costs such as travel or palatial homes, or lobbying the government in pursuit of their private interests or political agendas. 

The projected increase of £38.5m increases the sovereign grant by 45%, from £86m to £125m. The  ridiculously over-generous settlement was explained as being required to help pay for renovations to Buckingham Palace.  
 

‘they are expensive luxury we no longer need’

 
In addition to the sovereign grant, the king and his heir, Prince William, receive around £40m annually from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. 

The decision to increase the sovereign grant was taken by a committee of three people, the PM, the chancellor, and the keeper of the privy purse, Sir Michael Stevens. The communication of their decision by Treasury was, at best, smoke and mirrors; it began by emphasising that the percentage of crown estate profits that the royal family receives was being reduced, from 25% to 12%, presenting the deal as if it were a pay cut. The truth is that estimated profits of £1bn from offshore windfarm leases mean that the crown estate’s income is expected to balloon, placing the royals in line for a huge increase.  

The crown estate is not the personal property of Charles. ‘The crown estate says it is the property of the monarchy ‘by right of the crown’, but this jargon simply means it belongs to the crown, a state institution, not to Charles, a private individual.’ (1) 

‘The same is true of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The palace claims these are ‘private estates’, when they are crown properties that originate from the same crown lands as the crown estate. This point about the status of crown lands has been well documented over the past 200 years, not least in parliamentary debates going back to the time of Edward VII and Victoria. As recently as 1972 there were questions raised in parliament as to whether these portfolios should continue to provide an income to the monarch and heir.’ (1) 

Charles came to the throne with grand promises of modernising, and using the profits of the crown estate for the ‘public good‘. It sounds great but it’s a con. It implies that those profits were generously given to the country and that should be grateful for his largesse. He’s just on the make like everyone else, the only difference is that he’s above the law, and a bunch of toadies run around granting his every wish. 

With the cost-of-living crisis continuing to bite he might do well to remember that in 1789, when being told that her French subjects had no bread, Marie-Antoinette (bride of France’s King Louis XVI) supposedly sniffed, ‘Qu’ils mangent de la brioche’—’Let them eat cake.’ Things didn’t end too well for her! 

The worst thing is nothing will change. They are symptomatic of this countries inequality and the system will do little to alter this. The current ‘light-blue’ Labour party will continue to fawn over the royals because they don’t want to upset the equilibrium. 
 

‘The current ‘light-blue’ Labour party will continue to fawn over the royals because they don’t want to upset the equilibrium’

 
Much has been made of the results in Thursday’s byelections, but the turnout was low, on average 25% below that in the 2019 general election, making the results unrepresentative. 

Most Conservative MPs will look at the results and think their career prospects have worsened. They will be concerned by the anti-Tory tactical voting from both Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters in all three byelections.  

In Somerton and Frome Labour’s share of the vote dropped to 2.6% compared with almost 13% at the general election in 2019, putting the party way back in fifth place. Whereas, when Labour triumphed in Selby and Ainsty, the LibDems won only 3.3% of the vote compared with 8.6% in 2019. In Uxbridge and South Ruislip, they won only 1.7%, down from 6.3% in 2019. 

Naomi Smith, chief executive of Best for Britain, which campaigns for better democracy and favours parties working together to remove the Conservatives, said her organisation would be providing guidance to voters ahead of the next election. 

‘In the absence of opposition parties standing aside for one another to defeat this failing government, progressive voters have little choice but to make tactical decisions come polling day,’ she said. 

The LibDems win in Somerton and Frome suggests the party has opened up a second front in England’s rural south‑west against the Conservatives, distinct from the ‘blue wall’ suburban south-eastern seats. The Greens’ third place in all three seats ought to ring alarm bells. The party received 10% of the vote in Somerset 
 

‘The Greens’ third place in all three seats ought to ring alarm bells’

 
Much has been made of Labour’s failure to win Uxbridge, and the blame is being laid wrongly at the feet of Sadiq Khan, the capital’s mayor, and his ultra‑low emission zone. The error was Labour’s; the party who went into the byelection campaign without a plan to make the switch to cleaner cars affordable for people hit by a cost of living crisis. This could be funded by extending windfall taxes to pay for enhanced scrappage schemes, which lower the cost of replacement vehicles; investing in public transport; rolling out electric charging stations; and widening exemptions for vulnerable households. 

Lee Anderson, the Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party, said they only won because they campaigned on the ULEZ expansion on the doorsteps, calling it a ‘money-grab‘ by London’s Labour mayor. 

True to form the Right-Wing Press is now championing plucky Londoners rebelling against an unfair regressive tax imposed by the ‘climate-fascists‘ and ‘communists‘ in charge of the London Mayor’s office. Some are speculating that the Tory’s will further attack climate change, GB News said: ‘Tory MPs have pointed to the unexpected win as proof Rishi Sunak should scale back on the Government’s net zero plans.’ 

