Having a read of the letters, Charles looks a decent chap. Can't see why the Guardian pushed to publish them
They were hoping for a more scandalous set of letters?
The telegraph live blog states:
"The most controversial of the memos was written on September 8, 2004, when he wrote to Tony Blair expressing his concern over the lack of resources for British troops in Iraq."
Most controversial?? How is this controversial? Surely a monarch has a duty to look out for his troops.
That was because there was a fundamental principle involved as to the construction of section 53(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Divisional Court got it right, but unfortunately the Court of Appeal and the majority of the Supreme Court got it very badly wrong (see R (Evans) v Attorney General [2014] QB 855 (DC & CA); [2015] 2 WLR 813 (SC)). It represents a further unwelcome development in the trend to judicial supremacism which the Attorney General was right to fight to the end, and ought to be reversed by Parliament as soon as possible.
Having a read of the letters, Charles looks a decent chap. Can't see why the Guardian pushed to publish them
They were hoping for a more scandalous set of letters?
The telegraph live blog states:
"The most controversial of the memos was written on September 8, 2004, when he wrote to Tony Blair expressing his concern over the lack of resources for British troops in Iraq."
Most controversial?? How is this controversial? Surely a monarch has a duty to look out for his troops.
I agree - seems like a bloke genuinely concerned about the welfare of his people / country. Also note he was keen to promote british farming / the buying of british beef. All perfectly sensible aims.
Really don’t understand the rush, however, four months does not sound too unreasonable for selecting a new Labour leader imho. – buggers any chance of the new GE2015 intake getting a look in tho.
That "Keep Ed" petition is hilarious. They all love him because he took Labour left. That he got pounded like a dockside hooker doesn't seem to have registered at all.
If they did have to re-run the election - do you think Farage would have a better or worse chance than before?
Massively better - all those that voted Tory 'to stop the SNP' (however irrational that may be) could revert to UKIP in what is effectively a by-election knowing that Cameron would keep his majority so it would be a 'safe' UKIP vote.
You would think so, but it depends on whether the voters think they are being asked frivolously to vote again.
If they felt that it was a case of sour grapes, then they might decide to punish UKIP for not accepting the original result.
If they did have to re-run the election - do you think Farage would have a better or worse chance than before?
Massively better - all those that voted Tory 'to stop the SNP' (however irrational that may be) could revert to UKIP in what is effectively a by-election knowing that Cameron would keep his majority so it would be a 'safe' UKIP vote.
You would think so, but it depends on whether the voters think they are being asked frivolously to vote again.
If they felt that it was a case of sour grapes, then they might decide to punish UKIP for not accepting the original result.
Winchester 1997 Election re-run +20% swing to the original winning candidate.
But UKIP deny that they have made the Complaint! Can't be the Tories (they won!) so statistically it is probably Labour. There WAS a long delay.
That was because there was a fundamental principle involved as to the construction of section 53(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Divisional Court got it right, but unfortunately the Court of Appeal and the majority of the Supreme Court got it very badly wrong (see R (Evans) v Attorney General [2014] QB 855 (DC & CA); [2015] 2 WLR 813 (SC)). It represents a further unwelcome development in the trend to judicial supremacism which the Attorney General was right to fight to the end, and ought to be reversed by Parliament as soon as possible.
Can you give a brief summary over what the arguments were? To me it looks like 53(2) is about someone signing off on an exemption. I think the law has been changed since the Guardian initiated its proceedings providing an absolute exemption for monarchs and their heirs.
@Tissue_Price and/or @AndyJS - Do either of you have a comprehensive results Spreadsheet that you could share? Appreciate that with boundary changes it's less useful for next time than it might but still good data if possible. Cheers.
@IsabelHardman: I see Kent Police have taken a call from someone annoyed that a source told me Farage was going to lose in Thanet.
I did say earlier it would be something utterly banal. Anyone who has the wherewithall to really fix an individual Parlamentary election probably isn't going to get caught... and probably would be so powerful they wouldn't be bothered enough to do it in the first place
@Tissue_Price and/or @AndyJS - Do either of you have a comprehensive results Spreadsheet that you could share? Appreciate that with boundary changes it's less useful for next time than it might but still good data if possible. Cheers.
Just started doing mine although it'll take a while since it's just me doing it.
@rowenamason: Ukip after Farage-Carswell summit: There's ongoing discussion about how best to represent 4m UKIP voters in a way that is sensible + correct
Translation; Carswell said no
Seeing as Jaywick is still officially the biggest khazi in the uk after Douglas has been MP there for a decade, why doesn't he use the money to help the lives of people living in the dump rather than refuse it to make a high minded point
10 years and it's still a dump? One wonders what Carswell's been doing all this time.
Perhaps if he lived there, rather than his lovely house in Fulham, things might change a bit quicker.
The Guardian is giving the Charles’ letters the full Watergate treatment – from what I've read so far, it’s as about as anticlimactic as you could possibly get.
