It’s a Liberal Democrat Opposition Day in Parliament today and we have chosen to devote half of it to asking for an investigation on how Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was ever appointed a Trade Envoy and for the Government to publish all the papers relating to his appointment at the time. The motion says:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.
Whether this is the best use of our precious opposition time is up for discussion when there are so many issues – social care, Europe – which are arguably more important for the country. However, those of us who say that we don’t get enough positive coverage will not be able to complain as this was even mentioned on Radio Nan Gaidheal (the BBC’s Gaelic radio channel) this morning as well as all over the media.
Lisa Smart will lead the debate as Cabinet Office spokesperson. Nobody will be able to mention current investigations, but it’s reasonable to want to know more about the process of his appointment to that role as well as the process of Peter Mandelson’s as US Ambassador.
The second part of our day revolves around expediting a bill that Munira Wilson is introducing which would “make provision to restrict access to online services, including social media, by children in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.”
This issue has been well debated on here in recent weeks.
The online world has so many dangers for young people and it is right to consider how they should access the internet. I’m worried that a blanket ban would not do what its proponents think and would actually increase the dangers because vulnerable young people who do find a way round would be told that they would get into trouble if they reported abuse. I also worry that the internet can be a lifeline for young people who are isolated or marginalised in some way. How you balance all that is a bit of a nightmare.
I have always been worried about the availability of online porn and its effect on the behaviour of young men and the expectations it creates of what is acceptable sexual behaviour for both young men and young women and I have been consistently told that the reality is even worse than my worst fears.
We need to work hard to provide a proportionate way of doing this that protects young people and ensures that they can access help when they need it.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
10 Comments
The monarchy is a relic of a bygone age steeped in privilege and elitism and more interested in protecting its institution from outside scrutiny. The bowing and curtseying is also ridiculous. The fact that a specific family can be put on a pedestal and be shoved into roles without public consent is unfair. Britain needs to have a democratic Republic where we the people are Sovereign. A president need not be a politician but a respected academic or someone from a distinguished background and act as an independent leader. No hereditary monarchy any more.
The monarchy is expensive, undemocratic and the monarch has minimal power. The House of Lords is expensive, undemocratic and has the power to thwart the elected House of Commons. On that basis, the House of Lords should be priority for abolition (in my view). Meanwhile, certainly reduce the monarchy to the Scandinavian (much simpler) model, where extended families do not get state handouts or deference
Any form of hereditary system is a lottery.
Agreed. But so is our electoral system. Which is why we have a government actively chosen by 20% of the population.
Supporters of the monarchy like to point out that having an elected president could be far worse (e.g. Trump). However I have never heard any British republican argue that we should have an executive president, but rather that we should have a figurehead president with few, if any, political powers (like in Ireland). I think that is the position that David is hinting at above.
However, I would argue for a more radical idea. We could abolish the monarchy and not replace it with a president or anything else. Such limited “powers” that the monarch currently has could be easily distributed among a number of people. For example, giving Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament – a pure formality since it was last refused by Queen Anne in 1708 – could be given to the Speaker of the House of Commons. The role of head of the armed forces could be given to the Secretary of State for Defence (who in practice already does the job).
We don’t actually need a president.
Any form of monarchy is an anachronism, based as it is on a family whose forebears a long time ago were able to impose themselves as King by force.
The current monarch is a hard working, well meaning man and is not wildly unpopular. Indeed a majority of my fellow citizens want to keep him and his family in situ, though perhaps not all the hangers on.
I would personally welcome a republic, but it’s not popular politics and there are far more important matters to tackle like major constitutional and electoral reform and sorting out the economy.
There is always a view put forward cogently that there is no agitation for abolishing the monarchy, house of lords and adopting a PR voting system. Those that support the status quo ie the old stale lab and con Brigade do not want a new democratic settlement but I long to see us become a real democracy and the people as Sovereign. Having grown up with the reds and blues in adversarial combat I actually think those two old class based parties love each other really as they resist any changes to make us truly democratic. They will say that there is never a right time to implement change for the better.
I think the debate should look at all those in the elites who had contact with Epstein.
Be they PM’s, cabinet, Presidents, Opposition spokespeople, MP’s, Lords, Business people, intellectual figures, cultural figures, sports figures, and of any and all parties.
Epstein seems a very serious issue, all his contacts should be looked at.
“ Whether this is the best use of our precious opposition time is up for discussion”
I suggest from both the reports and the cross-party Common’s debate, this was a good call and use of the time. I suggest the challenge now is to build on the success of the cross-party action to demonstrate how the LibDem’s in sufficient numbers in Westminster can contribute to both the political debate and running of government.
‘An humble address’ might well be the traditional form of words and of no great consequence but it surely is well past its sell by date in a modern 21st century democracy.