What shouldn’t be overlooked is that the Tories might be down but they aren’t yet out. They won’t relinquish power without a vicious fight and have some ruthless tricks up their sleeves when it comes to campaigning. 
 

‘They won’t relinquish power without a vicious fight and have some ruthless tricks up their sleeves’

 
The Times reported that Sunak was preparing to launch an aggressive political campaign on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights in an attempt to drive down Labour’s lead in the polls. Alongside this focus on ‘divisive’ issues, there are suggestions that the government is drawing up a series of policies for a crime and justice bill that would include tougher sentences for antisocial behaviour, fraud, burglary and robbery. 

Like the right-wing partys in Spain this suggests that the Tory’s misunderstand the electorates priorities. 

There, an recent Ipsos poll for La Vanguardia found that the economy was the single biggest issue for voters, with 31% of those surveyed putting it at the top of their list. Next was unemployment (10%) and healthcare (9%). Immigration, one of Vox’s favourite talking points, was the most important issue for just 2% of those polled. 

Current economic policy is based around the governments obsession with inflation, which is now so rabid that they think a recession is a just price to pay for lowering it. Encouraging a recession seems strange when both Sunak and Starmer are promoting economic growth.  

Bizarrely both seem to believe that fiscal rectitude is the way to achieve this. I say ‘bizarre’ as for the past 13-years Labour has been criticising the Tories for their austerity policies that were based on false premises, and achieved nothing other than misery for many. Now Labour seem convinced that to win the next election they must commit themselves to continuing cuts to the public sector and social services. 
 

‘austerity policies that were based on false premises, and achieved nothing other than misery for many’

 
As I have written before, Labour have become a tribute act, the only thing they oppose is their own previously agreed policies. 

If Starmer is to revisit previous Labour policies, he needs to find a way to repair the damage Brexit has caused to the nation’s finances. In short, if Labour hopes to alleviate the problems they will inherit they need to find a way to reverse the legacy of Brexit.  

Starmer was as right about the damage that Brexit would cause, as Brexiters were wrong about the imagined benefits. Rather than banging on about the damage Brexit causes, he is scared of the Daily Mail and the Sun, both of which backed Brexit. Recent polls indicate that popular opinion is ahead of the politicians in this respect; a majority of the population favour rejoining Europe. 
 

‘a majority of the population favour rejoining Europe’

 
Brexit was always a scam, a sop to Little Englanders and racists. Michel Barnier, the former EU negotiator, recently told a British visitor that the offer made some years ago by a senior EU figure – that ‘the door [for re-entry] is open’ – has not been closed. 

With Sunak, a dyed-in-the-wool Brexiter this is an opportunity for Labour to oppose, to offer a different vision. This is required as the electorate need a compelling reasons for voting Labour. 

Everyone knows the country is in a mess, that public services are broken. These and numerous other points are good reasons for not voting for Sunak, who has no obvious plan to fix Britain.

However, Labour needs to offer alternatives to convert increasing disenchantment with the Conservatives into votes. 
 

‘I may not have a job but I have a good time 

With the boys that I meet down on the line 

I said, D-H-S-S’ 

 
Notes: 
 

1. Graham Smith is CEO of Republic and the author of Abolish the Monarchy: Why We Should and How We Will 

 

As the title suggests, this is a reflective piece. I look back at the royals pay rise, the byelections, and what the results tell us.

The royals really look out-of-time. They are symptomatic of a by-gone era. Perhaps that’s why the Tory’s like them. Their policies of austerity are returning us to those bad old days. When status mattered more than achievement, the latter being only necessary to buy social advancement.

It feels like we are returning to Edwardian times, with the requisite authoritarian reactionary government. One that talks about liberalism, but only if it meets with their approval.

The byelections were somewhat inconclusive. Yes, the Tory’s lost votes, no one could hardly expect anything different. What impacted the result were the “stayaways”, the usual byelection protesters who usually return to the fold when it matters.

Looking objectively, Starmer still isn’t doing enough to win a majority. He’s sitting on so many fences that he must already have splinters!

Kier, it’s time to get off the fence, go out and win it. Tell them Brexit was a disaster, as was austerity, offer the electorate hope not more medicine.  

The Tory’s seem to be warming up for their election campaign, with lots of negative and divisive policies. Sums them up, tired, out-of-date, and just plain nasty.

Lyrically, it’s dance week. Anything to lift the gloom. We start with “Reflections” by the Supremes, always a favourite. To finish something very different but, having watched the Wham! biopic Netflix they were a lot of fun and talented. We play out with Wham Rap…let’s party! Enjoy!

@coldwarsteve
 

 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: