The monarch stays out of politics. This is one of the most widely accepted nostrums of the modern British constitution. While the crown has huge powers vested in it, they are nowadays held on the understanding that they are exercised only in accordance with the advice and wishes of the elected government.
That the sovereign keeps away from party politics is clear but the true scope of their influence and involvement is a subject of deliberate opacity. While there were moments in the last 70 years when Queen Elizabeth’s intervention has been visible, they are rare. What is little known is the impact she had in her weekly meetings with the prime minister — possibly the only government business which never leaks — or after her daily wade through official papers, both from the UK and the other Commonwealth nations where she remains head of state.
The issue will gain renewed importance because so much more is known about many of King Charles’ views and because he, while Prince of Wales, has been active in promoting his causes with ministers and allowing his opinions to become known — most recently his distaste for the government’s plan to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda.
However, the King made clear in a BBC interview four years ago that he understood he had to behave differently as monarch. “Clearly I won’t be able to do the same things I’ve done as heir,” he said, adding he would not meddle in political issues as sovereign as he was “not that stupid”.
He reinforced this point with his address to the nation on Friday. Speaking for the first time as the King, he stated: “My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply.”
That work would pass to others, he said, adding that he would “uphold the constitutional principles at the heart of our nation”. The implication is that he does not resile from his belief that senior royals should speak on societal issues but that it is now for others, most obviously the new Prince of Wales.
Walter Bagehot, the doyen of English constitutional writers, stated in 1867 that the monarch was entitled to be consulted, and could encourage and warn. This alone is significant influence especially when it was in the hands of someone with 70 years on the throne and 15 British premiers (including the newly appointed Liz Truss), to say nothing of the more than 150 prime ministers of the other Commonwealth realms.
Thus the monarch must give royal assent to every piece of legislation but there has not been a question in modern times of that consent being refused. The monarch formally opens each new session of parliament (a roughly annual event) but the speech, stating what measures will be forthcoming, will have been written by the government.
These and other powers held under the so-called royal prerogative, are those which notionally belong to the monarch and can be used without parliamentary approval but which either in fact or custom belong to the government or sometimes parliament. The most important prerogative such as the right to sign treaties and declare war are now exercised by government. Even these are being diluted. While the power to declare war now lies with the government it has become accepted practice that it must be approved by MPs.
Likewise the monarch has the power to dissolve parliament and dismiss a prime minister, forcing an election. Again however this is not a power they would use against the wishes of the government or parliament. There is a grey area however. During the Brexit battles of the last parliament those close to Buckingham Palace worried over what would happen if the government lost a no-confidence vote and the Queen was forced to ask another leader to try to form a government.
Perhaps the most dramatic use of these royal powers came not in the UK but in Australia in 1975 when the governor-general, her representative in the country, used his powers to sack the prime minister Gough Whitlam. Letters show that the Queen was not told in advance of the move though the crisis had been brewing and had been discussed with Buckingham Palace.
Whitlam had failed to secure parliamentary approval for a budget and then refused to call an election. The governor-general, Sir John Kerr, saw it as a constitutional crisis which necessitated an election. Both he and the Queen had been seen as symbolic heads of state and the use of the power shocked many Australians. Nonetheless Whitlam was defeated in the election which followed.
In this instance efforts were made to shield the Queen from the political fallout but it highlights the sensitivity of the monarch’s most important constitutional right — the power to dismiss governments and dissolve parliament.
But there have, through Queen Elizabeth’s reign, been moments of more direct interventions. Perhaps the most notable in recent times came during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Talking years later, David Cameron, the then prime minister, revealed that as he grew more concerned by the tightening opinion polls and the apparent Nationalist surge he sought the monarch’s help.
He told the BBC: “I remember conversations I had with the Queen’s private secretary, not asking for anything that would be improper or unconstitutional but just a raising of an eyebrow, even, you know, a quarter of an inch, we thought would make a difference.”
The Sunday before the referendum the Queen had a brief exchange with a woman in Crathie churchyard where, in clearly-considered but seemingly off-the-cuff remarks she said: “You have an important vote on Thursday. I hope people will think very carefully about the future.”
Her words were duly reported. The Queen’s remarks were beautifully calibrated. Nationalists could not point to any stray phrase but the warning to think carefully was widely interpreted as a nod to caution and therefore the status quo. However, until Cameron’s unprecedented decision to reveal such politically sensitive exchanges, no one could prove political intent. What difference it made cannot be known, but the Tory leader clearly felt it helped.
