Trouble Viewing this email? Go to website


For a Civic and Constitutional Republic 


Issue No 90 Saturday 21 January 2012

This Week




News Stories

Highlighting news stories important to the Civic Republican view, particularly those that are overlooked or little covered in the main media.

Read more latest Republican stories on Republican Party Facebook Page

The following are recent postings on the Facebook page



What on earth are they thinking? The man is over 90, wife over 80. Why do they need a yacht to tour the world in? They'll never use it

What was wrong with the old one? It was a nice looking vessel. Why was it ditched?

The whole idea is bonkers. And just when we are all supposed to be tightening our belts, not to say losing our jobs and homes, and when “we are all in this together”.

Whether or not this is privately funded it is a slap in the face for the people of Britain.

Forget it!

Prime minister throws weight behind £60m-project despite protests that taxpayers should not have to foot the bill

Carmelo Carruba comments: An even better quote from Cameron "the principle of male primogeniture is outdated" - The principle of Monarchy is outdated!!



Give Clegg the benefit of raising the issue of company ownership and the role of directors. However, it is doubtful if his fine intellect is up to contributing much insight

This issue needs to be looked at in connection with the ability of directors to award themselves huge unmerited salaries while those who own the company do nothing
We need a radical rethink on the ownership of private companies and the tradability of that ownership

It can hardly be helpful to have company ownership tradable in nanoseconds as we do now

Nils Pratley: The call for more John Lewis-style companies is fair enough – but how would a right to request shares work in private firms and how healthy is it for staff to invest heavily in their employers?



The big fault with the US, as all western democracies, is the compact that exists between democracy and plutocracy. Elected politicians are bought and so don’t represent the people who elected them. Democracy becomes a sham

The US Constitution provides for Separation of Powers of State but not separation of the Powers of State and any other Powers. The biggest crassest mistake is to think only governments have power

In an autocracy it may be that only the government have power but in a liberal society there are other constituencies of power in some ways more powerful than the government, such as Big Finance – the plutocracy

The Constitution must be amended to provide for Separation of the Powers of State from any other powers. It can do this by, for instance, not allowing donations to parties and banning the elected from ever having an interest in Big Finance after leaving office. To keep them on the level give them a lifetime stipend and a lifetime honorary role somewhere

Then the US can return to real democratic politics and refind its heart.

US democracy, like UK democracy, has failed abjectly. All democratic channels are corrupted and broken

When that happens the only resort is the streets

Bill McKibben for TomDispatch: I've seen enough of how Big Oil operates in Washington to know that moneyed influence is poisoning American democracy



The government should take action on diet. The place to do that is in the schools where school meals should set the standard and be so cheap that everyone uses them

That way children are educated about good food from the word GO.
It is obscene for the schools to give children junk food and then demean adults by commenting on their eating habits

We all know that this policy is a prelude to denying NHS treatment because people are to blame for their bad health

This government is behaving barbaric



We should always question the values of the enlightenment - which is why only two cheers. The Enlighteners of the 18th century would not have wanted three

But this act of questioning is what the Enlightenment taught us. But we have lost it in many respects and orthodoxy dominates current thinking in politics, economics, philosophy and practically everything else....

Leaving aside science and technology we have gone backwards. We need to rediscover Enlightenment values.

Will Hutton writes:

"On issues big and small, we need to get better and cleverer at understanding our Enlightenment legacy and turning it into policies and institutions whose value is obvious to all.

"The Enlightenment is, with all its imperfections, what drove the rise of the west and will continue to do so if allowed.

"There is no long-run happiness nor well-being in organising our economies and societies around blood, ethnicity, blind faith and the tribe.

"The Enlightenment is under siege around the world. It is time to rally to its defence."

Will Hutton: From Hungary to South Africa, the US to the UK, the right no longer embraces progress or tolerance, reason or democratic argument



Ian Jack writes of Britain:

"Finance became the acceptable business profession for gentlemen. In the words of another historian, Martin Wiener, finance "involved the extraction of wealth by associating with people of one's own class in fashionable surroundings, not by... dealing with … the working and lower-middle classes". In this way, the City became part of the elite and "could call upon government much more effectively than could industry to favour and support its interests".