The Guardian is giving the Charles’ letters the full Watergate treatment – from what I've read so so far, it’s as about as anticlimactic as you could possibly get.
That "Keep Ed" petition is hilarious. They all love him because he took Labour left. That he got pounded like a dockside hooker doesn't seem to have registered at all.
Guardian update: - "As we trawl through the cache of correspondence, it’s becoming clear that Prince Charles wrote to ministers almost exclusively on matters that are well known to be his closely-held personal interests.
Farming, the environment, armed forces, supermarkets, architecture, schools, Prince’s Foundation projects, badger culling and even Patagonian toothfish and albatrosses."
Blimey, it is quickly becoming apparent that Charles will never be King..!
The Guardian is giving the Charles’ letters the full Watergate treatment – from what I've read so far, it’s as about as anticlimactic as you could possibly get.
"As we trawl through the cache of correspondence, it’s becoming clear that Prince Charles wrote to ministers almost exclusively on matters that are well known to be his closely-held personal interests."
The Guardian is giving the Charles’ letters the full Watergate treatment – from what I've read so far, it’s as about as anticlimactic as you could possibly get.
"As we trawl through the cache of correspondence, it’s becoming clear that Prince Charles wrote to ministers almost exclusively on matters that are well known to be his closely-held personal interests."
If they did have to re-run the election - do you think Farage would have a better or worse chance than before?
Massively better - all those that voted Tory 'to stop the SNP' (however irrational that may be) could revert to UKIP in what is effectively a by-election knowing that Cameron would keep his majority so it would be a 'safe' UKIP vote.
You would think so, but it depends on whether the voters think they are being asked frivolously to vote again.
If they felt that it was a case of sour grapes, then they might decide to punish UKIP for not accepting the original result.
If they did have to re-run the election - do you think Farage would have a better or worse chance than before?
Massively better - all those that voted Tory 'to stop the SNP' (however irrational that may be) could revert to UKIP in what is effectively a by-election knowing that Cameron would keep his majority so it would be a 'safe' UKIP vote.
You would think so, but it depends on whether the voters think they are being asked frivolously to vote again.
If they felt that it was a case of sour grapes, then they might decide to punish UKIP for not accepting the original result.
Winchester 1997 Election re-run +20% swing to the original winning candidate.
But UKIP deny that they have made the Complaint! Can't be the Tories (they won!) so statistically it is probably Labour. There WAS a long delay.
Or its a UKIP supporter either not directly attached to UKIP or with credible deniability of being attached to UKIP.
Anyone can make a complaint, the top people won't get their hands dirty unless they know its completely serious.
Guardian update: - "As we trawl through the cache of correspondence, it’s becoming clear that Prince Charles wrote to ministers almost exclusively on matters that are well known to be his closely-held personal interests.
Farming, the environment, armed forces, supermarkets, architecture, schools, Prince’s Foundation projects, badger culling and even Patagonian toothfish and albatrosses."
Blimey, it is quickly becoming apparent that Charles will never be King..!
Can you give a brief summary over what the arguments were? To me it looks like 53(2) is about someone signing off on an exemption. I think the law has been changed since the Guardian initiated its proceedings providing an absolute exemption for monarchs and their heirs.
At all material times, correspondence between the Prince of Wales and Ministers of the Crown was not subject to an absolute exemption from disclosure under FOIA 2000. This changed as a result of para 3 of schedule 7 to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Under s. 37 of FOIA (as amended), such correspondence is now exempt from disclosure altogether, but this amendment was not retrospective and so did not apply to the letters which were the subject matter of the litigation.
Where the Information Commissioner or a court has ordered disclosure under FOIA, section 53(2) allows a government minister to issue a certificate which has the effect of setting aside the order where the minister has on reasonable grounds formed the opinion that the person in question was not entitled to the information requested. The Divisional Court (Lord Judge CJ, Davis LJ and Globe J) and the minority of the Supreme Court (Lord Hughes & Lord Wilson JJSC) held this provision meant what it said. The Court of Appeal and majority of the Supreme Court held the fact the Minister's certificate was rational did not render it lawful. Quite what is required of a Minister when issuing a certificate under section 53 is now entirely unclear, but the courts have given an unreasonable and strained construction to section 53, which greatly enhances their power at the expense of the Minister to whom Parliament entrusted the decision.
That "Keep Ed" petition is hilarious. They all love him because he took Labour left. That he got pounded like a dockside hooker doesn't seem to have registered at all.
Lefties really are potty.
I thought at first it was a "Don't unseat Ed Miliband" gag, but it seems to be for real.
"He didn't Fail us it was due to the Libdem's, Snp and Ukip voters He is what we need to win next election with a landslide Never give up if you fall once Get Back UP and Fight Harder Don't Let The Bugger's Get You Down, Ed Are You A Fighter or A Giver UPPER GET BACK ON THAT HORSE AND SHOW THEM WHAT YOUR MADE OFF"
The letters became known as the “black spider memos” because of Prince Charles’s notoriously bad handwriting. Unfortunately for graphologists, the letters are mostly typed, with only the acclamations and sign-offs in Charles’s handwriting, as with this example in a letter from Charles to prime minister Tony Blair in 2004.
