Prince Andrew buys £13m ski chalet

ben@31

Rick Chasey wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Its funny that no other country thats became a republic has gone back to being a monarchy. Do you think they know something we don't .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Philippe_I

Not strictly true is it?

Last time I looked France was a republic. So yes, it is true.

rick_chasey

ben@31

VTech wrote:

Anyone who thinks the royals cost us money as a negative revenue source is idiotic.
The royalty is one of the best value commodities we have.
As for only london getting the benefit, thats utter nonsense and akin to council estate whispers.

I started out in the midlands, in a council estate and thanks to the princes trust I have employed hundreds of people around the world. the benefits of the royals is far reaching.

VTech. We are still waiting to see this 500 mil tourist revenue you talk about. We don't see it up here, same with most other UK cities. But we are still paying out regardless.

It's not just the direct costs, its also the hidden costs (that are picked up by other budgets) funding their state visits, travel and security.

I don't understand how Andrew gets a £13m ski chalet, William has had a £1.5m kitchen fitted and you say this is good value for money?

What next... Charlies interfering with politics with his memos and trying to prevent BBC documentaries being shown about him ? Does he actually pay for the Princes Trust out of his own pocket or is the funding from other sources like us?

VTech

ben@31 wrote:

VTech wrote:

Anyone who thinks the royals cost us money as a negative revenue source is idiotic.
The royalty is one of the best value commodities we have.
As for only london getting the benefit, thats utter nonsense and akin to council estate whispers.

I started out in the midlands, in a council estate and thanks to the princes trust I have employed hundreds of people around the world. the benefits of the royals is far reaching.

VTech. We are still waiting to see this 500 mil tourist revenue you talk about. We don't see it up here, same with most other UK cities. But we are still paying out regardless.

It's not just the direct costs, its also the hidden costs (that are picked up by other budgets) funding their state visits, travel and security.

I don't understand how Andrew gets a £13m ski chalet, William has had a £1.5m kitchen fitted and you say this is good value for money?

What next... Charlies interfering with politics with his memos and trying to prevent BBC documentaries being shown about him ? Does he actually pay for the Princes Trust out of his own pocket or is the funding from other sources like us?

We had a similar chat to this on the forum (not me and you but others) and someone posted a lot of info of how the royals cost us nothing but actually make us countless billions through networking and trade etc.
Do you honestly suggest that as a northerner you are worse off because of the royal family than you would be if we didn't have a monarchy.
In fact I can ask that to anyone. ?

Wunnunda

While not a huge fan of the monarchy (or at least it's 'dispora', for want of a better word) I do find it amusing that people think a presidency (fully publicly funded) would be significantly cheaper. Or that running all the royal palaces and collections as museums would also be a cheaper option.

For me the monarchy has faults but is not the highest on my list of issues facing this country ATM...

Manc33

The royals get told "you're going to be the royal family", they have no real clout. Its just nice to pretend they do, like pretending there's a Santa. There are other far far wealthier families the royal family is subservient to. Dig deep folks.

ben@31

The biggest problem for me is there is no democratic election, they are not voted in. They have all these ski chalets given to them on a silver spoon no matter how bad or useless they are. At least with a President you can get rid of him or her and anyone of us can stand for election. While you are all excluded from the royal family, they'll never be an asian or a black member of the royal family.
If they are really that popular as the spin makes out, I wonder why we are not given a referendum to have the freedom to decide for ourselves?
As I've mentioned above how come they are not subject to redundancies and cutbacks like the rest of us? At least presidency funding would be open and transparent.

ballysmate

ben@31 wrote:

The biggest problem for me is there is no democratic election, they are not voted in. They have all these ski chalets given to them on a silver spoon no matter how bad or useless they are. At least with a President you can get rid of him or her and anyone of us can stand for election. While you are all excluded from the royal family, they'll never be an asian or a black member of the royal family.
If they are really that popular as the spin makes out, I wonder why we are not given a referendum to have the freedom to decide for ourselves?
As I've mentioned above how come they are not subject to redundancies and cutbacks like the rest of us? At least presidency funding would be open and transparent.

Which would be your preference, a President with full executive powers eg USA or a figurehead with no political power who just turns up to shake hands and cut ribbons, full political power remaining with Parliament?

ben@31

Ballysmate wrote:

Which would be your preference, a President with full executive powers eg USA or a figurehead with no political power who just turns up to shake hands and cut ribbons, full political power remaining with Parliament?

A head of state who is democratically elected, accountable and can be replaced. So that'll be a President.

ballysmate

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Which would be your preference, a President with full executive powers eg USA or a figurehead with no political power who just turns up to shake hands and cut ribbons, full political power remaining with Parliament?

A head of state who is democratically elected, accountable and can be replaced. So that'll be a President.

