Bumper payrise for the Queen

[Aadam]

I can help there:

* They are completely unaccountable, seemingly exempt from half the laws of the country and totally profligate.
* They cost an estimated £200m to run. They are not value for money at all.
* This tourism argument is completely laughable. As if people would stop coming if we didn't have a queen.
* So is the international relations. How many times have Prince Phillip and Prince Charles dropped a bollock on the international scene? LOADS.

This I agree with (slightly), didn't she avoid inheritance tax?

 

[Aadam]

I won't argue that she's active for someone her age.

But you suggested that she does more than ANYONE who "moans" about her? That is the logic of a simpleton. And it doesn't make it right for her to be an elected head of state.

Okay maybe that was a little moronic to say, but I was just emphasising that she does a lot more than people perhaps think she does.

 

[Simster]

Okay maybe that was a little moronic to say, but I was just emphasising that she does a lot more than people perhaps think she does.

There is no argument about what she does and doesn't do. To be honest, if she stood for presidency, she might be a very strong candidate. It's her position in society that is the issue.

 

[beorhthelm]

I can help there:

* They are completely unaccountable, seemingly exempt from half the laws of the country and totally profligate.
* They cost an estimated £200m to run. They are not value for money at all.

"seemingly"? they are all subject to same law. any examples of where they have apparently commited crimes and not been tried for them (unlike our elected leaders...). Any examples of their proligligate nature? how much does it cost to run the same office and locations in other countries?

total agree on tourism argument though, frankly it trivialises the debate.

 

[Doc Lynam]

I personally wouldn't want a politician as head of state at the moment. Besides, the royal family do a lot of good work in the form of charity and generating awareness of important issues. Also raises the profile of Britain, arguably increases tourism, good for international relations and other political perks.

I can't really think of many negatives.

You may want an unelectable head of state and church which infuses or pollutes our politics. A tradition which stock in trade is the promotion of the cult of celebrity an addiction that may not be as harmless as it looks. A great example being the death of the "peoples Princess."
As for the tourism note, Disney does it better

 

[Simster]

"seemingly"? they are all subject to same law. any examples of where they have apparently commited crimes and not been tried for them (unlike our elected leaders...). Any examples of their proligligate nature? how much does it cost to run the same office and locations in other countries?

total agree on tourism argument though, frankly it trivialises the debate.

What I mean is that the Royal family are specifically excluded from Freedom of Information legislation in the UK. Such legislation is there to allow you to see information held by public authorities. However, as always with the Royal family, they get to pick and choose when they are deemed a public or private body. Consequently, we really have little idea how much they cost to run. Buck Palace say it costs £30m to run, yet the Republic organisation says it costs £200m and break it down accordingly:

Item Cost (£ millions)
--------------------------
Queen's Civil List 14.2
Duke of Edinburgh 0.4
Property grant 15.4
Communications, media and public relations 0.4
Travel 3.9
Government departments and Crown Estate 3.9
Prince Charles and Camilla (additional costs) 0.5
Lost revenue from Duchy of Lancaster 13.2
Lost revenue from Duchy of Cornwall 24.5
Security 100
Cost to local councils for visits by Queen 26
Total 202.4

Here are the costs of other heads of state:
Republic Type of president Total annual cost (£ millions)
--------------------------
France Semi-presidential 90
Germany Parliamentary 21
Finland Semi-presidential 11.5
Austria Parliamentary 3.5
Ireland Parliamentary 1.8

 

[Simster]

[MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION], take a look at this link:

In a nutshell, a chap called Chand Bakshi has made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney General’s Office, asking six basic questions:

Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know to what extent the Queen, Prince Charles and any other members of the Royal Family are subject to the law?

1) Are they able to be prosecuted for all crimes that a regular citizen of the country are?
2) For what crimes are they exempt from prosecution? (please provide a list if there are any.)
3) Can they be called as witnesses in a court of law?
4) Can they be sued?
5) Has the Attorney Generals Office ever had meetings or discussions on the extent to which they are subject to the law? For example during the Burrell affair? (if they have please provide copies of any notes, memos, emails or minutes from such meetings.)
6) Does the Attorney Generals Office have any internal guidelines, handbooks, policies on this subject? (if so please provide copies.)

The Office refused the request. Do you think this is a healthy situation?

To what extent are the Queen and Prince Charles subject to the law? - a Freedom of Information request to Attorney General’s Office - WhatDoTheyKnow

 

[catfish]

Worth every penny,,at least she gets off her arse and does something for it and at her age as well.

You mean her servants get off their arses and do it for her.

 

[GreersElbow]

High unemployment, growing signs of poverty, stagnant economy, people out of pocket.

So glad to hear she's alright though in these tough, tough times. Bet a penny won't go to charity.

 

[kano]

Isn't it a percentage of PROFIT? as in earnings after costs? So basically she is making shedloads of cash for the country?

 

[kevtherev]

You mean her servants get off their arses and do it for her.

Has she got lookalike servants then. Because I could swear it's the Queen that I see when I watch the news....Sake, heard it all now.

