Happy Face 29 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Public paying less to keep Royals The cost to the taxpayer of the Royal Family fell to 62p per person in the UK last year - a drop of 7p, according to Buckingham Palace accounts. The total cost of keeping the monarchy decreased by £3.3m (7.9%) to £38.2m during the 2009-10 financial year. The accounts also showed the Queen used reserve funds to boost her Civil List by £6.5m in 2009. This is the highest amount ever taken from the reserves, which come from surplus Civil List money in the 1990s. A Palace spokesman said the fall was mainly due to a reduction in commercial charter flights and a refund of lease rentals from the Queen's helicopter. The decrease represented a drop of 12.2% in real terms, the spokesman added. Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: "The Royal Household is acutely aware of the difficult economic climate and took early action to reduce its Civil List expenditure by 2.5% in real terms in 2009. "We are implementing a headcount freeze and reviewing every vacancy to see if we can avoid replacement. Property services funding will be reduced by £0.5m this year. He added: "Work will continue on assessing the condition of the Estate, but it is acknowledged that the necessary cuts in public expenditure will have an impact on the backlog of essential maintenance which it is hoped can be addressed in the longer term. "In the meantime, the Household is continuing to pursue opportunities to reduce costs and generate income from the Estate's assets, including commercial lettings and management charges." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10507329.stm £38.2m would cover the basic salary of 578 MP's. Perhaps we should get rid of a couple of royals instead of 10% of MPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 90 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 62p? good value that like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 can't beat that for value - all the humour, the spectacle ......................... ditch some more MP's and give Queenie a lit more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 can't beat that for value - all the humour, the spectacle ......................... ditch some more MP's and give Queenie a lit more Bloody Germans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anth 63 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I've never understood why in a modern day democratic society we need a family who are deemed better than everyone one else, who want for northing whilst everyone else pays. They may have some use but I'm not exactly clued up on what they do. What are peoples opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Getting rid of them all would be a drop in the ocean. The military on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gordon McKeag Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I've never understood why in a modern day democratic society we need a family who are deemed better than everyone one else, who want for northing whilst everyone else pays. They may have some use but I'm not exactly clued up on what they do. What are peoples opinions? Get them tae fuck [/Celtic fans] and I agree. Waste of time, we could get rid of them and still maintain our heritage. Monarchy's aren't condusive to the modern world. In the days of Queen Victoria she would just override parliament, the Queen's real power today is no more than Keith Chegwin's. Fuck them off. Sell Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle to some rich Asians, clear the countries debt, Bobs your uncle. Make Prince Phillip live in Brixton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4039 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Not on the basis of the money which is trivial in the scheme of things, I find it amazing more people don't recognise how fundamentally wrong the whole concept is. We seem to have moved a bit away from the nauseous cap doffing of older generations (though there is still too much) towards a "they're harmless really" attitude but the apathetic acceptance sickens me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Doesn't deserve a penny the freeloading old cunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Getting rid of them all would be a drop in the ocean. The military on the other hand... We have the 4th highest in the world which is pretty mad. * USA $661bn * China $100bn (Sipri estimate) * France $64bn * UK $58bn * Russia $53bn * Japan $52bn * Germany $46bn * Saudi Arabia $41bn * India $36bn * Italy $36bn Source: Sipri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 5, 2010 Author Share Posted July 5, 2010 Not on the basis of the money which is trivial in the scheme of things, I find it amazing more people don't recognise how fundamentally wrong the whole concept is. We seem to have moved a bit away from the nauseous cap doffing of older generations (though there is still too much) towards a "they're harmless really" attitude but the apathetic acceptance sickens me. That was the jist of my post. Getting rid of 10% of MP's who (no matter what you think of their ability to initiate change) we can influence and who actually wield some power will save virtually nothing in terms of overall budget. But we seem to value it less than an outdated monarchy that (while still a drop in the ocean) costs each of us several times more. Agent, as a strong proponent of spending cuts, shouldn't the Royal family (cost £38m) come before 10% of MPs (cost £4m salary + £9m expenses)? Why is the royal family good value but those MPs aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 You can keep about 10 royal families for one of these things. F-22 Raptor: $350 million First conceived during the Cold War as an airframe to vie with Soviet aircraft that was never built, the F-22 is touted by manufacturer Lockheed Martin as the best overall combat plane in the world — not to mention the most expensive. It can shoot down enemy cruise missiles, fly long distances at supersonic speeds and avoid nearly all types of radar detection. But the Senate debate over whether to build seven more — at a taxpayer cost of $1.67 billion — eventually came down to the plane's job-creating abilities. The axed project would have employed 25,000 Americans. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29...l#ixzz0soEUQYNb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Check this mothafuka..About $2billion a piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Fucking mint though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Fucking mint though. Almost stargate stylee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons...non/cannon.