Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: The king of all calamities requires our Queen to intervene

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 June 2009
IT IS one of those tragedies for which everybody blames themselves after the event. The row of neglected milk bottles outside the door of No 10 should have aroused suspicions; Alistair, the next-door neighbour at No 11, sat tight and did nothing; the occupant of No 10 was known to be a man of uncertain temper who kept himself to himself. By the time the police broke the door down it was too late.
An all-too-familiar story of public indifference in an age of selfish individualism; except that the cadaver inside 10 Downing Street is that of the 109-year-old Labour Party. For this is it: Old Labour died under Michael Foot; New Labour has now fol
lowed it to the grave. Factor in the rise of alternative political parties and Labour's demise is irretrievable. When the governing party is being trounced at the polls by the Lincolnshire Independents, the writing is on the wall for The Party We Love.

Yet still Gordon clings to the furniture in No 10, fabricating ever more fantastic governments – Sir Alan Sugar as Enterprise Tsar, Mandy as First Secretary of State, a title half redolent of the reign of Queen Anne and half of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which Labour now joins in the dustbin of history. Gordon and his zombie government, trailing the grave-clothes of their tattered legislative programme, are still tottering around Whitehall. Britain needs to emancipate itself from these undead. 'How?' is the question.

Last week demonstrated how, despite rumours of mutiny, when it came to the decisive moment most of the curs slunk away, fearful of the whip. There were kamikaze exceptions ("Purnell, my dead king!"), but David Miliband (remember his Portillo moment last year?) declined a date with destiny; ditto the overrated Alan Johnson. The latest rumour is that, if the European election results are as bad as expected, 70 Labour MPs will torpedo Gordon tomorrow night at the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour group.

And if, by some extraordinary freak of fate, they do not, what is Plan B? To allow Brown, the devastator of pensions, the seller of gold reserves at the bottom of the market, the deluded squanderer of trillions, the guru of post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory who turns out to have the economic nous of a seven-year-old, to continue to wreck what remains of our economy for a further year? There will be lynch mobs storming Westminster long before the end of any such nightmare scenario.

There can be no Plan B, insist the hand-wringing nay-sayers, thanks to our outdated, unwritten constitution that gives us no opportunity to remove the Chief Bed-blocker. Twelve years of water-dripping-on-stone black propaganda from the demented constitution-mongers of Charter 88 and New Labour has brainwashed many into believing this nonsense. In fact we have a constitution perfectly equipped to deal with the present emergency: now is the time for the Queen to invoke her Royal prerogative and dissolve Parliament over the head of Gordon Brown.

There is no disputing she has the right to do this and there is a relevant precedent. In 1834, after Lord Althorp the Whig leader in the Commons inherited as Earl Spencer, the Prime Minister Lord Melbourne wished to appoint the ultra-Radical Lord John Russell to succeed him. Fearing an extremist Radical programme, William IV dismissed the Whig ministry and asked the Conservative leader Sir Robert Peel to form a government. Peel did so, but almost immediately legitimised his appointment by going to the country.

The constitutional principle is this: dismissal of a government by Royal prerogative is not undemocratic, provided it is immediately followed by a general election, giving the electorate the right to choose the government it wants. In the present circumstances, with a revolving-door Cabinet, more and more unelected ministers being drafted in via the House of Lords and election results pouring in that show the electorate's overwhelming rejection of the government, a compulsory dissolution would be perfectly justified.

The term "Royal prerogative" has a reactionary, absolutist flavour to it. It has sometimes been abused, though never by the Queen and most notoriously by Tony Blair. Yet the whole point of it is that, when properly and very sparingly invoked, as an instrument of last resort, it is the ultimate guarantor of democracy. The conduct of the present government is a negation of democracy. Gordon Brown has never legitimised his premiership by election.

The current crisis, with its innumerable strands – economic, constitutional, ethical – would normally persuade a prime minister, by the conventions of his office, to resign or face the country at the polls. Gordon Brown refuses to do either. The chief purpose of the Monarchy is to assert the public interest in such an impasse. Over to you, Ma'am.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Retiarius,

Batavadorum 07/06/2009 00:14:18
'The term "Royal prerogative" has a reactionary, absolutist flavour to it.'

Yes ... but aren't there some disadvantages too?
2

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 07/06/2009 08:22:15
While the proposal from the unreconstructed sub-Carolan restorationist Mr. Warner could be tempting, #2 is right.

