Why No-one Should Vote Tory - Eton and the Eaten

The Tories have always primarily been about the protection of the already wealthy and powerful. Initially they were there fighting for the rights of Kings to lead Parliament and the state, instead of parliamentarians. When only men who owned land could vote, when only men could vote, during desperate poverty with children down mines and up chimneys, there they were defending the wealthy. The Tories opposed democracy and social advancement at every turn. They are a relic of oppression and a class system which has never been dismantled. 14 of Cameron's front bench went to Eton - a school which requires wealth to attend, not ability. They are all about wealth, not people. A selfishness and greed is at the heart of Tory philosophy which can easily slip into downright villainy. I felt not one iota of surprise at revelations of Tory expense abuses - I would never have expected anything else from them. The behaviour of members of other parties was a shock when fraud had been committed, though I couldn't get excited about packets of biscuits and £5 filing errors. Perhaps you agree with their philosophy, which I personally find vile and abhorrent and very mistaken, but seems to appeal to some people. Maybe you want to look after number one, believe in dog eat dog, that only the strong survive, etc, and you think the Tories are the party for you - you're wrong. Even the immensely wealthy, like members of the Tory front bench and their new matey the self-styled Sun and Sky Master Rupert Murdoch, have the insidious corrosion of their souls to worry about. But the rest of you should worry about a lot more than that. There are are going to be increasingly fewer of the rich 'them' and increasingly more 'rest of us' in a Tory-led recession struck Britain. You will not be the dog who eats the dog, you will be the dog who goes down and goes under.

What was V.I Warshawski doing? - My winning entry

She came to Britain after having an epiphany while talking to an ex lover and realising how injurious, insulting, anachronistic and indefensible a hereditary monarch as head of state is to every person there and in fact to every human on the planet. She became involved with groups campaigning for an elected head of state during which she dressed as Thomas Paine in a protest re-enactment of the French and American revolutions, where replica flintlocks turned out to have been primed by a monarchist agent provocateur, causing the 'Chick Lit' author Louise Bagshawe, a monarchist and prospective Tory candidate for Parliament, to lose a finger on her writing hand and try to sue the protest groups. V.I. still wakes up some mornings with the smell of gunpowder in her nostrils, something which always puts her in an exceedingly cheerful and optimistic frame of mind. Subsequent to the L Bag incident V.I. was abducted by two of the unwholesome parasites who surround the throne, the hands who rock the cradle of inbred stupidity and blood disorders, when she was locked in the boot of a car and driven to the north of Scotland to an unknown fate. However, she managed to loosen her bindings and as the car was driven through the gates of Balmoral she was able to attract the attention of protestors who were there demonstrating about the Queen refusing to open Buckingham Palace enough to cover its repairs. Two palace officals were charged with abduction and V.I. was put on a plane back to America. The story continues...

Lettter to Danny Alexander re proposed increased secrecy around royals

You will probably be aware that Gordon Brown announced the government will introduce a blanket ban on access to all royal documents for 20 years, removing the current public interest test. The royal family is already kept under unacceptable secrecy, being excluded from the Freedom of Information Act, however at the moment some documents can be released on the grounds of public interest - this will not be possible under the new rules.

The Ministry of Justice's amazing excuse for this intolerable increased secrecy surrounding an unelected head of state and her family who absorb taxpayers' money and are not accountable or transparent in how they do so, is to 'ensure the constitutional position and political impartiality of the monarchy is not undermined'! As we can all jalouse from the passionate interference of Charles Windsor in every cause and hobby horse that moves him, what they actually mean is the apparent impartiality of the monarchy. They must hide what these unelected, privileged, wealthy, highly positioned and powerful people are actually doing. What an irony that this comes from the Ministry of 'Justice'!

This will come before Parliament in primary legislation, I'm writing to ask that you ensure to oppose it when it does and please could you pass on my concerns to Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice.

Thank you very much.

