Â鶹Éç

In the final edition of the latest series of Leader Conference, Andrew Rawnsley was joined by Ruth Wishart of the Herald; Hugh Muir of the Guardian; Melanie McDonagh of the London Evening Standard; Oliver Duff of the i; and Leo McKinstry of the Daily Express.Ìý

Ìý

We debated: the European and local government elections; the outspoken Prince of Wales; and the celebrity alibi.

Ìý

Voting mattersÌý

Taking part in the local council and European elections should be taken seriously. After India, the elections to the European Parliament (EP) are the world’s largest. Yet we fully expect that the turnout for them across the UK will be low this week. Britain is not alone; across the European Union turnout has fallen since the introduction of direct elections to the EP in 1979 and is uniformly higher in national elections. Nevertheless, we urge as many voters as possible to exercise their votes.ÌýÌý

National politicians have an incentive to downplay the work of the EP; it is, after all, their rival. And despite the fact that Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader and the media focus of recent weeks, is an MEP, the EP’s responsibilities seldom featured in this campaign. They should have done. The domestic political parties have devised a voting system that gives them far more say over who actually sits in the EP representing the UK rather than the electorate. So they shouldn’t be surprised that voter enthusiasm hasn’t improved. We should reform how we elect MEPs and make them more accountable to their electors.

Disappointingly, these elections will therefore be judged by their effects on the parties at Westminster a year away from the UK general election. Labour needs to do as well as all principal opposition parties have done in the EP elections since 1984 and top the poll. The Conservatives need to demonstrate that they are a truly national electoral force rather than super-serving English middle class enclaves. The Liberal Democrats, who campaigned unashamedly on a pro-EU platform, have to show they aren’t slumping into irrelevance. And UKIP must demonstrate that it is more than a single issue campaign yearning for a Britain and a world long gone; and that it has positive things to say.

We urge those with votes to cast in local government elections to assess how well sitting councillors have done in delivering value for money and services of decent quality in a period of austerity. Rewarding good performers with votes is the right democratic act.

Ìý

A gaffe too far

The Prince’s Trust has been an invaluable force for good in its numerous projects with young people across the UK. Much of its work has been undertaken out of the public gaze. It provides inspiration and leadership and works consistently and patiently to laudable ends.Ìý

Given this record, we find it surprising that the Prince of Wales’ has once again seemed not to follow the example of his own highly successful Trust when carrying out his public functions. His reported comparison of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin with Adolf Hitler, if accurate, was ill-judged, badly-timed, poor history and a diplomatic blunder.

But it was not his first such misconceived intervention in politics. Indeed it raises a larger issue. As the Queen has demonstrated over the more than sixty years of her reign, Britain’s constitutional monarchy functions successfully when the head of state acts consistently above politics. The heir to the throne has a disconcerting habit of flouting that long-established understanding. During his official visit to Canada this week, the Prince is not a private citizen. Remarks he makes in public places are not private. Similarly, to be above politics is to disavow writing letters to ministers which might be construed as seeking to influence government policy.

Some commentators have suggested that the Prince is entitled to express personal views at one moment and then seamlessly to substitute for the Queen in public the next – a role which, we understand, he is increasingly likely to fulfil. This is to have one’s cake and eat it. It is also naïve. But most damagingly, it is lousy constitutional politics and a longer-term threat to the esteem in which many Britons and citizens of the Commonwealth hold the institution of monarchy. It is precisely the Queen’s long-standing practice of standing above the fray which has enabled the monarchy to act as a unifying force and to offer outstanding qualities of leadership. By his behaviour, the Prince risks imperilling this powerful and precious legacy.ÌýÌý

ÌýÌý

Ìý

They don’t always have an alibi ÌýÌý

Committing blunders and making mistakes are misfortunes which befall us all whether or not we are in the public eye. Genuine expressions of regret are properly accepted in such circumstances.

However, we deprecate the tendency seen recently for celebrities, politicians, commentators and presenters who have blundered to try and explain away their actions by claiming an all-purpose alibi: weariness or exhaustion or some other temporary incapacity. This devalues the apology and, at worst, suggests the perpetrator of the mistake is just as deserving of sympathy as the victim of it – or perhaps even more. It takes self-regard too far.

So let us return to first principles – a blunder, particularly where it causes hurt feelings, should be simply apologised for and not turned into an alibi-laden melodrama.