Gove is the best troll ever...

[Halb]

TheHeretic said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

Did you post that in seriousness or as a joke?
He gets a lot of things wrong, so many it does come across as a joke.
http://www.andywightman.com/docs/civil_list_crown_...
Is a better understanding of the situation.
Also the £40 millions figure is heavily debated, for a start is doesn't cover security. Not only that but security costs are half covered by local councils.
I remember a documentary on many years ago, saying how things under £4000 were not detailed in the expenses. It was considered too small, but when the royal finances started to be scrutinised, this figure was raised to £10,000 (I think it was 10, it might have been 20, but I think 10).

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.
£202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.
The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.
Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20d...

[TheHeretic]

Republic.org.uk? Not at all biased then. We need real figures for this debate, otherwise it is all merely speculation.

[Halb]

TheHeretic said:

Republic.org.uk? Not at all biased then. We need real figures for this debate, otherwise it is all merely speculation.

All figures given above are real. Would you like to state which are not? Still doesn't change the fact that the man in that video seems to think that the revenues can be done what they like with by the HoS. That video was pure fantasy, while what I have provided is all factual.
The figures are still disparate from the fact that the income would still have to be used for civil governance.

Edited by Halb on Monday 16th January 21:23

[Trommel]

Halb said:

more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system

Sarkozy spent over £300m refurbishing his private plane last year, so I doubt that.

[Halb]

Trommel said:

Halb said:

more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system

Sarkozy spent over £300m refurbishing his private plane last year, so I doubt that.

Fair enough then.
edit
just checked, it was Air France One, not his private plane
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-27/lif...
I remember when Blair tried to say we needed an Air Force One.!
But I agree the amount is horrendous.

Edited by Halb on Monday 16th January 21:27

[TheHeretic]

Halb said:

All figures given above are real. Would you like to state which are not? Still doesn't change the fact that the man in that video seems to think that the revenues can be done what they like with by the HoS. That video was pure fantasy, while what I have provided is all factual.

Real? Even the bit about how certain expenses are not counted if under 4K, etc? What are the security costs? Are these the same costs that are accrued when football games are played, music events are put on, the politicians are out and about, foreign signatories come to visit, and so on. Are these security costs only an issue with the Royals?

I'm not arguing your figures that you provided, merely the 'this is debated' "I saw a documentary once" bit.

As for paying for her own security, as a tax payer, why should she? Do you pay for your security?

[B Huey]

TheHeretic said:

B Huey said:

Do you really think the Queen would prefer not to be Queen?

Well, considering she, and her family would be a lot better off, without doing all the hand shaking, dinners, and having no life outside of a secretaries appointment book, whilst reaping the income from the crown estate? Who is to say.

I meant if she could choose between being the Queen or being an ordinary member of the public.

[Randy Winkman]

Trommel said:

Randy Winkman said:

The point I am making is that they are not contributing anything to the UK that millions of others couldn't make if they came out of the same womb. The money is made by the property, not by them.

Pointless point.

And yours?

[Trommel]

Randy Winkman said:

And yours?

That life isn't fair and that who the individuals born into the Royal Family are is less important than the roles they carry out.

[sidicks]

To put £60m in perspective...


http://www.royalyachtbritannia.co.uk/history/royal...

As well as hosting royal banquets and receptions, Britannia was an ambassador for British business, promoting trade and industry around the globe. Indeed the Overseas Trade Board estimates that £3 billion has been made for the Exchequer as a result of commercial days on Britannia between 1991 and 1995.


Sidicks

[Halb]

TheHeretic said:

Real? Even the bit about how certain expenses are not counted if under 4K, etc?

Well I didn't make it up, but I understand your position not willing to debate it. I cannot really since it is just a memory.
I did not say they were not counted, I said not detailed. The documentary was a long time ago, and I cannot recall the details, save for the fact that those in charge of the royal accounts didn't want the outside to know what they were spending money on and so chose to raise the bar so people would not know even with the new rule on disclosure.

TheHeretic said:

What are the security costs? Are these the same costs that are accrued when football games are played, music events are put on, the politicians are out and about, foreign signatories come to visit, and so on. Are these security costs only an issue with the Royals?

100 millions. Quite a lot for such a small amount of people, compared to those other items you detail. I only bring up these costs because of the repeated amount that never accounts for the extras, or even like in the video above that the royals give money to the exchequer, when this is patently not the case.

TheHeretic said:

I'm not arguing your figures that you provided, merely the 'this is debated' "I saw a documentary once" bit.

Fair enough, that was the £4000 hike to 10 or 20 as a direct consequence of the accounts being opened to scrutiny. I think it was the sundries amount but cannot be sure. I have tried to look for it to no avail.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/30/politics....

TheHeretic said:

As for paying for her own security, as a tax payer, why should she? Do you pay for your security?

Yes I do pay for my own security for my house. I pay for police and whatnot through taxes, I do not require extra security. But I do not mind extra security for the HoS, but the costs are for the royal family, there are a lot, which might explain the £100 millions?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391916/Ed...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10681142

Edited by Halb on Monday 16th January 22:00

[Getragdogleg]

bobbylondonuk said:

Here is a chance for the people of britain to make a showcase that will stand the test of style and time.

Paintings, woodwork, metal work, textiles, ship building, Design, branding, computer systems, cleanest most powerful new propulsion systems, top quality crew, tourist attraction. The best of British on display to the world. Understated, Elegant, Regal and Timeless classic style!!!!

Us British are a fking waste of space! This is not a boat for an old lady and her family to go on holidays....its a national asset that the world can only dream of. Any rich fool can buy a boat looking like a jet liner in the water...Can you ever build a royal yacht like the Britania? Even if you did...could you actually pull it off? never!