This is up there with Watergate!! Explosive stuff!
Can you give a brief summary over what the arguments were? To me it looks like 53(2) is about someone signing off on an exemption. I think the law has been changed since the Guardian initiated its proceedings providing an absolute exemption for monarchs and their heirs.
At all material times, correspondence between the Prince of Wales and Ministers of the Crown was not subject to an asbolute exemption from disclosure under FOIA 2000. This changed as a result of para 3 of schedule 7 to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Under s. 37 of FOIA (as amended), such correspondence is now exempt from disclosure altogether, but this amendment was not retrospective and so did not apply to the letters which were the subject matter of the litigation.
Where the Information Commissioner or a court has ordered disclosure under FOIA, section 53(2) allows a government minister to issue a certificate which has the effect of setting aside the order where the minister has on reasonable grounds formed the opinion that the person in question was not entitled to the information requested. The Divisional Court (Lord Judge CJ, Davis LJ and Globe J) and the minority of the Supreme Court (Lord Hughes & Lord Wilson JJSC) held this provision meant what it said. The Court of Appeal and majority of the Supreme Court held the fact the Minister's certificate was rational did not render it lawful. Quite what is required of a Minister when issuing a certificate under section 53 is now entirely unclear, but the courts have given an unreasonable and strained construction to section 53, which greatly enhances their power at the expense of the Minister to whom Parliament entrusted the decision.
So, basically, a certificate issued under 53(2) is meaningless? Thanks for replying!
The letters became known as the “black spider memos” because of Prince Charles’s notoriously bad handwriting. Unfortunately for graphologists, the letters are mostly typed, with only the acclamations and sign-offs in Charles’s handwriting, as with this example in a letter from Charles to prime minister Tony Blair in 2004.
This is up there with Watergate!! Explosive stuff!
Is it some sort of special postmodern satire day? We've got the Save Ed petition, and the Guardian seemingly trying to attack Prince Charles for worrying about the safety of British troops during the Iraq invasion.
Letter to former health secretary John Reid, September 2004 John Reid Prince Charles wrote to John Reid regarding the redevelopment of Cherry Knowle Hospital in Sunderland, on which the Prince’s Foundation charity worked.
I have hesitated to bother you too much on this issue, and on the wider one of the disposal of one hundred NHS hospital sites, but I feel now is the time to return to the fray!
He adds that “it saddens me greatly to think, that the immense progress and collective enthusiasm gathered twelve months ago is now in danger of being lost”.
The Guardian is giving the Charles’ letters the full Watergate treatment – from what I've read so far, it’s as about as anticlimactic as you could possibly get.
And generally sensible - tho I did love one of Blair's slightly barbed comments replying to a letter about agriculture & herbal medicine, where Blair responded by saying how much he valued the PoW perspective 'particularly in the area of agriculture....'
That "Keep Ed" petition is hilarious. They all love him because he took Labour left. That he got pounded like a dockside hooker doesn't seem to have registered at all.
Lefties really are potty.
Long may it last.
It's looking good. There's only until 15 June to nominate. There's no sign anybody's thinking about why they lost yet. Already it seems highly likely any nominees will hoover up as many nominations as they can, a la Broon in 2007, so as to reduce the available uncommitted nominators to fewer than other candidates need. Broon managed to lock out everyone else that way. It looks like we may have a field of maybe three ideal candidates: Butcher, Yvette, and that slimy bald lawyer everyone hates.
So that's 2020 sorted.
Will the Tories repeal the FTPA so they can spring an election Butcher before he's ready?
Having a read of the letters, Charles looks a decent chap. Can't see why the Guardian pushed to publish them
They were hoping for a more scandalous set of letters?
The telegraph live blog states:
"The most controversial of the memos was written on September 8, 2004, when he wrote to Tony Blair expressing his concern over the lack of resources for British troops in Iraq."
Most controversial?? How is this controversial? Surely a monarch has a duty to look out for his troops.
I agree - seems like a bloke genuinely concerned about the welfare of his people / country. Also note he was keen to promote british farming / the buying of british beef. All perfectly sensible aims.
Also he seems to have a bit of humour, almost self deprecating at times.
Looks like Charles 6 Guardian 1, a complete thrashing.
Why was Zak Goldsmith allowed to stand as a Con candidate at the GE?
How can it possibly be compatible to stand as a Con candidate at the same time as threatening to take an action designed deliberately to damage the Con party?
He knows if there is a by-election Con will lose. They only have a majority of 12 to start with so it will immediately be down to 10.
He should have been told that, due to his threat to deliberately damage the party, he would no longer be a Con candidate.
Why was Zak Goldsmith allowed to stand as a Con candidate at the GE?
How can it possibly be compatible to stand as a Con candidate at the same time as threatening to take an action designed deliberately to damage the Con party?
