The Tribune

“Never complain and never explain” is a mantra said to be favoured by The Queen and has been attributed to the late Queen Mother.

As a traditional strategy in dealing with the Royal Family’s challenges and tribulations in public life, it has become something of a cliché. In fact, it derives from the English 19th century statesman, Benjamin Disraeli who, as Prime Minister, reasoned there was no point in trying to justify one’s actions because friends did not need it and one’s enemies would not believe you anyway. In the same context, Disraeli also observed that “circumstances are beyond human control but our own conduct is in our own control”.

How appropriate both quotations appear in considering the furore over Prince Andrew’s disastrous interview with the BBC over a week ago. The horrendous adverse publicity and global media storm precipitated by his ill-judged exchanges about his relationship with convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, together with his responses to allegations of consorting with underage girls, has resulted in humiliation for the Royal Family. The details have been splashed over the press and do not bear repetition or further analysis. But this hard-hitting interview, designed - at his own request - to put to rest once and for all controversy that goes back a number of years, has turned out to have the reverse effect and has become, for the prince himself, an unintended act of self-destruction.

All that said, and while the immediate hubbub begins to die down, I wonder whether it is principally the extreme media response that has created what has become a public relations disaster. Such a view should not be seen as understating the seriousness of the allegations against him and his poor judgement in keeping company with a known paedophile. But it can be argued the media reaction to the interview was partly motivated by the tone of the discussion and the fact the prince came across as privileged, arrogant, aloof and lacking self-awareness - without, most importantly, expressing regret or contrition or any feeling for the victims of Epstein’s sex trafficking and serial abuse of minors. Some commentators are now saying this was a catastrophic example of hubris.

It is unprecedented for a senior member of the Royal Family to be forced to retire from public life, but the prince has had to step down from his official duties for the foreseeable future and a number of businesses, charities and other organisations have cut ties with him, with his role diminished anyway as Prince Charles is known to want to streamline the monarchy. But, amid the storm of criticism and disapproval, it looks to me the reaction to the interview has gone way over the top as everyone, it seems, is jumping on the bandwagon to condemn him.

It should be remembered he has denied the allegations, which have existed for quite a while, and has indicated his willingness to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations if required to do so – and, until the accusations are tested in court or in an investigation by the FBI in sworn testimony under oath, they remain allegations only. If he did testify in court after facing calls to talk to the FBI about his links with Epstein and underage girls, Andrew would be the first royal to do so since the then future King Edward VII gave evidence for a friend in 1891 who had been accused of cheating at baccarat.

The UK tabloid press is well known for not pulling any punches and it thrives on exploiting controversy, since reporting dramatic events, with sensational headlines like “Outcast”, “Pariah Prince” and “Prince Endy”, sells newspapers. It seems to be milking this scandal for all it is worth with disproportionate coverage, like the Daily Mail recently devoting in a single edition no less than nine pages to it. One unwelcome result is excessive global media coverage. An example that borders on the risible was a Washington Post piece describing the interview as - and I paraphrase - expecting a train wreck or plane crashing into an oil tanker and ending up with a tsunami triggering a nuclear explosion. One can only say that that is simply hysterical hyperbole.

Such is the power of the media, the ordinary person may well wonder how the Buckingham Palace public relations machine allowed the interview to take place at all, and many now dread the likely outcome of Prince Harry’s recent attack on the press for its claimed “ruthless campaign of relentless propaganda” in relation to him and his wife. His move is said to have been taken against the advice of his staff.

It is the case, as a general proposition, that public opinion is driven by what people read and hear in the press and on television and there is always the danger of “group think” taking over. No one can reasonably dispute the prince had been unwise in his dealings with Epstein. He may also be guilty of other offences but these remain allegations he has consistently denied in the past and continues to do so. The ill-advised BBC interview has seriously damaged his reputation and the road to redemption may be a long one. But many will be sad that this has undermined much good work by him over the years involving patronage of a 100-plus charities and other organisations as well as being a trade ambassador on behalf of the government over a long period.

According to well-known British historian and biographer, Robert Lacey, this episode is a reminder that the monarchy was once an institution of absolute power but now depends ultimately on the consent and approval of the communities it seeks to represent. So public opinion is all important. Some regard the current drama as “a minor scuffle” compared to the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936. I believe such a characterisation underplays the damage of the terrible publicity to the Royal Family as a whole, but it is surely the case the abdication crisis was a much more serious matter and considerably worse for the monarchy at the time.

