should there be a national referendum on........
11 November 2002, 08:00 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we would have to replace them with yet another political tier - a presidential one - as head of State?
At least the Royals remain as powerless Ceremonial figurehaeds of State rather than interfering like a true President would with the Prime Ministerial work. We need more politicians like a hole in the head. Brussels, Westminster, Scottish Assembly Welsh Assembly, Stormont, Mayor of London, Local Councils....all paid for by yours and my taxes.
A presidential set up would be much more costly than Her Majesty and would neeed the expense of national elections every 5 years, plus much more corrupt too, and probably even more sleazy.
No president could ever attract a tourist to come and spend their money here either.
At least the Royals remain as powerless Ceremonial figurehaeds of State rather than interfering like a true President would with the Prime Ministerial work. We need more politicians like a hole in the head. Brussels, Westminster, Scottish Assembly Welsh Assembly, Stormont, Mayor of London, Local Councils....all paid for by yours and my taxes.
A presidential set up would be much more costly than Her Majesty and would neeed the expense of national elections every 5 years, plus much more corrupt too, and probably even more sleazy.
No president could ever attract a tourist to come and spend their money here either.
Trending Topics
11 November 2002, 09:43 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as the 'Royals' can be annoying they do bring in a massive amount of tourism revenue
In all the times i've been to London i've NEVER been to anywhere associated with the royal family.Personally i think people come to London for loads of other reasons,as well as *maybe* the royals.France has a president,people still visit Paris.
Personally,i'd like to be able to choose our head of state.
11 November 2002, 10:09 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we need an 'extra' level of government? The Prime Minister is about as close as it gets (not a party political point - it's been this way for a long time). All it needs is a bit of rejigging to install some checks and balances in the American style.
By the way, isn't it still technically treason to call for the abolition of the monarchy? I remember the Guardian deliberately trying to get itself prosecuted earlier this year to prove a point about this.
By the way, isn't it still technically treason to call for the abolition of the monarchy? I remember the Guardian deliberately trying to get itself prosecuted earlier this year to prove a point about this.
11 November 2002, 11:20 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
before the usual prejudices about cost come clanking out of the closet like the monster in a badly made B-movie, look at the national audit office stats:
the royal family costs the taxpayer around £35m annually: down nearly 60% on the £83m it cost 10 years ago.
in the last financial year, the royal family generated - via the crown estates - some £133m of income. that's a substantial return on investment creating £98m of gross profit.
the crown estates income is given over to the exchequer each year in its entirety in return for the maintenance of the civil list.
so, £35m handed out: £133m handed back. you really ought to be able to buy shares...
the royal family costs the taxpayer around £35m annually: down nearly 60% on the £83m it cost 10 years ago.
in the last financial year, the royal family generated - via the crown estates - some £133m of income. that's a substantial return on investment creating £98m of gross profit.
the crown estates income is given over to the exchequer each year in its entirety in return for the maintenance of the civil list.
so, £35m handed out: £133m handed back. you really ought to be able to buy shares...
11 November 2002, 11:23 AM
#13
My vote goes to a system like in Holland or Belgium. We keep the Queen, and Charles as heir to the throne. ALL the rest have to work for a living, and I mean PROPER jobs, not b*llsh*t made-up ones like being "ambassadors".
Alcazar
Edited to say: oh, and we take all the crown estates that they probably nicked in the first place, and do as the French did, set 'em up as tourist attractions WITHOUT having to pay £35 million back in. Then we can have the whole £133 million, now THAT'S an investment!!!
[Edited by alcazar - 11/11/2002 11:25:57 AM]
Alcazar
Edited to say: oh, and we take all the crown estates that they probably nicked in the first place, and do as the French did, set 'em up as tourist attractions WITHOUT having to pay £35 million back in. Then we can have the whole £133 million, now THAT'S an investment!!!
[Edited by alcazar - 11/11/2002 11:25:57 AM]
11 November 2002, 12:20 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bushey
Posts: 2,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The value if you want to attach a monetary value to the Royal family is easy to calculate. Who will attract the most tourists, Queen Elizabeth or President Blair ..............
If you take anything longer than 1 second working that out I pity you.
If you want a debate about morals, remember our previous Prime Minister has had an affair, so why expect any better from our future monarch, everyone is human.
