stevelcfc Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Oh good, It will mean a week of top tv on BBC in May. 24 hours of bbc news around exam time, what a joy.
Grandad. Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 You should be proud that this country has such a good and well respected monarchy, most countries would love to have our Royal family, I think we take them for granted.
Haydos Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 That is a poor argument. Firstly: That figure on tourism generated by the "royal family" is bollocks, and if we canned the royals it wouldn't mean we would get 0 tourism to the Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. We still have the history and heritage that people are a lot more interested in Henry VIII, Queen Vic etc and people would still visit these places. If the number of visitors to these places dropped then it would just mean tourists have more disposable income to spend on other things. Secondly: The money generated by these places through Tourism will largely go to the up keep of these places, rather than back to the tax payer so it doesn't matter how much money they generate we don't see any of it and we still pay, admittedly a small amount per person, for their upkeep. We don't pay a lot per person for the royals, but to say they pay for themselves in tourism is just wrong. It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Regardless, it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder and are spouting a lot of conjecture to me. I was hoping for a bit more of a look into it not just "Nah, that's wrong." First of all the figure is about 15 times what they cost. It's not like it trumps them by a few million. Even if it is inflated then it's still likely that it's above the ~£35m figure. Secondly you say that we'd generated tourism regardless. I obvioudly don't have any figures so I'll speculate wildly like you've done. I think that a lot of people that come over here from America and Asia wouldn't really be that interested in those places if it weren't for the 'celebrity' status of a lot of the royals. Again this is just opinion so not much point going on about that bit.
ADK Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Regardless, it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder and are spouting a lot of conjecture to me. I was hoping for a bit more of a look into it not just "Nah, that's wrong." First of all the figure is about 15 times what they cost. It's not like it trumps them by a few million. Even if it is inflated then it's still likely that it's above the ~£35m figure. Secondly you say that we'd generated tourism regardless. I obvioudly don't have any figures so I'll speculate wildly like you've done. I think that a lot of people that come over here from America and Asia wouldn't really be that interested in those places if it weren't for the 'celebrity' status of a lot of the royals. Again this is just opinion so not much point going on about that bit. Generally if something is profitable it doesn't need subsidising. You won't find a truly independent source. The telegraph is going to be pro monarchy. Just look at the arguments over immigration.
Buce Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 You should be proud that this country has such a good and well respected monarch.. Why?
Grandad. Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Why? Because it gives us an identity, what other country in the world has a monarchy like ours? It should be celebrated. Don't be such a miserable bastard and see the good in something.
Buce Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Regardless, it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder and are spouting a lot of conjecture to me. I was hoping for a bit more of a look into it not just "Nah, that's wrong." First of all the figure is about 15 times what they cost. It's not like it trumps them by a few million. Even if it is inflated then it's still likely that it's above the ~£35m figure. Secondly you say that we'd generated tourism regardless. I obvioudly don't have any figures so I'll speculate wildly like you've done. I think that a lot of people that come over here from America and Asia wouldn't really be that interested in those places if it weren't for the 'celebrity' status of a lot of the royals. Again this is just opinion so not much point going on about that bit. That's if we accept the figures that you quoted; were mine too inconvenient, or did you just ignore them?
Haydos Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Generally if something is profitable it doesn't need subsidising. You won't find a truly independent source. The telegraph is going to be pro monarchy. Just look at the arguments over immigration. Fair enough. I'm not arguing whether or not they should be subsidised and whatnot. I don't think we should be contributing, especially if they could be profitable and pay for themselves. Just the initial "drain on taxpayers money comment." That's if we accept the figures that you quoted; were mine too inconvenient, or did you just ignore them? I'm at work and that link won't work for some reason. I'll have a look when I get home if I remember.
Buce Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Because it gives us an identity, what other country in the world has a monarchy like ours? It should be celebrated. Don't be such a miserable bastard and see the good in something. Reasoned debate is impossible in the face of such fawning siciphancy. Get up off your knees.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Middleton was a good looking lass but if she's going to keep popping out sprogs from between her legs I'll have to move on to Zara Phillips, which frankly nobody wants.
Chug Laguna Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 We must be getting closer to figuring out how this keeps happening
Webbo Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 I'm offended by the very suggestion.. http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be over £299m annually .In other words it's just a guess and it just happens to be the convenient figure of around £300 million. The cost of the up keep of Palaces and the security surrounding them would still be needed whether we had a Royal family or not.
Buce Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 .In other words it's just a guess and it just happens to be the convenient figure of around £300 million. The cost of the up keep of Palaces and the security surrounding them would still be needed whether we had a Royal family or not. The fact that we can only guess, speaks volumes; why is there no transparency? What is the establishment afraid of?
separator Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Lets hope this baby gets some media coverage, rather than brushed under the carpet like last time.
Exeter Fox Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Good video about the royals expenses. Edit: In short, 160 Million in profit for the UK - I'm taking his word for it and he's obviously pro-monarchy but an interesting video nonetheless.
Webbo Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Presidential elections cost money, a President would have a salary and travel expenses and security costs. The cost of the Monarchy argument is a red herring used by people who don't want them. If that's what you believe fair enough but it's not enough to change my mind.
Chug Laguna Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 The fact that we can only guess, speaks volumes; why is there no transparency? What is the establishment afraid of? And we don't even know her last name
Ulloa Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 I'm excited, wonder when they'll tell us if its a boy or girl
separator Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Royal baby #2 to be called Alan Curbishley is 500/1 with Paddy Power http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-bets/royal-specials?ev_oc_grp_ids=1273566
Harry - LCFC Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Good video about the royals expenses. Edit: In short, 160 Million in profit for the UK - I'm taking his word for it and he's obviously pro-monarchy but an interesting video nonetheless. A response
Danno Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Can't people just be happy? Sad bastards. How dare Prince William and Kate have a baby !! Outrageous ! !
Bellend Sebastian Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 When they say that the Royals bring in x amount of revenue from tourism, how do they know that this is why people visit? Does everyone get asked this at the airport or something? It's a genuine question. Imagine if it turned out that people actually visited the UK because of Cilla Black or Julie Goodyear
MPH Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 I think the fact that people tend to resort to economic arguments to defend the monarchy shows how weak the case is for having it in principle. Most people don't even try to argue that it's a positive component of our government. Pretty telling IMO. To be fair, people were resulting to economic arguments to criticize then before any defending came along...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.