[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by flagpole

would you like lies with that?

i'm pretty confident that i understand more maths than you do. if you want to have a pissing contest on the subject then bring it on, but you will lose.

it is an out and out lie that the crown estates works out it's costs in the way that you describe. they don't have a spread sheet that adds everything up in pence per head of the population. they work out their budget in the same way as every other department.

then one of the ways the figures are presented for public consumption is to say 'that's only so much per head of population' this is not unusual it happens all the time and nobody is mislead by it.

Perhaps if this is the case you would like to provide us all with a link showing how the budget allocated to the royal family is worked out? What security costs, how much do they benefit from in tax breaks, what about the costs to local councils of intra-national visits? If the royal family's finances are transparent, open and accountable to the public (as any major government body's finances should be) then surely this information is available for public scrutiny?

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Did you read your own post? You stated "like many people i think it's value for money and even if it weren't i'm happy to pay it." Do try and keep up with your own statements.

I didn't say i don't care about the cost.

you deliberately twisted my words because that is the only way you know how to make your point.

i don't care if the royal family costs us all 66p per year and only brings in 49p in foreign trade, tourism etc

that is not to say that i don't care about the cost. i'd care if it cost us all £100 a year.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by nottinghamc

Not neccessarily, if the general population really wanted a referendum the government would hold one, it would be political suicide not to. The current parties know that the overall majority of the public aren't interested in getting rid of the Queen, so don't even touch it with a bargepole.

Actually, I tend to believe that the current parties don't touch it with a bargepole because the current set up benefits the government very well. They are handed power by a weakened sovereign (who can effectively act as decorative puppet) and they provide a convenient distraction from unpopular policy.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by flagpole

I didn't say i don't care about the cost.

you deliberately twisted my words because that is the only way you know how to make your point.

i don't care if the royal family costs us all 66p per year and only brings in 49p in foreign trade, tourism etc

that is not to say that i don't care about the cost. i'd care if it cost us all £100 a year.

Perhaps if you think your words are being twisted you should write more articulately. Your point was unclear - it is not easy to guess exactly what you'd find an acceptable margin of loss when you say 'even if it weren't value for money I'm happy to pay for it'. Just to keep things straight though - the royal family do not cost just 66p per year and there is no proof that they are required for either tourism or foreign trade. Britain is a robust and attractive country with a rich artistic and historical heritage. It doesn't need Elizabeth Windsor to attract tourists anymore than France needs Louis Alphonse.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

You don't know of any 'financial benefits' of the monarchy, so you haven't really a leg to stand on. You're also exceptionally rude.

if you are pretending that there is the slightest possibility that the monarchy do not bring in any tourism then you are just lying.

this is what people like you do who think they are very intelligent. they use argument theory. a technical argument. 'ah ah he said something he can't prove.... get him get him...' in the hope that people will capitulate, when really it's just common sense.

obviously the monarchy brings in some tourism money. we have no idea how much. but the fact that you would deny it shows how distorted your view is.

[David Tee]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Actually, I tend to believe that the current parties don't touch it with a bargepole because the current set up benefits the government very well. They are handed power by a weakened sovereign (who can effectively act as decorative puppet) and they provide a convenient distraction from unpopular policy.

?????

1) The current parties don't "touch it with a bargepole" because along with the vast majority of the public, they're genuinely pro-monarchy.

2) The sovereign has been "weakened" for well over 300 years.

3) Given the fuss over welfare, granny tax, Hunt, Warsi, GCSE's etc. the distraction obviously isn't working.

Basically, you're wrong on every count.

[flagpole]

the suggestion that the monarchy is a distraction from unpopular policies is balls.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by flagpole

if you are pretending that there is the slightest possibility that the monarchy do not bring in any tourism then you are just lying.

this is what people like you do who think they are very intelligent. they use argument theory. a technical argument. 'ah ah he said something he can't prove.... get him get him...' in the hope that people will capitulate, when really it's just common sense.

obviously the monarchy brings in some tourism money. we have no idea how much. but the fact that you would deny it shows how distorted your view is.

So you have no figures showing that the royal family is required for tourism? Do you honestly think that tourists come here 'to see the queen'? As it stands, these are London's accredited Top Ten tourist attractions:

http://www.visitlondon.com/attractio...en-attractions

Not a single current royal residence in view. However, art galleries seem popular, as do decommissioned royal residences. Therefore, if the monarchy was abolished and the millions of pounds worth of artwork currently 'held in trust' by the queen (ie. no one ever sees most of it apart from the Windors and their staff), and Buckingham Palace was fully opened to the public (a la Versailles) then tourist revenue would likely INCREASE.

You claim to be operating on a common sense argument - but where is the common sense in believing that we require royals to continue our tourist trade? Do you think France's tourism has fallen off as a result of their lacking royalty? Actually, it trumps the UK. Have you travelled to Spain "because it has a monarchy"? Have you travelled to Norway "because it has a monarchy"?

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by David Tee

?????

