Is your life any less important than the Royals and other VIPs?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps all our Socialist brethren who have aired their views on the cost of the British non-elected monarchy on this thread will now give their comparative views on the dynastic non-elected North Korean rulership and the cost of maintaining that particular dynasty comparative lifestyle noting that there are not many public airings of the types of views of the OP in North Korea to ask "The Beloved Leader" to personally fund the lifestyle that he enjoys.

 

[GB]

Well whats that got to do with anything over here?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well whats that got to do with anything over here?

Unelected bodies.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps all our Socialist brethren who have aired their views on the cost of the British non-elected monarchy on this thread will now give their comparative views on the dynastic non-elected North Korean rulership and the cost of maintaining that particular dynasty comparative lifestyle noting that there are not many public airings of the types of views of the OP in North Korea to ask "The Beloved Leader" to personally fund the lifestyle that he enjoys.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

I could just as pointlessly ask what the royalists think of the Saudi royal family beheading people who disagree with them...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Having already answered this type of query immediately above, I am tempted to use the oft-used phrase used by Michelle in 'Allo 'Allo....
"Listen, I shall say this only once" ...:roll:

Of course, all true Socialists only look to their perceived enemies to criticise and never, never, never criticise those who follow the true path of Socialism
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I could just as pointlessly ask what the royalists think of the Saudi royal family beheading people who disagree with them...

Britain has been involved in beheadings, burning at the stake and the particular novel "hung, drawn and quartered" in past days

 

[radamfi]

Is there a good reason why the royal family can't look after itself using its own vast wealth and income?

 

[Oswyntail]

....Shame she got the taxpayer to fork out for the refurbishment then isn't it..

As I read it, 66% of the refurbishment was paid for out of her private income, while the other third was paid for out of the Sovereign Grant - which is funded from income from the Royal Estates.

.......
People sitting at home on the taxpayer shilling instead of working are scroungers.
Don't take my word for it, Iain Duncan Smith agrees.

As she is not "on the taxpayer shilling", but, like the Royal Family as a whole, is funded via the "Sovereign Grant" your comment is irrelevant. Of course, she is entitled to take Statutory Maternity Leave for 26 weeks - which, coincidentally, would run out today - but might also wish to take Extended Maternity Leave for up to a further 26 weeks. You may wish to consider mothers of young children taking leave to be "scroungers", but I doubt even Duncan-Smith does.

 

[GB]

As I read it, 66% of the refurbishment was paid for out of her private income, while the other third was paid for out of the Sovereign Grant - which is funded from income from the Royal Estates.

The grant comes from the Government who in turn get it from (amongst other things)....tax payers.

 

[Oswyntail]

The grant comes from the Government who in turn get it from (amongst other things)....tax payers.

The Sovereign Grant is paid for out of income from the Crown Estates, with the level set at 15%; the rest of the income goes to the Treasury. The Crown Estate is property held by the Monarch in her role as Monarch (rather than as a private individual), and the Government has no "right" to the income, which has been the subject of several disputes over the centuries. The current agreement was put in place a few years back.
No taxpayer was harmed in the funding of the Monarchy.

 

[backontrack]

Perhaps all our Socialist brethren who have aired their views on the cost of the British non-elected monarchy on this thread will now give their comparative views on the dynastic non-elected North Korean rulership and...

I don't like the way you use this word at all. Is it meant to be a derogatory term, or what?

 

[Domh245]

I don't think Paul intended any malice in his posting, but was merely referring to those who are against the Monarcy. Perhaps Republican might have been a better word in this case Paul, North Korea ought to be referred to by it's full title of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! Dave1987 said that he is against the Monarchy, but is definitely not socialist!

 

[radamfi]

Why is socialism synonymous with anti-monarchism? If anything, anti-monarchism is partly about eliminating waste and unnecessary expense, so if you are in favour of austerity and low public spending then you should be in favour of at least a monarchy that does not call upon the taxpayer.

 

[ExRes]

Why is socialism synonymous with anti-monarchism? If anything, anti-monarchism is partly about eliminating waste and unnecessary expense, so if you are in favour of austerity and low public spending then you should be in favour of at least a monarchy that does not call upon the taxpayer.

Do you seriously believe that a Republican or Communist hierarchy would not call upon the taxpayer and would eliminate waste and unnecessary expense ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One thing I'm absolutely certain of is that I would rather see my taxes spent on the Monarchy than on the scum taking part in the 'Million mask march' who would rather cause untold amounts of damage and unnecessary expense which we, the taxpayers, are forced to put right after they've had their bit of fun

 

[radamfi]

Do you seriously believe that a Republican or Communist hierarchy would not call upon the taxpayer and would eliminate waste and unnecessary expense ?

My point was that if you support the Conservatives or other right of centre or right-wing party, and believe in austerity, then you would most likely support minimising public expenditure in all departments, so that should include spending on the royal family. A true fiscal conservative should want to abolish the monarch or at least cut its cost.

