How about a new Royal Yacht Britannia?

[colonel c]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/britai...


If only because of this comment from the article:

Tim McManus
5 Jun 2020 2:02AM

If it happened it would send the liberal left Guardianistas into a frothing hysterical hissy fit, dummies would be spat all across North London, it's everything they hate about everything.


Which makes it all the more appealing - bring it on!



The response from indy100:

https://www.indy100.com/article/britain-brexit-tor...

[Lucas CAV]

Having had the misfortune to have to listen to him doing an after dinner speech I see that he's still full of st.

[wl606]

colonel c said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/04/britai...


If only because of this comment from the article:

Tim McManus
5 Jun 2020 2:02AM

If it happened it would send the liberal left Guardianistas into a frothing hysterical hissy fit, dummies would be spat all across North London, it's everything they hate about everything.


Which makes it all the more appealing - bring it on!

And then let Meghan Markle live in it for free, so that would piss the right-wing off. Everyone would be happy, or not.

[biggbn]

Two words spring to mind immediately, one is off and the other will be censored....

[Fittster]

The politics of doing things purely to annoy your opponents. That's going so well in the US.

[Lucas CAV]

Fittster said:

The politics of doing things purely to annoy your opponents. That's going so well in the US.

Sadly that approach often appeals to people on here

[rev-erend]

Seem to remember they scrapped the original because the Queen / country did not want the expense.

[anonymous-user]

rev-erend said:

Seem to remember they scrapped the original because the Queen / country did not want the expense.

Still afloat in Edinburgh. Can’t it be recommissioned?

[s2art]

rev-erend said:

Seem to remember they scrapped the original because the Queen / country did not want the expense.

That was Blairs claim. Other opinions were available.

[2xChevrons]

Iwantafusca said:

Still afloat in Edinburgh. Can’t it be recommissioned?

I'm sure it would be technically possible...at a cost similar to (or greater than) building a new one.

And one of the reasons why Britannia was retired in the first place was because she was getting old and her oil-fired steam turbine plant cost a fortune to run and required specialist and increasingly-rare skills to operate.

I don't have a problem with a new Royal Yacht in principle but this is absolutely not the time to be considering this. Even without the pandemic, the UK has more pressing issues which should be prioritised before a patriotic trinket. When we're not being rapped by the UN for our poverty rate or trying to deal with a homelessness crisis then we can treat ourselves to a Royal Yacht.

[ClaphamGT3]

The challenge with Royal Yachts is that they are rather toxic symbols of extravagance and elitism. It mattered not a jot or tittle that Britannia paid her way as a floating trade mission, she was perceived as a luxury and, as such, had to go. Spain have already dispensed with their Royal Yacht and the Dutch Royal Yacht is always causing grief for its running costs (not withstanding the fact it's tiny). The US Presidential yacht is mothballed I believe.

Only the Danes seem to get away with running a large (cruise ship sized) Royal Yacht without public ructions.

Recommissioning HMY Britannia is a technical and financial non starter as she's been sitting idle for 20 years with her plant and systems abandoned and her stern-glands welded shut. She'd need pretty much cutting in half to re-engine her and a complete structural overhaul. The Navy would then need to find a couple of hundred Royal Yachtsmen and women and berth and maintain her

Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Friday 5th June 14:30

[Countdown]

s2art said:

rev-erend said:

Seem to remember they scrapped the original because the Queen / country did not want the expense.

That was Blairs claim. Other opinions were available.

Why not fund it like the Gloriana? People who want to can pay towards it and people who don't want to don't need to?

[anonymous-user]

For starters, Digby Jones is a pillock who spouts nonsense, so if he's recommending a new 'Britannia' then you can be sure it's a daft idea.

As already pointed out by an earlier poster, doing or saying things just to annoy the 'other side' in politics is stupid and never ends well, and Digby Jones has a habit of it.

Remember this Tweet from him: “So that’s trade deals with both the US & Oz in the bag. Remoaners must be hating this.”

To which the Financial Times replied:

"Where does one begin? What do ridiculous statements like this signify? The second sentence can be quickly dismissed. It is in the language of the playground, not the upper house of parliament. But the first sentence warrants closer inspection. This is because it is false and misleading to an impressive degree. Trade agreements between Britain and the US and Australia are not “in the bag”. They are nowhere near the bag. The bag is not in sight, and it may never be"


Also, as ClaphamGT3 correctly says, Britannia was cancelled mostly due to the costs and the perceived spending by our Royal family on luxury items and luxury travel.

I don't think the public will take kindly to another yacht being built purely to ferry our diplomats, politicians and Royals around in luxury, while people are struggling to buy food.

[bloomen]

Yup. My morale would soar seeing a bunch of Germans swan past on a boat I'd paid for while I was scrabbling for seaweed to eat by the shore.

[cloggy]

ClaphamGT3 said:

The Dutch Royal Yacht is always causing grief for its running costs (not withstanding the fact it's tiny).

It is a flat bottom sailing barge that is not seaworthy and was built in the fifties so a weekend sailer for the weekends on the lakes and canals.

[deadslow]

well the country is practically bankrupt, and the Tories have doubled the national debt over the last ten years and they're in full magic money mode right now, so yeah, great idea - a big expensive vanity project. Johnson would approve.

[FN2TypeR]

Asking private enterprise to contribute? I suggest that he puts the fking news on and takes a peep at what is going on at the moment, the absolute walloper.

[anonymous-user]

FN2TypeR said:

Asking private enterprise to contribute? I suggest that he puts the fking news on and takes a peep at what is going on at the moment, the absolute walloper.

I would like to congratulate my honourable friend on the use of the term in bold. It seems perfectly suited to describing Digby Jones.

[FN2TypeR]

Lord Marylebone said:

FN2TypeR said:

Asking private enterprise to contribute? I suggest that he puts the fking news on and takes a peep at what is going on at the moment, the absolute walloper.

I would like to congratulate my honourable friend on the use of the term in bold. It seems perfectly suited to describing Digby Jones.

[anonymous-user]

Is it me or does anyone else think it’s a bit of a daft idea to put a reigning monarch on a boat and send it off into the oggin with no defences in this day and age.... I’m not for wrapping HRH in cotton wool but it seems a bit risky