Royals - 25% ?

TomBombadil

Grumpy again...

I am fed up with all the news of the all the cuts in public services and threats on pensions etc- but fairs fair - are we going to see the Royals budget slashed 25% by the Conservatives like all the other public services cuts?? (I include the Liberals as now we know their colours are really blue). Maybe we will see the Royals out on bikes?

No surprise the Royals seem to be keeping a low profile at the moment.

You may guess tat I am not a supporter and no, I don't think they're good for Tourism.

Just a random grumpy Sunday evening/Monday morning thought.......

Tom

alan_sherman

Having spent a week with the inlaws on their first visit to the UK I'd say that we all probably underestimate the tourism value of the Royals. The family wanted to go to Buck Palace and Windsor Castle, plus they bought gifts in every gift shop in each of those places!

What I don't get is why we let people who buy goods in the UK reclaim the VAT upon departure :?

TomBombadil

People always talk about the benefit to Tourism - but all those places you mention and more (as they would not be occupied) would still be tourist attractions even if we get rid of them.

The fact is they get vast amount of our Taxes and they own vast amount of our land for a few free outings and very occasional bit of publicity when their public ratings start to go down.

I wonder how much money made at their gift shops goes back to the British people or Tax payer - the goods will almost all be made in china - except for some over priced marmalade, made from organic oranges, grown in organic local orange groves in mmmmm.... yeah probably Spain.

blah, blah, blah - let just hear about them having to face a few cuts - the point I was making is they should also have to make 25% cuts like everyone else!

Tom

northernneil

You should be reminded that the taxpayer profits from the vast income from the Crown Estate, which owns great chunks of London, including Regent Street. Each monarch signs over these profits to the government in exchange for the MUCH, much smaller Civil List.

even without the tourism argument the royals make money for the tax payer,

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us.htm

secretsqizz

northernneil wrote:

You should be reminded that the taxpayer profits from the vast income from the Crown Estate, which owns great chunks of London, including Regent Street. Each monarch signs over these profits to the government in exchange for the MUCH, much smaller Civil List.

even without the tourism argument the royals make money for the tax payer,

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us.htm

Swap you for Fenchurch St and Old Kent Road?

finchy

northernneil wrote:

You should be reminded that the taxpayer profits from the vast income from the Crown Estate, which owns great chunks of London, including Regent Street. Each monarch signs over these profits to the government in exchange for the MUCH, much smaller Civil List.

even without the tourism argument the royals make money for the tax payer,

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us.htm

So if we didn't have a royal family, all that land would just disappear?

It could just be nationalised, along with all the other land the aristos have through nothing other than the fact that there ancestors were a bunch of murdering thieves.

northernneil

johnfinch wrote:

It could just be nationalised, along with all the other land the aristos have through nothing other than the fact that there ancestors were a bunch of murdering thieves.

it cant be as they the family own it, you cant nationalise something you dont own. How they got to own the land from many centuries ago is in this day and age a matter of no legal relevance at all so its a totally dead argument am afraid. To compulsory purchase the property for the state would cost many billions.


Irrelevant about whether you approve of them or their lifestyle, they generate money for the tax payer ... end of.

Cressers

Stop fawning you forlock-tugger!

northernneil

not at all I am pretty indifferent to the royal family, I can take or leave them.

All I was doing was pointing out to the poster that his or hers facts were totally wrong - a long held common misconception held by the UK population - and then presented the true facts of the matter out to them.

often when you do this it annoys people ........

finchy

northernneil wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It could just be nationalised, along with all the other land the aristos have through nothing other than the fact that there ancestors were a bunch of murdering thieves.

it cant be as they the family own it, you cant nationalise something you dont own. How they got to own the land from many centuries ago is in this day and age a matter of no legal relevance at all so its a totally dead argument am afraid. To compulsory purchase the property for the state would cost many billions.

Irrelevant about whether you approve of them or their lifestyle, they generate money for the tax payer ... end of.