Bizarrely, though, that's not the case with many of the supporters and members of right-wing parties. They are happy to spend lavishly on the royal family but want extreme cuts elsewhere. They are not consistent.

 

[Oswyntail]

My point was that if you support the Conservatives or other right of centre or right-wing party, and believe in austerity, then you would most likely support minimising public expenditure in all departments, so that should include spending on the royal family. A true fiscal conservative should want to abolish the monarch or at least cut its cost. ....

Perhaps the key term is value for money. Better men than I (on both sides of the political spectrum) maintain that the Monarchy provides this, in ways touched on earlier in the thread.
I also think you will find that the change instituting the Sovereign Grant did actually cut expenditure, and make the accounting more transparent. Her Maj is an outstanding example of how to function smarter on a reduced income.

 

[radamfi]

Perhaps the key term is value for money. Better men than I (on both sides of the political spectrum) maintain that the Monarchy provides this, in ways touched on earlier in the thread.
I also think you will find that the change instituting the Sovereign Grant did actually cut expenditure, and make the accounting more transparent. Her Maj is an outstanding example of how to function smarter on a reduced income.

But the royal family can function as it is without any taxpayer funding at all, because they are wealthy enough to pay for themselves. So you get the same value at even lower cost.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't like the way you use this word at all. Is it meant to be a derogatory term, or what?

Jeremy Corbyn sees the word "socialist" as a badge to wear with honour and not remotely a derogatory term. If it is good enough for him to use, then I also reserve the right to use it.

I note there are some organisations that seem to be quite proud to have a socialist connotation to their title:-
Alliance for Green Socialism
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Workers Party

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the royal family can function as it is without any taxpayer funding at all, because they are wealthy enough to pay for themselves. So you get the same value at even lower cost.

Historically speaking, one has to go back to the Cromwell Commonwealth to find the time when there was no monarchy in Britain. Will there be any official records available to ascertain how much money was saved in those days by having the lack of a monarchy to support?

I put it to you that if all the financial equity of the British monarchy was transferred to the coffers of the British state, how long would that equity last?

 

[radamfi]

Historically speaking, one has to go back to the Cromwell Commonwealth to find the time when there was no monarchy in Britain. Will there be any official records available to ascertain how much money was saved in those days by having the lack of a monarchy to support?

I put it to you that if all the financial equity of the British monarchy was transferred to the coffers of the British state, how long would that equity last?

Obviously it is possible for a country to function well even with a monarch. The Netherlands and Sweden are as advanced as it gets. The GDP of the UK is over £1 trillion a year so even if the royal family are worth several billion then that is only a small percentage of that.

I'm not advocating confiscating the royal wealth, or even abolishing the monarch, although I wouldn't care if it went. I just can't see why we need to pay for it. It is simply unnecessary. The royal family could do everything it currently does without any taxpayer funding. The UK and Commonwealth would enjoy exactly the same utility from the royals as they do now, at totally no cost. Nobody has yet denied that they can support themselves.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Obviously it is possible for a country to function well even with a monarch. The Netherlands and Sweden are as advanced as it gets. The GDP of the UK is over £1 trillion a year so even if the royal family are worth several billion then that is only a small percentage of that.

I'm not advocating confiscating the royal wealth, or even abolishing the monarch, although I wouldn't care if it went. I just can't see why we need to pay for it. It is simply unnecessary. The royal family could do everything it currently does without any taxpayer funding. The UK and Commonwealth would enjoy exactly the same utility from the royals as they do now, at totally no cost. Nobody has yet denied that they can support themselves.

Being in a so-called democracy, which was the last British political party to insist that the British monarchy should fully be supportive of its own raison d'etre status and when was the last Bill put forward in an attempt to achieve this aspiration?

 

[Oswyntail]

But the royal family can function as it is without any taxpayer funding at all, because they are wealthy enough to pay for themselves. So you get the same value at even lower cost.

As I understand it, the whole point of the Sovereign Grant is that it is not taxpayer funded - it is a retained portion of income from Crown Estates.

 

[Seacook]

The Sovereign Grant is paid for out of income from the Crown Estates, with the level set at 15%; the rest of the income goes to the Treasury. The Crown Estate is property held by the Monarch in her role as Monarch (rather than as a private individual), and the Government has no "right" to the income, which has been the subject of several disputes over the centuries. The current agreement was put in place a few years back.
No taxpayer was harmed in the funding of the Monarchy.

The income from the Crown Estates was transferred from George III to Parliament in 1760 in exchange for the Civil List. The monarch has no "right" to the income.

 

[St Rollox]

An interesting point on this, two people who were invited to the State Banquet welcoming our Chinese friends, one refused on principle to attend while one turned up dressed to the nines in his best clothes, the attendee ?, Jeremy Corbyn, the non attendee ?, Prince Charles

Charles does the Saudi gig with the Prime Minister.

 

[GodAtum]

I'm glad the OP brought this up. I think this country has a "VIP culture", which is a phrase they use in Pakistan. From the BBC:

Pakistan's social media is ablaze with talk of VIP culture, and with anger and frustration being vented against Mr Malik.

