Prince Charles: Britain’s "best informed lobbyist"

[ianch99]

I am not suprised the Government tried to block this getting out:

Revealed: Prince Charles has received confidential cabinet papers for decades

Out of order. All the more reason to dump Charles as the next King ..

[denphone]

Charles will be perfectly fine as the next king in my opinion.

[nomadking]

So What.

Clarence House refused to comment today but a royal household source told MailOnline the heir to the throne has been sent the same paperwork 'since the 1930s' and it 'was not set up for Charles'.

If Labour had disagreed with the policy then they had ample to time to change it themselves.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So What. If Labour had disagreed with the policy then they had ample to time to change it themselves.

Not sure what Labour has to do with this.

Charles, unlike his predecessors, is an active campaigner and lobbyist for causes he supports. Having direct access to future Government policy is inappropriate and highlights a conflict of interest.

This also highlights Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

For example,

the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

Hmm! The man is going to be dealing with those papers soon enough so I can't see why anyone should see any conflict. They are just a bunch of interfering twonks.

---------- Post added at 22:31 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Not sure what Labour has to do with this.

Charles, unlike his predecessors, is an active campaigner and lobbyist for causes he supports. Having direct access to future Government policy is inappropriate and highlights a conflict of interest.

This also highlights Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

For example,

Quite right too.The whole point of a constitutional monarch is that they are a a way to make sure that not all power rests in the hands of one person in the shape of the PM..

[beeman]

the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament

And im not supprised either. That would be a MAJOR constutional change and effectly remove her as head of state

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Hmm! The man is going to be dealing with those papers soon enough so I can't see why anyone should see any conflict. They are just a bunch of interfering twonks.

Best not call the future king an "interfering twonk" Although, you do have a point:

Stop interfering in £3bn Chelsea Barracks plan, 'feudal' Prince Charles is told

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

The "black spider" memos are letters and memos written by Charles, Prince of Wales, to British government ministers and politicians over the years. As the modern British monarch remains politically neutral by tradition, the letters are controversial because of Prince of Wales' position as the eldest child of the British monarch Queen Elizabeth II and heir apparent to the British throne.

The letters are sent by Charles in a private capacity, but concerns have been raised that they may represent the exercise of undue influence over British government ministers. Charles has described himself as a "meddling prince". Issues that Charles has expressed views about in public include farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture. Originally, the content of the black spider letters was known only anecdotally and from memoirs and leaks until 13 May 2015 when the Information Tribunal ordered the release of most of the correspondence

[Kymmy]

I don't understand the argument purely based on the fact that he is currently not our Monarch so can involve himself in politics to his hearts content. After he becomes our King then this thread would be valid but in the mean time all the OP's doing is grasping at straws

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I don't understand the argument purely based on the fact that he is currently not our Monarch so can involve himself in politics to his hearts content. After he becomes our King then this thread would be valid but in the mean time all the OP's doing is grasping at straws

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I don't understand the argument purely based on the fact that he is currently not our Monarch so can involve himself in politics to his hearts content. After he becomes our King then this thread would be valid but in the mean time all the OP's doing is grasping at straws

You are missing the point. If, as a constitutional monarch in waiting, he was politically neutral and did not interfere in decisions that affected his vested or pet interests the you would have a point.

There are no straws to be grasped at here:

Paul Flynn, a member of the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee, said Charles’s access to cabinet papers was “a considerable surprise” and called for a parliamentary investigation.

“He is not just a figurehead, he has become a participant in national debate and there is no control over his lobbying,” Flynn said. “This means that he is not only the most influential lobbyist, but the best informed and he is lobbying for his own interests, which are not always benign or sensible.”

Cabinet papers contain sensitive draft legislation at the stage when it is shared between secretaries of state for the first time and the papers of cabinet committees, such as those that currently examine issues including constitutional reform, economic affairs, Europe, home affairs, public expenditure and national security.

It means Charles has access to more top-level information about his pet topics, whether organic agriculture, complementary medicine or town planning, than elected ministers of state with responsibilities in those areas.

The criticism is valid ..

[nomadking]

Is there the slightest evidence that a) he has commented on something seen this way before the policy was made public, and b) has anything major been changed as a result of one of his letters?

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are missing the point. If, as a constitutional monarch in waiting, he was politically neutral and did not interfere in decisions that affected his vested or pet interests the you would have a point.

Nope, not missing the point at all, I'm just taking the thread for what it is a pointless psuedo-political attempt to have a go at the current government and/or monarchy like most of your threads.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Nope, not missing the point at all, I'm just taking the thread for what it is a pointless psuedo-political attempt to have a go at the current government and/or monarchy like most of your threads.

Yup, still missing the point ...

---------- Post added at 10:23 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Nope, not missing the point at all, I'm just taking the thread for what it is a pointless psuedo-political attempt to have a go at the current government and/or monarchy like most of your threads.

BTW, I like the way you don't respond to any of the specific points raised in the linked article. Your response to something you don't agree with is to take it to a personal level and not debate the points raised .. nice ..

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Yup, still missing the point ...

So anyone who sees the thread as a political rant is missing the point

Fact 1# Charles is not King so his political views and actions are NOT against any law so he has a perfect right to make any stance he wants to.
Fact 2# Anything he writes and anyone he writes to is purely his own thoughts and not a command, order, decree.
Fact 3# The current or any other government (especially those not labour) have never colluded with him and based any laws on his preferences
Fact4# Those making mountains out of the molehill of these threads are only doing so based on their extremist political views

Yep.. missed the point entirely.....NOT!!!!

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

BTW, I like the way you don't respond to any of the specific points raised in the linked article. Your response to something you don't agree with is to take it to a personal level and not debate the points raised .. nice ..

This is not a political debate arena, we don't have to respond to fanatics, we don't have to smile for the cameras and we don't have to be mesmerised by bull pooh no matter how real others think it is

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

So anyone who sees the thread as a political rant is missing the point

Fact 1# Charles is not King so his political views and actions are NOT against any law so he has a perfect right to make any stance he wants to.
Fact 2# Anything he writes and anyone he writes to is purely his own thoughts and not a command, order, decree.
Fact 3# The current or any other government (especially those not labour) have never colluded with him and based any laws on his preferences
Fact4# Those making mountains out of the molehill of these threads are only doing so based on their extremist political views

Yep.. missed the point entirely.....NOT!!!!

I think you are overreacting. This issue is worthy of debate, a number of MPs think so, sections of the mainstream media think so and so do I.