She's a true patriot: multi-millionaire, lives in a palace; forces the poorest people in society under the weight of a recession to pay for her grandson's wedding. God bless her.
She's a true patriot: multi-millionaire, lives in a palace; forces the poorest people in society under the weight of a recession to pay for her grandson's wedding. God bless her.
The trouble with the Royalists arguments is that there weak. You don't even know what the Queen thinks behind the scenes- she could be a raving racist or a socialist or doesn't want the job at all.
Royalists believe what the advisor's say in the press so they have a make believe picture in their head.
The UK has done Empire, done world colonisation and done with the Royals- Its time this country and 'Little Englanders' modernised and looked forward not back.
:D:D:D:D:D Right. They are exempt from freedom of information act meaning they are free to give what ever information they want. Do i believe half of the propaganda the palace spins out? No i don't and you have no proof whether the fugures are true. And that nonsense about the "Queen being a better patriot than any of our politicians" Why is that then?
The exemption from FOA is to do with movements and National Security. The figures quoted are not derived from a kind of royal 'think of a number' programme you seem to think in your socialist envy way. Royal accounts are released by government, they are the beneficiaries of them, they can hardly be 'fiddled', as you seem to think, as the government accounts and palace accounts would not match.
The queen has to request any change to the civil list or Palace expenditure and is frequently turned down. I might remind you that the publishing of Royal accounts was a decision taken during the lifetime of the last Labour government.
The only control she has is over the income from the estates, and as I have pointed out, they run at a considerable profit to the taxpayer.
As far as the Queen being patriotic is concerned, maybe you should look into the history of this particular monarch.
It has far less to do with your 'hooray henry' image of aristocratic profligacy and 'poor people' being subjects and trodden on, whatever that is, and far more to do with the very valuable representation and advice of generational experience in the area of diplomacy, world affairs, business and trade that this monarch (and some of her children as well) have paid for themselves hundreds of times over in the representation of British interests across the globe. I dont know many people in their eighties who are still giving such service.
Maybe in your socialist world she should have stopped doing this at 55 and retired expecting the state to keep her in the manner to which she had become accustomed, abandoning management of the Crown Estates to the beaurocrats who would no doubt have come up with their own 'figures' - that may well have required government to keep pumping more money in....:rolleyes:
The exemption from FOA is to do with movements and National Security. The figures quoted are not derived from a kind of royal 'think of a number' programme you seem to think in your socialist envy way. Royal accounts are released by government, they are the beneficiaries of them, they can hardly be 'fiddled', as you seem to think, as the government accounts and palace accounts would not match.
The queen has to request any change to the civil list or Palace expenditure and is frequently turned down. I might remind you that the publishing of Royal accounts was a decision taken during the lifetime of the last Labour government.
The only control she has is over the income from the estates, and as I have pointed out, they run at a considerable profit to the taxpayer.
As far as the Queen being patriotic is concerned, maybe you should look into the history of this particular monarch.
It has far less to do with your 'hooray henry' image of aristocratic profligacy and 'poor people' being subjects and trodden on, whatever that is, and far more to do with the very valuable representation and advice of generational experience in the area of diplomacy, world affairs, business and trade that this monarch (and some of her children as well) have paid for themselves hundreds of times over in the representation of British interests across the globe. I dont know many people in their eighties who are still giving such service.
Maybe in your socialist world she should have stopped doing this at 55 and retired expecting the state to keep her in the manner to which she had become accustomed, abandoning management of the Crown Estates to the beaurocrats who would no doubt have come up with their own 'figures' - that may well have required government to keep pumping more money in....:rolleyes:
So saying how much they cost each person by dividing it by the population not by taxpayers is not manipulating the figures? And the fact that the cost of security and policing is not included proves that we don't know how much they actually cost. And even if the figures were accurate they are still the most expensive monarchy in Europe.
And by what i think in my socialist world (or more like modern world) as you put it i would expect someone to have to work to be head of state not get it by what family they were born in.
If you want to see the figures they are published.
The head of state accounts show the Royal expenditure at £38.2 million 2008-09. Crown estates income (which goes to the taxpayer) was £230 million. I would venture that for that particular year, they paid more tax than our high street banks did, taking bailouts into consideration.
Profit for the taxpayer was a shade under £200 million. I'm willing to bet no republic in this country would come close to breaking even, let alone that kind of return.
That excludes any bonus to our economy from the forthcoming wedding. Estimates for a boost to the British economy from increased tourism and trade are in the region of £500 million for that alone.
The CBI estimate that an extra bank holiday would cost the economy up to £6 billion, so that means with the £500 million generated that we will only be up to £5.5 billion out of pocket!