1) The current parties don't "touch it with a bargepole" because along with the vast majority of the public, they're genuinely pro-monarchy.

2) The sovereign has been "weakened" for well over 300 years.

3) Given the fuss over welfare, granny tax, Hunt, Warsi, GCSE's etc. the distraction obviously isn't working.

Basically, you're wrong on every count.

1) And why is that a good thing?

2) Actually, the level of influence the monarch has exercised has fluctuated greatly. The present Queen is probably the first to have publicly kept her mouth shut - indeed, Elizabeth II has all but reinvented the role of monarch as (allegedly) impartial and non-partisan - although there are still no formal checks on whether this is a reality. Queen Victoria and Edward VII, in particular, did not seem to like to be hampered by constitutional realities.

3) The media was surprisingly quiet about a lot of these issues over the Jubilee weekend. I certainly would hope that no distraction would work, though.

[Ultima Thule]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Actually, an elected Head of State could conceivably cost less than a monarch - prices of monarchies and republics vary across the world according to the model involved. At any rate, cost shouldn't be a significant factor.

Why would we get 'right buffoons and corrupt politicians' elected to the role? Why would a corrupt politician even want to be President of a parliamentary republic? That just smacks of a distrust in your fellow voters ie. 'We need the Windsors to keep manufacturing babies because we're too thick to pick someone ourselves - beside which, we're all corrupt anyway'. What, may I ask, makes Charles Windsor unique amongst the people of Britain in that his genes make him inestimably more suited to the role of Head of State than anyone we dolts might be manipulated into choosing?

Nothing to do with genetics, simply the fact that he's independent of government and apolitical.

It's got nothing to do with a distrust of fellow voters either, but a distrust of politicians, most of whom appear to be slimy and deceitful.

[nottinghamc]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Actually, I tend to believe that the current parties don't touch it with a bargepole because the current set up benefits the government very well. They are handed power by a weakened sovereign (who can effectively act as decorative puppet) and they provide a convenient distraction from unpopular policy.

Erm, how do they provide a distraction? Name one unpopular policy implemented by this, or any other government, that the monarchy has distracted people from. Having an elected head of state would benefit the political classes greatly, as it would mean another top job with advisors, ministers etc. Yet they still don't want to get rid.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Ultima Thule

Nothing to do with genetics, simply the fact that he's independent of government and apolitical.

It's got nothing to do with a distrust of fellow voters either, but a distrust of politicians, most of whom appear to be slimy and deceitful.

What evidence do we have of this?

As for politicians appearing 'slimy and deceitful' - that's just a very harsh indictment of our political classes. Have the Irish become so jaded by republicanism that they've ended up with slimy, deceitful Heads of State?

[nottinghamc]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

1) And why is that a good thing?

2) Actually, the level of influence the monarch has exercised has fluctuated greatly. The present Queen is probably the first to have publicly kept her mouth shut - indeed, Elizabeth II has all but reinvented the role of monarch as (allegedly) impartial and non-partisan - although there are still no formal checks on whether this is a reality. Queen Victoria and Edward VII, in particular, did not seem to like to be hampered by constitutional realities.

3) The media was surprisingly quiet about a lot of these issues over the Jubilee weekend. I certainly would hope that no distraction would work, though.

Erm, it was the jubilee weekend, a major event, by your logic every major event in this country is a 'distraction' and should be got rid of.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by nottinghamc

Erm, it was the jubilee weekend, a major event, by your logic every major event in this country is a 'distraction' and should be got rid of.

Not at all, but it might be worth remembering that Victoria's Diamond Jubilee was a somewhat cynical attempt to curb the growing tide of republicanism which had sprung up following her withdrawal from public life. I dislike just how the media has attempted to equate 'patriotism' with 'supporting the monarchy', when I don't happen to think one is dependent on the other.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

So you have no figures showing that the royal family is required for tourism? Do you honestly think that tourists come here 'to see the queen'? As it stands, these are London's accredited Top Ten tourist attractions:

http://www.visitlondon.com/attractio...en-attractions

Not a single current royal residence in view. However, art galleries seem popular, as do decommissioned royal residences. Therefore, if the monarchy was abolished and the millions of pounds worth of artwork currently 'held in trust' by the queen (ie. no one ever sees most of it apart from the Windors and their staff), and Buckingham Palace was fully opened to the public (a la Versailles) then tourist revenue would likely INCREASE.

You claim to be operating on a common sense argument - but where is the common sense in believing that we require royals to continue our tourist trade? Do you think France's tourism has fallen off as a result of their lacking royalty? Actually, it trumps the UK. Have you travelled to Spain "because it has a monarchy"? Have you travelled to Norway "because it has a monarchy"?

half truths. links and nonsense.

here's what i said:

obviously the monarchy brings in some tourism money. we have no idea how much. but the fact that you would deny it shows how distorted your view is.

and here is how you interpret that:

where is the common sense in believing that we require royals to continue our tourist trade?

here is the deal.

i want a head of state that exists outside of grubby politics. that is what we have. i think the queen does that job well. and i think charles who has been in training for his entire life will do that job well too. in that sense the monarchy provides value for money.

most people favour the current system. and we will keep it.

you don't actually think that an alternative system would be any better for us. but the idea of an hereditary monarchy offends you. and you will say or do anything to convince people the monarchy is wrong. you don't care whether they reach that conclusion for the same reason you did or just because of some lie you made up along the way.

well balls to you.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

What evidence do we have of this?

