Prince Andrew, or the UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, has been doing our work for us this weekend.
His comments about bankers’ bonuses and non-doms have not only led to damaging headlines, but have also earned a stinging rebuke from the Treasury. As Norman Baker MP put it: “It is not his job to make political statements, particularly not when they are in favour of his well-heeled friends.”
But it’s the following quote which is perhaps most revealing:
I was brought up to do this sort of work. It is training, experience and genetics. We offer consistency and regularity. We have been around for a long time and will be around for a long time. We are not going to disappear. I have a family pedigree that allows me time to build up relationships.
All that “training, experience and genetics” won’t mean much to the two thirds of businesses who feel his role is of “no financial benefit” whatsoever.
It’s hardly surprising that Andrew has such a high opinion of himself, or that he offers such a vastly exaggerated assessment of his impact. But the people running UK Trade and Investment (his “employers”) owe it to the British taxpayer to get value for money – and that means the best person for the job. Which means someone chosen on merit, rather than family connections.
If you agree, you can write to “Lord” Mervyn Davies, the Minister of State for Trade, Investment and Small Business, requesting that Andrew is immediately stripped of his trade role and that his successor is chosen by a competitive process.
Here are some points you may like to mention:
- Andrew has publicly criticised government policy on bankers’ bonuses and tax arrangements for non-domiciles, making his position untenable.
- His annual expenses of £140,000 (excluding travel) are not justified by the negligible impact he makes.
- The post of UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment is an important one, and should go to the very best candidate.
It’s also worth mentioning if you’re a business owner or otherwise involved in the business/financial sector. Your comments are likely to be taken more seriously if you have relevant professional experience.
You can let Mr Davies know your thoughts by emailing mpst.davies@berr.gsi.gov.uk.
As usual, please be polite and to-the-point. Try to keep your email to just one paragraph if possible, use businesslike language and stick to the points outlined above.
Remember that Davies probably doesn’t care what you think of Andrew as a person, but does care about the reputation and effectiveness of UKTI.
Finally, please don’t openly copy Republic staff members into your emails but forward any replies to receive to g.smith@republic.org.uk.
Update 14:07
If you’re having any trouble with the above email address you can use the main UKTI email address – enquiries@ukti.gsi.gov.uk – and mark it for Lord Davies’ attention.
Update 15:17
A Facebook group has been set up to call for Andrew’s dismissal from UKTI. Please join it.
Tags: bankers, bonuses, mervyn davies, non doms, prince andrew, tax, UKTI
Facebook
Twitter
October 26th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Can anybody enlighten me as to who appointed Mr Windsor in his trade role in the first place? Or is this a role he assumed because, after all, training experience and genetics makes him the only person in Britain who could possibly carry it out.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I have copied over my post because I think I have posted it on the wrong thread and it is more relevant on this one. I am infuriated by these amoral self-opinionated hyenas, ruthlessly clinging on to the mad notion that they are to be regarded as something special having passed through a particular uterus.
Those, like the grinning Andrew Windsor, who represent our country should, in my view, be determined within a democratic system – not decided by the few, as yet another desperate, bright idea for legitimising those who take magnificently, but give very little. And who knows what this unaccountable economic genius gets up to behind closed doors and on whose behalf?
I have no evidence, but is Windsor instrumental in arms deals? Does he ‘facilitate’ in all and every respect? We are not allowed fully to know. But then the English sport of marvelling at secrecy, seeking permission, being allowed or not, applying for licences and striving to maintain what Isaiah Berlin categorised as our negative freedoms – the ability to act without interference from others – these things are precisely what this current privileged system of disgusting deference is built on.
If ’stability’ arises from the mute acceptance that a family of superbeings exists, paying their extortionate ‘royal’ bills without question and putting up with the trite pronouncements of these publicly-funded multi-millionaires, some of whom loudly insist upon the fact that they are unremovable and we can do nothing about it – ‘instability’ seems the more honourable choice for preserving the human integrity and self-respect of the nation.
Monarchists really should not be fooled by the beanified old duck. The ‘national treasure’ label does not stick, anymore than the ‘nations favourite granny’ adhered to her indolent, spendthrift mother.
The ‘marvellous job’ E Windsor has performed for decades has been carried out in a wholly removed manner. She has displayed the humourless, ice-cold persona of an automaton, having perfected the trick associated with the cruelly absent daughter who, in making the odd appearance, can do no wrong. The slightest display of humanity from this woman draws the loudest applause, even relief. For how much longer are we to be sucked in by this pointless ‘hereditary’ construct?
October 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I think he takes far to much meddling in the country’s affairs, he is not elected to the government by the people and therefore should have no say.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
By saying that he is genetically advantaged to do a certain job Prince Andrew is saying that others are genetically disadvantaged.
Is it legal to say some people (in this case all non-members of the royal family) are genetically inferior to do a job?
At any rate anyone who would claim their DNA qualifies them for a job is clearly an a******e and no amount of genetic engineering is going to change that
October 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
It sounds like something Nick Griffin would have said and no it should certainly not be legal – it’s racist, classist and elitist, an insult to every single person working in trade and industry all over the planet who know they got their jobs and do their jobs through hard work, capability and achievement. His impact is negligible and I would now argue any impact he has is going to be negative, damaging and detrimental. Is this really what UKTI wants to represent them? Surely not. Sense has got to prevail.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Nothing wrong with good breeding and being trained from birth for a certain job. Prince Andrew is a great trade ambassador for this country, im sure leading figures in British industry and business would back that up.