It is all about the assumptions that VIPs have the right to hold up flights, skip queues and cause traffic jams - and the public just has to suffer.

Two years ago a report that a woman had to give birth in a car because roads had been cleared to make way for a VIP sparked anger. Some even allege that people have died on their way to hospitals because of this.

The frustration was palpable among ordinary Pakistanis I spoke to today.

Another pointed out: "Now when someone gets money they instantly hire guards to protect them - it's all just for show to get good treatment. The traffic, police, army, everyone accommodates them."

Some appeared resigned to the way the things are: "Pakistan seems like it's only made for VIPs - it's a VIP country."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29218939

I absoutely hate that some people get protection while I dont. The police should be defending it's citizens rather then politicans or royalty. It is very unfair some 90 year old is raped while some VIP gets a police bodyguard.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I absoutely hate that some people get protection while I dont. The police should be defending it's citizens rather then politicans or royalty. It is very unfair some 90 year old is raped while some VIP gets a police bodyguard.

How many police will be required to ensure that every one in Britain has the same amount of protection....then how many of the said police will also need to be covered at the same level of protection...:roll:

 

[Seacook]

How many police will be required to ensure that every one in Britain has the same amount of protection....then how many of the said police will also need to be covered at the same level of protection...:roll:

Obviously zero!

 

[Oswyntail]

....I absoutely hate that some people get protection while I dont. The police should be defending it's citizens rather then politicans or royalty. It is very unfair some 90 year old is raped while some VIP gets a police bodyguard.

I suspect you do get protection. For the vast majority (like me), that protection is chiefly provided by the presence of the law, and the possibility of being caught, rather than in visible policing. However, some people attract threats, often by reason of their role; others, by reason of their fame, draw in other undesirable types. For them, perhaps, a more visible protective presence is appropriate. As Paul pointed out, it would be severely impractical for everyone to have the same level of visible protection as those in these latter categories. Not least because each individual policeman would require his own protection squad. The only way to provide equal protection for all is to abandon protection altogether, pretending that we are all good and well behaved.

 

[Dave1987]

Firstly I wish some people would stop branding people who are anti-monarchy as "socialists". I am anti-monarchy and pro republican but my political views are definitely centre right. I happen to believe the incumbent monarch is pretty reasonable at the moment, but I fear for the future greatly!

I hate the way that two children called George and Charlotte are guarded round the clock simply because they are the son and daughter of a particular extremely wealthy family. The fact that family is extremely wealthy makes it even worse that they do not pay for their own protection and the taxpayer pays for it. We are all supposedly 'born equal', it seems though that some are more equal than others! Scotland yard refuses to say how much it spends on protection of the Royals and other VIP's because of "security", although I think its almost certain that they are fearful of the reaction to the costs, especially when the Met is saying that it may not attend burglaries any more. Clearly protecting extremely rich people and investigating historical sex abuse is far more important than us plebs!

And for all those claiming that old Will's does his bit. He never went through selection to be a helicopter pilot in the RAF (blatant privilege by birth!!) and once he was on the course he was never going to fail it as that would have been a PR nightmare for them. Remember that he landed a Chinook on Middleton's back lawn to show off (one that was supposed to be going to Afghanistan!) which military commanders had to hastily put down to a training exercise to avoid the PR backlash.

And the pro monarchy brigade have never been able to substantiate this claim that the Royals bring in money to this country through tourism. Once the current Queen is gone I think popularity in the monarchy will tumble big time!

 

[ExRes]

I'm glad the OP brought this up. I think this country has a "VIP culture", which is a phrase they use in Pakistan. From the BBC:



I absoutely hate that some people get protection while I dont. The police should be defending it's citizens rather then politicans or royalty. It is very unfair some 90 year old is raped while some VIP gets a police bodyguard.

You almost cover the proper situation by the use of 'VIP', but you then go on to pick on politicians and royalty

Most people complain about only part of the situation, so who thinks that footballers, actors, singers, models etc etc should receive protection at the expense of the taxpayer ?, are they more entitled than the person in the street ?

 

[GodAtum]

You almost cover the proper situation by the use of 'VIP', but you then go on to pick on politicians and royalty

Most people complain about only part of the situation, so who thinks that footballers, actors, singers, models etc etc should receive protection at the expense of the taxpayer ?, are they more entitled than the person in the street ?

I don't think in the UK those people get police protection ... they have to pay for private bodyguards. It's actually nice to see famous actors, singers etc get searched at airports, it brings them down a notch.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Getting on for 100 postings now made on this thread and the reason for the existence of this thread basically seems to be a rather strong of expression of "We at the bottom are as good as anyone else at the top, so we should be afforded the same care and protection as anyone else"

Did either the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution, both of which summarily disposed of monarchical leadership, set in place a similar aspiration requested by the OP, which is still enshrined in their national constitution in 2015, where the aspired-to "protection for all" so applies?