It was a serious question. I understand you would like an elected president, I get that, but I asked what constitutional powers you would like conferred. Which government model would be your preference, as I assume you have one. How much power would you give to your elected head of state?
Bit puzzled by your answer tbh as I thought it was a reasonably straight forward question.
Is it that you have no preference, just as long as they are elected? In which case I find it strange that you want an office created with no thought as to what authority they would hold.

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Which would be your preference, a President with full executive powers eg USA or a figurehead with no political power who just turns up to shake hands and cut ribbons, full political power remaining with Parliament?

A head of state who is democratically elected, accountable and can be replaced. So that'll be a President.

Prime Minister?

Manc33

I'd be more worried about what goes on inside that ski chalet than the fact that he has one.

ben@31

PBlakeney wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Which would be your preference, a President with full executive powers eg USA or a figurehead with no political power who just turns up to shake hands and cut ribbons, full political power remaining with Parliament?

A head of state who is democratically elected, accountable and can be replaced. So that'll be a President.

Prime Minister?

A Prime Minister is not head of state, just head of government.

ben@31

Ballysmate wrote:

It was a serious question. I understand you would like an elected president, I get that, but I asked what constitutional powers you would like conferred. Which government model would be your preference, as I assume you have one. How much power would you give to your elected head of state?

To be honest I do not know enough about the presidential political systems (such as the USA) to answer. However, from what I've heard the US political system might not be perfect but doesn't have an unelected head of state's entire family (plus hangers on and entourage) or a dictatorship.

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Which would be your preference, a President with full executive powers eg USA or a figurehead with no political power who just turns up to shake hands and cut ribbons, full political power remaining with Parliament?

A head of state who is democratically elected, accountable and can be replaced. So that'll be a President.

Prime Minister?

A Prime Minister is not head of state, just head of government.

Why have both? Cut the cost in half.

rick_chasey

ben@31 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Its funny that no other country thats became a republic has gone back to being a monarchy. Do you think they know something we don't .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Philippe_I

Not strictly true is it?

Last time I looked France was a republic. So yes, it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

No it's not.

France became a republic then they had the bourbon restoration. So they had to have another revolution.

And as per the link above, the Netherlands was once a republic, (in fact, it was many republics) but now is a constitutional monarchy.

So, no, your statement is factually incorrect.

Understand when facts present the contrary to what you say, that you're wrong and should accept as such.

ballysmate

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

It was a serious question. I understand you would like an elected president, I get that, but I asked what constitutional powers you would like conferred. Which government model would be your preference, as I assume you have one. How much power would you give to your elected head of state?

To be honest I do not know enough about the presidential political systems (such as the USA) to answer. However, from what I've heard the US political system might not be perfect but doesn't have an unelected head of state's entire family (plus hangers on and entourage) or a dictatorship.

Well at least you're honest, saying that you don't know enough about it.

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

It was a serious question. I understand you would like an elected president, I get that, but I asked what constitutional powers you would like conferred. Which government model would be your preference, as I assume you have one. How much power would you give to your elected head of state?

To be honest I do not know enough about the presidential political systems (such as the USA) to answer. However, from what I've heard the US political system might not be perfect but doesn't have an unelected head of state's entire family (plus hangers on and entourage) or a dictatorship.

You are also being naive as to who is running the Country.
Saying that Obama runs the U.S.A. is like saying that Cameron runs the U.K.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

It was a serious question. I understand you would like an elected president, I get that, but I asked what constitutional powers you would like conferred. Which government model would be your preference, as I assume you have one. How much power would you give to your elected head of state?

To be honest I do not know enough about the presidential political systems (such as the USA) to answer. However, from what I've heard the US political system might not be perfect but doesn't have an unelected head of state's entire family (plus hangers on and entourage) or a dictatorship.

You are also being naive as to who is running the Country.
Saying that Obama runs the U.S.A. is like saying that Cameron runs the U.K.

Broadly true in practice?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

It was a serious question. I understand you would like an elected president, I get that, but I asked what constitutional powers you would like conferred. Which government model would be your preference, as I assume you have one. How much power would you give to your elected head of state?

To be honest I do not know enough about the presidential political systems (such as the USA) to answer. However, from what I've heard the US political system might not be perfect but doesn't have an unelected head of state's entire family (plus hangers on and entourage) or a dictatorship.

You are also being naive as to who is running the Country.
Saying that Obama runs the U.S.A. is like saying that Cameron runs the U.K.

Broadly true in practice?

Broadly naive.
They both have people or groups lobbying (pressurising) for their interests.
I suspect, and no one will convince me otherwise, that civil servants run the U.K.
I also believe that a similar system runs the U.S.A.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

It was a serious question. I understand you would like an elected president, I get that, but I asked what constitutional powers you would like conferred. Which government model would be your preference, as I assume you have one. How much power would you give to your elected head of state?

To be honest I do not know enough about the presidential political systems (such as the USA) to answer. However, from what I've heard the US political system might not be perfect but doesn't have an unelected head of state's entire family (plus hangers on and entourage) or a dictatorship.

