By Denis Campbell

Her Majesty is “displeased.” 

Queen Elizabeth II normally stays above the fray, so much so that “displeased” is a cause for alarm bells across Westminster and the land. Most monarchs in Europe’s labyrinth of Constitutional Monarchies serve largely “ceremonial” roles. Although most can still take the Draconian step of dissolving a dysfunctional government, they almost never do. There is a “self-preservation in modern times” ethos at work here. 

If they react too strongly they risk setting off a ‘eliminate the monarchy’ nationalistic backlash against loyalists or traditionalists who adore them. And yet like the silent leader in a business meeting who rarely speaks but when they do heads whip around and pay rapt attention, Queen Elizabeth on Friday expressed her concerns. She specifically worried about “what she has learnt and the effect that it is having on Parliament’s standing.” 

Strong medicine there!

While most outside the UK snicker, those qualify as VERY strong words indeed. They have the same chilling affect as a bearded young man walking down the street with a flowing white robe and sign board that says “Jesus is Coming!” and in smaller type as he approaches, the words underneath say, “everyone look busy…”

Queen Elizabeth has been doing this for 57-years. She knows a thing or two about media and communications. One would be unwise to underestimate the power of her ability to use understatement maximum benefit. Bess knows to express her “dismay” privately through her courtiers, the palace SPIN doctor informed sources she uses as any good politician would does to get her “shape up now!” message out. 

At the palace she quietly reiterated that MP behaviour “goes against everything she believes in.” London’s The Telegraph reported: 

“Prime Minister Gordon Brown had his weekly audience with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace. It is not known, however, whether the growing furore was discussed.”

Elizabeth is known for taking the 11-Prime Ministers she has worked with quietly out to the woodshed if vexed. One can assume this was a not-so-pleasant tea for Mr. Brown. While certainly no overt calls were made by her for Mr. Brown to step down and dissolve his government, Labour has been on a long slippery slide downward since Tony Blair (finally!) resigned. His follow-up, “how can we miss you if you won’t go away” Brown sabotage act left him weakened and although his handling of the banking crisis and economy earned him temporary high marks, he seems headed towards the ignominy of Major-ville, the Tory leader unlucky to follow Baroness Thatcher. 

It seems almost impossible to believe Britain would forget the past and embrace warm and fuzzy “Tory Lite” and youthful leader David Cameron as PM. We seem headed there because of an astounding lack of courage and tea leaf reading. This is an era of change, 1st in Australia then in the USA. The electorate is paying close attention and like in the other two want a serious debate and will take vote casting seriously.

The only credible alternative though, the Lib Dems, look very much like circa 2004 US Democrats following John Kerry. Kerry lost because people voted against George W Bush rather than FOR him. The Lib Dems are so busy trying to build a tent big enough to include everyone, counting on gaining some from Brown and Cameron backlash, that they are forgetting they present the only real alternative. Their problem is based on past over-reaching, so they have already set the bar so low they can do a victory lap now knowing they will get small gains to keep them viable, forgetting they have an election to contest and could win if Nick Clegg could get more air time and traction.

With those elections still almost a year away (or 90-days from now if the scandal forces change) the events of the last week coupled with a furious David Cameron demanding that his Tory front and back benchers clean up their financial houses and immediately pay back any questionable receipts, the only question one is left with is how was this allowed to happen in the first place?

The US Congress in 1990-91 raised Congressional pay by 30% in one year to eliminate per diems and other ridiculous expense claims by lawmakers and they brought member salaries in line with business. Since then there has been a limit on speaking and other honoraria of 15% and it seems to have worked. No headlines about Congressional expenses. 

Of course it created a lobbyist and influence peddler piggy trough but it took expenses and other questionable items off the table rather successfully. Those who do not learn from history…