Tom Richmond: A poorer nation if Charles didn’t challenge Ministers

THE interest shown by Prince Charles in current affairs, and government policy, leaves the heir to the throne in a no-win situation.

He is criticised for abusing his privileged position when he sends letters, in his spider-like handwriting, to Ministers on those issues close to his heart.

Yet, if the Prince of Wales did not make a positive contribution to public life, he would be accused by some of being an unnecessary burden on the public purse.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This is why I attach so much credence to the comments made by Sheffield MP David Blunkett, whose opposition to grammar schools when he was Education Secretary in Tony Blair’s first government attracted comment from the Prince.

“I can see constitutionally that there’s an argument that the heir to the throne should not get involved in controversy; the honest truth is I didn’t mind,” said Blunkett with characteristic magnanimity. “If you are waiting to be the king of the United Kingdom, and you’ve waited a very long time, you genuinely have to engage with something or you’d go spare.”

Of course this will change when Charles ascends to the throne – although protocol has not stopped the Queen from making a considerable contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process simply by visiting Ireland on a state visit, one of the moments of history from her reign, and then holding a one-to-one meeting with former IRA commander Martin McGuinness during last month’s visit to Belfast.

Yet it can only be to the benefit of the country that the Prince is so interested in matters pertaining to youth training, the countryside and the environment. His Prince’s Trust charity continues to transform the lives of the under-privileged while the importance of rural Britain – irrespective of one’s views on GM crops – is now understood in Whitehall thanks to the persistence of his interventions.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As such, I, for one, hope the Prince continues to challenge Ministers. Britain would be much duller, and poorer, if he chose not do to do so.

THIS is what Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said when asked about the possibility of Labour renationalising the railways: “What we want to say is, without ideology – we’re not going to say this is about nationalisation or privatisation. Let’s make sure the franchising process in the future gets the best deal for the taxpayer and the best deal for passengers and on fares.”

It’s a response which illustrates the political predicament facing the Morley MP – and Labour itself. If, after four years in Opposition, he cannot give a straight answer to a straight question, how can he be entrusted with the Chancellorship of the country, especially when the Unite union says it will demand policy assurances in return for its financial support?

One day Balls – and Ed Miliband – are trying to sound moderate and reasonable. The next they’re dancing to the tune of their union paymasters. It’s a point that has added resonance after a torrid period for David Cameron after former spin doctor Andy Coulson’s phone hacking conviction and his failed attempt to block arch-federalist Jean-Claude Juncker’s appointment as head of the European Commission. Despite this, I have not come across a single person who believes that Miliband could do a better job – and that must be deeply worrying for Labour.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

ON the subject of Europe, David Cameron now needs to stop the waffle and explain, precisely and concisely, the powers that he wishes to repatriate from Brussels.

This will then help voters to decide whether he has secured a good deal for Britain before a final package is put to the electorate in the 2017 referendum. By looking to set the agenda, the Prime Minister might – just – demonstrate the level of unease about the EU and why the status quo is no longer acceptable to most people.

JEREMY Paxman’s contempt for Newsnight was made clear when he observed that the BBC’s supposedly flagship politics programme is made by “13-year-olds” who “want to change the world” because of their idealism. At least he was being charitable – I thought the producers were far more infantile. Given that the Leeds-born broadcaster, who quit Newsnight last month, admits to being “a one-nation Tory”, I hope he can be persuaded to become chairman of the BBC Trust following the resignation of the ineffective Lord Patten.

LIKE him or not, Andy Murray is still a two-time ‘major’ winner and the reigning Olympic champion in a golden era for men’s tennis. Yes, there was disappointment that he surrendered his Wimbledon title in the quarter-finals rather tamely, but he is the only Briton to have won the men’s singles in 77 years and this should not be overlooked. And, in the moment of his defeat, he still found the humility to sign autographs for spectators as he trudged off Centre Court. Class. I’m not sure many top-class footballers would have been so spirited in such circumstances.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

IT’S only taken three weeks, but it would be churlish not to note – in lieu of previous criticisms – that the BBC’s Gary Lineker did present back-to-back football matches on Tuesday. About time too.

TALKING of football, there is one plus from England’s early exit from the World Cup – we’re spared the prospect of Sir Wayne Rooney (there would be a clamour for a knighthood if England were still in contention) deflecting attention away from the cycling, Britain’s new national sport, and this weekend’s spectacular Grand Départ in Yorkshire. Unfortunately, we’ve not been spared the snobbishness of the London-based media, not least Lancastrian-born Sky News presenter Kay Burley who asked on Thursday afternoon: “Are there a lot of cyclists in Yorkshire?”

Kay, come and see for yourself – along with the rest of the world.