So saying how much they cost each person by dividing it by the population not by taxpayers is not manipulating the figures? And the fact that the cost of security and policing is not included proves that we don't know how much they actually cost. And even if the figures were accurate they are still the most expensive monarchy in Europe. And by what i think in my socialist world (or more like modern world) as you put it i would expect someone to have to work to be head of state not get it by what family they were born in.
Exactly, I thought the whole point of 'capitalism' was people had to work for what they get, not have people living off the tax payer. So the whole Republican = Socialist argument falls flat on its face.
Exept that is a load of crap. The royals are exempt from the freedom of information act so we don't actually know how much they cost. It doesn't include things like security and how can you come to the sum of 69p by dividing it by how many people live in the UK? Everyone pays tax do they?:rolleyes: Even if it was 69p i don't regard it as good value for money as i don't get anything back.
oh PLEASE get some perspective! I pay nearly £300 in tax EVERY MONTH. The Royal Family had 69PENCE from me in a whole year. I love the fact we have a Royal Family. I love the fact we're steeped in history and that people come from all corners of the earth to our little country and pay to see the royal landmarks. I'm proud of the fact we have a Royal Family. And the little that they cost me is nothing compared to the amount of revenue that they generate for our country.
What I'd like to know is what the hell are the government doing with the other £299 a month they take from me? I've paid out more money for politicians to freeload with than anything the Queen & Co have taken. Get real and vent your spleen at the real culprits...our shoddy government :mad:
oh PLEASE get some perspective! I pay nearly £300 in tax EVERY MONTH. The Royal Family had 69PENCE from me in a whole year. I love the fact we have a Royal Family. I love the fact we're steeped in history and that people come from all corners of the earth to our little country and pay to see the royal landmarks. I'm proud of the fact we have a Royal Family. And the little that they cost me is nothing compared to the amount of revenue that they generate for our country.
What I'd like to know is what the hell are the government doing with the other £299 a month they take from me? I've paid out more money for politicians to freeload with than anything the Queen & Co have taken. Get real and vent your spleen at the real culprits...our shoddy government :mad:
You should get real! Politicians are freeloaders but the royals aren't? They are the biggest freeloaders on the planet. How many more times do i have to say this "they cost more than 69p a person" they divide it by how many people live in the country and it doesn't include things like security.
On the subject of history you need to get real. The manarchy are part of a shameful part of the Country's history. It has been said many times for example how the monarchy was involved in the slave trade. If you think that is something to be proud of well i feel sorry for you.
oh PLEASE get some perspective! I pay nearly £300 in tax EVERY MONTH. The Royal Family had 69PENCE from me in a whole year. I love the fact we have a Royal Family. I love the fact we're steeped in history and that people come from all corners of the earth to our little country and pay to see the royal landmarks. I'm proud of the fact we have a Royal Family. And the little that they cost me is nothing compared to the amount of revenue that they generate for our country.
What I'd like to know is what the hell are the government doing with the other £299 a month they take from me? I've paid out more money for politicians to freeload with than anything the Queen & Co have taken. Get real and vent your spleen at the real culprits...our shoddy government :mad:
:D:D As much as I hate to admit it I find myself wondering what the government do with the rest of your money as well. There is a lot about this damn wedding that annoys me, but the Queen herself is worth every penny as far as I am concerned, not so sure about the rest of the hangers on though.
But I think you have a very very astute point there. What the hell are the government doing with the rest of your £299 per month and everyone else's for that matter.
:D:D As much as I hate to admit it I find myself wondering what the government do with the rest of your money as well. There is a lot about this damn wedding that annoys me, but the Queen herself is worth every penny as far as I am concerned, not so sure about the rest of the hangers on though.
But I think you have a very very astute point there. What the hell are the government doing with the rest of your £299 per month and everyone else's for that matter.
Yes the money that is likely to be going to worhwhile public services is terrible. What a waste. It is real good value for money to pay for a family to live in a posh palace where they just go around doing a bit of waving.:rolleyes:
oh PLEASE get some perspective! I pay nearly £300 in tax EVERY MONTH. The Royal Family had 69PENCE from me in a whole year. I love the fact we have a Royal Family. I love the fact we're steeped in history and that people come from all corners of the earth to our little country and pay to see the royal landmarks. I'm proud of the fact we have a Royal Family. And the little that they cost me is nothing compared to the amount of revenue that they generate for our country.
