The Queen's Head

Er.. no. not the pub.

There are reports that new legislation - originally designed by Peter Mandelson if I'm not mistaken - would have allowed someone to buy the Royal Mail and not put the Queen's Head on the postage stamps.

In the way that her head doesn't appear if I send an email, or a fax, or an instant message, a blogpost, a tweet or even on my post if I have a franking machine.

Why is it the Royal Mail anyway? I can understand why Victoria wanted it but she has been dead more than a century. I can understand why 'Royal' support was given to the animal charity the RSPCA, although she should have withdrawn it when that body became political. The Germans call theirs Deutsche Post, the Italians Poste Italiane. British Post could have been denatioanlised without fuss, like British Airways, which didn't have a picture of the Queen on its aeroplanes.

Let's take a small step into the 20th century at least: Off with her head!

The Queen and democracy

David Laws, lest we forget, fiddled £40,000 from the taxpayer which he paid to his homosexual lover presenting it as rent for a room in his house. Laws resigned, but apparently will get a senior government post soon. Just the sort of chap we want running the country.


Anyway, Laws has used his six months off to write a memoir of the events surrounding the formation of the coalition between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. In it he is reported to have said that The Queen connived with Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg at keeping Gordon Brown in office while they stitched a deal together.

And stitched is the appropriate word. The electorate was stitched up, as the two men decided on policies which were not present in their manifestos, without deigning to consult the voters. Her Majesty appears to have been fully informed as to what was going on, favouring undemocratic rule by the political class above the traditional system of the people deciding how they are governed.

There is something quite, quite rotten here. Buckingham Palace has some explaining to do.

The Monarchy and the Right

The cancelling of the invitation to Nick Griffin, head of the Right Wing British National Party, to attend a garden party at Buckingham Palace was utter folly. We aren't supposed to say that Her Majesty has screwed up so I'll say she was ill advised (everyone else in public and private life has to take responsibility for decisions made in their name).

Griffin, who is an elected politician, albeit under the bogus 'proportional' system, now looks as if he, and the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for his party, have been undemocratically victimised by the Queen, who could easily have ignored him once she had a sausage roll in her hand..

The way to deal with Griffin is to engage him on the issues of the day: how would he reduce the deficit, what is the right amount to spend on schools or the National Health Service? If we do that he will be found out by the electorate. If her Majesty refuses to engage with elected representatives of the people she looks worse than him.

The whisky and the revolver

Those who talk about Gordon Brown being edged out before the next election seem to me to be missing one important point. HM the Queen has to appoint Prime Ministers and I can't see she would have any choice but to say 'No, the Labour Party was alllowed the chance to appoint its own Prime Minister last time (without even an election in the party!) and I cannot allow a small cabal to force another person on the people without facing the electorate. It is not as if the Labour Party was the only choice to form a government - indeed they are miles behind in the polls.'

Even if Gordon were to resign through ill health this same issue has to be faced. HM Queen has a constitutional position and she would effectively be abrogating it if she allowed such an abuse of democracy to occur. If that were to happen there would sarcely be any constitutional relevance to the monarchy.