"This is a familiar and by now hardly controversial diagnosis of the British malaise, and every so often a government or a politician promises a fundamental reform in political attitudes, praising the country's long tradition of scientific discovery and technical invention. A few television programmes endorse the same point; Sir James Dyson appears with his vacuum cleaner. But, beyond that, nothing much happens. Look around the frontbenches on both sides of the Commons. Who there dares upset the City? Who there ever made anything three-dimensional, or even had a parent who did? Which of them would risk the chamber pot of failed hopes being emptied over their heads by calling for a national industrial strategy?"

Ian Jack: Over the North Sea lies the richest country in Europe, its success built on the manufacturing industry that Britain has spurned



As Blair's fortune balloons, I've always wondered how it is he is still plain Tony. He has absolutely no British dongs. Even those that come after your name. That's odd. It says in Wiki

"In May 2007, before his resignation, it was reported that Blair would be offered a knighthood in the Order of the Thistle, owing to his Scottish connections ( than the Order of the Garter, which is usually offered to former Prime Ministers). No such move has been made since, and Blair has reportedly indicated that he does not want the traditional knighthood or peerage bestowed on former prime ministers."

I somehow doubt that for surely he would see it as advantageous to be Lord Tony or Sir Tony for his globe-trotting activities

It would be nice to think that the Treasury has put a stop to honours because of his dodgy tax arrangements. This has happened in the past to some island dwellers

If it really were Blair's decision the best explanation I can come up with is that he wants to leave the space clear for the really big one. Yeah, that's right! SAINT Toni!See More

Accountants question transparency of financial records kept by former PM's complex web of companies



But they will stay in the Commonwealth

Portia Simpson Miller seeks to loosen ties with Britain as drift towards republicanism across Caribbean gathers pace



Yesterday it was in Hungary now it is in Germany; twice in two days the folly of having a ceremonial president, as head of state in a republic is shown up.

The current German president, Christian Wulff, is being revealed as an unreliable sleazy lightweight trying to use his position to bully the press and to line his pocket

Christian Wulff under pressure over warning to Bild editor about 'judicial consequences' of printing story about his finances



The Republican Party advocates a constitution with a strong independently elected president.

The folly of having a weak president has been demonstrated many times including in the Republic of Ireland which is a corrupt economic basket case and the Weimar Republic which had no defences against the takeover by Hitler
The demonstrations in Hungary today over the new constitution which came into force yesterday protest against the withdrawal of human rights that it introduces.

A real separation of powers with a democratic elected President makes the introduction on draconian new measures like this almost impossible. Hungary until now has had a President elected by the parliament meaning the office will be entirely in the pocket of the parliament. This situation continues in the new constitution

The presidential office had and has no real power

The consequences of having a constitution with a weak presidential office are again at this moment being demonstrated in Hungary.

The details explained.



We are constantly being told that we cannot afford things – even though we live in a rich country with the fifth largest economy in the world.

... This is because the whole economy – businesses, individuals and government – is up to its eyes in debt.

It is in debt because debt is created every time the private banks create new money

As long as this mad economic model persists we can never be proud of how we treat our citizens.

UK pensioners face spiralling costs for health care.

Member Brian Wainwright comments
Sadly, this is not a civilised society. The Tories are quite content to leave helpless old people lying in their own excrement for hours (and make no mistake that *is* what this means) as long as they can save money by doing so. The whole p...aradigm of neo-liberal economics is mistaken, and demonstrably it has failed to deliver benefits to the people. We need to find a completely new way of doing things. In the meantime there is still scope for a reordering of priorities


  • High Speed Two. Serving the Regions or Serving London?

Comment by Member Richard Middleton on Newsletter No 89

Most people agree that Britain needs a high-speed rail network. The problems stem from the particular route and type of rolling stock, which have been chosen. In the form recently approved by the Government, HS2 totally ignores most major centres of population between London and the North and will be connected to the existing rail network only at its northern and southern ends. There is also a danger that, because it will cost so much, there will be no money left for extension to the North and Scotland - the parts of the country which would benefit far more from high-speed rail than the West Midlands.