What I'd like to know is what the hell are the government doing with the other £299 a month they take from me? I've paid out more money for politicians to freeload with than anything the Queen & Co have taken. Get real and vent your spleen at the real culprits...our shoddy government :mad:
They spend it on healthcare to treat ill people, police to protect you from crime, the fire service, the armed forces, cleaning the streets, benefits for disabled people, pensions for old people, looking after neglected children etc etc. The list is endless with causes far more worthwhile than the bloody royal family to sit on their backsides and look down at the rest of us.
At least the politicians actually do something for their money and had to work their way up to their position.
A President may be more expensive than the royal family (I don't know the numbers), but I'd venture to guess he's more useful. Britain pays for the royal family and the Prime Minister and his staff. It sounds like the Queen travels to other countries and makes appearances. Our president does diplomatic stuff at the White House and the Secretary of State travels to other countries for diplomatic reasons. Between the two of them and their staff, we have no need for a royal family. I don't really understand why an elected leader (or even leaders) in Britain can't do the same job as the queen. If it's more effective, who cares if it costs a bit more?
A President may be more expensive than the royal family (I don't know the numbers), but I'd venture to guess he's more useful. Britain pays for the royal family and the Prime Minister and his staff. It sounds like the Queen travels to other countries and makes appearances. Our president does diplomatic stuff at the White House and the Secretary of State travels to other countries for diplomatic reasons. Between the two of them and their staff, we have no need for a royal family. I don't really understand why an elected leader (or even leaders) in Britain can't do the same job as the queen. If it's more effective, who cares if it costs a bit more?
You're spot on. We have a prime minister and other ministers who travel the world and deal with everything, including writing what the Queen says. On top of that we have a monarchy with a whole circus which costs the taxpayer loads of money and serves no useful purpose other than to impress foreign tourists/Arab royality etc and put on pageantry shows.
It's often claimed that we get trade due to foreigners liking the Royals, although how that's worked out when all the real work is done by civil servants and business people is beyond me.
It's also claimed that tourists come to the UK to see the Royals. Of course very few do. The palaces and castles etc would still be here and paid for by the tax payer as now, so the tourists sites would be exactly the same as now. So again I don't see that point of view. AS one example - the Palace of Versailles is packed with tourists and the French royals have long been done away with!
There's no point in discussing the abolition of the Monarchy. Polls show that support for the Monarchy is 73%, 15% for a republic and 12% don't know/don't care.
Surely there's always a point in having different opinions?
The media is always promoting the royals as the media loves to promote the 'establishment'.
The fact that your poll showed 27% of the population didn't support the monarchy or doesn't care one way or the other, shows that over a quarter of the population could do without them.
As the debate continues there's every reason to suppose that opinions will change against the huge expense of the royals as the rest of us are subject to ever increasing cuts in services as well as the threat of job losses it will seem more and more irrational to pour money into what is no more than a liability to the exchequer and to the taxpayers.
As already pointed out the queen gives all the profit from the crown estates to the government which is considerably more than what than what the government then pays out for civil list, expenses, security ect. so technically the royal family PAY THE TAX PAYER to be on the throne
So then why not cut out the "middle men" and just have the state take over the crown estates take the profit directly and thus save on all the admin and overheads?
Surely making things more efficient is what the government and politicians are always saying.
So then why not cut out the "middle men" and just have the state take over the crown estates take the profit directly and thus save on all the admin and overheads?
Surely making things more efficient is what the government and politicians are always saying.
How would state control make it more effecient? It'd still have pretty much the same overheads and we'd still be paying the queen
Surely if there was no Crown then then there would be no crown estates and all such property would become the property of the people - eg the tax payer.
Surely if there was no Crown then then there would be no crown estates and all such property would become the property of the people - eg the tax payer.
Why would they? THey're the queen's property and she's hot as much right to them as anyone has to any property
Here we go then for a media explosion of specials, souvenirs etc.
No doubt there is ring-fenced money for all the ancillary costs like Policing and the celebrations to be held everywhere.
However should we all be standing back and considering the issue of whether the taxpayer - us - should be paying good money out to keep the pantomime of the Royal Family going at our cost?
If you want to make your thoughts and views heard on this web site that's great but you may also like to take a look here Republic | Comment & Analysis and add to the views expressed:mad:
For every 1p we pay, the country acquires 10p...can you honestly say you give back the same? Oh btw...for the hard of brain, on an annual basis, that's approx 5 million spent, 50 million back (not including souvenir shops, local pub takings, etc)
Comments
She's a true patriot: multi-millionaire, lives in a palace; forces the poorest people in society under the weight of a recession to pay for her grandson's wedding. God bless her.
Royalists believe what the advisor's say in the press so they have a make believe picture in their head.