I neither approve nor disapprove of the monarchy until we have had a referendum. If the people vote to keep the monarchy (following a proper, intelligent debate, which is admittedly highly unlikely), then it has its place within a democratic society.

northernneil

agree on that .... but it will never happen

Aggieboy

I thought this was going to be about a code/voucher for 25% off everything at Royals tri shop for all the nice people in Cake Stop :evil: Please title your threads appropriately, to prevent us all getting grumpy on a Monday morning!!

daviesee

johnfinch wrote:

northernneil wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

It could just be nationalised, along with all the other land the aristos have through nothing other than the fact that there ancestors were a bunch of murdering thieves.

it cant be as they the family own it, you cant nationalise something you dont own. How they got to own the land from many centuries ago is in this day and age a matter of no legal relevance at all so its a totally dead argument am afraid. To compulsory purchase the property for the state would cost many billions.

Irrelevant about whether you approve of them or their lifestyle, they generate money for the tax payer ... end of.

I neither approve nor disapprove of the monarchy until we have had a referendum. If the people vote to keep the monarchy (following a proper, intelligent debate, which is admittedly highly unlikely), then it has its place within a democratic society.

Only 2 possible outcomes from that....

1. Vote to keep them. No change, waste of time and money.

2. Vote to get rid of them. They stop collecting money but keep what they have. No, they can't be nationalised. How will that help given all studies indicated that they generate more than they take?

I am a realist, not a royalist.

finchy

daviesee wrote:

Only 2 possible outcomes from that....

1. Vote to keep them. No change, waste of time and money.

2. Vote to get rid of them. They stop collecting money but keep what they have. No, they can't be nationalised. How will that help given all studies indicated that they generate more than they take?

I am a realist, not a royalist.

It's democracy.

How much would it cost to add a question to the voting form at the next general election?

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Only 2 possible outcomes from that....

1. Vote to keep them. No change, waste of time and money.

2. Vote to get rid of them. They stop collecting money but keep what they have. No, they can't be nationalised. How will that help given all studies indicated that they generate more than they take?

I am a realist, not a royalist.

It's democracy.

How much would it cost to add a question to the voting form at the next general election?

It would be a massive constitutional and legal ball ache if people wanted to get rid of the Monarchy. The cost of the monarchy pales into insignificance when you look at, say, the cost of decomissioning Britain's nuclear legacy, which is around the £6 billion a year mark.

DCowling

Whilst I am all for the Royals doing more for their keep I am a firm believer that we need to keep them for as long as possible.
Take them away and it is another ( rather large) peice of British identity removed. we will then become some soul-less state with nothing to make us stand out, we have lost all other exports to nations that can do it cheaper but they cannot out- source the monarchy and the several hundered years of history that goes along with it.
It isn't about the family , it's about the nation that they represent.

Pross

Cressers wrote:

Stop fawning you forlock-tugger!

So that's your best response to an well put case for the monarchy? I'm no royalist but as people have shown they earn more than they cost. Plus, what's the alternative? Blair / Brown / Cameron / Thatcher as head of state anyone?

Cressers

Many democracies have an elected presidency. They also have a constitution. What we have is a hereditary post of Head of State, and a loose collection of understandings of what the exact role of monarchy and government is, and what the limits to state power are. At least if you disagree with Merkel, Sarkozy, or Obama, you can choose not to re-elect them, or in some cases impeach them should the need arise. We in the Uk have none of those safeguards in the event of a monarch going off the rails.

