Give them more I say, especially that Prince Phillip who's pure comedy gold and worth every penny.
Cheap at twice the price. If the taxpayers paid £500,000 for everything Prince Philip said, it'd still be worth it.
Plus Charles is cool. And the one who likes to wear SS uniforms.
Posted by
Brock, 22nd June 2005:
You can't sack the monarchy, you muppet. Any suggestion that we do have any control over them other than a guilt trip is frankly dillusional.
We belong to them, we are their subjects.
delightfully onesided story isn't it. neatly ignores the fact that they pay over £110m a year into the treasury in exchange for that £33.6m, plus have legal commitments to spend the overwhelming majority on upkeep of State property. the only family in britain to pay over 70% tax. george's idea to swap all income for a government stipend as a PR stunt wasn't real clever, was it.
on top of that, virtually all tourists in london claim a major part of them staying in london was to visit/see all the royal stuff. last tourism figures i saw put that around £4bn a year.
lot of money these pseudorepublicans want to throw away for the sake of changing the head on the currency and a feeling of vindictive triumph over a figurehead by replacing it with one of their own
I think, frankly, that tourism bit is bollocks.
I mean, really, what the fuck is there to see?
And £45,000 for a train is stupid - you could get a taxi to the moon for that*.
* Possibly**
** Probably Not
well, in the interests of economic science, i tried getting a taxi to the moon. your 45k runs out about half way there and you have to walk the rest. it sucks.
note i said "your" 45k. my 45k's staying firmly in my pocket. you're the madman here not me. NOT ME I SAY!!!!! BWAH HAH AHAHHAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAchoo
thank you nurse i feel better now
Posted by
Brock, 23rd June 2005:
" I think, frankly, that tourism bit is bollocks."
I bow to such reasoned and supported logic Grim...
It is true, actually. HUUUUUGE quantities of Tourists want to go to London to see where they live, it fascinates people.
The fact is, I bet they'll still come if the royal family didn't exist.
P.S. Is it not HOOOOOOOGE?
move to nz, there are plans afoot to sack the moarchy!
they'd be silly to. ditto oz. i'm a staunch capito-socialist, and a borrowed unelectable head of state is a fantastic mechanism for preventing the creation of new aristocracies/fascisms. observe how much less democratic/flexible france and america are compared to australia and new zealand.
i did a blogpost on this a while back
...errr...
here it is
Australia Day
in particular, sue you might like to read the bits re the queen and the governor-general/constitution
Posted by
Brock, 23rd June 2005:
Grim:
You can't say "The fact is, I bet..." and expect to be taken seriously. It's either a fact, or you are just guessing.
And it is 'b', in case you are unsure. The monarchy is a tourist draw in the UK. THAT is a fact. Try some simple research.
A good text on the matter to read would be
England, England, by Julian Barnes. It's published by Picador and presents a satirical look on the status of England as a tourist attraction. Highly recommended.
*****
Brockles: Or it could be a fact that I'm guessing.
The fact is, I bet they'll still come if the royal family didn't exist.
(Rehash: It's a fact that I think people would visit England Royal Family or not. Obviously it can't be researched because we have a Royal Family. What I'm saying is we can't know how much of a tourist draw they are until they've gone.)
Also, sometimes it would be very nice
not to have any fucking tourists in London, standing on the pavements and taking photos of roads and suchlike...
"What I'm saying is we can't know how much of a tourist draw they are until they've gone.)"
That's like saying you can't tell how much of an impediment a missing leg will be until you've hacked your own leg off...
Grim: it's fair to say, though, that most american tourists go all wobbly at the thought of anything real quaint. and the uk's coffers are swolled to that extent at least.
so you're (you UKers're) making loads of wonga off the royals in pseudo-tax and greatly inflating the tourist revenues to a silly degree, and they can't really do anything re the pseudo-democratic reality of the uk's actual power structure, and they serve as a nexus for the shallow people to fawn over which keeps THAT loathsome little subset neatly away from the real people, and they DO provide a living reminder to politicians that the politicians are part of something with a bit more history than their own political careers.
plus they have silly accents and mannerisms to laugh about.
the royal family strikes me as a major bonus for the uk.
That's like saying you can't tell how much of an impediment a missing leg will be until you've hacked your own leg off...
Yes, it is.
"England, England, Highly recommended."
I'll second that, it's ace.
Posted by
DaMan, around 21st April 2006:
It don't take a whole family to do what 1 person could do in an office! saving us money! They say its a job, I've never seen it in the job centre? They are over paid, I'm quite sure that if they did it for 20K a year and pay TAX on it then they wouldn't be doin it! EVERY workin man and woman pays tax on anythin over £5,500per year (approx) and they pay tax. Why should the be given MILLIONS every year? SACK THEM ALL make them find real jobs!!!
I doubt they'd find
real jobs. It'll all be book deals and Royal porno.
actually, the royal family are the only people in the UK who pay more than 50% tax
But isn't that tax on the money we give them?
Oh yeah Charles makes some organic biscuits.
No, they give to the government all revenue arising from all properties etc. owned by the royal family, in return for a government stipend. It was a fumbled PR gesture by King George. Stipend's currently about £55m p.a. for the entire group, last annual revenues I saw were around 1999/2000 and exceeded £120m even then.
Any businesses they set up separately are treated exactly as any other business. The Inland Revenue occasionally has to make some tricky calls on the most-appropriate tax treatment where they use pre-taxed property (ie, their own), but that actually works slightly _against_ them since the IR comes down on the side of itself LOOKING squeaky clean, rather than doing favours which would blow up in its face as soon as one person decides to ring a journalist. Net result of such "positive discrimination" means they tend NOT to get the benefit of the doubt that normal businesses do.
Consider that NewsCorp has never paid more than 5% tax in its life.
People ranting against the royal family in the uk (and australian/nz/canada/etc) are not paying any attention to actual reality, but are merely screaming at their own internal fantasy strawmen. And that denial-of-reality speaks volumes about their own social status neediness.
Posted by
Mathos, around 24th April 2006:
- account disabled -
Posted by
Grim..., around 24th April 2006:
I bet she doesn't get your letters.
either:
a/ mathmos doesn't quite get his letters either
or
b/ he's making the funny re mad cow
Posted by
Grim..., 26th April 2006:
Who?
Posted by
Grim..., 26th April 2006:
Lovely, but who's Mathmos?
*tchoh* mind like a sieve, you
ref. link here linked to:
www.iamcal.com/discuss/topi...
Posted by
Mathos, 26th April 2006:
- account disabled -
Posted by
Grim..., 26th April 2006:
YOU SPELT IT WITH TWO "M"'S!
That clear enough for you?
=]
...
think about it, grim…...
or at least click thru the link's link
or watch
barbarella
i like my scion top, i think blue suits, me
but then, you already knew that, via your scionic powers.
i wonder if mathos is secretly one of the three busketeers?
that would make:
grim… = porthole
[or should that be: bumdog=arfos ?]
sul = drakkar noir
and me = saltagnan
not forgetting caldinal richeloot, king lucy xiii, queen alfie of austria, milady de november, and brocke de roquefort.
appearing now on a streetcorner near you