The UK has done Empire, done world colonisation and done with the Royals- Its time this country and 'Little Englanders' modernised and looked forward not back.
The exemption from FOA is to do with movements and National Security. The figures quoted are not derived from a kind of royal 'think of a number' programme you seem to think in your socialist envy way. Royal accounts are released by government, they are the beneficiaries of them, they can hardly be 'fiddled', as you seem to think, as the government accounts and palace accounts would not match.
The queen has to request any change to the civil list or Palace expenditure and is frequently turned down. I might remind you that the publishing of Royal accounts was a decision taken during the lifetime of the last Labour government.
The only control she has is over the income from the estates, and as I have pointed out, they run at a considerable profit to the taxpayer.
As far as the Queen being patriotic is concerned, maybe you should look into the history of this particular monarch.
It has far less to do with your 'hooray henry' image of aristocratic profligacy and 'poor people' being subjects and trodden on, whatever that is, and far more to do with the very valuable representation and advice of generational experience in the area of diplomacy, world affairs, business and trade that this monarch (and some of her children as well) have paid for themselves hundreds of times over in the representation of British interests across the globe. I dont know many people in their eighties who are still giving such service.
Maybe in your socialist world she should have stopped doing this at 55 and retired expecting the state to keep her in the manner to which she had become accustomed, abandoning management of the Crown Estates to the beaurocrats who would no doubt have come up with their own 'figures' - that may well have required government to keep pumping more money in....:rolleyes:
And by what i think in my socialist world (or more like modern world) as you put it i would expect someone to have to work to be head of state not get it by what family they were born in.
The CBI estimate that an extra bank holiday would cost the economy up to £6 billion, so that means with the £500 million generated that we will only be up to £5.5 billion out of pocket!
http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/38e2a44440c22db6802567300067301b/c0f72b556f4f1d0f8025734100372fc0?OpenDocument
Exactly, I thought the whole point of 'capitalism' was people had to work for what they get, not have people living off the tax payer. So the whole Republican = Socialist argument falls flat on its face.
oh PLEASE get some perspective! I pay nearly £300 in tax EVERY MONTH. The Royal Family had 69PENCE from me in a whole year. I love the fact we have a Royal Family. I love the fact we're steeped in history and that people come from all corners of the earth to our little country and pay to see the royal landmarks. I'm proud of the fact we have a Royal Family. And the little that they cost me is nothing compared to the amount of revenue that they generate for our country.
What I'd like to know is what the hell are the government doing with the other £299 a month they take from me? I've paid out more money for politicians to freeload with than anything the Queen & Co have taken. Get real and vent your spleen at the real culprits...our shoddy government :mad:
On the subject of history you need to get real. The manarchy are part of a shameful part of the Country's history. It has been said many times for example how the monarchy was involved in the slave trade. If you think that is something to be proud of well i feel sorry for you.
But I think you have a very very astute point there. What the hell are the government doing with the rest of your £299 per month and everyone else's for that matter.
They spend it on healthcare to treat ill people, police to protect you from crime, the fire service, the armed forces, cleaning the streets, benefits for disabled people, pensions for old people, looking after neglected children etc etc. The list is endless with causes far more worthwhile than the bloody royal family to sit on their backsides and look down at the rest of us.
At least the politicians actually do something for their money and had to work their way up to their position.
It's often claimed that we get trade due to foreigners liking the Royals, although how that's worked out when all the real work is done by civil servants and business people is beyond me.
It's also claimed that tourists come to the UK to see the Royals. Of course very few do. The palaces and castles etc would still be here and paid for by the tax payer as now, so the tourists sites would be exactly the same as now. So again I don't see that point of view. AS one example - the Palace of Versailles is packed with tourists and the French royals have long been done away with!
Source: My AS politics book.
The media is always promoting the royals as the media loves to promote the 'establishment'.
The fact that your poll showed 27% of the population didn't support the monarchy or doesn't care one way or the other, shows that over a quarter of the population could do without them.
As the debate continues there's every reason to suppose that opinions will change against the huge expense of the royals as the rest of us are subject to ever increasing cuts in services as well as the threat of job losses it will seem more and more irrational to pour money into what is no more than a liability to the exchequer and to the taxpayers.
Surely making things more efficient is what the government and politicians are always saying.
Why would they? THey're the queen's property and she's hot as much right to them as anyone has to any property
For every 1p we pay, the country acquires 10p...can you honestly say you give back the same? Oh btw...for the hard of brain, on an annual basis, that's approx 5 million spent, 50 million back (not including souvenir shops, local pub takings, etc)