At the end of the day, I cannot for one minute imagine that an elected head of state is going to be cheaper to run than the monarchy, as it add another level of bureacracy to our already overweight civil service. And who wants to have a politician lording it over parliament and the prime minister of the time. Here is a prime case of if the system isn't broke don't try and fix it, and at the moment the system is far from broke.
If you take anything longer than 1 second working that out I pity you.
If you want a debate about morals, remember our previous Prime Minister has had an affair, so why expect any better from our future monarch, everyone is human.
At the end of the day, I cannot for one minute imagine that an elected head of state is going to be cheaper to run than the monarchy, as it add another level of bureacracy to our already overweight civil service. And who wants to have a politician lording it over parliament and the prime minister of the time. Here is a prime case of if the system isn't broke don't try and fix it, and at the moment the system is far from broke.
11 November 2002, 12:30 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what do we get from them?
1. there's the net £98m they contribute, after all costs, to the exchequer each year. so they're not actually costing the public purse a bean, rather they are contributing hugely to it as a profitable public asset.
2. they serve as a valuable and significant driver for inward tourism - for the UK as a whole and particularly for london.
3. they are a key component of the commonwealth and the apolitical glue that helps bind together important and wider relationships with numerous other countries.
4. the royal family per se is an iconic and indelible part of our own cultural heritage. look at the huge public response to the the jubilee celebrations in june.
like them or not, it is an unarguable fact that we are getting a significant something for nothing. just ask the tabloids - the royal house is their staple diet.
i think the economics of the royal house is key to their survival:
- cost 2001 (fixed and variable) £35m
- turnover to exchequer 2001 £133m
- net contribution to exchequer 2001 £98m
as long as they can generate more cash to the treasury than they cost to maintain then their future is, bar total calamity, secure.
1. there's the net £98m they contribute, after all costs, to the exchequer each year. so they're not actually costing the public purse a bean, rather they are contributing hugely to it as a profitable public asset.
2. they serve as a valuable and significant driver for inward tourism - for the UK as a whole and particularly for london.
3. they are a key component of the commonwealth and the apolitical glue that helps bind together important and wider relationships with numerous other countries.
4. the royal family per se is an iconic and indelible part of our own cultural heritage. look at the huge public response to the the jubilee celebrations in june.
like them or not, it is an unarguable fact that we are getting a significant something for nothing. just ask the tabloids - the royal house is their staple diet.
i think the economics of the royal house is key to their survival:
- cost 2001 (fixed and variable) £35m
- turnover to exchequer 2001 £133m
- net contribution to exchequer 2001 £98m
as long as they can generate more cash to the treasury than they cost to maintain then their future is, bar total calamity, secure.
11 November 2002, 12:41 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"not b*llsh*t made-up ones like being "ambassadors".
Alcazar"
The royal list has alreay been massively reduced in recent years. The problem is that it is very very difficult given the obsession of the media to get lesser royals real jobs. I for one (a monarchist) would not object to further reductions in subsidies - but there has to be an acceptance that Media intrusion/entrapment has to stop to enable that. I fear however it never will - so it seems difficult to tell them to lead a normal life if its the Britsh public/media which wont allow it.
Deano
Alcazar"
The royal list has alreay been massively reduced in recent years. The problem is that it is very very difficult given the obsession of the media to get lesser royals real jobs. I for one (a monarchist) would not object to further reductions in subsidies - but there has to be an acceptance that Media intrusion/entrapment has to stop to enable that. I fear however it never will - so it seems difficult to tell them to lead a normal life if its the Britsh public/media which wont allow it.
Deano
11 November 2002, 12:49 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there's the net £98m they contribute, after all costs, to the exchequer each year. so they're not actually costing the public purse a bean, rather they are contributing hugely to it as a profitable public asset
There are Lies dammed lies and statistics
11 November 2002, 01:02 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they serve as a valuable and significant driver for inward tourism - for the UK as a whole and particularly for london
the royal family and how many go to see the buildings they live/have lived in all of which remain will remain once the Monarchy is removed. I guarantee that Royal tourism would hugely increase if people could really get a look around the whole of buckingham palace or turn it into the worlds most expensive hotel.
£20-30k a night to sleep on the queens bed bargain. You could even charge extra for leaving the sheets on.
11 November 2002, 01:05 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are a key component of the commonwealth and the apolitical glue that helps bind together important and wider relationships with numerous other countries
ROTFLMAO
the royal family per se is an iconic and indelible part of our own cultural heritage. look at the huge public response to the the jubilee celebrations in june
If a million people responed to the jubilee celebrations then 55 million did not give a toss me included.