He knows if there is a by-election Con will lose. They only have a majority of 12 to start with so it will immediately be down to 10.
He should have been told that, due to his threat to deliberately damage the party, he would no longer be a Con candidate.
Maybe he'll be their mayoral candidate prior to any decision being made?
Why was Zak Goldsmith allowed to stand as a Con candidate at the GE?
How can it possibly be compatible to stand as a Con candidate at the same time as threatening to take an action designed deliberately to damage the Con party?
He knows if there is a by-election Con will lose. They only have a majority of 12 to start with so it will immediately be down to 10.
He should have been told that, due to his threat to deliberately damage the party, he would no longer be a Con candidate.
No chance Con will lose that seat. Particularly if he goes early into the parliament.
Why was Zak Goldsmith allowed to stand as a Con candidate at the GE?
How can it possibly be compatible to stand as a Con candidate at the same time as threatening to take an action designed deliberately to damage the Con party?
He knows if there is a by-election Con will lose. They only have a majority of 12 to start with so it will immediately be down to 10.
He should have been told that, due to his threat to deliberately damage the party, he would no longer be a Con candidate.
He would only be damaging the party if the party decided to change its policy in an area. Would you prefer the Conservative party puts forward candidates that promise to follow whatever policy was proposed, regardless of personal views?
So, basically, a certificate issued under 53(2) is meaningless? Thanks for replying!
It is not clear quite what is now required. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC (with whom Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore & Lord Reed JJSC agreed) suggests that s. 53(2) has a very narrow range of potential application, such as where there is a material change of circumstances since the judicial decision or a flagrant error of law or fact in the tribunal's decision. They agreed with the judgment of Lord Dyson MR in the Court of Appeal. Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC & Lord Mance JSC suggest the Minister can disagree with the Tribunal as to the weight to be attached to competing public interests, but must do so with properly explained and solid reasons. It is arguable that is precisely what the Attorney General did in this case. Suffice to say they have fallen foul of the prohibition that a court should not treat the reasons given in a decision letter as an exam paper to be marked (South Somerset DC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 83, 85 per Hoffmann LJ). The very short judgment of Lord Hughes JSC is plainly right, and exposes the sophistry of Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury's invocation of the meaningless principle of "constitutionality".
Why was Zak Goldsmith allowed to stand as a Con candidate at the GE?
How can it possibly be compatible to stand as a Con candidate at the same time as threatening to take an action designed deliberately to damage the Con party?
He knows if there is a by-election Con will lose. They only have a majority of 12 to start with so it will immediately be down to 10.
He should have been told that, due to his threat to deliberately damage the party, he would no longer be a Con candidate.
Why would they lose? It's one of the safest seats in the country.
He would only be damaging the party if the party decided to change its policy in an area. Would you prefer the Conservative party puts forward candidates that promise to follow whatever policy was proposed, regardless of personal views?
I thought their policy was to await the Davies Commission and then go with that. I don't think their manifesto rules out Heathrow.
But whatever it says, its not acceptable. It's like a footballer saying if I can't take a free kick then I'll deliberately score an own goal.
In any walk of life it cannot be acceptable to threaten to damage your own team if you don't get your own way and expect to remain on the team.
Guardian: - The Prince of Wales writes to former culture secretary Tessa Jowell to lobby for the protection of buildings at Smithfield Market, which were set for demolition.
PC – “As you know, I attach the greatest importance to preserving, restoring and re-using such precious heritage townscapes and I can only pray that the deputy prime minister will take your advice and give the most careful consideration to development plans.”
And there the live blog comes to an abrupt holt – this story is not quite living up to the hype.
Zac Goldsmith's threat to resign is rather empty now that Richmond Park is such a safe Conservative seat. When it was a Con/LD marginal things were different.
For those of you moving on from the UK 2015 to the US 2016 elections, here is an interesting poll from Pennsylvania. Admittedly, it is a republican poller and two of the three Dem challengers have low name recognition at this stage (Sestak is well-known throughout the state, though, having lost the senatorial campaign against Toomey in 2010 and previously been in the US House), but Toomey's lead and favorables are remarkable. This is a seat the Dems really must be expecting to take back if they want to regain the Senate majority.
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
@rowenamason: Ukip after Farage-Carswell summit: There's ongoing discussion about how best to represent 4m UKIP voters in a way that is sensible + correct
Translation; Carswell said no
Seeing as Jaywick is still officially the biggest khazi in the uk after Douglas has been MP there for a decade, why doesn't he use the money to help the lives of people living in the dump rather than refuse it to make a high minded point
10 years and it's still a dump? One wonders what Carswell's been doing all this time.
Perhaps if he lived there, rather than his lovely house in Fulham, things might change a bit quicker.
Speaking of people who do not live in the area they bang on about, Billy Bragg was very quiet at the GE.
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
Guardian: - The Prince of Wales writes to former culture secretary Tessa Jowell to lobby for the protection of buildings at Smithfield Market, which were set for demolition.