If we have two or three extra trains, each hour, to Central Birmingham and cut the journey time by half an hour, that is to be welcomed but are such modest advances really worth £32bn? HS2 won\'t serve the needs of the majority of potential inter-city passengers (i.e. those, who are NOT travelling from London to Birmingham or vice versa). The travelling public will have to go on using inter-city trains, which run at about 100 mph. They will still be clogging up existing rail routes and the whole point of building HS2 is - supposedly - that it will take passengers off the \"classic\" network! HS2 will primarily attract business people and bureaucrats, who are based in Birmingham and need to travel to London (and possibly vice versa).

There are no intermediate stops (and, contrary to all sensible passenger-transport planning practice for the last 150 years, the line passes through the most sparsely populated area between London and the Midlands, well, that is unless someone in the DfT wants to take a really roundabout route through East Anglia). \"Firms\" [probably public bodies with middle/senior managers addicted to travel] will pick up the (hefty) tab.

That\'s the theory, anyway. It\'s unlikely that the majority of rail users (many of whom are students, pensioners and so on) will pay the fares on HS2, which could be twice the off-peak fares on the West Coast Main Line. If employers won\'t pay inflated fares (in the depths of a recession, for instance), we\'ll end up with a situation, similar to the one, which has existed on the West Coast Main Line in recent years. Virgin, thinking that businessmen would be their main market, stupidly ordered Pendolino sets with silly amounts of First-Class accommodation. Those coaches are virtually empty, most of the time, while Standard-Class coaches (outnumbered by First-Class ones by about two to one) are often full. [Things have improved, more recently, because patronage has increased and the DfT has bought additional coaches.

That waste of money (and the increased cost of operating longer and heavier trains) could have been avoided, if Virgin had ordered the right mix of \"First\" and \"Standard\", in the first place.] That was bad enough but imagine spending £32 bn on a 250 mph railway line, which is dedicated to exactly the same traffic. We could have another huge white elephant on our hands. Simon Jenkins, writing in The Guardian, only a day after the Government announced its intention to proceed with HS2, described the scheme as \"Concorde for slow learners\"; a pointless prestige project. He bemoaned the way, in which the suppliers of services to public bodies have hijacked the very organs of government; are \"embedded\" within them. We have a corporate [and some would say \"fascist\"] state.

The big PLCs, which provide services to government departments, local authorities etc are the robber barons of our age. The West Coast Main Line is the biggest problem of all, on the existing rail network: despite having had around £12bn lavished on it since 1999, it will soon be unable to accommodate any more trains. [It is more accurate to speak of \"robber quantity surveyors\", under instruction from \"contractor-barons\", in this case. The scheme was about £6bn over budget, according to a House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report.] Even if HS2 were to follow a more sensible route and cost much less, it would still fail to achieve the original objective of relieving pressure on the West Coast Main Line [the reason why HS2 was \"essential\", according to the Government], simply because of the length of the legislative and construction periods. In the short term, why can\'t Virgin be forced to convert some of the First-Class coaches to Standard-Class ones (thereby greatly increasing capacity on Pendolinos and reducing overcrowding)?

An even simpler solution would be to reduce the cost of First-Class travel, to ensure that trains are full! Such measures would buy a little time. We might also ask, as the campaign group Railfuture (formerly \"The Railway Development Society\") did, why HS2\'s trains have to travel at 250 mph (and, by so doing, consume vast amounts of energy, compared even to trains, which run at the TGV\'s normal 200 mph). France has plenty of modern nuclear power stations to feed its electrified railway lines. Even if we wanted to build nuclear power stations [and most people, quite rightly, don\'t (for several dozen reasons, which need not concern us here], their cost, construction time and inefficiency (an inevitable consequence of placing them 40 or 50 miles from major settlements, in case of meltdown) would make them hard to justify.