The Queen also notably clashed with Margaret Thatcher when the prime minister refused to back sanctions against apartheid South Africa. The monarch was concerned about the damage this might do to the Commonwealth and was also more broadly worried at the impact of Thatcher’s policies on the social fabric of the UK. In an extraordinarily unusual incident, the Sunday Times was briefed about the Queen’s unhappiness by her press secretary. It has never been proven he acted at the Queen’s behest — blame has tended to focus on senior courtiers — but there is no doubt the briefing reflected her views. It was deeply embarrassing to both sides but cannot be said to have altered Thatcher’s course.
Royals are adept at lobbying for their own interests. In 2021 the Guardian revealed that in the 1970s the Queen — or at least Buckingham Palace — pressed to secure an exemption from financial transparency laws for private royal investments.
As Prince of Wales, the new King was often criticised for political interventions. The best known have been on non-partisan issues like architecture, on alternative medicine and on the environment, where he was an early advocate of organic farming, sustainability and climate awareness.
But he was also revealed to have pressed ministers on more sensitive issues. Lord David Blunkett, the former Labour education secretary, recalled being pressed by the then Prince to expand grammar schools.
After a lengthy legal battle 27 letters by the Prince to senior ministers — the so called “black spider memos” in a reference to the handwriting — were revealed showing the breadth of his political lobbying. His demands included better equipment for troops in Iraq and a badger cull to halt the spread of bovine TB. He also sought more widespread availability of alternative medicines, lobbied for a particular individual to lead a crackdown on supermarkets which mistreated farmers and proposed his own aide brief Downing Street on the design of new hospitals.
While the royal family has no direct power over policy, these letters raised concerns that the future King would continue to push ministers over issues which concern him. The monarch has the power to influence debate with very small gestures not least by gently posing questions both in private and public.
However, both as heir and King, he has shown himself alive to this concern. In the BBC interview he cited the Shakespeare plays Henry IV and V and the changes in the young King Henry V as he becomes monarch. “The idea, somehow, that I’m going to go on in exactly the same way, if I have to succeed, is complete nonsense because the two — the two situations — are completely different.”
Even so, there will be many who will want him to speak on major societal concerns — most obviously climate change. How he and other senior royals tread this line could be a defining issue of his reign.
HALIFAX – Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says it’s “disgraceful and demeaning” that a Halifax-area school would request that service members not wear military uniforms to its Remembrance Day ceremony.
Houston’s comments were part of a chorus of criticism levelled at the school — Sackville Heights Elementary — whose administration decided to back away from the plan after the outcry.
A November newsletter from the school in Middle Sackville, N.S., invited Armed Forces members to attend its ceremony but asked that all attendees arrive in civilian attire to “maintain a welcoming environment for all.”
Houston, who is currently running for re-election, accused the school’s leaders of “disgracing themselves while demeaning the people who protect our country” in a post on the social media platform X Thursday night.
“If the people behind this decision had a shred of the courage that our veterans have, this cowardly and insulting idea would have been rejected immediately,” Houston’s post read. There were also several calls for resignations within the school’s administration attached to Houston’s post.
In an email to families Thursday night, the school’s principal, Rachael Webster, apologized and welcomed military family members to attend “in the attire that makes them most comfortable.”
“I recognize this request has caused harm and I am deeply sorry,” Webster’s email read, adding later that the school has the “utmost respect for what the uniform represents.”
Webster said the initial request was out of concern for some students who come from countries experiencing conflict and who she said expressed discomfort with images of war, including military uniforms.
Her email said any students who have concerns about seeing Armed Forces members in uniform can be accommodated in a way that makes them feel safe, but she provided no further details in the message.
Webster did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
At a news conference Friday, Houston said he’s glad the initial request was reversed but said he is still concerned.
“I can’t actually fathom how a decision like that was made,” Houston told reporters Friday, adding that he grew up moving between military bases around the country while his father was in the Armed Forces.
“My story of growing up in a military family is not unique in our province. The tradition of service is something so many of us share,” he said.
“Saying ‘lest we forget’ is a solemn promise to the fallen. It’s our commitment to those that continue to serve and our commitment that we will pass on our respects to the next generation.”
Liberal Leader Zach Churchill also said he’s happy with the school’s decision to allow uniformed Armed Forces members to attend the ceremony, but he said he didn’t think it was fair to question the intentions of those behind the original decision.
“We need to have them (uniforms) on display at Remembrance Day,” he said. “Not only are we celebrating (veterans) … we’re also commemorating our dead who gave the greatest sacrifice for our country and for the freedoms we have.”
NDP Leader Claudia Chender said that while Remembrance Day is an important occasion to honour veterans and current service members’ sacrifices, she said she hopes Houston wasn’t taking advantage of the decision to “play politics with this solemn occasion for his own political gain.”