And no, nothing in Prince Andrews comments are illegal. He did not attack any one on racial or religious grounds.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
You have evidnce for that? I’ve spoken to business people who can’t see what possible good he does, and a report out earlier this year said barely a third of businesses thought the UKTI did any good at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that Andrew Windsor is more qualified than everyone else (or qualified at all) just because of the family he was born into? That’s quite demonstrably complete and utter nonsense.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Simon Says may well be a master of irony (born to it?). However, he has made a point worth addressing. There seems, indeed, to be nothing in principle wrong with attempting to train someone – humanely – from birth for a certain skill, task or function. This not to say, though, that someone thus trained should therefore have an automatic right to positions of power over others or to posts of remuneration. At some stage, a truly democratic society would set up a competition amongst people of all backgrounds to choose the best for the job. Without that process, we had just as well return to the patronage of the eighteenth century, which is somewhere in time I take Prince Andrew to be inhabiting.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Simon
“And no, nothing in Prince Andrews comments are illegal. He did not attack any one on racial or religious grounds.”
You’re right. He just attacked everybody who wasn’t lucky enough to have sprung from the same loins as he did. That’s roughly 6.8 billion people.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
http://www.thedukeofyork.org/Home/Home.aspx
On the main page it quotes businesses / CEOs etc who say Prince Andrew has done great good.
As for him being more qualified than anyone else, i never said that was the case however his “training, experience and genetics” do ofcourse mean hes fully capable of doing the job very well, as proven above.
We should not forget just because he has this position its not like no one else takes part or plays a role. When he goes to a country to promote British trade, it does not stop others going as well. For example just because Tony Blair is the Middle East envoy, it doesnt mean hes the only one working for peace in the Middle east.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I have no doubt that any incoming Conservative Chancellor will find a way to explain that, whilst ‘we are all in it together’ and we must ‘all take some pain’, the true value of our Royals will be recognised when future cuts in Essential Services take place and that as Prince Andrew and the others deliver such terrific returns for our taxes, they will continue to do so.
After all there’s “Essential” and ‘Special Essential”.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Russell,
He does not have an automatic right to that position, if he did a bad job or didnt want to do it then he wouldnt remain UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.
Dave
I am sorry but we can not all be royal, i understand the class system and a bit of jealousy always comes into these sorts of things, but he does a great job on our behalf and he doesnt even get a salary for it so it sems reasonable.
Roger,
I certainly hope a future conservative government respects the monarchy and does its duty to defend it at every stage. There are so many places we can make savings, theres no reason to introduce more cuts for our monarchy, sacrifices have already been made.. i mentioned the other day Her Majesty having to say goodbye to her yacht because of New Labours penny pinching.
Its about time we had a government that knows its place, it is after all Her Majesty’s Government.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Simon, being “fully capable” is not the same as being the best or most suitable person. Can you give one reason why this post wasn’t opened up to non-royals?
October 26th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Graham,
He is a Special Representative, it is not like he is the only person involved in promoting British interests overseas. I am sure there are many ordinary highly skilled folk involved and who go with the Duke as well as separate delegations which go to other countries, many big hitters in British industry went on one trip to China, we ofcourse should have more of those types of trips, but Prince Andrews position as a royal does “open up doors” as they say, which are a great benefit to this country.
Its like the general point about royals being involved with charities. I know people here dismiss their contributions, but having a royal, especially such a senior one supporting a cause helps them so much.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
” Good Breeding ” can only apply to horses and dogs, not human beings !
October 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Barry Kingsley,
lol if you say so
October 26th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Simon,
Have you had one too many Pimm’s old chap?
October 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I have sent a response to Mervyn Davies, the Minister of State for Trade, Investment and Small Business, regarding Andrew Windsors remarks and have put myself forward for the position at a reduced rate of 30% of what Andrew Windsor ‘earns!’
I wonder if I get a reply!
October 26th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“Prince Andrew is a great trade ambassador for this country.” Simon
Oh well then, you obviously know exactly how much trade he has facilitated and in which areas he has operated. Clearly you would not have manufactured a statement of his greatness out of thin air.
Please publish all that you know in support of your claims. I am interested in compiling a list of his achievements. I am particularly interested to find out if he has been involved in selling arms, who he has secured orders or sales for and when.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
It’s good of you to offer your services, Stephen, but although you may have the training and experience, you lack the required genetics. I’m afraid that if you do not have the correct parentage, your application cannot be seriously considered.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
PS Simon,
Mr Windsor’s website is woefully lacking in substance. Outside of being there and being fed, there are scant details of the ways in which he has secured any business and at what levels. It would be fair to say would it that overall he just turns up, sometimes reads a prepared speech in which he implores other nations to buy British, eats and leaves?
What about his role on 21st October:
“The Duke of York… this morning received Sheikh Abdullah Saud Al Thani (Governor of the Central Bank of Qatar), Alis Shareef Al-Emadi (Group Chief Executive, Qatar National Bank), Mr. Irvine Sellar (Chairman, Sellar Property Group) and Mr. James Sellar (Chief Executive, Sellar Property Group). His Royal Highness received Mr. Timothy Torlot (Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of Yemen).
[He] later visited Bpi Films, the Moor Road, Sevenoaks, and was received by Her Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Kent (the Viscount de L’Isle). This afternoon [he] visited Amphenol Limited, Thanet Way, Whitstable, Kent [and] afterwards…Caterham Cars, Kennet Road, Dartford, and was received by Major David Hewer (Deputy Lieutenant of Greater London). His Royal Highness this evening attended a Dinner at Clifford Chance.”
The usual suspects ran greasily around him in ever decreasing circles. So WHAT exactly did he do?
