So what? 90% positively embrace the NHS and they’re still abolishing that.
4 Likes
I think your guess would be wrong. Surely Abolitionists are more likely to skew towards liberal, guardian reading middle classes, rather than working class benefit claimants (pardon the oxymoron)?
Also, it’s hardly the same thing, is it? Generational wealth theft into the billions spanning centuries based on the notion your family has magic blood, is hardly the same as the odd person fiddling the benefit system.
2 Likes
Seriously though, privatisation by stealth, as with the NHS, would work wonders with the monarchy. They have plenty of saleable assets and potential revenue streams; property, appearance fees, merchandising etc.
They could easily be self sustaining and even pay tax.
2 Likes
Interesting article on the problems facing the NHS in the Torygraph the other day. Despite some obvious omissions it did lay out the challenges it faces. I’ll try and find it again.
Worth a read before pulling it to pieces.
I think they should introduce the concept of consumer choice to the Monarchy. There should be several Royal Family’s, and we the customer get choose which one we grovel and scrape and arselick to.
Isnt that sort of already happening? I think the money the state gives the royal family directly has over time ( and particularly over last 40 years) become more concentrated towards the monarch and immediate family?
Maybe, maybe not.
It’s a guess, no different to yours.
I’m not even going to attempt to Google this, but it’s definitely not the odd person, and not pocket change.
I’m also not going to attempt to convince you that the royal family brand brings so much to the UK economy, and individually most royal family members highlight, support and contribute to so many needy causes of which most go unnoticed, all of which way exceeds any contributions to society of whinging anti monarchists.
But why do they need anything from the state? With decent marketing they could make billions. After all, they already have a worldwide brand. They could charge for those "by royal appointment’ labels, they could charge for speaking engagements, they could charge for Buck Pal garden parties, the possibilities are endless.
2 Likes
With their millions they could afford to pay rent on their palaces/homes to the exchequer,or whoever should own them.
1 Like
To some degree they already do - the money they get from the government is 15-25% of the profits earned from the crown estates which itself goes to the Government, not the royal family.
1 Like
So why not just let them be a company like any other. No subsidies, keep profits, pay taxes. No more special privileges or vetoes on legislation. Just a company like any other.
Choose a Head of State through democratic means. It works in other countries.
1 Like
[quote=“Dane, post:4995, topic:3448”]
I’m not even going to attempt to Google this, but it’s definitely not the odd person, and not pocket change.[/quote]
Benefit fraud is not a significant drain on the UK economy. The welfare bill is huge, but by some distance the biggest chunk of that goes on pensions. A smallest amount of that covers unemployment benefit, and a very small percentage of that is lost to fraud.
This is the classic Royal Grovalist argument, and it falls on two counts.
-
my objection to the Royal Family is not based what how much value they provide to the country. It’s based on my disgust at the idea that one family is given disproportionate influence, wealth and status because of a dark ages idea of superior bloodlines.
-
The institution of monarchy is not necessary to leverage our history and tourism potential. France get rid of their monarchy, and people still visit Versailles.
And you can go on all you like about the good causes they support and whinging anti-monarchists don’t. It’s a lot easier to have these charitable side interests when you don’t have to work for a living, are given palaces to live in, staff to take care of everything, and loads of taxpayer cash to live off.
3 Likes
Yeah Dane calling yourself a monarchist and Liverpool fan. Have a word you daft sod.
3 Likes
Damn.
Lectured on how to be a British citizen by someone who lives 9000 miles away 
Grovalist.
The irony
Why is it ironic? Who am I grovelling to?
Don’t you mean ‘subject’? Don’t forget your position, prole. Remember your betters.
2 Likes
Hear hear.
Subject, not citizen.
The subservience to one’s betters that has allowed the Tories to pillage entirely this nation’s wealth begins and ends with the ideals of monarchism.
It is so painfully infantile.
3 Likes
So many companies have subsidies shovelled their way they may as well still be nationally owned….
On a related subject, but feels a bit off topic as I know who I reply to, does the popularity of the royal family have parallel with the abortion issue and gun control in the US? I’m using the hyperbole moment by referencing those issues but the argument that they are popular or that they bring in more than we pay for them is just lazy on many levels.
1 Like