Support NeoGAF

[Dirtyshubb]

Was it a magic money tree?

Lol sadly they missed that easy opportunity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-latest-senior-doctors-hospitals-underfunding-accelerate-privatisation-agenda-conservative-a7808591.html

Senior doctors accuse Government of deliberately underfunding NHS to accelerate privatisation plans.

 

[excowboy]

Lol sadly they missed that easy opportunity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-latest-senior-doctors-hospitals-underfunding-accelerate-privatisation-agenda-conservative-a7808591.html

Senior doctors accuse Government of deliberately underfunding NHS to accelerate privatisation plans.

Well its a tried and true strategy - say your funding whatever service perfectly adequately, actually underfunding service as far as you can get away with it, wait a bit, explain that service is failing due to public mismanagement and only private enterprise has the ability and incentive to turn it around. Final step, place fingers firmly in ears...

 

[SteveWD40]

Lol sadly they missed that easy opportunity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-latest-senior-doctors-hospitals-underfunding-accelerate-privatisation-agenda-conservative-a7808591.html

Senior doctors accuse Government of deliberately underfunding NHS to accelerate privatisation plans.

Hunt will smirk and carry on regardless. It really is a waiting game now until May breaks left of the nutters and they mount a leadership challenge, probably countered by Hammond. This would give Labour a chance to push the debate towards fundamentals such as the NHS.

It seems many small C conservatives are looking to reach across the aisle as they can't laugh off a party with a mobilised youth vote (something they assumed would never happen).

 

[Acorn]

Hunt will smirk and carry on regardless. It really is a waiting game now until May breaks left of the nutters and they mount a leadership challenge, probably countered by Hammond. This would give Labour a chance to push the debate towards fundamentals such as the NHS.

It seems many small C conservatives are looking to reach across the aisle as they can't laugh off a party with a mobilised youth vote (something they assumed would never happen).

Big question is if the youth vote sticks around. Right now we're probably at peak Corbyn, by the time of the next election the youth vote could disappear.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

A huge part of tory support will be those people who claim to be accepting and understanding when really they only give a shit about themselves and making money. The other part are the idiots who read the the mail etc. And believe everything that's said.

My wife posted Corbyns speech on Facebook and someone she knows came back with "prat" so my wife asked why she thought that. Her reasons were all your typical gutter trash points of 'IRA, terrorist sympathiser ". My wife went back with a tonne of points about Thatcher dealing with them in secret, the DUPs terrorist ties, selling weapons to Saudi Arabia etc. A day later the woman came back with a joke about my wife and Corbyn sitting in a tree...

Good on your wife for trying to reason with her friend, but it's ultimately useless.

The only way a large percentage of people will change their views is through suffering. Not just any old suffering either, their suffering has to be as bad as the worse kind of suffering for them to accept maybe things aren't so great and maybe they are supporting a party that doesn't have their best interests at heart.

Even then it'd be a moral dilemma as they'd seek out stories about people who are suffering even more so they can feel slightly better about their decisions and circumstances.

 

[hohoXD123]

The magic money tree in full bloom at the moment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40412343

We keep hearing that they represent excellent value for money, but have there been any reports looking into how much is spent on the royal family compared to roughly how much they bring in?

 

[DBT85]

We keep hearing that they represent excellent value for money, but have there been any reports looking into how much is spent on the royal family compared to roughly how much they bring in?

Not that I know of. Not got any issue with the royal family tbh.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

That's blatantly anti-democratic, but what else do we expect from May's shambling zombie corpse of a government?

Speaking of zombies, how is this thread still alive?

It's alive until the Queens Soeech passes. Small as it might be there's still a chance some Tory backbencher will rebel against the DUP.

 

[RedSparrows]

We keep hearing that they represent excellent value for money, but have there been any reports looking into how much is spent on the royal family compared to roughly how much they bring in?

I would assume you could pretty easily justify a big, big amount of tourist spend in London as being to do with the Royals. Wooly, but sellable.

What irritates me is the principle of a head of state's functions being justified by cost/benefit, when that's not the issue. The issue is hereditary monarchy. But eh, not going to die on that hill.

 

[Darkstorne]

The magic money tree in full bloom at the moment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40412343

To be fair the Crown Estate has been insanely profitable lately, and the vast majority of those profits go to the Treasury. One of the few benefits of the pound falling in value is likely to be increased tourism, so investing in repairs to critical tourist monuments like this is essential. Even with the pay rise to assist with repairs, the profits from the estate still weight heavily towards the public, and an active monarchy (whether you approve of them or not) is a huge drive for tourism and therefore public income.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

We keep hearing that they represent excellent value for money, but have there been any reports looking into how much is spent on the royal family compared to roughly how much they bring in?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...again-as-cost-of-royal-family-is-62p-per-per/

And

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html

I don't particularly care about the royal family, but I'm sure that 62p PP (which has likely gone up) could be put to much better use.

