Reply to: Are the royal family worth 61p a yr?

Re: £30 mln is nothing compraing with Govt waste

Subsidising Prince Andrew's golf trips to the tune of a 1/2 mill per year?

One 13 day trip for Charles which cost us £300,000 ...

No problem paying for the queen, but it's paying for the rest that bugs me, since these people have 100's of millions of private money of their own but are quite happy to bill us for everything they possibly can.

I'd be quite happy getting rid of a few thousand civil servnats to if that makes the monarchists feel any better

Re: £30 mln is nothing compraing with Govt waste

£30 million is 500 civil servants

At current rates of public sector recruitment, that is 1.25 days worth. Anyone grumbling about the cost of the royal family needs to focus their worries elsewhere methinks.

Re: £30 mln is nothing compraing with Govt waste

£30 mln is nothing compraing with Govt waste, if you assume cost of one civil servant being £20k (salary, pension, office etc), then 30 mln is just 1,500 civil servants!

I'd say £60K salary plus overheads per civil servant is nearer the mark. Remember that their pensions are gold plated.

£30 million is 500 civil servants. HMG have taken on more than 100,000 extra since 1997, and whose life is better as a result of that?

Re: They've got tonnes of money already

snaw, if you had tons of money already, should clients stop paying you?

Re: monarchy

Are the royal family worth 61p a yr?

When we eventually join the euro perhaps the royal family would be happy to accept 61 cents per person ?

monarchy

I am not a monarchist, but I think this country achieved a very good balance, I particularly like the fact that the Armed Forces are sworn to the Queen rather than executive branch. It is important safeguard more so because the Royal Family ain't concerned about next elections and their actions are driven by much longer-term goals.

Having said that I think its wrong to rent out major palaces to royals for feck all money -- this is wrong and effectively reduces nominal taxpayer support figure due to lost opportunity to rent it out to someone else paying money.

If I was in the Royal Family I'd do everything I can do break even and stop taking money from taxpayers so that some overfly anti-monachy people STFU.

Re: money

> Easy to tak about govmt waste but who holds the royals to account? Does Charles really need 60 staff?

AtW is right - It's money down the back of the sofa compared to the literally billions the Government wastes on overmanning, and orders of magnitude cheaper than a presidency would be.

Although a staunch monarchist now, I'd be one no more if it became reduced to a "Disney Monarchy" with no constitutional role.

In other words, the time I'd start seeing the 60p, or whatever it is, as a waste is if I believed the Sovereign would never under any circs pressure the Government, even behind the scenes, on any proposed constitutional change or breach, or in an extreme situation withhold consent.

In theory, the British Monarchy, as an institution ("the Crown"), is there to defend the people against Parliament acting undemocratically, e.g. by voting to extend its term and postpone or abolish national elections.

And Parliament is there to prevent the Crown (in particular its Ministers, TB and co) from imposing arbitrary undemocratic decisions on British subjects, such as levying taxes or seizing property unlawfully a-la "President" Mugabe.

The fact that Ministers are, by convention, mostly elected members of Parliament disguises this basic "twin pillar" picture slightly, but doesn't make it as complicated as a Swiss watch and has had the advantage of helping avoid civil
war and constitutional upheaval for several centuries, unlike most republics.

I reckon most opponents of the Monarchy, are one or more of the following:

* Muddle-heads who won't, or more likely can't, distinguish between the Royal Family as people and the Crown as an institution.

* Petty-minded "who do they think they are?" merchants who resent anyone being better off or luckier than themselves, and rejoice to see those people brought down a peg or two. Unfortunately, as envy is the British national disease, that accounts for about half of the population.

* Ignorant iconoclasts and novelty hounds who think they sound frightfully bold and ever so original to argue for change, because, well because it would be new and everything new must be better, right?

* Clapped-out politicians, who think they might be in the running for President or some sinecure at the President's disposal.

optimisation

If your proposal to cut taxpayers expense starting from the Royal family is based on desire to "optimise", ie save taxpayers money then you starting in the wrong place, or in other words you are optimising something that is unlikely to yield high benefits.

30 mln ought to be less than top few Govt ministers spent on "consultants" from KPMG, Accenture and so on, and I am damn sure that the Royal Family gives more value than those, ummm "consultants".

Re: snaw

I am sure that the Royal family does more good to the UK than 1,500 civil servants, don't you agree?

Nope.


BTW

snaw, I understand that you as network admin have no idea about optimisations

Wassat supposed to mean? While we're on it get my job right - if you're gonna insult me call me a tape monkey or something properly insulting, being calling me a network admin is like being damned by faint praise ...

snaw

> Easy to tak about govmt waste but who holds the royals to
> account? Does Charles really need 60 staff?

snaw, I understand that you as network admin have no idea about optimisations, so here is a quick hint: optimise something whether effect from optimisation will be greatest.

£30 mln is nothing compraing with Govt waste, if you assume cost of one civil servant being £20k (salary, pension, office etc), then 30 mln is just 1,500 civil servants! I am sure that the Royal family does more good to the UK than 1,500 civil servants, don't you agree?

Re: money

Just imagine, President Kinnock or President Mandelson.

King Charles ...

Re: money

I used to be a rabid republican as I dislike the hereditary principle, but became a lukewarm one after the Australian referendum when I really wondered for the first time what the alternative might be.

Assuming we really need a head of state to butter up foreign presidents etc. then I have to say the queen does a pretty good job and certainly is a lot more palatable than a nominee of our political rulers. Just imagine, President Kinnock or President Mandelson.

Also, as the queen is not a political appointee, more able potentially to act as a rallying point against a possible dictatorship,

Re: money

How would you like the Royals selling their famous real estates and gems to finance themselves? How about the Queen putting her Crown on the Ebay? How would that reflect on the UK?

Actually they're out famous real 'estates'. They just hold them in trust for us. Our crown, and care factor zero if they did anyway.

There's a huge mansion near where I grew up, owned by the local Earl - pretty much always empty but it contains one of the finest collections of 18th Century furniture anywhere in the world. Thing is - it has never been open to the public so we never get to see any of it.

Same with the royal families famous estates. Only reason they opened Buckingham palace was to fund renovations after the Windsor Castle fire.

Easy to tak about govmt waste but who holds the royals to account? Does Charles really need 60 staff?

money

> WTF should we be subsidising them to the tune of another
> 30+ mill per year, not too mention all the bloody palaces they
> live in - at our expense and owned by us.

How would you like the Royals selling their famous real estates and gems to finance themselves? How about the Queen putting her Crown on the Ebay? How would that reflect on the UK?

The Royals waste bugger all money comparing to pretty much anything -- 30 mln is a drop in the ocean of Govt's waste.

Financial sense? If you want to go down that road, nor does giving money to x million unemployed, or to people on incapacity benefits.

Well let's go down that road. They've got tonnes of money already - 100's of millions. WTF should we be subsidising them to the tune of another 30+ mill per year, not too mention all the bloody palaces they live in - at our expense and owned by us.

Not as if they're english anyway (Or british), they're almost 100% German. A family who until this century (Ok Start of the last century, still getting used to the new millenium stuff) spoke German as their first language, and before that French for a few hundred years. Until a couple of decades ago not one 'British' monarch had married a British spouse.

Republican - you betchya. I'll take my hat off to the Queen (Look the other way Shaun) cause she has a bit of dignity but the rest of them can fack right off as far as I'm concerned for the sad, sorry, soap opera spectacle they've become.