Britain could face a real energy crisis, in a few years, and it would not be helped by imposing the burden of high-speed railway lines of any kind, let alone lines carrying trains at 250 mph. Railfuture proposed that

  1. a complete network of high-speed routes should be planned for the whole country, even if only one is built initially; [It\'s called foresight. Can someone explain the concept to politicians and civil servants and remind them that the money they play with isn\'t really theirs? Peter Kellow made a very good point about leaving capacity for expansion. Penny-pinching Whitehall mandarins prevented civil engineers doing this, when parts of the British motorway network were being built, in the mid-1960s, and, so, several motorways had to be almost completely rebuilt, in the 1970s, at enormous cost.]
  2. connections should be made with the existing rail network, to allow journeys to various destinations (and thus to serve a much greater number of passengers); and
  3. HS2 should be built along the side of the M1 Motorway, in order to (i) minimise environmental damage (and long-term nuisance), (ii) serve several towns and cities along the way, and (iii) place the (temporary) end of the line somewhere around Rugby. Extensions could then be built to Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow, in one direction, and Nottingham/Sheffield/Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh, in the other.

The BBC (and some elements of the press) dutifully presented those opposing HS2 as a bunch of Tory toffs in the shires (and usually, to make them seem even more parochial, as a group of eccentrics, in one particular village, led by an actor famous for playing eccentrics) but the standing and range of the organisations, which now oppose HS2 cannot be dismissed as easily in forums, other than \"The Six O\'Clock News\". £32 bn is a ridiculous price tag. Cost estimates for alternative HS2 schemes have been produced figures 50% lower.

The \"bargain-basement\" option is to upgrade the West Coast Main Line [Yes, again.] for between £5bn and £9bn. [I take the higher estimates with a pinch of salt: if Whitehall doesn\'t want to do something, it will inflate the projected cost as much as possible.] It does seem bizarre that when, a few years ago, the \"Central Railway\" venture proposed building a dedicated freight route, all the way from the Channel Tunnel to Liverpool [using much of the now-closed Great Central route, including the section from Sheffield to Manchester through the (1950s) Woodhead tunnel], the Department of Transport dismissed the idea, even though all the funding for the scheme had been obtained from the private sector, and the rail industry and road hauliers were enthusiastic. \"Central Railway\" would have relieved pressure on the West Coast Main Line; would not have cost the taxpayer a penny; and, as it offered \"piggyback\" services [i.e. road trailers (and even tractor units) on well wagons, a la Canadian Pacific] would have taken thousands of lorries off the motorway and trunk-road networks.

[Some may remember that, when the 44-tonne weight limit for LGVs was first proposed, only lorries, which had travelled most of the way \"piggyback\" (i.e. by rail) were going to be eligible. A bit of lobbying in Brussels by road hauliers soon put paid to that restriction. Now, it looks as if even larger lorries will be allowed on to our roads. That makes a nonsense of the DfT\'s claims to be pro-rail. It has made carrying goods by rail more and more difficult, in economic terms, by making the carriage of goods by road easier and easier.]

Apparently, Treasury officials [the semi-divine beings, who decided, on a whim, about thirty years ago, that no economic activity in the UK, apart from the financial sector, was worthy of development or protection] were worried that, if the \"Central Railway\" proved unsuccessful, pressure would be put on the government to take it over and subsidise it. [As the Government spends about six times on the Byzantine \"private\" railway system what it spent on British Rail, that can\'t have been a genuine, principled objection.

The two crucial omissions from the \"Central Railway\" plan were the provision of huge backhanders to the major political parties, and directorships to senior civil servants.] \"Central Railway\" [Taxpayers\' loot required: £0] was, in the eyes of mandarins, poor value for money, yet, the cost-to-benefit ratio of HS2 [Price: a damned sight more than £32 billion, we can safely bet] has been halved, in the last two years, and no one in the Treasury has opened his cheaper. Funny that. The number and length of tunnels, on the HS2 route that has been approved, seems to grow by the day.

I found it particularly sickening that taxpayers had to find an extra £500 million for an additional tunnel, just to stop a cabinet minister (through whose constituency the projected route runs) resigning. Is a politician really worth that much? I doubt that you could find a single person in Great Britain, who believed a politician was worth £500 let alone £500,000,000! Sadly, in the \"United\" Kingdom, party always comes before country (even though it\'s the country\'s money and not the party\'s, which is treated like confetti).