The Queen is not stupid; she sees the betrayal by GB of every principle and ethos that made the UK good and obviously prefers to let him slowly burn himself out and in so doing, drain what life is left from the labour party, the final desertion of the British worker.

Gordon Brown, the creation of a 1970s educational Victor Frankenstein.
3

Pilrig,

Livingston 07/06/2009 09:04:09
Gough Whitlam got booted oot of office via the Royal prerog. And folk wonder why Oz will soon be a republic !
4

Geoff,

sa 07/06/2009 09:34:22
Morning pilrig!

Gough whitlam said"Well may we sing'God Save the Queen' but NOTHING will save the governor-general!!
That incident-thirtyish years ago, was not really the main reason for the rise of Aus Republicanism. The queen was but a rubber stamp forced to aquiesce to a decision taken entirely in Australia. Australian republicanism has advanced mainly as a natural result of the maturation of the nation,the changing ethnic profile and the series of Windsor household(as opposed to the institution of Monarchy)troubles of the last decade-divorces,Diana etc.. Interesting to note though that in NZ,creeping republicanism has had a reversal with the new governments reintroduction of some British honours.

Poor Gordon brown-a basically decent man out of his depth.
5

Geoff,

sa 07/06/2009 09:38:20
2 Cynicus in exile-agree with much of what you say. However public opinion is so anti Labour and GB at present that i think she would have huge popular support for such a move. A much more likely scenario is that the party will boot GB out-albeit kicking and screaming.
6

Geoff,

07/06/2009 09:39:35
1 Retiarius-had to read it twice but :) :)
7

Pilrig,

Livingston 07/06/2009 10:04:04
6 - good day to you,Geoff. GB - a decent man ? The same guy who raided pension funds on a scale that exceeded Cap'n Bob ? Thanks to that stunt not a few of us mugs will be a little poorer than anticipated when we retire.
8

mr broon,

Edinburgh 07/06/2009 10:22:28
The public have probably never heard of the "Sailor King" William lV, of which very little is known, except that he appointed a Prime Minister, contrary to the will of parliament, the last ever allowed to do so under the alleged "unwritten" constitution.

In his time he was mocked by commentators with the nickname "Sailor King" because although he had served in the Royal Navy he never saw any real action as he was "always protected and kept in reserve"! Every sailor in the Royal Navy wanted to serve on his ship.

At his death he had no surviving legitimate children
but eight of TEN illegitimate children he had by a music hall artist!

He was succeeded by Victoria, and in his native Hanover by his brother Ernest Augustus.

Much has been made of the fuss about the French allegedly snubbing the Queen by not inviting her to the D-Day ceremonies in Normandy?

This wouldn't have anything to do with this engagement clashing with the Epsom Races? It appears that Prince Charles drew the short straw because yesterday every other member of the Royal Family was at Epsom!
9

Davie08,

Edinburgh 07/06/2009 14:31:05
There is another possibility. Madge could refuse to enoble 'Lord' Sugar of Barrowboy. There is more recent precedent her grandfather refused to raise some of the more outrageously dubious of the Maundy Gregory types in the twenties. In which case Brown would have to resign on the grounds that he cannot have the cabinet he desires and the Queen is off the hook on the grounds that she prefers that ministers in her Government should at least in some way be accountable to the electorate.
10

Teemackell the Scribe,

07/06/2009 15:06:52
What to make of this:

"The current crisis, with its innumerable strands – economic, constitutional, ethical – would normally persuade a prime minister, by the conventions of his office, to resign or face the country at the polls. Gordon Brown refuses to do either. The chief purpose of the Monarchy is to assert the public interest in such an impasse. Over to you, Ma'am."

This is a remarkable statement. It is a pity GW doesn't cite his authority for it.

Consider a FAR more serious situation: a prime minister acts as the agent of a foreign power -albeit our closest ally, but whose administration has been hijacked by political zealots. He aligns himself with their drive to war in the face of the largest public protests in this country's history. Although GW, to his great credit, opposed the Iraq War I do not recall any plea to the Queen from him in 2003 to dissolve the parliament controlled by the traitor Tony Blair.


11

Geoff,

sa 07/06/2009 15:17:06
Gb the Lord Protector?
12

Sam.B.O.,

Edinburgh 07/06/2009 16:33:31
She might be your Queen - she is not mine

If anything represents an outdated concept which should be modernised it is the concept of a heriditary monarchy

I look forward to an indpendent Scotland which some day will be a Republic

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.