As for politicians appearing 'slimy and deceitful' - that's just a very harsh indictment of our political classes. Have the Irish become so jaded by republicanism that they've ended up with slimy, deceitful Heads of State?

I claim my five pounds.

[kimindex]

10.3 mill watched the Pageant on TV

23.2 mill watched England v Italy

Roy Hodgson for head of state.

[nottinghamc]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Not at all, but it might be worth remembering that Victoria's Diamond Jubilee was a somewhat cynical attempt to curb the growing tide of republicanism which had sprung up following her withdrawal from public life. I dislike just how the media has attempted to equate 'patriotism' with 'supporting the monarchy', when I don't happen to think one is dependent on the other.

Erm, that didn't answer my question at all, in fact you've managed to completely change the subject, well done.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by kimindex

10.3 mill watched the Pageant on TV

23.2 mill watched England v Italy

Roy Hodgson for head of state.

royal wedding?

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by flagpole

half truths. links and nonsense.

here's what i said:

obviously the monarchy brings in some tourism money. we have no idea how much. but the fact that you would deny it shows how distorted your view is.

and here is how you interpret that:

where is the common sense in believing that we require royals to continue our tourist trade?

here is the deal.

i want a head of state that exists outside of grubby politics. that is what we have. i think the queen does that job well. and i think charles who has been in training for his entire life will do that job well too. in that sense the monarchy provides value for money.

most people favour the current system. and we will keep it.

you don't actually think that an alternative system would be any better for us. but the idea of an hereditary monarchy offends you. and you will say or do anything to convince people the monarchy is wrong. you don't care whether they reach that conclusion for the same reason you did or just because of some lie you made up along the way.

well balls to you.

And here's your problem - this whole thread is about whether or not the monarchy is 'value for money'. By your own admission, you don't have any proof of what the royals might bring in. You also don't have a clue how much the royals cost. Therefore, you cannot claim they are value for money outside of your own belief that the royals 'exist outside of grubby politics' (something that also cannot be verified, since there are no checks on what the Queen or Charles does, Heck, in the case of Charles, he has been repeatedly criticised for meddling in politics. That lifetime of training certainly doesn't seem to have been particularly successful so far...)

More unashamed rudeness from you, though. Why am I not surprised.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by flagpole

royal wedding?

Spun out of all reality by Jeremy Hunt.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ri...-a-fairy-tale/

http://boingboing.net/2011/05/06/two...-people-a.html

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/04/...atical-lunacy/

[Mike_1101]

I think royal popularity is a fickle thing, they weren't very popular after they badly misjudged the public mood after Diana died in 1997.

They will have issues to face in the future when the Queen dies, even if she lives to be 100. Will the Queen be expected to open parliament, do royal tours and make appearances at the age of 95? What happens if her health deteriorates and she can't do any of this - who will step in?

And when the inevitable happens, will we have a "Queen Camilla" imposed on us, or will Charles and Camilla be declared to have a "morganatic marriage" where she is simply the King's wife and nothing more. Don't forget that if the Queen lives to 100, Charles will become King aged nearly 80 - not exactly "young and dynamic".

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by flagpole

royal wedding?

Wimbledon? Andy Murray's semi-final last year got 9mill+ viewers, even though it was not as hyped and not scheduled in the same way as the wedding.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

And here's your problem - this whole thread is about whether or not the monarchy is 'value for money'. By your own admission, you don't have any proof of what the royals might bring in. You also don't have a clue how much the royals cost. Therefore, you cannot claim they are value for money outside of your own belief that the royals 'exist outside of grubby politics' (something that also cannot be verified, since there are no checks on what the Queen or Charles does, Heck, in the case of Charles, he has been repeatedly criticised for meddling in politics. That lifetime of training certainly doesn't seem to have been particularly successful so far...

More unashamed rudeness from you, though. Why am I not surprised.

well that really depends how you define value for money.

you seem to define value for money in terms of how much revenue something brings in from tourists.

i had a new drive laid last week. had the wall moved. cost just over 5 grand. i do not yet know how much money it will bring in from tourists and so can not yet say whether it was value for money.

you have defined that in order for something to be value for money it has to cost no money. which is not exactly the conventional definition.

in case that is not completely clear to you things cost money. something doesn't have to be free to be value for money.

if more proof were needed under your system tony blair could have been president.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Spun out of all reality by Jeremy Hunt.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ri...-a-fairy-tale/

http://boingboing.net/2011/05/06/two...-people-a.html

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2011/04/...atical-lunacy/

you're going to have to show me where i said that 2bn people watched the wedding before you start debunking that particular myth.