PC – “As you know, I attach the greatest importance to preserving, restoring and re-using such precious heritage townscapes and I can only pray that the deputy prime minister will take your advice and give the most careful consideration to development plans.”
And there the live blog comes to an abrupt holt – this story is not quite living up to the hype.
I did actually stop when in the gym when it came on Sky News and they said breaking breaking....Prince Charles letters revealed....Prince Charles wrote to the government stating that the UK wasn't self sufficient enough when it comes to producing our own meat and vegetables....TURNIP-GATE....
Zac Goldsmith's threat to resign is rather empty now that Richmond Park is such a safe Conservative seat. When it was a Con/LD marginal things were different.
I think it was more about his personal integrity (and brand, with an eye to the Mayoralty) than in trying to be an electoral threat to the party.
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
Been a trying 7 days for them hasn't it....
Yes, not much to look forward to until letter-writing for Hillary.
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
I actually think it might be the precedent of them. Now any letters he has written ever to the government can be asked to be released. I am presuming at some point over the past 20 years, he might have written something more than complaining about the lack of turnip farmers.
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
I think it was more about establishing a principle than what the content might reveal.
I remain surprised at the Supreme Court ruling - but they're all a bunch of lefty lawyers, so perhaps I shouldn't be. (I find some Supreme Court judgments more baffling than those from the ECJ....)
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
I actually think it might be the precedent of them. Now any letters he has written ever to the government can be asked to be released. I am presuming at some point over the past 20 years, he might have written something more than complaining about the lack of turnip farmers.
Letter to former health secretary John Reid, September 2004 John Reid Prince Charles wrote to John Reid regarding the redevelopment of Cherry Knowle Hospital in Sunderland, on which the Prince’s Foundation charity worked.
I have hesitated to bother you too much on this issue, and on the wider one of the disposal of one hundred NHS hospital sites, but I feel now is the time to return to the fray!
He adds that “it saddens me greatly to think, that the immense progress and collective enthusiasm gathered twelve months ago is now in danger of being lost”.
Guardian: - The Prince of Wales writes to former culture secretary Tessa Jowell to lobby for the protection of buildings at Smithfield Market, which were set for demolition.
PC – “As you know, I attach the greatest importance to preserving, restoring and re-using such precious heritage townscapes and I can only pray that the deputy prime minister will take your advice and give the most careful consideration to development plans.”
And there the live blog comes to an abrupt holt – this story is not quite living up to the hype.
Perhaps someone on the Guardian realised the letters are highlighting some interesting info about the last Labour government.
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
I actually think it might be the precedent of them. Now any letters he has written ever to the government can be asked to be released. I am presuming at some point over the past 20 years, he might have written something more than complaining about the lack of turnip farmers.
The law has since been changed, so they can't.
When was the law changed? I am presuming after these proceedings began and has that law been challenged yet?
Edit: It is applies from 2011...
But Downing Street is concerned that a ruling by the supreme court in March, which sanctioned the release of the memos, has raised doubts over the ability to veto publication of documents beyond the senior members of the royal family.
Guardian: - The Prince of Wales writes to former culture secretary Tessa Jowell to lobby for the protection of buildings at Smithfield Market, which were set for demolition.
PC – “As you know, I attach the greatest importance to preserving, restoring and re-using such precious heritage townscapes and I can only pray that the deputy prime minister will take your advice and give the most careful consideration to development plans.”
And there the live blog comes to an abrupt holt – this story is not quite living up to the hype.
The Grauniad's time, and our money, would have been better spent trying to get the Chilcot Report released earlier than 2115.
Just catching up. What's the issue with these letters that was worth ten years court battle? If anything they appear to enhance the PoW reputation. The guardian must be gutted.
I actually think it might be the precedent of them. Now any letters he has written ever to the government can be asked to be released. I am presuming at some point over the past 20 years, he might have written something more than complaining about the lack of turnip farmers.
The law has since been changed, so they can't.
When was the law changed? I am presuming after these proceedings began and has that law been challenged yet?
Was changed in 2010, so after these proceedings. Not sure how it can be challenged (given the current challenge was over a legal technicality in the wording of the act).
Zac Goldsmith's threat to resign is rather empty now that Richmond Park is such a safe Conservative seat. When it was a Con/LD marginal things were different.
If he were to stand as an independent it might be an interesting battle: Goldsmith vs Official Conservative vs the LDs.
I'd reckon Goldsmith would get 40%, the Libs 30%, and the official Conservative 20%.
"I particularly hope that the illegal fishing of the Patagonian Toothfish will be high on your list of priorities because until that trade is stopped, there is little hope for the poor old Albatross."
Killer stuff this.....
From the bits I have read, are they really any different than probably the kind of letters ministers get from all sorts of people every day?
Hilarious if the only outcome of the Charles "expose" is that public opinion for the heir to the throne shoots skyward, whilst the incompetence/callousness of the last Labour Government is exposed for all to see.