 

[Lego Boss]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40413620 How is Damien Green even allowed to breathe, let alone speak?

 

[The Friendly Monster]

To be fair the Crown Estate has been insanely profitable lately, and the vast majority of those profits go to the Treasury. One of the few benefits of the pound falling in value is likely to be increased tourism, so investing in repairs to critical tourist monuments like this is essential. Even with the pay rise to assist with repairs, the profits from the estate still weight heavily towards the public, and an active monarchy (whether you approve of them or not) is a huge drive for tourism and therefore public income.

Yeah without spending millions for a privilieged few to have a luxury lifestyle the UK would be like France or Germany or one of those other countries without tourism.

 

[Moosichu]

The magic money tree in full bloom at the moment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40412343

It's worth pointing out that through the land she owns, the Queen puts much more money into the treasury than she takes out.

 

[TimmmV]

We keep hearing that they represent excellent value for money, but have there been any reports looking into how much is spent on the royal family compared to roughly how much they bring in?

Republic have it as around £334m a year

I think estimates of cost are pretty variable because some of the Royals accounts are private, and then there is also the opportunity cost of missing out on tourist income from the property they use and live in. I have a vague memory that a decent chunk of their security costs are hidden in the police budget or something like that too

To be fair the Crown Estate has been insanely profitable lately, and the vast majority of those profits go to the Treasury. One of the few benefits of the pound falling in value is likely to be increased tourism, so investing in repairs to critical tourist monuments like this is essential. Even with the pay rise to assist with repairs, the profits from the estate still weight heavily towards the public, and an active monarchy (whether you approve of them or not) is a huge drive for tourism and therefore public income.

Why does it have to be active to attract tourists?

 

[Darkstorne]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...again-as-cost-of-royal-family-is-62p-per-per/

And

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html

I don't particularly care about the royal family, but I'm sure that 62p PP (which has likely gone up) could be put to much better use.

That research was bull**** frankly. They specifically refused to include the Crown Estate surplus as income related to the royal family, nor the income from tourism, which is dumb for multiple reasons. That research was aimed squarely at creating a storm on social media from monarchy haters looking for a new reason to get mad.

From more level-headed analysis of that research:

The annual report states that the monarchy costs the UK approximately £35.7 million. That works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer.

The revenue paid to the UK from the Crown Estate is at a record £285 million. So, take away the Queen’s £35.7 million, and the UK is left with £249 million. So, because of the royal family, your taxes are actually about £3.80 cheaper per year than they would be if the Queen did not rule.

The £249 million doesn’t even include the money that tourism brings in, which is estimated at £500 million.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

That research was bull**** frankly. They specifically refused to include the Crown Estate surplus as income related to the royal family, nor the income from tourism, which is dumb for multiple reasons. That research was aimed squarely at creating a storm on social media from monarchy haters looking for a new reason to get mad.

From more level-headed analysis of that research:

The cost per person went up in 2016. Your source is from 2015 and the figures in that article are mentioned in the telegraph article.

I can't speak to the independent article, it was the first one I found and does present both sides.

 

[Morat]

That research was bull**** frankly. They specifically refused to include the Crown Estate surplus as income related to the royal family, nor the income from tourism, which is dumb for multiple reasons. That research was aimed squarely at creating a storm on social media from monarchy haters looking for a new reason to get mad.

From more level-headed analysis of that research:

I mean yeah, but arguing that the crown estate pays tax and therefore justifies the existence of the monarchy is kind of weird- that's a colossal amount of land and property that they own simply by dint of being royal.

 

[Moosichu]

I mean yeah, but arguing that the crown estate pays tax and therefore justifies the existence of the monarchy is kind of weird- that's a colossal amount of land and property that they own simply by dint of being royal.

But they own it. If the monarch stopped being the monarch, all the revenue would go straight to them and not the treasury.

It's not tax on the land that goes to the treasury by the way, it's all revenue. Iirc.

 

[Darkstorne]

Yeah without spending millions for a privilieged few to have a luxury lifestyle the UK would be like France or Germany or one of those other countries without tourism.

Why does it have to be active to attract tourists?

No doubt we'd still have tourism without them, but an active monarchy and the chance to see the Queen are huge incentives for many tourists. Not to mention the way William and Kate are treated as A class celebrities across the globe and the impacts they have on fashion and souvenir sales. For as long as the monarchy and the crown estate are net positives to UK income, I'll never understand the pure rage and vitriol that often gets spewed their way.