If there was a govt fund open to the public....id put a couple of hundred into it.

Ii hope we don't get a new Britannia, We would fk up the design horribly now, just look at the olympic logos and the sodding mascots, can you imagine what tacky bks would be penned ?

Besides, i believe we lack the ability to do a good job now, we rested on our laurels too long.

I find it a huge shame I feel this way.

[Dimski]

B Huey said:

TheHeretic said:

B Huey said:

Do you really think the Queen would prefer not to be Queen?

Well, considering she, and her family would be a lot better off, without doing all the hand shaking, dinners, and having no life outside of a secretaries appointment book, whilst reaping the income from the crown estate? Who is to say.

I meant if she could choose between being the Queen or being an ordinary member of the public.

I'm certain she would not exchange the life she has. It is her identity as well as her burden.

Nevertheless, I think the comments along the line of, "She's got it good 'cos she's so rich" are not very well thought out. Would you exchange lives with her? Really? My answer would be no fg chance.

I believe the Royal family are worth every penny, even if using the Republic.org as the source for finances. Putting aside the tourist & tax revenue, the role they play in international relations is enough for me.

[powerstroke]

I think we should build another royal yacht , Maybe we could have a "Champagne socialist tax" to fund it make all the Labour luveys and asorted wealthy lefty hipocrites pay for it

[Oakey]

do you think if the anit-monarchists in this thread had been born in Monaco they'd be anti-monarchy?

[stevejh]

Well, interestingly, this was proposed as the replacement Royal Yacht by a consortium led by Sir Donald Gosling (the NCP boss) back in the nineties. Obviously it was never taken up and, after a major false start, is now the royal yacht of Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum of Dubai.



This was briefly the largest private yacht in the world until Roman Abramovich's yacht Eclipse eclipsed it by a couple of metres.

I'm not sure how far £60 million would go as Eclipse was supposed to cost $300 million to build but ended up costing near to $1 billion because of all the extra security systems and a few additional luxuries that Abramovich had fitted.

[Esseesse]

REALIST123 said:

Christ, we have millions on the peverty poverty line and huge debts and someone wants to buy the Queen a fking yacht? Unbelieveable Unbelievable.

Nobody is on the poverty line in the UK, and out of the ones who think they are I'd expect 95% of them are only there through their own decisions.

[Northern Munkee]

Well now I'm fairly ambivalent on this leaning toward not really in the economic climate, however this

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/16/royal-y...

Is not a straight like for like replacement for Brittannia nor a billionaires trinket, it's not proposed to be from the public purse, and the main use would be for scaring scrotes stless, by making them climb rigging, and showing what they are capable with the right attitude. And there's a lot of evidence that this character building stuff works, and I can't help thinking if this were a labour party proposal, with a gurning Miliband or Abbott, or Salmond (for disadvantaged scots kids) fronting it, they wouldn't be looking for private funding, but straight out from the public purse, although it would be designed by committee, of course, however it's been presented in the media as baubles for/from toffs.

So a "tall ship" mostly used for helping young people (the only thing the Royals are allowed to get involved without being seen as being political), with state rooms at the back end for occasions and room for a detachment marines and the band, extra navy crew when she's onboard.

I find it quite reasonable, I could even see it qualify for lottery funding, were it not for the "Queen" and being a Tory (not a labour idea).

Edited by Northern Munkee on Tuesday 17th January 11:14

[stevejh]

650 feet long is a big ship, particularly a sailing ship. It could be a brilliant showcase for British design and technology but it sounds a bit over ambitious for my liking. Personally I would be quite happy for a Royal Yacht with the same remit as Brittania to be built especially if it was privately funded and built in the UK. It would be a great advertisement for British yacht building and might create more jobs if it brings in more orders. At the moment the Germans seem to have a stranglehold on Megayacht building but I can imagine some billionaires would love to have their yachts built by the people that built the Queen's yacht.

On the downside, by the time it was built it would probably be Charles who would be using it and that I would not be best pleased about.

[elster]

Halb said:

TheHeretic said:

Real? Even the bit about how certain expenses are not counted if under 4K, etc?

Well I didn't make it up, but I understand your position not willing to debate it. I cannot really since it is just a memory.
I did not say they were not counted, I said not detailed. The documentary was a long time ago, and I cannot recall the details, save for the fact that those in charge of the royal accounts didn't want the outside to know what they were spending money on and so chose to raise the bar so people would not know even with the new rule on disclosure.

TheHeretic said:

What are the security costs? Are these the same costs that are accrued when football games are played, music events are put on, the politicians are out and about, foreign signatories come to visit, and so on. Are these security costs only an issue with the Royals?

100 millions. Quite a lot for such a small amount of people, compared to those other items you detail. I only bring up these costs because of the repeated amount that never accounts for the extras, or even like in the video above that the royals give money to the exchequer, when this is patently not the case.

TheHeretic said:

I'm not arguing your figures that you provided, merely the 'this is debated' "I saw a documentary once" bit.

Fair enough, that was the £4000 hike to 10 or 20 as a direct consequence of the accounts being opened to scrutiny. I think it was the sundries amount but cannot be sure. I have tried to look for it to no avail.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/30/politics....

TheHeretic said:

As for paying for her own security, as a tax payer, why should she? Do you pay for your security?

Yes I do pay for my own security for my house. I pay for police and whatnot through taxes, I do not require extra security. But I do not mind extra security for the HoS, but the costs are for the royal family, there are a lot, which might explain the £100 millions?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391916/Ed...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10681142

Edited by Halb on Monday 16th January 22:00

So she makes a profit for the public purse of around £15 million then.

That's pretty good.