Would cap what has been a distinctly unstellar week for the Left!
Guardian: - The Prince of Wales writes to former culture secretary Tessa Jowell to lobby for the protection of buildings at Smithfield Market, which were set for demolition.
PC – “As you know, I attach the greatest importance to preserving, restoring and re-using such precious heritage townscapes and I can only pray that the deputy prime minister will take your advice and give the most careful consideration to development plans.”
And there the live blog comes to an abrupt holt – this story is not quite living up to the hype.
The Grauniad's time, and our money, would have been better spent trying to get the Chilcot Report released earlier than 2115.
I'm surprised anyone thought there was anything of interest - apart from the notion of privacy and prying newspapers.
@rowenamason: Ukip after Farage-Carswell summit: There's ongoing discussion about how best to represent 4m UKIP voters in a way that is sensible + correct
Translation; Carswell said no
Seeing as Jaywick is still officially the biggest khazi in the uk after Douglas has been MP there for a decade, why doesn't he use the money to help the lives of people living in the dump rather than refuse it to make a high minded point
10 years and it's still a dump? One wonders what Carswell's been doing all this time.
Perhaps if he lived there, rather than his lovely house in Fulham, things might change a bit quicker.
Speaking of people who do not live in the area they bang on about, Billy Bragg was very quiet at the GE.
Bragg has been on TV in the last week whining about the electoral system, and how he doesn't have a fair say voting for his political representative in Squillionaires Row, Dorset
"I particularly hope that the illegal fishing of the Patagonian Toothfish will be high on your list of priorities because until that trade is stopped, there is little hope for the poor old Albatross."
Killer stuff this.....
I love a nice piece of Chilean Sea Bass myself ...
I thought most of the TV election programmes were disappointing. They've been getting worse since 1992 IMO. What happens is they have the exit poll, show a few results, and then don't bother with the details because they think it's more interesting to have the likes of Neil Kinnock and Michael Gove chattering on endlessly about what they think's going to happen. Lots of unexpected results like the Tories gaining Gower are missed completely.
I thought most of the TV election programmes were disappointing. They've been getting worse since 1992 IMO. What happens is they have the exit poll, show a few results, and then don't bother with the details because they think it's more interesting to have the likes of Neil Kinnock and Michael Gove chattering on endlessly about what they think's going to happen. Lots of unexpected results like the Tories gaining Gower are missed completely.
I think the BBC was in shock, Emily Maitliss looked on the verge of tears all night.
I thought most of the TV election programmes were disappointing. They've been getting worse since 1992 IMO. What happens is they have the exit poll, show a few results, and then don't bother with the details because they think it's more interesting to have the likes of Neil Kinnock and Michael Gove chattering on endlessly about what they think's going to happen. Lots of unexpected results like the Tories gaining Gower are missed completely.
Agreed, they should be more interested in getting the results to us, rather than the narrative. For instance, their projection should be updated after every seat (or at least, after every seat after the first ~10 or so are in).
The Guardian is giving the Charles’ letters the full Watergate treatment – from what I've read so far, it’s as about as anticlimactic as you could possibly get.
Well, he takes positions which are strongly on one side of intense public controversy, notably on the badger cull (very much in favour) and unrestricted sale of herbal medicines, some of which had proved harmful. You might agree or disagree, but whether it's healthy for the heir to the throne to weigh into controversies seems very doubtful. Isn't it the Queen's restraint in these things one of the reasons why her reign has been largely uncontroversial? What if a future heir urged nationalisation of the rail network or promoted sharia law? - unlikely, of course, but who can predict what an individual might think? Won't it be embarrassing if he later has to give a King's Speech advocating things that he's known to oppose?
I raised this politely with his office a decade or so ago, and has a detailed two-page reply from his political adviser, which said that Charles felt he had a right toraise issues that concerned him, but that he ceased to do so when they became matters of controversy between the parties - the letter pointed out that, for instance, he was not commenting on fox-hunting. But here he is taking sides on matters that are indeed controversial, and it's not a sufficient defence to say that you agree with his views. I don't dislike Charles, but this stuff just seems unwise.
I thought most of the TV election programmes were disappointing. They've been getting worse since 1992 IMO. What happens is they have the exit poll, show a few results, and then don't bother with the details because they think it's more interesting to have the likes of Neil Kinnock and Michael Gove chattering on endlessly about what they think's going to happen. Lots of unexpected results like the Tories gaining Gower are missed completely.
100% agree. It's a results programme and yet they barely cover the marginals being announced. Well that was mostly the BBC when I watched it live but will assume the same for ITV too then...
I think it was more about establishing a principle than what the content might reveal.
I remain surprised at the Supreme Court ruling - but they're all a bunch of lefty lawyers, so perhaps I shouldn't be. (I find some Supreme Court judgments more baffling than those from the ECJ....)