 

[kmag]

That research was bull**** frankly. They specifically refused to include the Crown Estate surplus as income related to the royal family, nor the income from tourism, which is dumb for multiple reasons. That research was aimed squarely at creating a storm on social media from monarchy haters looking for a new reason to get mad.

From more level-headed analysis of that research:

Firstly the Crown Estate wasn't transferred to public management out of the good of the Royals heart. Even if you ignore the questionable means of acquiring that land and the fact that a lot of the allocation of land to the Crown Estate is based on pretty arbitrary rules (quite when the Royal family 'bought' the area between the high water mark and the low water mark I don't know, or the fact that any tidal riverbed or part of the coastline which cannot be proved to be owned by anyone else is 'owned' by the Crown Estate), the fact is that public management of the 'Crown' estate was a quid pro quo for the Monarch no longer being on the hook for the national debt. If Lizzie wants to take on that mantle she can feel free.

Ultimately the vast majority of land 'owned' by the Crown estate, is not really the Royal families, and frankly in any fully democratic country in the world would simply be owned by the State (it's just in this case the State is the Monarch)

 

[SteveWD40]

Big question is if the youth vote sticks around. Right now we're probably at peak Corbyn, by the time of the next election the youth vote could disappear.

I feel it will, as the *cough* momentum behind Corbyn is now being reflected in respectable polling and younger voters are seeing that they did in fact make a difference (robbing May of her majority).

 

[The Friendly Monster]

But they own it. If the monarch stopped being the monarch, all the revenue would go straight to them and not the treasury.

It's not tax on the land that goes to the treasury by the way, it's all revenue. Iirc.

I don't think that's true. It's not the Windsors who own the land, it's the Crown.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

No doubt we'd still have tourism without them, but an active monarchy and the chance to see the Queen are huge incentives for many tourists. Not to mention the way William and Kate are treated as A class celebrities across the globe and the impacts they have on fashion and souvenir sales. For as long as the monarchy and the crown estate are net positives to UK income, I'll never understand the pure rage and vitriol that often gets spewed their way.

You can't prove this makes a difference, and the fact that countries without active monarchies are huge tourist destinations totally undermines your point.

It's not moral to have a privileged unelected class paid for by the rest.

 

[mclem]

A day later the woman came back with a joke about my wife and Corbyn sitting in a tree...

Might not be a joke, he's quite a silver fox...

 

[kmag]

But they own it. If the monarch stopped being the monarch, all the revenue would go straight to them and not the treasury.

It's not tax on the land that goes to the treasury by the way, it's all revenue. Iirc.

As I noted above. When did they buy the land between the high tide and the low tide? Or all the seabed out to 12 nmi?

Any coastal land which cannot be proven to be owned by anyone else is part of the Crown Estate (just over half the UK's coastline), again that's just an arbitrary assignation.

 

[Darkstorne]

I mean yeah, but arguing that the crown estate pays tax and therefore justifies the existence of the monarchy is kind of weird- that's a colossal amount of land and property that they own simply by dint of being royal.

So... we've given up on the "Monarchy are a drain on finances" argument now that we know the truth and moved straight onto a different argument to attack them? Come on. You guys are sounding pretty determined to drive home a narrative here.

I'm not going to say you're wrong to disapprove of them, but my opinion is that since they provide significantly more money than they consume and are a clear boon to the tourism industry (which we may need to double down on if Brexit goes ahead) I see them as a net positive for the country. I struggle to see why anyone would see them as a net negative.

 

[TimmmV]

No doubt we'd still have tourism without them, but an active monarchy and the chance to see the Queen are huge incentives for many tourists. Not to mention the way William and Kate are treated as A class celebrities across the globe and the impacts they have on fashion and souvenir sales. For as long as the monarchy and the crown estate are net positives to UK income, I'll never understand the pure rage and vitriol that often gets spewed their way.

I still don't see why they have to be active for people to be interested.

Tourists would be coming to have a look around Buckingham palace (for more than the 3/4 months a year they currently can!), and snap a few pictures of changing of the guard etc. None of this requires an actual active monarch to do.

Arguably the fact that some of the royal grounds are still off limits to the public actually hinders tourist income too - it would be even higher if people were actually allowed to go and look around

 

[Darkstorne]

You can't prove this makes a difference, and the fact that countries without active monarchies are huge tourist destinations totally undermines your point.

It's not moral to have a privileged unelected class paid for by the rest.