You are also being naive as to who is running the Country.
Saying that Obama runs the U.S.A. is like saying that Cameron runs the U.K.

Broadly true in practice?

Broadly naive.
They both have people or groups lobbying (pressurising) for their interests.
I suspect, and no one will convince me otherwise, that civil servants run the U.K.
I also believe that a similar system runs the U.S.A.

Oh my god.



Do you also need a tinfoil hat picture from me?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you also need a tinfoil hat picture from me?

No.
Maggie Thatcher as near as admitted it with her references to Yes Prime Minister.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you also need a tinfoil hat picture from me?

No.
Maggie Thatcher as near as admitted it with her references to Yes Prime Minister.

In the context if the discussion, which is, y'know political systems and the difference between republics and monarchies, a reasonable answer to the question 'who rules' is the answer above.

A less reasonable pedant answer that serves nothing to the context of the conversation is the one you gave.

Sure, pressure group influence is probably under reported and some find it an issue, but that's not really what the context of this conversation is about is it?

That's why you get a facepalm from me.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you also need a tinfoil hat picture from me?

No.
Maggie Thatcher as near as admitted it with her references to Yes Prime Minister.

In the context if the discussion, which is, y'know political systems and the difference between republics and monarchies, a reasonable answer to the question 'who rules' is the answer above.

A less reasonable pedant answer that serves nothing to the context of the conversation is the one you gave.

Sure, pressure group influence is probably under reported and some find it an issue, but that's not really what the context of this conversation is about is it?

That's why you get a facepalm from me.

If you want to be pedantic then this thread is about a chalet.

bianchimoon

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do you also need a tinfoil hat picture from me?

No.
Maggie Thatcher as near as admitted it with her references to Yes Prime Minister.

In the context if the discussion, which is, y'know political systems and the difference between republics and monarchies, a reasonable answer to the question 'who rules' is the answer above.

A less reasonable pedant answer that serves nothing to the context of the conversation is the one you gave.

Sure, pressure group influence is probably under reported and some find it an issue, but that's not really what the context of this conversation is about is it?

That's why you get a facepalm from me.

If you want to be pedantic then this thread is about a chalet.

So getting back to the original point, how can a civil servant who earns circa £250k pa and his lady friend who was bankrupt to the tune of £5m afford a £13m chalet? Even if they put down £3 million deposit the payments would be over £90,000 per month based on his salary obviously not doable, so just who is paying the money?

Quote" And his other home costs just £250 a week
The Yorks’ main family home is Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, a 30-room mansion once owned by the Queen Mother. Andrew shares the house with Sarah and Eugenie.
Beatrice still has a suite there but has her own apartment at St James’s Palace. Sarah recently started renting a flat in Belgravia but still lives at Royal Lodge.
It has emerged that the prince effectively pays just over £250 a week for the residence, having snapped up a 75-year lease on the Grade II listed house in 2003 for £1million.
An additional payment of £2.5million was waived because the prince had spent more than £7.5million on renovations, which include installing an indoor pool and golf driving range. If he terminates the lease early he is entitled to claim back up to £7million."

ben@31

bianchimoon wrote:

If he terminates the lease early he is entitled to claim back up to £7million."

I wonder if he'll give it back to the taxpayers ?

arran77

Manc33 wrote:

I'd be more worried about what goes on inside that ski chalet than the fact that he has one.

We've already established that it's a pedo pad

Manc33

I was brought up to despise Maggie... but I heard she tried to pay off the national debt and the bankers secretly kidnapped Mark Thatcher and got her to back down. I can't rule it out.

Maggie took away free milk when I was in primary school, unforgivable.

Its true what that guy above says about Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Watch that show and you basically get told how the country is really run (at least, at that level). Civil servants aren't the ones with power though, they just "handle" the ministers. He even says in that show, the average term of a minister is about eleven months, whereas people like Sir Humphrey Appleby have been "advising" (manipulating) ministers for thirty years.

Its like Ben Linus in Lost. How can you get someone to do something? Make them think it was their own idea.

How do you get a minister to not do something he wants to do? Tell him its a "courageous decision".

If you're smug and know legalese, you can do literally anything (within the law).

VTech

In our country we expect too much for free and we simply can't afford it.
Mix that with corrupt contracts and you have a system that will never work.

The problem is, as a country, whenever we get someone who knows what to do and tries to make the point, we (as a country but not me) argue about it and dismiss them.
We need cuts in order to pay debts, we borrow more than we can afford and spend more than we have.
We need cuts, higher tax and less waste.

4kicks

Not sure why that statement is anything to do with this thread, but actually, we need to spend more money we don't have, increase our short term indebtedness as a way of generating inflation to diminish net borrowing as a % GDP, and lower taxes in order to kickstart economic growth...a little thing called Keynesian economics and Aggregate demand theory, which was the economic policy which finally defeated the great depression.
The paradox of thrift makes your statement, although widely held, wrong.