Correspondence with local councillors

Sent: 09 September 2009 15:32
To: Laurie Fraser - Member; Liz MacDonald - Member; Graham Marsden - Member; Sandy Park- Member
Subject: Form from website: hereditary position, privilege and power in the 21st century

I am writing to enquire what your views are regarding Britain having a hereditary monarchy as Head of State? You may be aware there is a growing movement towards democracy for Britain in this regard (see www.republic.org.uk ). I believe passionately that monarchy is an indefensible and unjust anachronism which must be extricated from the machinery and finances of the state as soon as possible, for a more fair and aspirational future. Please take time to look at the information on the website and then I hope we can count on your support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your email. As a councillor I am used to having and being asked my views on a range of aspects of the community I serve, this is the first on the monarchy

I worked in London for some years as an hotelier in a very large city centre hotel, and there’s no doubt that many of the foreign customers we served were attracted by our Royalty, visiting palaces etc – I saw at first hand the millions of pounds of foreign currency which these visitors generated for Britain.

I then lived overseas, in Commonwealth countries, where membership was often a calming factor and made these countries safer, pro-British and often as a result, bought much from the UK in preference to other countries.

Finally, I respect the Queen for the job she does and the way she does it. I also respect Princess Anne, who has visited Nairn on numerous occasions, whether to open the new Community Centre, or to visit other places within our community like Nairn CAB (as patron of the Citizens Advice organisation). I had a lengthy chat with her after she had opened Nairn CAB some years ago; she spoke with authority and knowledge about benefits and rates payable, I found that impressive.

I’m perhaps less convinced about other members of the royal household, and their cost to the public purse, so to answer your question, I have mixed views on the subject but on balance am more pro than anti at present – but the royal list could do with paring down, I feel!

That is the view I hold now, I may of course change it at a future date.

Regards, Graham Marsden

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Like you, many people cite tourism as a reason for retaining the monarchy, but if it is looked at more closely this argument does not in fact stand up. The most popular tourist country in the world is France, and like them without the monarchy we would still have the palaces, castles and houses, as in fact they belong to us and Elizabeth Windsor is merely a custodian. In fact they would be more of a tourist attraction as they would be open to the public more and would therefore be able to not only be self-sufficient but actually make a profit like the Tower of London - currently Buckingham Palace is only open to the public 63 days a year and is not even able to pay for its repair. A piece of falling masonry recently narrowly missed Princess Anne. Palace officials have refused to open it up any more though they have been asked to do so by government, yet they have simultaneously asked for more taxpayers' money yet not provided the paperwork requested by the public accounts committee. Two Spanish tourists were even arrested recently for taking photographs of the wall around Buckingham Palace! There would be far more available for tourists to see without the monarchy being encumbent. If they came to see the royals they would probably be disappointed as they're not on show anywhere. Also, ask yourself if you were going to visit Norway, Sweden or Denmark for instance, would you be going there because of their monarchies? The people and history of this country are well interesting enough to attract visitors, I do not believe this resides in the continued elevation of one particular family.

Re the Commonwealth. The various nations of the Commonwealth are turning their backs on the monarchy as they look to a more democratic future. Most countries in the commonwealth are already republics. A recent survey by the Royal Commonwealth Society found that less than a quarter of Commonwealth citizens want Charles to head the organisation after his mother dies. So a hereditary monarchy only seems to unite the commonwealth against it.

As you rightly observe, some members of the royal family are much more sympathetic than others! Princess Anne stands out as not having requested security for her children and that can be contrasted to her brother Andrew's daughters' colossal security bill which is coming out of the Metropolitan Police budget (taxpayers' money again). Anne also took no royal titles for her children. People cannot help the family that they are born into, and if you look at the royals as human beings the argument against monarchy becomes even more powerful. 'Around the throne gather the unwholesome parasites'. The establishment, of murky palace officialdom who hide behind the names of buildings ('Clarence House said today' 'The palace says') would sacrifice the royals in a second to save themselves, and these people surround them from birth. The queen's father was catapulted into being king, a job which he was not equipped for and which her mother certainly believed contributed to his premature death. There is a book 'God Save the Queen?' by Johann Hari which goes into more detail on how abusive to the individual royals as human beings the system of monarchy really is.

But for democracy, a fairer society and for us, with the system of hereditary monarchy it's a lottery whether we get a half-decent royal or a selfish, immoral, tyrannical one or something in between, or one who can cope with the job or one who can't. We can't choose and we can't claim to be a fully formed democracy until any of our children can be told "Yes you can", not just the ones born into one family.

Sincerely,

Marjory Smith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but I do not want a republic.

Laurie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you explain what your reasons are for supporting the monarchy?

Thanks.

Marjory