Oh my God it’s Tuesday

Our Prime Minister could have this as his waking thought today. It means that he must go to Buckingham Palace for an audience with the Queen. She is rumoured to be very cross at the mess the House of Commons has got itself into so what will happen in the private of private conversations. The Queen, as a constitutional monarch may do three things whenever she meets her Prime Minster. She can warn, advise and encourage. She cannot tell the Prime Minister what to do but within the meanings of these three words she has a lot of scope to tell the Prime Minster what she thinks of her elected chamber. She is after all part of the legislature being formally described as the Queen in Parliament. It is hard to think of anyone else who can tell the Prime Minister some home truths. She is, after all, above him in the hierarchy of government.

Those who would like to remove the constitutional monarch should come up with some pretty good ideas as to how their new constitutional model will provide a person who is above the murky waters of politics and can amass experience of watching and reading the inner workings of government. That is nearly 60 years for present Queen who has been on the ball right from the start. Winston Churchill thought that the new young Queen would know little of the affairs of State. History records that he was surprised to find the young monarch was well up on her reading of State papers and had some good questions for him.

Sometime today the Queen and the Prime Minister will have had a ‘frank exchange of views’. It is an interview which he cannot avoid before a person who has dealt with every Prime Minister since 1952. She has seen it all from Suez, through the Profumo affairs and the three day week. If we ever think we need a better arrangement for our head of State we should recognise that in these times of political tawdriness a piece of the constitution which remains dignified, independent and experienced is of great advantage for us and a troubled Prime Ministers. We have had enough half baked constitutional reforms from people who have probably never read a constitution, let alone drafted one. Any more bright ideas for reform should be examined against the lessons of history. Not dreamt up on the hoof by those who live in a continuing present, knowing little of where we have come from and with little idea where their ideas for change will lead us. I am not saying that a constitutional monarchy is the only way to have a figurehead and mediator of last resort, but should we ever need to change to a presidential system we must not do so without understanding what we will be rejecting.
Dacier