Many people now hope The Queen will be able to continue her vital role of protecting the institution - thus ensuring it continues to thrive and, in the words of one observer, remains as strong and fit for purpose as it has been for so many years.

Tales of the unexpected still possible in Britain’s election

Inevitably, the events surrounding the Royal Family have pushed the UK’s General Election off the front pages during the last week. But, with less than three weeks to polling day on December 12, political campaigning is well under way, with both main parties - the Conservatives and Labour - having now published their manifestos.

Historically, the election process in Britain has provided for a two-party system under the first-past-the-post rules rather than proportional representation. Those rules remain, but more recently other smaller parties have been included and have won a substantial number of the votes cast. That trend is continuing and in the forthcoming election the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, the Greens and the Brexit Party will all be taking part.

As I reported last week, this election is being billed as the most important in the UK since the Second World War. That is partly because of Brexit but it is also seen as a crucial test of the electorate’s opinion because the main opposition Labour Party is now dominated by the hard Left and has therefore become more extreme as it seems to be in the grip of an ideological minority clique. This has triggered serious division in the party and makes a mockery of the British values of liberty, tolerance and fair play as enunciated by former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The leader of the Conservative Party and sitting Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, presented the Tory manifesto on Sunday. As well as a commitment to “get Brexit done” in order to unleash the potential of the country, it contained detailed spending proposals in areas ranging from the National Health Service, welfare and education to crime, defence, infrastructure and the environment – all to be financed by increased revenue from corporation tax and from a surcharge on health for EU nationals.

Earlier, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn put forward a socialist agenda of state intervention and nationalisation, including free broadband for all, which could lead to stronger unions and more strikes, and higher taxes on income and on private assets and accumulated wealth. Defending what have been criticised as reckless socialist ideas (including seizure by the state of private assets) that would wreck the country, Mr Corbyn claims small and medium-sized firms should have nothing to fear since he was going after big business with higher corporation tax together with the super-rich and the tax dodgers. As for Brexit, his stance of “neutrality” has been met with derision.

The latest polls suggest a comfortable majority for the Tories of around 50 seats and Labour winning fewer than in the 1983 election when its manifesto under the Left-wing leader Michael Foot was dubbed as the longest suicide note in history. Earlier, in the 1970s, a Labour government lost its way as it presided over a failed economy, heavy inflation, strikes and industrial disruption and eventually had to be bailed out by the IMF. A Tory landslide followed in the 1979 election. But, of course, younger voters will have no memory of such chaos and deprivation. It was not until Blair, Brown and Mandelson so cleverly remodelled the party and moved it to the political centre ground that it became electable again and stayed in power from 1997 to 2010.

Meanwhile, the prospects of the Liberal Democrats, whose principal aim seems to be to reverse Brexit, appear to be waning while the SNP are looking to prevail in most seats in Scotland, and the Brexit Party, disappointingly for them, will probably mainly serve only to split the Tory vote.

The general feeling in England seems to be traditional party loyalties are weakening to the extent that, since the 2017 election when Theresa May’s Conservative Party failed to win an absolute majority, there has been a dramatic swing against Labour in their heartlands – the industrial Midlands and the North – where the signs are that, mainly because of the Tories’ stance on the issue of Brexit, they are poised to win in so-called working class constituencies that have always supported Labour. In addition, the hard-Left agenda of Labour’s extremists is, reportedly, now detached from the instincts and concerns of working people and does not reflect the mood of the country as a whole. What is more, Mr Corbyn’s opposition to Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and doubts about security matters given his radical background, will count against him - and his party’s support of open immigration will not be widely welcomed by the electorate.

Despite all this, the polls are often wrong as many voters will leave it to the last moment to decide and even those who are expert in studying election patterns will be loath to make a definitive prediction - at least until nearer the time.

Former Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, famously said that a week is a long time in politics, by which he meant, of course, that a lot of change can happen in a short space of time. So, despite the Conservatives riding high at the moment, there remains plenty of opportunity for the unexpected.

Atwood, the realist

Tuning in recently to a BBC interview with famed Canadian poet, novelist, essayist and literary critic, Margaret Atwood - on publication of her new novel entitled The Testaments - I was interested to hear her view that while optimism meant better than reality and pessimism worse than reality she herself was a realist. Reflecting on this, I found it quite intriguing and thought it might be worth exploring further. So, although stymied by space constraints this week, I hope to return to the topic in a future column.