 

[glasfryn]

as "Yosser" would say gis a job I could do that
dressed
cooked for
driven
plane rides all over the world
the only thing they do for them selves is go to the toilet
all of them very likable
but leeches nevertheless
I have said it before and will say it again the Russians had it right

 

[beorhthelm]

What I mean is that the Royal family are specifically excluded from Freedom of Information legislation in the UK.

so one peice of legislation, which the government of the day explicit placed an exclusion in. thats not quite what you implied.

as for the budget numbers, theres a couple of glaring flaws in the comparison with the Republic numbers: the security, councils and Duchy revenue are stand outs. there nothing said by Buck palace that these are included in the cost to run the crown. whats the source of those numbers anyway, and how factual are they, i imagine the police love the royal protection budget for example.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

What I mean is that the Royal family are specifically excluded from Freedom of Information legislation in the UK. Such legislation is there to allow you to see information held by public authorities. However, as always with the Royal family, they get to pick and choose when they are deemed a public or private body. Consequently, we really have little idea how much they cost to run. Buck Palace say it costs £30m to run, yet the Republic organisation says it costs £200m and break it down accordingly:

Item Cost (£ millions)
--------------------------
Queen's Civil List 14.2
Duke of Edinburgh 0.4
Property grant 15.4
Communications, media and public relations 0.4
Travel 3.9
Government departments and Crown Estate 3.9
Prince Charles and Camilla (additional costs) 0.5
Lost revenue from Duchy of Lancaster 13.2
Lost revenue from Duchy of Cornwall 24.5
Security 100
Cost to local councils for visits by Queen 26
Total 202.4

Here are the costs of other heads of state:
Republic Type of president Total annual cost (£ millions)
--------------------------
France Semi-presidential 90
Germany Parliamentary 21
Finland Semi-presidential 11.5
Austria Parliamentary 3.5
Ireland Parliamentary 1.8

I saw that before. The two biggest figures are a combination of 100m for security from that oh so reliable source the daily mail and the 26m for visits extrapolated from the cost for one. Council times by the number of visits.

I've seen Brunswick style conspiracy theories with more science behind it.

 

[Simster]

so one peice of legislation, which the government of the day explicit placed an exclusion in. thats not quite what you implied.

It's a pretty big piece of legislation don't you think? Have a look at some of the stories that would have been hidden and from now on will be hidden:

Royal Family granted new right of secrecy - Home News - UK - The Independent

as for the budget numbers, theres a couple of glaring flaws in the comparison with the Republic numbers: the security, councils and Duchy revenue are stand outs. there nothing said by Buck palace that these are included in the cost to run the crown. whats the source of those numbers anyway, and how factual are they, i imagine the police love the royal protection budget for example.

No there aren't.
Security: required to protect several members of a bloated family, as opposed to a president and their immediate family
Councils: where is the flaw there?
The Duchy: You have to consider "Bona Vacantia". For those that don't know, if you die without a will and heir, your property goes to the Royals if you die, as opposed to the state. Why? Where is the justification for that? It's gluttenous robbery by those who don't need it.

I can't be 100% sure of how factual all of this is, I suspect they are educated guesses because the royals, outrageously, are not forced to disclose their finances to the state. But here is the document that explains how Republic calculate the cost of Royalty if you're interested, and there is a section explaining their sources:
http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf

 

[Simster]

I saw that before. The two biggest figures are a combination of 100m for security from that oh so reliable source the daily mail and the 26m for visits extrapolated from the cost for one. Council times by the number of visits.

I've seen Brunswick style conspiracy theories with more science behind it.

It's all very well talking like Republic are brunswick-esque conspirators to suit your argument, but what choice do they have? The Royals are completely financially unaccountable to the nation as they don't have to tell us the true cost. And The Daily Mail is a very pro-royal paper, it might be that security costs are higher than this?

 

[Timbo]

I'd rather save money on every Politician we have and give it all to her. Just imagine the lies and corruption we'd get rammed down our throats if the useless morons from the Commons see a Royal lifestyle at the end of the tunnel.

I saw a comment on twitter the other day from a Republican comparing the Jubilee to the situation in Syria. When average people see that, what sort of hope do the Republicans have.

 

[Simster]

I'd rather save money on every Politician we have and give it all to her. Just imagine the lies and corruption we'd get rammed down our throats if the useless morons from the Commons see a Royal lifestyle at the end of the tunnel.

I saw a comment on twitter the other day from a Republican comparing the Jubilee to the situation in Syria. When average people see that, what sort of hope do the Republicans have.

Not much, that is unhelpful guff I agree.

But then look at [MENTION=19879]kano[/MENTION]'s post above. He's talking like the Crown Estate belongs to the queen or royal family. It doesn't. She's not making the country any money at all off that land, because it isn't her land!

So my point is that the Republican cause has far bigger hurdles than the odd sensationalist muppet on twitter. An atmosphere where debate wasnt stifled and the facts were presented and not shrouded in secrecy would be a start.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

To bring it back to basics, I have a great deal of respect for the woman and what she has done over the last 60 years.

But what moral or philosophical right has she got to be there.

If there was a presidential election and she was a candidate, I might well vote for her. But as my mother, who died 40 years ago and was no great revolutionary or political thinker, used to say: "They are no better than us." or "They are no different to us".

 

[Falkor]

why dont the anti royals f*** of to another country they where here long before them and will be here long after, like it or lump it