October 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Andrew,
No
Stephen,
So you want a 30% reduced rate of 0. Great
Tim,
Check the website i listed above it quotes certain companies, some of which mention numbers. As for the comment on “selling arms”, 100,000s of British jobs depend on the defence industry, you may be prepared to sacrifice those jobs and hurt families for some moral crusade to rid the planet of “arms”, but rest assured if we dont sell other people weapons, then someone else will so id rather keep the investment and jobs thanks.
Dave,
Quite right too. You can have all the training and experience in the world but that doesnt give the status such an important position like UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment demands. Whilst some may view the war on a class system as noble, we do live in the real world im afraid and even in republics they have elites. We are blessed with a wonderful royal family who carry out their duties very well on behalf of us all. I think its something to take great pride in.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Tim Cooper,
Well according to your post its clear he does a huge amount. We are very honoured to have such great royals.
And what exactly is wrong encouraging other nations to “buy British”?
Oh and you attack the Dukes website. I have some concerns about certain information missing from this website too which i would love to see clearly sourced.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Evening guys
This is totally off-topic, but I make no apologies for the moment, because I think the majority of you will be very glad to be reading what I’m about to write. And I swear upon the honour of the Toon and the grave of the great Sir Bobby Robson that what follows is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The day I have long feared was inevitable has finally come. Extremely unfortunate events have befallen me (I will not specify them for now) which have violently pushed me off the fence and forced me to accept that a parliamentary republic must be established in order to usher in a new age of complete democracy and transparency, of thrift and responsibility, to give power back to the people of Britain and make her great again.
It is not without the heaviest of hearts that I write this. Nothing could make me either speak ill of the Queen herself, for whom I retain the utmost respect, or else lose my profound admiration for the traditions which the monarchy represents. But the Britain to which it belongs, the Britain I love, is dead, and will not be coming back. A new Britain requires a completely fresh start. I therefore add my voice to the plea for the people to awaken from their slumber and set the wheels of change in motion, calling the government to account and punishing its corruption; for the monarchy to be respectfully consigned to history and studied as part of our glorious past; for the Queen, Prince Philip and other royals of their generation to be eased into well-deserved retirement, and for the others to either be allowed to continue their private charitable initiatives or else be encouraged to use the skills they have developed to secure their future incomes.
Let us move forward to rebuild this shattered nation and create a democracy to match our historical greatness.
P.S. Simon, I realise you will feel totally gutted and betrayed, but let me thank you for having endeavoured to contribute constructively to the debate, and know that I respect your putting Britain before the monarchy. But Neil, know this and despair: that you did through your smug, deluded, anarchic, unthinking pontificating, do much to help me see the light. So thank you!
October 26th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Matt Showering,
That is indeed a great shame Matt, although you do not appear to just be giving up on Her Majesty who you claim to have the utmost respect and the monarchy itself which you say you have admiration for but you sound as though you are giving up on Britain itself.
Please explain how becoming a Republic will solve this country’s huge problems. Please explain how a huge constitutional conflict following a potential conservative victory next year will be a good thing for Britain and not distract our government from addresses the real issues facing Britain?
I am sorry you have made the choice you have Matt and i hope a future conservative government may show you that there is no need for removing the monarchy to solve this country’s problems. It is not me you are betraying though, its our Queen, the royal family, our constitutional monarchy, and indeed conservative party values which are overwhelmingly infavour of maintaining and defending the monarchy.
P.S. I guess its “Bobby Robson”. There will be no knights in a Republic. We will all equal and common, no matter how great someones contributions to football and society have been.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Simon, I’m going to hold off on the intensive debating until the republicans have reacted. If it’s any consolation, it’s going to be a very long time before I’m capable of giving a convincing argument for a republic to anyone not very constitutionally-minded and politically knowledgeable. I think I’ll probably end up taking a break from blogging here for a while and focus all my writing on hard political issues. For your information, the Conservatives are the party for change, and giving power to the people, so I am ideally placed to encourage debate on what form that change and that power should take; and what’s more I’m convinced that a republic would strengthen the Union. But to get to the point:
That is indeed a great shame Matt, although you do not appear to just be giving up on Her Majesty who you claim to have the utmost respect and the monarchy itself which you say you have admiration for but you sound as though you are giving up on Britain itself.
The truth is, Simon, I gave up on Britain three years ago. But my best efforts to settle in New Zealand – the last outpost of old-fashioned British social values on earth, the egalitarian paradise – failed, in no small part because they have acquired for themselves a neat little constitutional arrangement whereby they can shut us out in the name of “The Queen of New Zealand” but demand entry into Britain as subjects of “The Queen of the UK.” And such one-sided neo-imperialist piffle has no place whatsoever in the civilised world.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Dear Matt, Hear ! Hear ! Well said . About Neil. I am not so sure that he was really sincere in many of his views.I wanted to respect his views and do him justice,but his persistently sarcastic “ethos”, ( for want of a better word: certainly not “irony” ), made him suspect. He was constantly “Taking the Proverbial”, and admitted it . All sincerely stated views on the blog should be respected ,in my view, both monarchist and republican .
October 26th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Andrew Windsor believes “he has the family pedigreee which allows him the time to build up relationships”. I would strongly disagree. He emanates from one of the most dysfunctional families ever, and neither he, nor any of the royals has any pedigree to build up any relationships, they can’t even sustain relationships within their own family, let alone be suitable for the post of the UK Special Representative for Trade and Investment. Perhaps he should have used these ’special genetic pedigree qualities’ to maintain his marriage.
I would ask (a) if this post was ever advertised (b) what other candidates applied (c) were they interviewed (d) What qualifications and experience was required for the post, and did Andrew Windsor meet the criteria of the job description ???
