THE REPUBLICAN CROAKERS TRY THEIR LUCK

THERE WAS SOMETHING OF A brouhaha regarding the use of 220 unemployed young people who were brought to London over the weekend to act as stewards at the Queen’s Diamond  Jubilee.

            There was talk of ‘labour camp conditions’ (John Prescott). This was a reference to claims that the young people were told to sleep under London Bridge in what were cold and damp conditions as well as having to go without toilet facilities.

            It was the republican Guardian that led the charge followed by the BBC’s Today programme and the World at One. This in turn led to the Prescott intervention, followed by the Labour Party’s deputy chairman Tom Watson who chimed in on Twitter with: ‘Young people as commodities with few rights in a show of opulence by state elites? Isn’t there a powerful symbolism to that?’

            Out of the 220 young men and women who participated just two complained about their treatment; and based upon their evidence, the Guardian, which was so pleased with itself that it had managed to pour cold water on a grand royal occasion, apparently decided to take the two complainants evidence as sufficient  for their front page story.

            Why were the investigative standards of the newspaper completely ignored on this occasion? Why were reporters not sent forth to seek out verification of their two witness statements? If the Guardian had done so, then they would have quickly found that  there was a more overwhelming point of view to be had from interviewing the stewards.

            First of all, the coach that brought 80 of the volunteers from Bristol, Plymouth and Bath, arrived early and according to the Daily Mail, ‘… the coach company mistimed the length of the journey and dropped them off at 3am instead of 5am. Instead of staying, the drivers left the drop-off point.’
            As one volunteer, Robert Cooke, from Plymouth said, ‘A couple of people have complained about things that weren’t controlled by CPUK – the coach drivers who insisted on leaving, and the weather.’ I wonder if the un-obliging coach driver was a member of a union?

            Mr Cooke’s views were not solicited by either the Guardian or the BBC. His views turn out, however, to have been a truer reflection of the  volunteer’s appreciation of the whole experience.

            Another volunteer is reported as saying they were, ‘treated with the utmost respect and highly praised for the work we had done’. Indeed Close Protection UK (CPUK), the company that  brought the volunteers to London has received much praise from those volunteers who took part in the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee events since the criticism began. All were now looking forward to the Olympics were they will be further appreciated for their work by the general public - if not by the BBC and the Guardian.

DURING THE DIAMOND JUBILEE extravaganza, members of the Labour opposition have remained, no doubt sulkily, silent. So when the Guardian broke their ‘story’ it became manner from heaven to the likes of Prescott and Watson.

            Hoping it would reflect badly with the British public, and even worse, reflect badly on the  monarchy; the BBC, Guardian, as well as a majority of the Labour opposition, became overexcited by the possibilities of embarrassing an institution they all loath deeply.

            This is probably why the story was mismanaged. Over eagerness allowed standards at the Guardian to slip. One must, in a way, feel sorry for such people. How they must have lamented every minute of the jubilee celebrations; until that is, the Guardian gave the Labour Party republicans their cue. At least the small group of republicans that demonstrated near Tower Bridge had the courage of their republican convictions, and bravely stood their ground.

            Where were all those opposition backbench republicans when the celebrations were taking place? Unlike Peter Tatchell for instance, who was the star turn among the motley bunch of 90 or so members of Republican at Tower Bridge, they were probably sulking over a pint of subsidised beer in one of the bars within parliament.

            The Left-wing were thrown a rather dirty bone by the Guardian, but they eagerly chewed it and licked every piece of marrow from it. They thought they would, at the very least, put a spoke in the wheels of the monarchy, and leave themselves gratified and a small part of the nation confirmed in their prejudice of the monarchy.

THOSE WHO SERVED as stewards did a vital job. They gained experience, and one of their merry band, Mr Cooke, mentioned above, told the Mail this, ‘They have paid for all the training for my licence and an NVQ in crowd safety.

            ‘They gave us boots worth £80, and a uniform. We worked out that what they’ve spent is the equivalent of us being paid £45 an hour.’

            Hardly the kind of Dickensian nightmare in which the Left has chosen to colour the whole episode. They have made fools of themselves, and will now wish it to go quietly away.

            The only ‘good’ this has done from a monarchist point of view is to have clarified to the institution its many enemies; all of whom emanate from the Left.

            I cannot for the life of me see what harm the modern monarchy does to our nation or its people; the majority of whom support the institution. Only class prejudice or a woefully misguided belief in an elected president, could possibly harm our country’s future. An elected president is a vacuous example. Our people, at the moment, are truly fed up with elected representatives who they  believe have brought the nation to its current sorry pass.

            Why the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee is proving such a success with the British people, is because of the monarchy, and in particular Queen Elizabeth II, who represents a constant in a world of political mismanagement by our elected politicians.

            Republicanism holds not bolt hole for the British people in times of difficulty. What is needed is an institution, benign in power, but powerful constitutionally. An anchor point that can rally the nation and its people. The British people have turned to the monarchy because the democratically elected politicians have let the nation down; and what represents our nation more than its constitutional monarchy.

            Under a similar circumstance, as we are seeing in Greece today, political extremism fills the vacuum which in our nation the monarchy stands as a stabilising force that any elected president could not match.

            What would be the background of an elected president anyway? An ex-political hack (Tony Blair)? A celebrity (Joanna Lumley has been mentioned), God forbid? Perhaps a fabrication of black skin, female, and lesbian, to fit with  modern requirements of diversity and political correctness.

            To believe that contenders from such quarters would prove a fitting replacement for today’s monarchy beggars belief. The hereditary principle works; as with voting for a head of state, you take the good with the bad; and in a world of change (some of it bad) there is an anchorage – a place that remains constant in one’s life. I was born three years before the Queen came to the throne, and throughout my teens and into my early forties, I was a republican making the same arguments they are making today. But the current monarch has been constant backdrop to my life, and whereas my old Marxist entanglements have been undermined by history – the monarchy remains, and hopefully will continue to do so.