True, we can't PROVE it makes a difference until we try a UK without a royal family for a signficant amount of time. But it's highly likely they do make a big difference given the influence the royal family have across the globe and the sheer number of people who visit the UK specifically to see the Queen and other members of the family, not the buildings they live in.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I'm not going to say you're wrong to disapprove of them, but my opinion is that since they provide significantly more money than they consume and are a clear boon to the tourism industry (which we may need to double down on if Brexit goes ahead) I see them as a net positive for the country. I struggle to see why anyone would see them as a net negative.

Prove it.

True, we can't PROVE it makes a difference until we try a UK without a royal family for a signficant amount of time. But it's highly likely they do make a big difference given the influence the royal family have across the globe and the sheer number of people who visit the UK specifically to see the Queen and other members of the family, not the buildings they live in.

What is that number?

 

[Crispy75]

Tourists would be coming to have a look around Buckingham palace (for more than the 3/4 months a year they currently can!), and snap a few pictures of changing of the guard etc. None of this requires an actual active monarch to do.

Buck Palace gets 500,000 visitors/year.
Versailles gets 6 million.

 

[kmag]

I still don't see why they have to be active for people to be interested.

Tourists would be coming to have a look around Buckingham palace (for more than the 3/4 months a year they currently can!), and snap a few pictures of changing of the guard etc. None of this requires an actual active monarch to do.

Arguably the fact that some of the royal grounds are still off limits to the public actually hinders tourist income too - it would be even higher if people were actually allowed to go and look around

See Palace of Versailles (aka the most popular non-mouse tourist attraction in Europe) as an example.

 

[Morat]

So... we've given up on the "Monarchy are a drain on finances" argument now that we know the truth and moved straight onto a different argument to attack them? Come on. You guys are sounding pretty determined to drive home a narrative here.

I'm not going to say you're wrong to disapprove of them, but my opinion is that since they provide significantly more money than they consume and are a clear boon to the tourism industry (which we may need to double down on if Brexit goes ahead) I see them as a net positive for the country. I struggle to see why anyone would see them as a net negative.

My narrative is that the monarchy is an outdated institution the existence of which is an insult to everyone in this country.

To be clear, the existence of class determined to be superior by birth is wrong.

 

[Darkstorne]

My narrative is that the monarchy is an outdated institution the existence of which is an insult to everyone in this country.

Fair enough. If they exercised control over parliament I'd agree. Since they don't do that, they do an immense amount of ambassador and charity work across the world with their influence instead, and are a net gain to public finances, I'm fine with them.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Buck Palace gets 500,000 visitors/year.
Versailles gets 6 million.

See Palace of Versailles (aka the most popular non-mouse tourist attraction in Europe) as an example.

Have y'all been to the PoV? Incredible place to visit.

While I haven't been to Buck Palace, I can't imagine it holds up very well to PoV.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Fair enough. If they exercised control over parliament I'd agree. Since they don't do that, they do an immense amount of ambassador and charity work across the world with their influence instead, and are a net gain to public finances, I'm fine with them.

So... we've given up on the "Monarchy support our tourism" argument now that we know the truth and moved straight onto a different argument to support them? Come on. You are sounding pretty determined to drive home a narrative here.

The influence of the Royals is not necessarily a positive thing. See Charles secretly lobbying ministers to promote homeopathy within the NHS.

 

[DBT85]

Fair enough. If they exercised control over parliament I'd agree. Since they don't do that, they do an immense amount of ambassador and charity work across the world with their influence instead, and are a net gain to public finances, I'm fine with them.

My view too.

They aren't going anywhere anyway. This isn't something we'll have a referendum on, you're not going to wake up in 40 years and William says "gosh I think I don't need this title, and nor does anyone else".

We'll get rid of the royals just as soon as the US Presidents stop saying "and god bless the United States" at the end of major speeches.

 

[hohoXD123]

No doubt we'd still have tourism without them, but an active monarchy and the chance to see the Queen are huge incentives for many tourists. Not to mention the way William and Kate are treated as A class celebrities across the globe and the impacts they have on fashion and souvenir sales. For as long as the monarchy and the crown estate are net positives to UK income, I'll never understand the pure rage and vitriol that often gets spewed their way.

Not sure why you don't understand it when several posters have said already that they're opposed to a heriditary monarchy. Their positions represent something we should be fighting against in our country, namely power, money and influence not earned but given to them by birth. This isn't something which will just go away if we get rid of the monarchy, but at the same time public money shouldn't be spent on maintaining such a system and effectively saying that such gross inequality is fine.