If managing to sell your own home, which was a so called wedding present from the Queen, to a dubious businessman at a vastly inflated profit, then indeed he should utilise some of those ’special qualities’ to enrich others on the same scale.
The only genetic pedigree qualities he has inherited are those of greed and avarice.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
New Zealand is a sovereign country, what they get up to is their own business. Im not quite sure i understand your point on them demanding entry into the UK, Sadly today Her Majesty’s Subjects from other realms have no automatic right of entrance, only European citizens have that today.
Conservatives seek to change the bad things but to protect and “Conserve” the good things about our tradition and identity, the monarchy is one of those institutions.
The next 10 years will decide the future of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. the separatists must be defeated in that period, i honestly fail to see how focusing on destroying the monarchy will win separatists over, especially as the lead separatist is prepared to accept a Kingdom of Scotland with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“As for the comment on “selling arms”, 100,000s of British jobs depend on the defence industry, you may be prepared to sacrifice those jobs and hurt families for some moral crusade to rid the planet of “arms”, but rest assured if we dont sell other people weapons, then someone else will so id rather keep the investment and jobs thanks.” Simon
Disgraceful. HURT families in this land of plenty? I presume you do not mean kill all their menfolk and blow off their heads with automatic rifles? We are the 3rd largest arms exporter in the world with all the disgusting violence and attendant misery that it causes. Oh well, if trying to stop the imaginatively termed “collateral damage” (in which a possibly starving and disadvantaged community somewhere else is reduced to charred remains) means losing JOBS, of course it’s OK to drop cluster bombs and get rich selling guided missile systems. Spoken like a true militaristic monarchist! Get them to manufacture SOMETHING USEFUL or DO something else Simon.
I do not buy for one minute your pathetic and redundant argument. Why stop at arms? Lets become the world’s largest dealer in crack cocaine. If we don’t someone else will. Why give away profits to criminals when we can freeze them out? Let’s sell automatic weapons to teenagers in the world’s ghettos. Someone already is, we might just as well. What’s WRONG with moral crusades?
What a hopeless, negative, do-nothing position yours appears to be. Everything is inevitable. Nothing can be challenged. Question nothing. Be pulled along by your nose Simon. You already are. So, do you think Windsor is facilitating arms sales to add to his magnificent talents?
His website is woefully short of meaningful information. It does chart WHO he meets allegedly and when, aside from the slithering Lord Lieutenants, and all the meals he eats. What did we expect?
October 26th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Tim Cooper,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4161341.ece
According to that we were the biggest arms dealer in 2007, not bad considering how seriously damaged the rest of British industry has been in recent years thanks to New Labour.
Think of all the jobs that creates at home, countries around the world buying British is something to be proud of. There is nothing illegal about selling weapons to other sovereign states, im sure we comply with EU trade regulations on these matters which are pretty tough.
Left wingers wont be happy till we are all dancing around the camp fire singing Kumbaya ah. There will always be a need for weapons, why shouldnt we supply them?
October 26th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Can I welcome Matt, our republican conservative activist. Our cause will be helped by having such a thoughtful and obviously patriotic contributor.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Simon, your remark about New Zealand’s sovereignty, and it being “a shame” that the Queen’s overseas subjects don’t have blanket right of entry, epitomises what I’m getting at. “They’re a sovereign country so they can treat us as they please, but we’re still their mother so we should always give them an easy ride but we failed in our parental duty towards them and betrayed them” [in favour of the EU which you support BTW.] Patronising codswallop. There are things I could tell you about New Zealand’s ’sovereignty’ which would make you question your very existence. How exactly are they a sovereign nation if they still acknowledge our sovereign as theirs? How could an autochthonous New Zealand Crown be created without the New Zealand people having been absolved of their loyalty to the British Crown and voluntarily reaffirming it in a referendum? This happened in Australia (albeit somewhat belatedly), so there’s no doubt about the Aussie people’s sovereignty and the autochthony of its representative the Australian Crown, but NZers have never been asked how their sovereignty is to be enshrined post-independence – instead a succession of Kiwi governments have left the old imperial polity to fester despite the country having become more & more culturally distant from Britain as we have degenerated into moral bankruptcy. The sooner they have that referendum, the better. And I would strongly urge you to do a bit of research on ancestry visas, the automatic entitlement of any Kiwi or Aussie born before 1983 to apply for right of abode in Britain (both completely unreciprocated), and above all the fact that without any laws here even ringfencing the employment rights of EU citizens over non-EU citizens (in stark contrast to the razor-sharp protection the Aussie & Kiwi governments give their citizens in the job markets), it is ten times easier for an Antipodean backpacker in the UK to get employer sponsorship for a long-term work permit than it is for Brits Down Under, not to mention the fact that our new so-called ‘Aussie-style points system’ for skills-based migration is nothing but window-dressing by our satanic government. Are you aware that half the City’s junior work force is Australian? Or that I was turned down for a City job in favour of an Aussie with no UK experience who’d actually told the company that he was expecting to p**s off home after 6 months – on the grounds that the product the company dealt with was invented in Oz?! That’s the purest form of the politically correct positive racism which is positively beckoning Beelzebub to drag this nation’s soul to hell.
The separatists must be defeated in that period, I honestly fail to see how focusing on destroying the monarchy will win separatists over, especially as the lead separatist is prepared to accept a Kingdom of Scotland with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state.
Simon, come on now, you know full well I believe that preserving the Union is much more important than abolishing the monarchy. But if Salmond’s monarchism is sincere, and not a cynical ploy to throw us off the scent, then I’m the tooth fairy!