“I hope Tim Houston reached out to the principal of the school before making a public statement,” she said in a statement.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.
REGINA – Saskatchewan Opposition NDP Leader Carla Beck says she wants to prove to residents her party is the government in waiting as she heads into the incoming legislative session.
Beck held her first caucus meeting with 27 members, nearly double than what she had before the Oct. 28 election but short of the 31 required to form a majority in the 61-seat legislature.
She says her priorities will be health care and cost-of-living issues.
Beck says people need affordability help right now and will press Premier Scott Moe’s Saskatchewan Party government to cut the gas tax and the provincial sales tax on children’s clothing and some grocery items.
Beck’s NDP is Saskatchewan’s largest Opposition in nearly two decades after sweeping Regina and winning all but one seat in Saskatoon.
The Saskatchewan Party won 34 seats, retaining its hold on all of the rural ridings and smaller cities.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.
HALIFAX – Nova Scotia‘s growing population was the subject of debate on Day 12 of the provincial election campaign, with Liberal Leader Zach Churchill arguing immigration levels must be reduced until the province can provide enough housing and health-care services.
Churchill said Thursday a plan by the incumbent Progressive Conservatives to double the province’s population to two million people by the year 2060 is unrealistic and unsustainable.
“That’s a big leap and it’s making life harder for people who live here, (including ) young people looking for a place to live and seniors looking to downsize,” he told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.
Anticipating that his call for less immigration might provoke protests from the immigrant community, Churchill was careful to note that he is among the third generation of a family that moved to Nova Scotia from Lebanon.
“I know the value of immigration, the importance of it to our province. We have been built on the backs of an immigrant population. But we just need to do it in a responsible way.”
The Liberal leader said Tim Houston’s Tories, who are seeking a second term in office, have made a mistake by exceeding immigration targets set by the province’s Department of Labour and Immigration. Churchill said a Liberal government would abide by the department’s targets.
In the most recent fiscal year, the government welcomed almost 12,000 immigrants through its nominee program, exceeding the department’s limit by more than 4,000, he said. The numbers aren’t huge, but the increase won’t help ease the province’s shortages in housing and doctors, and the increased strain on its infrastructure, including roads, schools and cellphone networks, Churchill said.
“(The Immigration Department) has done the hard work on this,” he said. “They know where the labour gaps are, and they know what growth is sustainable.”
In response, Houston said his commitment to double the population was a “stretch goal.” And he said the province had long struggled with a declining population before that trend was recently reversed.
“The only immigration that can come into this province at this time is if they are a skilled trade worker or a health-care worker,” Houston said. “The population has grown by two per cent a year, actually quite similar growth to what we experienced under the Liberal government before us.”
Still, Houston said he’s heard Nova Scotians’ concerns about population growth, and he then pivoted to criticize Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for trying to send 6,000 asylum seekers to Nova Scotia, an assertion the federal government has denied.
Churchill said Houston’s claim about asylum seekers was shameful.
“It’s smoke and mirrors,” the Liberal leader said. “He is overshooting his own department’s numbers for sustainable population growth and yet he is trying to blame this on asylum seekers … who aren’t even here.”
In September, federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller said there is no plan to send any asylum seekers to the province without compensation or the consent of the premier. He said the 6,000 number was an “aspirational” figure based on models that reflect each province’s population.
In Halifax, NDP Leader Claudia Chender said it’s clear Nova Scotia needs more doctors, nurses and skilled trades people.
“Immigration has been and always will be a part of the Nova Scotia story, but we need to build as we grow,” Chender said. “This is why we have been pushing the Houston government to build more affordable housing.”
Chender was in a Halifax cafe on Thursday when she promised her party would remove the province’s portion of the harmonized sales tax from all grocery, cellphone and internet bills if elected to govern on Nov. 26. The tax would also be removed from the sale and installation of heat pumps.
“Our focus is on helping people to afford their lives,” Chender told reporters. “We know there are certain things that you can’t live without: food, internet and a phone …. So we know this will have the single biggest impact.”
The party estimates the measure would save the average Nova Scotia family about $1,300 a year.
“That’s a lot more than a one or two per cent HST cut,” Chender said, referring to the Progressive Conservative pledge to reduce the tax by one percentage point and the Liberal promise to trim it by two percentage points.
Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Houston announced that a Progressive Conservative government would make parking free at all Nova Scotia hospitals and health-care centres. The promise was also made by the Liberals in their election platform released Monday.
“Free parking may not seem like a big deal to some, but … the parking, especially for people working at the facilities, can add up to hundreds of dollars,” the premier told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.