Another idiotic idea is that the London terminus of HS2 should be at Euston. How can it make sense to spend roughly 5% of the UK\'s annual budget on a piece of infrastructure, on which trains \"must\" run at 250 mph but which will deposit passengers over a mile from the Eurostar terminal??!!! [Try walking from the platforms at Euston to the platforms at St P or look up the distance on Google Maps.]

We have been told, repeatedly, that HS2 is needed because upgrading the WCML again would be too disruptive. That being the case, why does the current HS2 plan involve, er, demolishing and rebuilding the terminus of the WCML and moving existing services all over the place? Unfortunately, some fool seems to have built a library (which is far too small for its intended purpose and, like every other large public building in the UK, cost about £500 million, far exceeded the original estimates and took decades to build) on the best site for the HS2 station. The demolition of what one famous (non-republican) architectural critic said resembled \"an academy for the secret police\" would be no great loss to the townscape (although the interior is quite nice).

Hey, I know! We could move the British Library to the West Midlands and then people would actually have a reason to travel on HS2! Remember that HS2 is going ahead at a time, when the UK is dealing with very high levels of public debt; about to enter another period of recession, thanks to Osborne\'s moronic policies and the Euro crisis (the previous recession having finished less than two years ago); cutting many public services; and facing a credit-rating downgrade from one or more agencies.

HS2 sends out the wrong message to the IMF, ratings agencies, banks and other countries about the control of public spending in the UK. Pardon me for asking, Guv, but weren\'t the austerity measures introduced by the Lib-Con Coalition [Considering their concern for ordinary people, I think \"Axis\" would be a more appropriate label.] Government designed to reassure the rest of the World that Britain had seen the error of its spendthrift ways?

Don\'t tell me it was another lib-con trick! \"Let\'s save £40,000 a year by closing a village library and blow hundreds of billions on things we don\'t need but which will keep huge engineering and defence firms happy because they fund our parties or their directors are former colleagues.\" Kleptocracy rules OK! As others have said, we no longer have the manufacturing base or skilled labour, which would allow us to build HS2 ourselves, so most of the money will end up in the pockets of French and German engineering firms, and Polish and Italian workers. I\'ve nothing against our fellow Europeans: they are willing and able to do jobs that many people in Britain can\'t or won\'t.

The point is that Cameron is misleading the British people by suggesting that HS2 will provide a boost to the economy and reduce unemployment. In reality, it will make very little difference (and may even, as several people have suggested, suck more investment towards the giant financial plughole, called \"The City of London\").

However, £32bn (or even a fraction of £32bn) could make a tremendous difference to the existing rail network. It\'s very run down, in places, and fit to burst, in others. Britain\'s railways carried more people in 2009-10 than at any time since the Wall Street Crash (and, if the economy recovers after the 2012 recession, which we\'re about to enter, demand for travel will increase). It is time that the Government acknowledged that the railways, long seen as a Victorian relic in Whitehall, are making a comeback; and directed spending to where its needed.

[The Liverpool Lime Street-Manchester Victoria, Manchester Victoria-Leeds and Paddington-Swansea electrification schemes, and the re-opening of the western part of the old \"Varsity\" line, now dubbed the \"East-West\" route, are a start but only a start. If BR had had a third of the public dosh that the so-called \"privatised\" railway has thrown at it every year, these schemes would have been implemented long ago (and the Great Central mainline would probably have been re-opened for high-speed passenger trains to the North and Midlands and nightly freight traffic from the Channel Tunnel, thus eliminating the need for HS2 in the short term at least). There are a dozen or so stations, most in London, which have dangerously overcrowded platforms or which have created terrible bottlenecks on the network. When are those pressing problems going to be addressed?]

Let\'s fix what we already have. We could probably still have a sensibly priced HS2 (on which more than Brummie businessmen and Whitehall mandarins could travel) with the money that\'s left over. Unfortunately, almost £800 million has already been spent on the project, without any discussion or approval. It\'s the replacement of the Trident missile system, all over again


Leave a Comment for Posting

You may use the online form.

You may also email Peter Kellow at

You are receiving this Newsletter either because you signed up to receive it on the Republican Party of Great Britain website or because you subscribed to the party. To unsubscribe click button below