October 26th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Thanks Bob, but I think we can all agree it’s probably best if I have a bit of a ‘cooling off’ period to do a bit of ‘homework’ before I become actively involved, probably chipping in here every now and again. I’ve already explained my burgeoning reluctant republicanism to my local Conservative candidate, and he is interested if not entirely in agreement. But if I tried to persuade a constitutional naif to support a republic tomorrow, I’d sound about as convincing as I’d look if I put a Sunderland or Spurs shirt on or started flashing a Labour membership card!
October 26th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Matt,
Good to have you on the team. It can’t have been easy to change from monarchist to republican, a republic is really the only viable way forward. I look forward to your contribution in the future.
Andrew as a special representative would be funny if it wasn’t such a damning indictment of our system. Not only the fact that he has no qualifications to warrent his position, but it undermines the meritocractic approach which can (at least in part) ensure that the best person gets the job. Combined with a competitive application process this is how industry and employers work.
Andrew as a representative is a blatant attempt and paper thin attempt to justify is totally valueless position. The Windsor’s do not deserve the amount of taxpayer money they recieve and so try pretend that they perform some useful function. Charity work is done by thousands for no return, the Winsdor’s involvement in charity does not justify the monarchy’s continued existence any more that this invovlement in international affairs. It in fact justifies the abolition of the monarchy, as it not only refelects badly on the UK but also means that we have unqualified people doing work that only an elected government should carry out.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Well done Andy, though I fear Mummy won’t be pleased. It’s a risky business, dragging your family genetics into the open.
What benefits, precisely, do you believe the Hanover-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Mountbatten-Windsor genes contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and their hangers-on?
And in what way are they superior to those of other people who could do your rather cushy ‘job’ as the UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment?
And didn’t the disastrous and possibly traitorous Edward 8 share some of those genes?
October 26th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
To Simon,
As you seem to be an intelligent person, I am sure that you would have been able to understand what I was alluding to. If not – then you are’t!
October 26th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Bob Wiggin,
I agree Matt would make a worthy addition, atleast his loyalty to the country is clear which is alot more than can be said for many of the people here and sadly Republic itself which refuses to condemn separatism. Which country is it other people here are patriotic towards?
Matt,
On immigration, i do not know the figures involved when it comes to those from other commonwealth realms, the vast majority of the problem is not those taking advantage of settlement rights from being former British subjects in Australia, NZ and Canada, besides its much easier for those to intergrate into British culture because its so closely tied in the past thanks to British migration to those places. The real trouble here is immigration from africa, asia and the middle east. The points based system isnt perfect but it does make a difference and with a conservative cap it would be radically better.
I support tough immigration controls for all non EU citizens, but i have less concerns for the above reasons about Australian / Canadians / USA
On salmond, i suspect he is a closet republic, but the point is hes not calling for the abolishion of the monarchy so it will not a big issue when it comes to defeating the separatists, as they wont raise it and nor shall we. This separatist threat is the most dangerous thing facing this country today, they must be stopped and any serious attempts to challenge the monarchy will simply distract from the much more important conflict.
Out of interest as you clearly do put union first, republic second. How do you feel about Republics failure to take a position?
Sam Walker ,
I fail to see why being elected will ensure the person is qualified. Do you honestly think all our MPs are qualified to do the job they do? Are Cabinet ministers? Prince Andrew clearly does a good job as highlighted by the comments by certain companies on the Prince’s contribution to trade.
Stephen,
Yes i was aware what you meant, i just wanted to highlight the fact its an unpaid position
October 26th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I’ve worked with some of these “special representatives” before (albeit not necessarily of royal inbreeding) …..
As my grandad used to say: “Empty cans make the most rattle.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Thanks Sam, and Barry, forgot to mention you earlier! It certainly hasn’t been easy, and it will be even harder in the weeks and months ahead. But the dream of one day being able to pick up my Daily Telegraph without having to read about MPs having found another way to cheat the system, or the government forcing through constitutional reform against the people’s wishes, or the most corrupt ministers & parliamentarians being rewarded with peerages and gold-plated pensions, will help me stay the course. And no matter how much royal milestones continue to tug at my heartstrings, my most profound emotions will be the pain of knowing that such events speak of an era long gone, but above all the hope that we can build a new era to match its greatness. When the Queen dies – whether she be still Queen or not – let her be honoured in the manner befitting a deceased sovereign, the last and one of the greatest symbols of the old majestic Britain. But most importantly, let us strive to regain the respect of the wider world by forging a truly United Commonwealth of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, and take our rightful place beside fair Australia – who for all her faults I love still – in the global temple of democracy.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Matt,
Then…
Our potential future Prime Minister seems to support the monarchy and thinks its a good thing for the country. Is your party leader wrong?
October 26th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Matt I realise how hard this must have been for you and yes can I join the others in saying that you have done a great deal more here as a monarchist than most (including me) to keep the debate running and I hope you will be a ‘critical’ republican and keep to the same high standards that you brought to your monarchist arguments.
‘I was brought up to do this sort of work. It is training, experience and genetics. We offer consistency and regularity. We have been around for a long time and will be around for a long time. We are not going to disappear. I have a family pedigree that allows me time to build up relationships.’
Good old Andy – keep it up – I for one want to hear a lot more about how you are uniquely qualified to live at the taxpayer’s expense.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:03 am
@ Simon,
Just to make the counter argument on DC. Neil made the argument the other day on a earlier thread that if we were to pick a Republician President from the Political pool of talent, it would be a big mistake because MPs aren’t to be trusted.
I was under the impression that you agreed with Him. Do you and if so, Why do you think anything that DC
says is true?