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 How much did illegal immigrants cost us per head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Or all these fucking "asylum" seekers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 90 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Not on the basis of the money which is trivial in the scheme of things, I find it amazing more people don't recognise how fundamentally wrong the whole concept is. We seem to have moved a bit away from the nauseous cap doffing of older generations (though there is still too much) towards a "they're harmless really" attitude but the apathetic acceptance sickens me. That was the jist of my post. Getting rid of 10% of MP's who (no matter what you think of their ability to initiate change) we can influence and who actually wield some power will save virtually nothing in terms of overall budget. But we seem to value it less than an outdated monarchy that (while still a drop in the ocean) costs each of us several times more. Agent, as a strong proponent of spending cuts, shouldn't the Royal family (cost £38m) come before 10% of MPs (cost £4m salary + £9m expenses)? Why is the royal family good value but those MPs aren't? Happy, you are just SO easy to wind up sometimes! tbh, i'm not as fussed as some on here about the royal family (they are a tourist magnet i would guess) and tbf £38m is nowt in the great scheme of things nowadays. Quango's spend that kind of amount all the time, maybe you should just think of the royal family as a (sort of) 'visual' quango? would that ease your anti-monarcist conscience? a 10% reduction in NHS managers would probably be a far more effective money saving device than the mp's tho. I have no figures to back that up. Just a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 There's no real reason for them to cost the taxpayer anything given the amount of land and property they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27130 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I've never understood why in a modern day democratic society we need a family who are deemed better than everyone one else, who want for northing whilst everyone else pays. They may have some use but I'm not exactly clued up on what they do. What are peoples opinions? Get them tae fuck [/Celtic fans] and I agree. Waste of time, we could get rid of them and still maintain our heritage. Monarchy's aren't condusive to the modern world. In the days of Queen Victoria she would just override parliament, the Queen's real power today is no more than Keith Chegwin's. Fuck them off. Sell Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle to some rich Asians, clear the countries debt, Bobs your uncle. Make Prince Phillip live in Brixton. Did she really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 15022 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 There's no real reason for them to cost the taxpayer anything given the amount of land and property they have. Thats the bottom line for me....but say we had a referendum and voted to be a republic, who the fuck would you vote for to be president? Theres not a senior politician alive who I'd vote for, even if it was a mainly ceremonial posistion as in Ireland etc...And its the main reason the last time the Aussies had a vote on this they voted to keep the Queen as head of state..the thought of a politician as the eminent citizen in the country was too appalling even for them, although this could change in the next 20 years as the last of the "£10 poms" die off. So who would you vote for?...businessman e.g. Richard Branson? sportsman e'g. Steve Redgrave? celeb e.g. Steven Fry? This lot are regularly touted but none of them float my boat really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Since we have no codified constitution, we can knock one out that states no former lord or MP can stand. So there will be no President Blair. I'm a republican, as I believe that the royal family are a bunch of inbred tools who live in golden cages. Take that wanker Charles for example. He makes it business to interfere with that Chelsea Pensioner building or whatever it was, because it didn't suit his tastes, but continues to ruin Dorchester with the Poundbury abomination. The stupid cunt has this platform to spout off about architecture despite knowing fuck all about anything. Look at Poundbury, is a really shoddy theme park that looks like a provincial shopping centre, with all the mock turrets etc. Bedford's Harpur shopping centre. Apparently this is a fire station, in Poundbury. I've been round Dorchester a couple of times, and all the houses look like the kind of shit that comes out of a giant airfix kit. So ditch the monarchy, otherwise we'll all be living in twee, plastic noddy houses, and have no planning permission to put up a Sky dish or solar panels because the Prince is your landlord and says no. This is the case in Poundbury anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 There's no real reason for them to cost the taxpayer anything given the amount of land and property they have. Thats the bottom line for me....but say we had a referendum and voted to be a republic, who the fuck would you vote for to be president? Theres not a senior politician alive who I'd vote for, even if it was a mainly ceremonial posistion as in Ireland etc...And its the main reason the last time the Aussies had a vote on this they voted to keep the Queen as head of state..the thought of a politician as the eminent citizen in the country was too appalling even for them, although this could change in the next 20 years as the last of the "£10 poms" die off. So who would you vote for?...businessman e.g. Richard Branson? sportsman e'g. Steve Redgrave? celeb e.g. Steven Fry? This lot are regularly touted but none of them float my boat really.... can you imagine just how much a President would cost? When Bliars security are charging hundreds of thousands in travel expenses alone???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 15022 Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Would you abolish the aristocracy in general Billy?.....Poundbury is on Duchy of Cornwall land, and he's the Duke of Cornwall...and Prince of Wales, and Lord of the Isles...if you're not a monarchist and a Celt in the UK I imagine you're pretty hacked off with him I live a 20 min drive from Dorch/Poundbury and it certainly divides opinion...but at the end of the day its his land and he can do what he wants with it...unless you're suggesting some sort of 21st century peasants revolt down here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now