Marx Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Are they value for money? There is a meeting on the 14th October of the powerful public accounts committee (PAC) who will question senior Palace aides – including Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse and Treasurer to The Queen – about royal spending. I have asked my MP to pass on to Margaret Hodge, the Chair: Why isn’t the royal household set an annual fixed budget like all other government departments? Why are royal security costs kept secret from taxpayers? Why are the costs of royal visits around the country – currently borne by local authorities – not included in the annual royal finance reports? Why is the royal family’s travel bill so much higher than that of government ministers and senior civil servants? Why does the sovereign support grant have no upper limit? What do you think? Republic estimates that they cost £200 million a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Are they value for money? There is a meeting on the 14th October of the powerful public accounts committee (PAC) who will question senior Palace aides – including Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse and Treasurer to The Queen – about royal spending. I have asked my MP to pass on to Margaret Hodge, the Chair: Why isn’t the royal household set an annual fixed budget like all other government departments? Why are royal security costs kept secret from taxpayers? Why are the costs of royal visits around the country – currently borne by local authorities – not included in the annual royal finance reports? Why is the royal family’s travel bill so much higher than that of government ministers and senior civil servants? Why does the sovereign support grant have no upper limit? What do you think? Republic estimates that they cost £200 million a year. ....and brought in around £500 million each year in tourism alone to the country..... http://media.visitbritain.com/News-Releases/Monarchy-brings-in-500-million-a-year-from-foreign-tourists-says-VisitBritain-research-5d2.aspx Around an estimated 2bn from the wedding and baby hype... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost Cost/benefit ratio seems good to me. Wonder what a republic would bring to the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Manager Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Just get rid of them - and save money simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 ....and brought in around £500 million each year in tourism alone to the country..... http://media.visitbritain.com/News-Releases/Monarchy-brings-in-500-million-a-year-from-foreign-tourists-says-VisitBritain-research-5d2.aspx Around an estimated 2bn from the wedding and baby hype... http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost Cost/benefit ratio seems good to me. Wonder what a republic would bring to the economy. That is without doubt, the biggest load of guesstimate rubbish I have heard in a long time. The most visited country- in tourist terms -in the world is France, a Republic. Of the top ten most visited countries in the world only three are monarchies. The top three are Republics, number four is Spain. Who goes to Spain because it is a monarchy? The UK is number eight, number ten is Malaysia, who goes to Malaysia because it's a monarchy? Personally I would argue that if you abolished the monarchy & opened the royal palaces to tourists you would increase tourism. How many tourists that visit this country actually see the royal family? This nonsense, claimed by royalists, is trotted out on a regular basis in order to try to justify the existence of a medieval, anachronistic, non democratic bunch of State subsidized scroungers in this day & age. Frankly, it's pathetic & makes this country look like Ruritania. It's amazing that the tried & trusted ploy of supplying circuses to the peasants still works in this day & age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 That is without doubt, the biggest load of guesstimate rubbish I have heard in a long time. The most visited country- in tourist terms -in the world is France, a Republic. Of the top ten most visited countries in the world only three are monarchies. The top three are Republics, number four is Spain. Who goes to Spain because it is a monarchy? The UK is number eight, number ten is Malaysia, who goes to Malaysia because it's a monarchy? Personally I would argue that if you abolished the monarchy & opened the royal palaces to tourists you would increase tourism. How many tourists that visit this country actually see the royal family? This nonsense, claimed by royalists, is trotted out on a regular basis in order to try to justify the existence of a medieval, anachronistic, non democratic bunch of State subsidized scroungers in this day & age. Frankly, it's pathetic & makes this country look like Ruritania. It's amazing that the tried & trusted ploy of supplying circuses to the peasants still works in this day & age. Do you think the same thing about the many other countries in Europe and elsewhere that also still have monarchies? Such as Norway, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Japan etc. Our Monarchy provide our country with unparalleled publicity for a country of our size. Look at the recent Royal Wedding and Diamond Jubilee. Imagine how many people around the world watched these celebrations on TV. Imagine how much it would cost to produce advertising with that kind of reach. I imagine that the vast majority of tourist do not see any royals. But the fact that they exist increases tourism. It makes it current, rather than history, as is the case with the palaces etc in places like France. Most of the most visited countries in the world are visited in large part because of the weather. We don't have weather, we don't really have nice beaches, or vast theme parks. We do have the royal family. Why get rid of something that only reflects positively upon our country? How many people DON'T come and visit, or do business here, because of the Royal Family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Our Monarchy provide our country with unparalleled publicity for a country of our size. Look at the recent Royal Wedding and Diamond Jubilee. Imagine how many people around the world watched these celebrations on TV. Imagine how much it would cost to produce advertising with that kind of reach. Just think how much publicity a revolution would bring then. We would still have all the big houses, works of art and fancy hats. And a prison and a guillotine. It works for Paris... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Just think how much publicity a revolution would bring then. We would still have all the big houses, works of art and fancy hats. And a prison and a guillotine. It works for Paris... Exactly, and tourists would be able to visit the palaces without restrictions due to previous encumbrances hanging around wanting paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Would a revolition bring good publicity? It's more likely people wouldn't come here because it was too dangerous, and wouldn't invest here because it was too volatile. France had some dark times following the revolution, and really isn't any better off now than we are. Plus we have had a constitutional monarchy for quite some time now, it's not like the Monarch has any power beyond ceremonial ones. Would a president really be any better? People like the Royal family, particularly the Queen. Politicians are generally not popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Would a president really be any better? People like the Royal family, particularly the Queen. Politicians are generally not popular. Why are you craving some absolute leader? It's infantile. Who says that getting rid of a monarchy automatically means a President? Why not have.....oooh, lets be radical here....an elected government. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Who would be the head of state if not the Monarch or a President? Who would the Prime Minister be a Minister to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.