It goes without saying, and I’m sure you’ve heard it before, It is a mistake to think we have to pick an MP for President.
@ Matt
Nice to have you on board!
October 27th, 2009 at 12:03 am
@ Simon
‘I fail to see why being elected will ensure the person is qualified. Do you honestly think all our MPs are qualified to do the job they do? Are Cabinet ministers? Prince Andrew clearly does a good job as highlighted by the comments by certain companies on the Prince’s contribution to trade.’
Until we can honestly say that we live in a political system where representatives have to demonstrate that they are the best woman or man for the job then expect the corruption and obfuscation to continue.
Simon you have proved again and again that you are not a gullible man when considering the SNP – why do you so easily swallow the propaganda pumped out to maintain Andrew Windsor’s ‘make job’ ? If he is worth it then he should demonstrate it not revert to inaccurate appeals to genetics and spurious appeals to continuity,
October 27th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Simon:
Out of interest as you clearly do put union first, republic second. How do you feel about Republic’s failure to take a position?
I suppose, if it were up to me, I would make reference, in the organisation’s statement of intent, to a commitment to preserving the Union. But in all honesty, from where I’m standing it seems that most of the people on here seem to be Unionists, and that even if Republic hasn’t made an unambiguous statement on its position, the fact that it always refers to a British republic and the British people, as opposed to an English republic and the English people, is enough to suggest it does not condone separatism.
As far as the SNP are concerned, if (God forbid) they do achieve their goal of tearing the Union asunder, then leaving aside immigration – on the grounds that Scotland will have no choice but to take up its own EU membership – don’t for one split second kid yourself into believing that Salmond & co won’t exploit the prestige of their new Scottish Crown to gain advantage against England, with reference to my earlier comments about Australia & New Zealand. And don’t even get me started on the question of whether it’s legally sound for the Union to be broken up without the consent of the majority of people throughout the whole Union, as opposed to Scotland alone…
Our potential future Prime Minister seems to support the monarchy and thinks it’s a good thing for the country. Is your party leader wrong?
One of the advantages of being a member of the British Conservative Party, as opposed to the Chinese Communist Party, is that I’m not required to agree with every single thing my leader says. Make no mistake, you can bet your bottom dollar that all the old-timers who claim to hate politicians despite their insistence that the Queen must sign her own death warrant at their [the politicians'] behest, would equally applaud Prince Charles for any perceived intervention of his. But at the same time, rest assured: I will applaud every step taken to enhance democracy in this country, having great faith that Cameron will institute many of the necessary measures; and – though I think this scenario unlikely – I would not by any stretch of the imagination oppose the principle of a written constitution being put to the people for ratification even if it was done without a referendum on the monarchy.
Finally, Tim, you bet I’ll be a critical republican! You’ve seen me question several aspects of both the Irish and German models, and I’m far from finished!
October 27th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Simon,
Although Britishness is an emotive sense it does not mean that we abandon having a rational and cogent system. Besides this Britishness people talk of seems in conflict with what Britian is today, and what it could become.
I do not want to get into what is Britishness but whatever it is, it does not need to the monarchy to exist.
An electoral system does not guarantee the person is going to be the most qualified but it does ensure that their are challenged and have to present some reasoning or policy rather than making a claim that they are right for the job, based on a proven fallacy, namely that genetics is enough to determine your quality.
I’m not sure why you think that Republic would not want to maintain the Union, I for one think that it should be maintained, and the practical and economic reasons for remaining united will go a long way to ensuring that it never happens.
By the way does anyone know any specifics (if any) of Andrew’s training or experience? I’m assuming that he has none, nor has a economics degree or some such, but I would like to know if this is the case. Of course this doesn’t affect the fact that the position should still be open to competition.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:56 am
As the role of UK Special Representative for International Trade and Investment clearly requires the appropriate training, experience and genetics, can we assume that should Mr Windsor suddenly pass off this mortal coil (struck by lightning whilst teeing off, perhaps) the role will automatically pass to his eldest daughter.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:01 am
“Left wingers wont be happy till we are all dancing around the camp fire singing Kumbaya ah. There will always be a need for weapons, why shouldnt we supply them?” Simon
We are going off thread. But if you think that 600,000 dead in Iraq, (Lancet) together with the unrivalled massacres of the bloody 20thC describes a civilised world, I question your sanity.
If devoting our lives to manufacturing lethal arms for widespread use on other people, in order that we can feel employed, is the very best we can do – I despair. No wonder people like you are impressed with the sanitized, colourful version of reality – with all the royal pretenders dressed up to the nines, busily separating the slaughter from the pomp and circumstance. Stand by for this year’s homage to hypocrisy at the Service of Rememberance. Feel proud.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“On immigration, i do not know the figures involved when it comes to those from other commonwealth realms, the vast majority of the problem is not those taking advantage of settlement rights from being former British subjects in Australia, NZ and Canada, besides its much easier for those to intergrate into British culture because its so closely tied in the past thanks to British migration to those places. The real trouble here is immigration from africa, asia and the middle east. ”
Simon, you miss one vital part of the equation – the British Carribean! Dunno if it is the case today, but in my parents day certainly, Britain was refered to in the British West Indies (St. Kittts & Nevis, Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados, Jamiaca, Montserrat etc) as ‘The Mother Country’. Union Flags flew atop most govt buildings there as well. The British monarch was head of state of these islands and still is for some. The Carribean was fought over for centuries by the British, the French, the Spanish and the Dutch. Hence these being the main languages spoken in the Caribean.
