Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The reason they are a 'stronghold' is that people vote for them.

If you don't like it you can vote for somebody else, campaign for somebody else or even stand yourself.........
__________________

Yes we can.............in another thread :D :notopic:

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

But the latest rejig of MP boundaries has convinently benefitted Labour more than any other party.

And re the :notopic: , being as this topic was on the subject of the waste of money the monarchy are (to take an extreme version of the title), it is only fair to interject that there are other far more extreem wastes of money in this country. The Labour government being one of them.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

We (or I) don't have to prove anything........

Let them keep doing the "good" then........ and to show gratitude for their wealth, amassed from fleecing generations, let us stop paying for them :)
__________________

Thankyou for pointing out another waste of money............

I will start another thread on that when I've finished on this waste of money ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

purenuman as long as we are a 'first past the post' voting system their will always be immune seats, if a mp is in a risky seat and the leader wants him then he gets shifted to a safe seat. Of course if we moved to proportional voting then things like tactical voting will be cut down and vote's will mean something. Incidently I did vote in the last election but I wont be voting again until the voting system changes as my area is a safe seat.

Back on topic, 37million is very little yes some money isnt spent efficiently but I think if we are going to do something about it then much bigger wastes of money should be looked at as well.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Well £600M was spent on compensation for NHS medical blunders last year, I'm sure the amount is fair and reasonable to the recipients, but I'm sure they would all also rather the blunder had not occurred.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Could I throw that back at you and ask what, apart from a bit of tourist revenue and a portrait to stick on our currency, the good is that the Royals do?

Sell them to the Americans that's what I say :D

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

The second paragraph is in part that is what happens anyway. Americans come here and spend money, along with people in hundreds of other countries.

As for your first paragraph, I suspect it is a more than "a bit". I'd stick a fiver on it that it is more than the 61p per person they cost everyone. Don't get me wrong, I really hate the monarchy, but I don't hate the £ÃÆ ’‚£Ãà¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚£ they bring in. They are known as "The Firm" for a good reason - they make money.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Well yeah, but they are suckers for our monarchy in the same way they are when buying Arran jumpers when rediscovering their Irish heritage. Sweeping generalisation I know, but what the heck. ;)

I'm not convinced of the idea of massive tourist revenue. Leave the Changing of the Colour and Buck Palace and they'd still come because let's face it, tourists do not get to hang out with Lizzie & Co. They are but symbols.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Well, it goes deeper than that. All the way down to the Diana commemorative plates (i.e. tat).

Also, the whilst the royal family are a bunch of descendents of inbred germans, they are also a link to something in the past. Not necessarily something to be proud of, but something of historial value. Like the Tower of London. You wouldn't want that replaced with a shiny modern building would you? It is a source of pride, but it does gall some of the more culturally minded Americans (yes, they do exist) that we have schools here that are older than their country, nevermind builds like St Paul's cathederal.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Difference is the Labour Government won a election a couple on months ago.

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

I concur with your description of our bluebloods (I had considered doing a precis of attributes of recent royal members but found the words dim, offensive and sozzled appearing to frequently as to bore, especially the first one).

Ok, imagine a world with no royals, just the buildings. No royal trains. No royal plane charters, no astronomical security costs - I'm betting policing for the opening of monuments etc is not included in these figures as they are local costs. Instead we have Lizzie tea towels, Charlie sausages and facsimiles of Architects' Review comment pieces, limited edition Nazi Harry figurines, Duke of Edinburgh toys that spout racist garbage when you pull a string on his back etc. Bob's your uncle, heritage preserved by tourist tat sold in buildings for which we charge tourists several limbs to enter in order to purchase. Job's a good 'un. ;)

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

There are parts of the country where you could put a red rosette (or a blue one) on a donkey and people would vote for it. They would vote for the Devil if he was standing against a Tory/ Labour candidate.

Anyone who doesn't vote in that direction may as well not bother to vote because their vote stands for *nothing*.
__________________

Sorry, where does that link say anything about Blackpool or the Royals? Seems like a duff card to me...

Re: Royals cost Britain £37m a year
 

Still means more people voted for the candidate than voted for any other.