The election of John Bercow as the new Speaker of the House of Commons is meant to signify the beginning of a reconciliation between public and Parliament in the wake of the ongoing scandal over the culture of absurd misuse of public money by Members of Parliament. The public mood of distrust towards politicians has mutated into a vindictive anger towards those that dared to tell us to tighten our belts while frittering away public money on flat screen televisions, mortgages, and such whimsical fancies as 'duck island'. By now you might have guessed that I do not intend to be particularly sweet and mild to our elective representatives here, the criticism levelled against them over the last month has been entirely warranted.

However, a story I have noticed today reminds me why corruption and deceit in our elected representatives must stand in absolute awe of the vulgar and unrivalled parasitism of our unelected representatives, openly paraded before us in gross contempt of taxpaying public. I speak, of course, of the revelation that Prince Charles has managed to increase his stipend from public by about 23.5% to £3 million annually, whilst spending more money and paying less tax than last year. This increased expenditure was apparently due to the several, presumably stressful, intentional holidays within these 12 months. Truly, my heart bleeds for him. According to the BBC, this questionable use of public money by a member of the royal family is the sixth most important story of today, the top story naturally being the questionable use of public money by MPs. There are to be no expenses made public, no official enquiry, and do you think Charles will be forced to resign? No, me neither.
At least with elected representatives we can vote them out, whether due to corruption or failure to serve the public. No such opportunity exists for the monarchy. This is a family that has £7 billion in assets, mostly from land and property essentially stolen as a result of the imperialism of their ancestors, and yet needs public funding.

What I ask for is a little consistency. If you feel swindled as a taxpayer by having to pay for an MP's flat screen television then it would be hypocritical not to be slightly annoyed when Prince Andrew charges £30,000 to the public coffers for helicopter rides between golf courses (the bill for his golfing holiday was naturally settled by the public as well). Those who forever decry our elected representatives, European representatives and bureaucrats; as well as single mothers, the unemployed and refugees as 'spongers' rarely show the testicular fortitude to follow that same logic to its most obvious application: the Monarchy. One cannot be intellectually honest in their hostility to welfare misuse while defending the Royal family, which earns a arbitrary salary and position regardless of whether members have a occupation or perform public duties or not. Instead, one is forced to endure the sickly fawning and special pleading that follows the institution of the monarchy. The ridiculous argument that they do an awful lot for us, yet have no real power is inherently contradictory. That they are ambassadors for our country is somewhat true, but I'd wager that I could find a cheaper and more tactful ambassador than Prince Philip. That they give to charity and pay tax is of no relevance to their right to state funded privilege or constitutional importance. The argument that they bring in tourists is absurd. Tourists never see the Queen, but rather her Crown or her Palace. Even if this was true, I would feel insulted to think that our system of government is principally maintained for the amusement of foreign holidaymakers, like some sort of glorified Chessington: World of Adventures.

How clearly asinine is it to think that we are so insecure about our national identity and unity that we need it to be defined and protected by Royalty? That we too are obviously inept to elect honest leaders, so we need a wise old Queen to save us from our own stupid selves when we inevitably elect tyrants? Such an ingrained acceptance by the public of our inability to rule ourselves is a sad representation of the dignity and national character we often claim to take pride in. It may well be a coincidence that the year that public confidence in our government is at its lowest is exactly 200 years since the death of Thomas Paine, but it is a auspicious coincidence. Paine was the most prominent British republican philosophical thinker and American founding father, indeed his pamphlet Common Sense inspired the entire American revolution and constitution. I for one feel more proud of this Briton, who had such a positive impact on history than I could for any monarch. This is a man who earned his respect due to his achievements as a writer and an intellectual, rather than just has it conferred upon him by virtue of birth.

Do I argue for abolition of the monarchy? Of course. However, I feel it is first necessary to transcend and mature out of this mentality of subservience and unthinking loyalty that the majority of the British public subscribe to as a mental habit or social convention. Simply abolishing the Monarchy will not extinguish this perverse desire to be subjects to a monarch; history has shown that a President can be feared and worshipped as much as any King can. Instead, what is required for a healthy, free and lasting constitutional republic is a change in attitude that we think as citizens rather than subjects. Only then might we just begin to move towards a more representative, humble and honest perspective on government.