As far as the British Carribean is concerned, immigrants from here arriving in Britain surely should have little problem integrating into British culture – right? English was spoken as the main indeed only language, albiet with a Carib accent. Protestant Christianity was the main faith. Clothing styles were similar. And remember, Britain was held in high regard, being refered to as the ‘Mother Country’. Now what were many black Carribeans faced with? Rampant racism, signs on lodgings saying “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish”, suspicion and so on.Black Carribeans were only too happy to integrate into British culture but still faced massive struggles in the 40’s, 50,s 60’s and 70’s.
I think Simon looks at Britains imperial past from a very narrow, biased point of view.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
What’s more, without wishing to go too off-topic, the other point I should’ve made vis-a-vis the ‘Big Three’ Commonwealth Realms – particularly Australia – is that young visitors from those countries given flexible work entitlements here are able to monopolise the graduate job market almost completely unnoticed, by stealth if you will, precisely because so few of them stay permanently (hardly surprising since their quality of life is much better than ours), meaning they barely register on the demographic radar, coming in and out of the country through a revolving door but, collectively, permanently sealing large sections of the white-collar market off from young Brits.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Andrew should be dismissed from his role with the UKTI. They (the so- called royals) have been around a long time, So long their opinions are completely out of date. The time for change is long overdue. There are thousands of people who would do a far better job than Andrew for UK. Who was it that was fool enough appoint him in the first place?
October 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
This individual ( I don’t use words like royal as there is no such thing in my eyes) is the worst of the bunch. He travels the world pretending to do good for this country when in reality he does nothing but take from the hands that feed him – you and me. The Americans laugh at us here for having these people- we should have followed the French years ago
and all other nations who got rid of their spongers and parasites.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“The Duke’s Role
The Duke of York was invited to take on the role of the UK’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment in 2001, after serving for 22 years in the Royal Navy”
http://www.thedukeofyork.org/Home/TheDukesRole/role.aspx
Invited by whom? Does anybody know?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Simon says (was that a playground game, by the way!): “Prince Andrew is a great trade ambassador for this country, im sure leading figures in British industry and business would back that up.” (sic)
I’m sure that there will be those who will say this, and to do anything to get him onside, in particular: those who are looking for Knighthoods/Peerages/Gongs of any description.
To Tim (Cooper) “…after serving for 22 years in the Royal Navy” This would depend on what you would classify as ’serving’ which I have no doubt, being a member of the British forces for 14 years, then as a caseworker for an Ex – Forces charity, may differ slightly! I served, and I know what I undertook for my country made a difference to those I served with – and for. I didn’t spend the majority of my time at dinner parties/lunches/golf tournament – and before anyone mentions the Falklands; it would have been almost impossible for Andrew Windsor to have been killed, due to his back up on land, sea and air, and the weaponry/equipment at his disposal was superior to the Argentines.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Absolutely Stephen, I am in no doubt whatsoever that the armed services are a fairly transparent means of having a stab at securing a pale version of legitimacy for these people. I very often vent my spleen on the militarism they embrace, but I do recognise the bravery, courage, heroism and excellence of our forces, which is a wholly different matter.
This guy’s website has verbal diarrhoea over how busy he is, where he goes, who is ecstatic to receive him and how many free dinners he consumes. Very little in it describes what he actually does or how he does it other than turning up.
I am interested in discovering the process by which he was selected and ‘appointed’. ‘Royal’ websites are also woefully short on the academic qualifications their celebrities possess, unless of course I missed it.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
According to Wikkipedia, he has A levels in English, history, economics, and political science, but went to Naval College instead of university.
Hardly seems to be an intellectual high-flyer, does he?
October 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
TO:
peter kellow Says:
October 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“By saying that he is genetically advantaged to do a certain job Prince Andrew is saying that others are genetically disadvantaged.
Is it legal to say some people (in this case all non-members of the royal family) are genetically inferior to do a job? ”
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS SAYING.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THE BRITS PUT IN WRITING, SAY IN OATHS, AND CARRY OUT IN PRACTICE, THAT A PARTICULAR FAMILY IS SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE, AND WHEN THE FAMILY WIELDS THE SUPERIOR CARD, THEN EVERYONE IS ASTONISHED. THE QUEEN BELIEVES THAT TH ENTIRE COUNTRY, THE LANDS, THE FUNDS, THE MILITARY, THE WHOLE THING, BELONGS TO HER, AND I DON’T BLAME HER. IT SAYS SO IN MANY DOCUMENTS.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
To Dave: “…According to Wikkipedia, he has A levels in English, history, economics, and political science, but went to Naval College instead of university”. I wonder if he was given them like his nephew, Harry Windsor (who, as we all know, was caught cheating in his exams) and his ilk. I remember when I was serving; Andrew Windsor was always blaming others for his inadequacies, and because of who he is, he was always relinquished of any blame (probably due to the fact that they who relinquished him of any blame, were looking for a ‘gong’ a bit further down the line!).
October 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
It’s probably been noted, but I’d like to mention it anyway, just because it makes me happy – on the subject of Andrew’s comments about genetics: Aren’t they all related to that mad King George III? And didn’t the Queen have an aunt or cousin – a relative anyway – that was supposedly as mad as a hatter and locked away somewhere? (Probably in a cupboard!) And doesn’t his brother talk to trees? You gotta feel for the tree – not being able to just uproot and move away …
Of course this may be inaccurate, but then who cares? As for genetics – have they isolated a gene for greedy, self serving, land robbing, power crazed, anally retentive, Corgi loving idiots?
October 27th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I believe that Tsar Nicholas the second had an heir who was suffering from some psychological (as well as physical) disorder – and they were all shot, in the spring of 1918!