It wasn't a political split at all. The most "left wing" members of the court were split evenly among the three camps. Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore took the most extreme view against the government, Baroness Hale was in the middle ground, and Lord Wilson, surprisingly, dissented. Interestingly, some of the more conservative (with a small c) members of the court, Lord Neuberger and Lord Reed, were in the most extreme camp. It's certainly a very bizarre decision. The appeal concerned a straightforward point of statutory construction, but only at paragraph 88(!) of Lord Neuberger's judgment does he begin to consider the language of the statutory provision. Lords Reid, Diplock and Wilberforce would be turning in their graves.
I thought most of the TV election programmes were disappointing. They've been getting worse since 1992 IMO. What happens is they have the exit poll, show a few results, and then don't bother with the details because they think it's more interesting to have the likes of Neil Kinnock and Michael Gove chattering on endlessly about what they think's going to happen. Lots of unexpected results like the Tories gaining Gower are missed completely.
BBC was really poor. Feeds going down, missed declarations, little analysis of results, and above all a palpable sense of shock and grief amongst their "unbiased" commentators. Andrew Marr was a particular disgrace, made no attempt to hide his anger and grief at the Scotland Labour losses. Spent a fortune on gimmicky graphics again as usual though.
Andrew neil was good as ever, but I switched to Sky at ~3.00.
I thought most of the TV election programmes were disappointing. They've been getting worse since 1992 IMO. What happens is they have the exit poll, show a few results, and then don't bother with the details because they think it's more interesting to have the likes of Neil Kinnock and Michael Gove chattering on endlessly about what they think's going to happen. Lots of unexpected results like the Tories gaining Gower are missed completely.
I watched a portion of it back with the early Scottish results.
After Dougie Alexander was walked, they must have been using the BBC Scotland feed, and were waiting for Dougie's speech, feed cut to the actual result from Ochil and South Perthshire and... they cut away saying "sorry don;t know what happened with that glitch, we'll be back to Dougie Alexander's speech as soon as possible".
Cue two mins of waffling then (presumably) a pre-record of Dougie's waffling. Ten minutes later they present the Ochil rest "as live" instead of actually having done it live when they had the chance.
Utterly shambolic. Announced results live should be the priority, they don't seem to focus on that at all. If they did they could fill the dead time with speeches instead of the incessant waffling by studio muppets.
The Guardian is giving the Charles’ letters the full Watergate treatment – from what I've read so far, it’s as about as anticlimactic as you could possibly get.
Well, he takes positions which are strongly on one side of intense public controversy, notably on the badger cull (very much in favour) and unrestricted sale of herbal medicines, some of which had proved harmful. You might agree or disagree, but whether it's healthy for the heir to the throne to weigh into controversies seems very doubtful. Isn't it the Queen's restraint in these things one of the reasons why her reign has been largely uncontroversial? What if a future heir urged nationalisation of the rail network or promoted sharia law? - unlikely, of course, but who can predict what an individual might think? Won't it be embarrassing if he later has to give a King's Speech advocating things that he's known to oppose?
I raised this politely with his office a decade or so ago, and has a detailed two-page reply from his political adviser, which said that Charles felt he had a right toraise issues that concerned him, but that he ceased to do so when they became matters of controversy between the parties - the letter pointed out that, for instance, he was not commenting on fox-hunting. But here he is taking sides on matters that are indeed controversial, and it's not a sufficient defence to say that you agree with his views. I don't dislike Charles, but this stuff just seems unwise.
Well, he's a long-term unemployed man who lives on benefits in a council house and has had children by several different partners. So he's kinda speaking up as the common man.
Comments
The telegraph live blog states:
"The most controversial of the memos was written on September 8, 2004, when he wrote to Tony Blair expressing his concern over the lack of resources for British troops in Iraq."
Most controversial?? How is this controversial? Surely a monarch has a duty to look out for his troops.
@IsabelHardman: I see Kent Police have taken a call from someone annoyed that a source told me Farage was going to lose in Thanet.
Lefties really are potty.
Is this like the "Day the Polls Turned"?.... titter
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mb2iroir0odk1h/2015results.csv?dl=0
Perhaps if he lived there, rather than his lovely house in Fulham, things might change a bit quicker.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2015/may/13/publication-of-the-prince-charles-black-spider-letters-live
Farming, the environment, armed forces, supermarkets, architecture, schools, Prince’s Foundation projects, badger culling and even Patagonian toothfish and albatrosses."
Blimey, it is quickly becoming apparent that Charles will never be King..!
"As we trawl through the cache of correspondence, it’s becoming clear that Prince Charles wrote to ministers almost exclusively on matters that are well known to be his closely-held personal interests."
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/598513837869015040/photo/1
Anyone can make a complaint, the top people won't get their hands dirty unless they know its completely serious.