Ollieda

Cressers, you seem to be infering that the Queen has the same powers as head of state as someone with the similar title such as Obama. Yes it the same title but a very different posistion in terms of power and control over the country (oh and if you try to push the idea of the Queens veto powers being an element of control then thats silly as the Queen is highly unlikely to use it knowing that if she does the government will quickly find a way round it - just like they did with the House of Lords veto powers)

Unfortuantly whenever people speak of the monarchy mot do it with an almost jelous and angry tone as they are talking about someone who happens to live a much better life than themselves. Its not just the royals people moan at as well, whilst having a tv license debate someone mentioned that its unfair the license fee goes to the BBC and part of that money pays Lord Sugar to do The Apprentice - yes, because its not like he's done anything for this country and I'm sure the amount he's paid for that show hugely outfoxes the millions if not billions of income he has brought into the country!

northernneil

Cressers wrote:

What we have is a hereditary post of Head of State, and a loose collection of understandings of what the exact role of monarchy and government is, and what the limits to state power are.

wrong on all levels, it fact legally it is very very clear the roles for the monarchy and the state powers that are held by the government:-

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/HowtheMonarchyworks.aspx

MattC59

TomBombadil wrote:

......they own vast amount of our land......

Surely it's their land then ?

MattC59

Aggieboy wrote:

I thought this was going to be about a code/voucher for 25% off everything at Royals tri shop for all the nice people in Cake Stop :evil: Please title your threads appropriately, to prevent us all getting grumpy on a Monday morning!!

I thought it was 25% off cigarettes............ I'll get my coat !

Cleat Eastwood

northernneil wrote:

Cressers wrote:

What we have is a hereditary post of Head of State, and a loose collection of understandings of what the exact role of monarchy and government is, and what the limits to state power are.

wrong on all levels, it fact legally it is very very clear the roles for the monarchy and the state powers that are held by the government:-

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/HowtheMonarchyworks.aspx

from the website

" The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which sets out the rights and duties of the Sovereign, they are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which can be just as binding as formal constitutional rules."

which is the definition of loose collection of understandings.

Keep trying and maybe one day you'll get the MBE.....along as its not an MTB.

northernneil

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

n
from the website

" The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which sets out the rights and duties of the Sovereign, they are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which can be just as binding as formal constitutional rules."

which is the definition of loose collection of understandings.

sorry a loose collections of understandings assumes that people differ on the roles and responsibilities of the monarchy - and this certainly is not the case.

This statement confirms that everyone knows who does what, a rule by its very definition is an agreed statement of principal:-

"An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest."

thats hardly a loose understanding, it seems quite clear to me.

not sure what my MBE would be for though

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

It would be a massive constitutional and legal ball ache if people wanted to get rid of the Monarchy. The cost of the monarchy pales into insignificance when you look at, say, the cost of decomissioning Britain's nuclear legacy, which is around the £6 billion a year mark.

All of which would have to be taken into consideration by the electorate.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It would be a massive constitutional and legal ball ache if people wanted to get rid of the Monarchy. The cost of the monarchy pales into insignificance when you look at, say, the cost of decomissioning Britain's nuclear legacy, which is around the £6 billion a year mark.

All of which would have to be taken into consideration by the electorate.

Judging by this thread, they seem ill informed.

You elect people to decide what's best for the country. Let them decide

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Judging by this thread, they seem ill informed.

You elect people to decide what's best for the country. Let them decide

Ouch. The Swiss do OK, and they're keen on referenda.

northernneil

johnfinch wrote:

Ouch. The Swiss do OK, and they're keen on referenda.

you cant wash your car on Sunday in Switzerland ... by law

so it doesnt always work !

finchy

northernneil wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Ouch. The Swiss do OK, and they're keen on referenda.

you cant wash your car on Sunday in Switzerland ... by law

so it doesnt always work !

I thought that was hang your washing? Or am I thinking of Germany?

spen666

johnfinch wrote:

northernneil wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Ouch. The Swiss do OK, and they're keen on referenda.

you cant wash your car on Sunday in Switzerland ... by law

so it doesnt always work !

I thought that was hang your washing? Or am I thinking of Germany?

You hang out your washing on the Siegfreid Line

mrushton

Have you any dirty washing, mother dear?

No Govt. is going to get rid of the monarchy as it means the govt. won't get invited to Buck Hse garden parties, no peerages etc