October 27th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
We couldn’t get away with that now, could we? You know – shoot them all ’cause they genetically veer towards the stark raving bonkers? Of course I’m joking … I believe completely in Ghandi like peaceful protests; the problem with that is you have to rely on the other side giving up power in the face of overwhelming opposition etc .. Um can’t see that happening though …
October 27th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
When I went into work today, a work colleague thanked me for spoiling his weekend. How did I do that? I emailed everyone I know the link to Prince Andrew’s statement about how he is genetically suitable for his role. That’s what we have to do, spoil peoples’ weekends, if you get my drift.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
How exactly did he claim that being sent that link “spoiled his weekend,” Bob? If he doesn’t give two hoots about the way this nation is governed & represented, then I suppose he might hold the lamentable attitude that any information on that subject is an unwelcome distraction. But if he vehemently disagrees with your reasons for sending it, why doesn’t he just challenge you to a debate? After all, that’s the most valuable thing we can do isn’t it – encourage as many people as possible to contribute to the debate on the nation’s constitutional future.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Matt – He is a closet republican like many people I know, dissatisfied with our political system, feeling disenfranchised because of its shortcomings, but also, unfortunately, apathetic. I try to galvanize this ‘dissatisfaction’ into some form of action, by encouraging people, (offering them a reason), to complain, or consider joining this campaign. Whether I have any success is another matter, but we have to break the massive logjam of apathy that I think our political system has engendered.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
…we have to break the massive logjam of apathy that I think our political system has engendered.
Couldn’t agree more, Bob.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:17 am
End these parasites existence off the backs of hard working Britons now-the spirit of the French Rewvolution lives
October 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
We are told this morning that Sir Christopher Kelly’s independent committee on standards in public life is due to publish the report on reforms to the discredited system of MPs’ expenses on 4 November:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8328935.stm
Amongst a number of other proposals (which MPs are being urged to accept verbatim by party leaders) is the ban on MPs employing relatives.
Even our politicians have woken up to the fact that they are wide open to bad practice or, even worse, corruption in employing wives, husbands, sons and daughters in the course of governing the country.
This is a clear realisation by our MPs that employing folks just because they are related is not a good idea per se.
So why not include this proposed “standard in public life” to take in the post of Head of State?
October 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
“… employing folks just because they are related is not a good idea per se. So why not include this proposed “standard in public life” to take in the post of Head of State?” Martin G.
Right agin Martin! But it would fail of course. These people are above laws, standards, commonly-accepted notions of uniformity and the need to be accountable. They exist on the outside of the protocols and common sense that applies to everyone else but not to them. Bob’s aptly put ‘logjam of apathy’ is actively encouraged in this delicate balancing act of appearances. Being treated as an eternal ’special case’ is the consequence of it and within the treatment is a subtle internalisation which interprets as tradition and normality. We have got to get inside this if we are to move forward.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Well, I wrote to Mr Davies and put the following questions.
1. When Mr Windsor was appointed to the role, were any other candidates considered?
2. If Mr Windsor was appointed ahead of any of these other candidates, what particular qualities did he possess that the others did not?
3. What particular skills, talents, knowledge and experience has Mr Windsor brought to the role?
4. What are the exact genetic traits does Mr Windsor possess that makes him uniquely qualified to undertake the role? Have these particular genes been scientifically identified?
5. What is it that Mr Windsor does that ensures he continues in this role, despite the fact that two thirds of businesses feel his role is of “no financial benefit” whatsoever?
The reply I received from a member of his staff singularly failed to answer a single one of them. I have written again asking for further clarification, but don’t hold out much hope.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I too wrote to Mr Davies, Dave, and got a rather fragrant reply from one of his minions extolling the brilliant ‘job’ that Andrew Windsor was doing: and all just for ‘expenses!’; what a joke. I replied to this – but received no reply! I’m sure their ‘gongs’ will be in the post!
October 30th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
“The reply I received from a member of his staff singularly failed to answer a single one of them. I have written again asking for further clarification, but don’t hold out much hope.” Dave
My experience was identical to this. I also wrote asking similar questions. My reply was a catalogue of just how busy and valued A. Windsor is – doing what within the long list of engagements or valued in what way was not specified. There was no mention of qualifications, no details of his appointment and no response regarding suitability, measurement or the lack of fair competition.
I have written again asking why my questions have been ignored and a saccharine, uncritical eulogy returned instead.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I’m sorry that this hasn’t anything to do with this blog, but I have just received the following mail from:
’society-briefing-list@guardianunlimited.co.’
with reference to Andrews younger sibling, Edward – who is also well known for putting his foot in his mouth! See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/30/duke-edinburgh-awards-death-edward
Kindest regards
Stephen
October 31st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
It seems all the lifetime training and genetic predisposition has come to nought. Two gaffes from different royals within 24 hours. Do they take special classes in how to make crass and insensitive comments?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I believe that it just comes naturally to them, as it’s in the genes, Bob!
October 31st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I was being kind to them. It’s actually three faux pas by three different royal family members within a few days. It’s definitely a trend. As usual Mr Patel has been persuaded to say he was not embarrassed at all by El Duce taking the michael out of his name, spokespeople for the Duke of Edinburgh award are falling over themselves to excuse prince edward’s lack of tact, (what breeding), and Simon thinks prince Andrew is a good bloke. So no harm done.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Stephen,
Yes, you’re right ! , “Simon Says” is a childrens’ playground game. I remember it well. Basically, it consists of a group of children obeying the instructions of another child called the “Simon”. In essence the kids have to OBEY Simon, do exactly as he says. If a kld does not get Simon’s orders exactly right ,then he is OUT ! Therefore, if Simon says “Worship the monarchy !”————-then, you’d better do it pal !!!