Where the Information Commissioner or a court has ordered disclosure under FOIA, section 53(2) allows a government minister to issue a certificate which has the effect of setting aside the order where the minister has on reasonable grounds formed the opinion that the person in question was not entitled to the information requested. The Divisional Court (Lord Judge CJ, Davis LJ and Globe J) and the minority of the Supreme Court (Lord Hughes & Lord Wilson JJSC) held this provision meant what it said. The Court of Appeal and majority of the Supreme Court held the fact the Minister's certificate was rational did not render it lawful. Quite what is required of a Minister when issuing a certificate under section 53 is now entirely unclear, but the courts have given an unreasonable and strained construction to section 53, which greatly enhances their power at the expense of the Minister to whom Parliament entrusted the decision.
"He didn't Fail us it was due to the Libdem's, Snp and Ukip voters He is what we need to win next election with a landslide Never give up if you fall once Get Back UP and Fight Harder Don't Let The Bugger's Get You Down, Ed Are You A Fighter or A Giver UPPER GET BACK ON THAT HORSE AND SHOW THEM WHAT YOUR MADE OFF"
lol
This is up there with Watergate!! Explosive stuff!
Is it some sort of special postmodern satire day? We've got the Save Ed petition, and the Guardian seemingly trying to attack Prince Charles for worrying about the safety of British troops during the Iraq invasion.
John Reid
Prince Charles wrote to John Reid regarding the redevelopment of Cherry Knowle Hospital in Sunderland, on which the Prince’s Foundation charity worked.
I have hesitated to bother you too much on this issue, and on the wider one of the disposal of one hundred NHS hospital sites, but I feel now is the time to return to the fray!
He adds that “it saddens me greatly to think, that the immense progress and collective enthusiasm gathered twelve months ago is now in danger of being lost”.
24 Hours To Save The NHS!!!!!
https://twitter.com/Jedidja232/status/598513405226549248
So that's 2020 sorted.
Will the Tories repeal the FTPA so they can spring an election Butcher before he's ready?
Looks like Charles 6 Guardian 1, a complete thrashing.
How can it possibly be compatible to stand as a Con candidate at the same time as threatening to take an action designed deliberately to damage the Con party?
He knows if there is a by-election Con will lose. They only have a majority of 12 to start with so it will immediately be down to 10.
He should have been told that, due to his threat to deliberately damage the party, he would no longer be a Con candidate.
Labour support by Class http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/remarkable-failure-ed-miliband-among-working-class
I'd order one if so... perhaps we could get Sion Simon to autograph them too?
Or more brilliantly. Ed Balls?
But whatever it says, its not acceptable. It's like a footballer saying if I can't take a free kick then I'll deliberately score an own goal.
In any walk of life it cannot be acceptable to threaten to damage your own team if you don't get your own way and expect to remain on the team.
PC – “As you know, I attach the greatest importance to preserving, restoring and re-using such precious heritage townscapes and I can only pray that the deputy prime minister will take your advice and give the most careful consideration to development plans.”
And there the live blog comes to an abrupt holt – this story is not quite living up to the hype.
http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll-May-2015#ballots
http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/newham_councillor_investigated_over_property_scandal_1_4072292
Oh no,,please, we need 24 hour coverage fully of this expose...
(thanks, Mike)
I remain surprised at the Supreme Court ruling - but they're all a bunch of lefty lawyers, so perhaps I shouldn't be. (I find some Supreme Court judgments more baffling than those from the ECJ....)
Edit: It is applies from 2011...
But Downing Street is concerned that a ruling by the supreme court in March, which sanctioned the release of the memos, has raised doubts over the ability to veto publication of documents beyond the senior members of the royal family.
I'd reckon Goldsmith would get 40%, the Libs 30%, and the official Conservative 20%.
Killer stuff this.....
From the bits I have read, are they really any different than probably the kind of letters ministers get from all sorts of people every day?
Would cap what has been a distinctly unstellar week for the Left!
Nice work Grauniad....
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-05-07/watch-itv-news-election-night-live/
Thanks!
I don't have Sky, I don't suppose their night's coverage is somewhere too....
But no. WTF? Guardian utterly wasted its time surely? Baffling
I raised this politely with his office a decade or so ago, and has a detailed two-page reply from his political adviser, which said that Charles felt he had a right toraise issues that concerned him, but that he ceased to do so when they became matters of controversy between the parties - the letter pointed out that, for instance, he was not commenting on fox-hunting. But here he is taking sides on matters that are indeed controversial, and it's not a sufficient defence to say that you agree with his views. I don't dislike Charles, but this stuff just seems unwise.
Andrew neil was good as ever, but I switched to Sky at ~3.00.
After Dougie Alexander was walked, they must have been using the BBC Scotland feed, and were waiting for Dougie's speech, feed cut to the actual result from Ochil and South Perthshire and... they cut away saying "sorry don;t know what happened with that glitch, we'll be back to Dougie Alexander's speech as soon as possible".
Cue two mins of waffling then (presumably) a pre-record of Dougie's waffling. Ten minutes later they present the Ochil rest "as live" instead of actually having done it live when they had the chance.
Utterly shambolic. Announced results live should be the priority, they don't seem to focus on that at all. If they did they could fill the dead time with speeches instead of the incessant waffling by studio muppets.