Royals cost Britain £37m a year

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Dont get me started on mp's, about 80% of seats are not electable they are strongholds so the mp's are chosen by party leaders not the public, and like Incognitas said we have no control over their salaries either.

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.........
__________________

Originally Posted by SMHarman

So divvying that all up this is about £250 per man woman and child, great value, can we discuss him instead.

Yes we can.............in another thread

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by purenuman

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

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

And re the , 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.

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Get off the Royals back.

Apart froma few hangers on that I would get rid of...............

Thet do more good than harm for this country. Prove otherwise.

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
__________________

Originally Posted by SMHarman

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

And re the , 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.

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

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

[Chrysalis]

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.

[SMHarman]

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.

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

A safe seat is only a safe seat because the people in that area vote for the party or person they want. The MP's have been "chosen" by the people, it doesn't matter why they chose him/her........ for their party, looks, personality or policies....

You can't get away from the fact that MP's are chosen by the people....... Royals are not.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Get off the Royals back.

Apart froma few hangers on that I would get rid of...............

Thet do more good than harm for this country. Prove otherwise.

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

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

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.

Originally Posted by punky

The second paragraph is a bit insolent (I think), but in part that is what happens anyway. Americans come here and spend money, along with people in hundreds of other countries.

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.

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.

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

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

And re the , 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.

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

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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.

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

And how many of them see a royal?? Most of them come to look at the historic architecture.... Most of them head for London because it's the capital....

Blackpool pleasure beach attracts more foreign tourists that the Royal hotspots!

http://www.staruk.org.uk//default.asp?ID=388&parentid=512

To offer an American perspective, I'd have no less desire to see the UK one day if the Royals were removed. If I were visiting and had the chance to see the Queen make a speech or something, I'd check it out, but wouldn't make it a point to.

I don't understand their purpose, or why they cost the gov't money. Isn't the Royal family wealthy? Why are they doing things on the gov't's dime (pence?) rather than pay for it themselves? Unless it's gov't business then in that case, it's gov't business.

The logic seems go something like this; Britain has a monarchy, Britain attracts a lot of tourists, therefore the monarchy attracts lots of tourists.

It doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t take much thinking to realise the weakness of this argument. There is no reason to think that people would stay away. France has a healthy tourism trade and allows visitors to enter its palaces. As a result the Palace of Versailles attracts many more visitors than Buckingham Palace. If Britain abolished the monarchy overseas tourists could visit Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and Kensington Palace to name a few, and could actually go inside and have a look around. This would surely attract more, not less visitors. A Times article in November 2003 quoted surveys of tourists that concluded abolishing the monarchy would not hurt our tourist industry at all.

I'm not saying we should abolish the monarchy but the tourism card is a duff one and we don't need them.

Let them stay if you must but let them pay for themselves.........

[Graham]

Originally Posted by purenuman

A safe seat is only a safe seat because the people in that area vote for the party or person they want. The MP's have been "chosen" by the people, it doesn't matter why they chose him/her........ for their party, looks, personality or policies....

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*.
__________________

Originally Posted by purenuman

Blackpool pleasure beach attracts more foreign tourists that the Royal hotspots!

http://www.staruk.org.uk//default.asp?ID=388&parentid=512

I'm not saying we should abolish the monarchy but the tourism card is a duff one and we don't need them.

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

[purenuman]

Originally Posted by Graham

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*.

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