Even from the financial side of things I'm not convinced, there isn't much consideration going into what the State would gain without the monarchy, and any arguments around money through tourism is based around likelihoods and assumptions rather than any proof. Which is fair enough since we can't exactly do a trial without a monarchy and see what happens, but at the same time it's not a strong defense without any figures to back it up.

 

[TimmmV]

Buck Palace gets 500,000 visitors/year.
Versailles gets 6 million.

See Palace of Versailles (aka the most popular non-mouse tourist attraction in Europe) as an example.

Thanks

Hopefully republic update their figures (if they haven't already) to reflect the opportunity cost of lost tourist income from the royal buildings too then

My view too.

They aren't going anywhere anyway. This isn't something we'll have a referendum on, you're not going to wake up in 40 years and William says "gosh I think I don't need this title, and nor does anyone else".

We'll get rid of the royals just as soon as the US Presidents stop saying "and god bless the United States" at the end of major speeches.

Sure, but that's hardly a reason not to do anything about it

 

[kmag]

Fair enough. If they exercised control over parliament I'd agree. Since they don't do that, they do an immense amount of ambassador and charity work across the world with their influence instead, and are a net gain to public finances, I'm fine with them.

They're not a net gain to public finances though. That's simply not been proven. Simply screaming Crown Estate isn't enough when the provenance of the land ownership of the Crown Estate is pretty sketchy and whole swathes of that land would simply be public land in any actual situation where there's no Royal family. Even some their massive London portfolio has been bolstered via funneling profits from the seabed and coastal into buying up tracts of London real estate.

 

[DBT85]

Sure, but that's hardly a reason not to do anything about it

Sure, crack on. Quite what anyone hopes to realistically achieve however is beyond me. There is no bunch of real nutcases like UKIP to get behind this, rise up, get votes, etc.

Those same nutcases would rip your arms off if you tried to remove the royals.

No Labour or Conservative leader will ever do anything to get rid of them. Even Corbyn who everyone knows would rather not have a royal family at all won't do it because the public backlash would be huge.

I'm no major fan of the royals, I largely just don't care. They can have my 65p.

 

[Walshicus]

they do an immense amount of ambassador and charity work across the world with their influence instead, and are a net gain to public finances, I'm fine with them.

Barely, they aren't, and I'm not.

 

[mclem]

How much do the Royals spend, anyway? I think the only thing that really galls me about them getting a pay rise is the fact that I can't really get my head around the idea that they would particularly benefit from one. Are they even asking for it?

It's not like they're going to be able to get more lucrative employment elsewhere!

 

[*Splinter]

You can't prove this makes a difference, and the fact that countries without active monarchies are huge tourist destinations totally undermines your point.

I'm not taking a side in the argument because I really don't know (or particularly care), but this point seems weak.

Countries without a Disney land are huge tourist destinations, would you therefore argue that Disney land doesn't attract tourists?

 

[JonnyDBrit]

So to add to the cavalcade of things not going well for the Conservatives:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40273593

Lack of long term support for the wider family of fallen soldiers, in particular the most widely known for a decade? That'll go down swell

 

[Miles Quaritch]

So to add to the cavalcade of things not going well for the Conservatives:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40273593

Lack of long term support for the wider family of fallen soldiers, in particular the most widely known for a decade? That'll go down swell

Nah.

Sit back and watch all the people who used and continue to use his murder as a political football stay quiet at how his family has been treated.

These will the same people who were celebrating armed forces day and demanding we respect them more.

 

[Kurtofan]

zombie may government just to prevent corbyn from reaching power, this is really pathetic.

Though I imagine for them someone like Corbyn reaching power would be such an existential crisis that I can understand it in a way.

 

[SteveWD40]

Nah.

Sit back and watch all the people who used and continue to use his murder as a political football stay quiet at how his family has been treated.

These will the same people who were celebrating armed forces day and demanding we respect them more.

Yep, it would only make a dint if the Mail and Express picked it up, which they would never do.

 

[Pandy]

I'm not taking a side in the argument because I really don't know (or particularly care), but this point seems weak.

Countries without a Disney land are huge tourist destinations, would you therefore argue that Disney land doesn't attract tourists?

This argument only makes sense if the tourists that line up to visit Buck Palace each get a turn to sit beside the Queen and have their picture taken with her.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I'm not taking a side in the argument because I really don't know (or particularly care), but this point seems weak.

Countries without a Disney land are huge tourist destinations, would you therefore argue that Disney land doesn't attract tourists?

It simply counters the point that emptily states that the Royalty are essential for tourism without providing any numbers.

If someone will actually quantify the number of tourists who visit simply because there is an active monarchy, we can have that discussion.