How can anyone claim Britain is a classless society when we are still a feudal system because somehow the queen is supposed to be better than eveyone else in the rest of the country. Those numbers you seem to rely on are absolute rubbish do not take into account the possable increase in revenue once they have gone and you completely ignore the fact that every religion stress's the idea of all men being born equal and a step away from this idea is a step in the wrong direction.
[Edited by Mr evolution - 11/11/2002 1:16:43 PM]
11 November 2002, 01:07 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keep dreaming, my ar**.
you’re just letting your prejudice get in the way of fact - SOP for republicans and the generally narrow-minded.
and on a technical point, these are not statistics, they are audited accounts - the official audited figures from the national audit office (NAO), as presented to parliament. they are also publicly available. i could find them and so could you if you could be bothered.
so are you saying that the NAO is guilty of misrepresentation and lying to parliament? if so, on what basis of evidence do you conclude this?
dear oh dear. go straight to the muppet forum.
you’re just letting your prejudice get in the way of fact - SOP for republicans and the generally narrow-minded.
and on a technical point, these are not statistics, they are audited accounts - the official audited figures from the national audit office (NAO), as presented to parliament. they are also publicly available. i could find them and so could you if you could be bothered.
so are you saying that the NAO is guilty of misrepresentation and lying to parliament? if so, on what basis of evidence do you conclude this?
dear oh dear. go straight to the muppet forum.
11 November 2002, 01:08 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the killing of the Russian and French royal families taught us one thing, it's that the politicians who take over from them are no better and are often much worse.
Who uses the Royal Flight more, the Queen or Tony Blair? Oddly enough it's Tony Blair and he gets a 90% discount when he flies, unlike the Queen.
I would very much like to see the surveys on tourism as it sounds to me as if they are surveys of UK tourists and not of American, Japanese and other non-Britons.
Who uses the Royal Flight more, the Queen or Tony Blair? Oddly enough it's Tony Blair and he gets a 90% discount when he flies, unlike the Queen.
I would very much like to see the surveys on tourism as it sounds to me as if they are surveys of UK tourists and not of American, Japanese and other non-Britons.
11 November 2002, 01:13 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davidRB - exactly right
i was talking about inward tourism - ie foreign nationals. you're dead right about the americans and the japanese. they sure as hell don't come for the weather.
i was talking about inward tourism - ie foreign nationals. you're dead right about the americans and the japanese. they sure as hell don't come for the weather.
11 November 2002, 01:24 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your points would be good if I haddn't studied the cost to the tax payer 10-15 years ago and had it come out at around 90 million pounds for a year. And also if it you had any understaning of the moral argument.
11 November 2002, 01:46 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you bothered to read my post, you'll see that the NAO figures for 10 years ago showed a cost of £83m to the taxpayer. pretty close to your own calculation of £90m. but now, it's £35m according to the NAO: that's a 58% reduction over a decade through extended period of cost-cutting and reduction of the civil list - at the behest of parliament.
now what's your point? (apart from being ineptly patronising of course). the morality of the monarchy is not at issue here: you have called the NAO figures "absolute rubbish" and i simply contend the opposite, based on published fact.
is the NAO lying? are the accounts falsified? or are they simply facts that you find too inconvenient to accept because they cut across your prejudice?
now what's your point? (apart from being ineptly patronising of course). the morality of the monarchy is not at issue here: you have called the NAO figures "absolute rubbish" and i simply contend the opposite, based on published fact.
is the NAO lying? are the accounts falsified? or are they simply facts that you find too inconvenient to accept because they cut across your prejudice?
11 November 2002, 02:03 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I could see a breakdown of those figures I could tell you exactly why they are rubbish just like I know when a car manufacturer quotes mpg its 30% better than in the real world just like the huge difference between the real and Labour published crime stastics just like the fact that in the real world more speed cameras is not reducing road saftey. Just like the last time I looked at the cost of the monarchy and found the offcial figures were woefully innacurate. You have also not answered my point about the possibility of increasing revenue from the royal family residences after they have gone or the moral imlications of
supporting a feudal system in an allegedly civilised country.
[Edited by Mr evolution - 11/11/2002 2:10:05 PM]
supporting a feudal system in an allegedly civilised country.
[Edited by Mr evolution - 11/11/2002 2:10:05 PM]
