The Queen's Jubilee

[ahinton]

You can pick over the Royal Finances here.

The 62p per capita must, of course, be an average, and it's hard to see how non-taxpayers make much of contribution. Millionaire republicans must be furious, however.

Approx 70% of Royal expenditure goes on staff wages. One might argue that, whether they were in public service or private employment (or unemployed), the general public would pay their wages in one form or another.

The Crown Estates bring in to the Treasury about £200m pa. They aren't "owned" by the Crown and the financial benefit to the country would be the same whether state-owned or held in trust by the Crown. It would be quite unusual for a State to take over the management of such an estate (e.g. beef farms and palaces) in order to continue to raise the revenue, but they could be sold off for the benefit of the State, raising approx. £7.3 bn, which would pay for about one third of the nation's recent overseas wars.

The tourist industry has estimated 'royalty-related attractions' as bringing in £500m pa (a vague term, and much of this would be generated regardless of whether there was a reigning monarch or not - unless, for example, BH was demolished and affordable housing built on the site and gardens). Royal State occasions certainly have a tourist benefit over a range of industries.

There would be a financial windfall benefit to the Treasury if the monarchy was abolished, but against that a civilian presidency would be pretty much all drain in terms of finance. In political terms, well, it would rather depend ...

Well, on the basis of these figures, it would appear to be at least an odds-on certainty that retaining the monarchy (and the Crown Estates if these must in principle remain an essential component part of the monarchical infrastructure) generates a not insignificant net profit for the nation, unless I'm missing something; AM I missing something here (and, if so, it's not the fact that many anti-monarchists wish to have the monarchy abolished for reasons other than economic ones, as I've already made it perfectly clear that I understand and recognise this).

[teamsaint]

Just because something makes a profit, or is cheaper than some alternative, doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, morally right, or a sensible option.
I won't bother giving examples, but if our visitors from the gas giants would like some, I will oblige !

In any case, the problem with the cost of the monarchy isn't the direct cost, but the indirect cost to most of us of living in a country where hereditary wealth and privilege, exemplified and justified by the monarchy, are so deeply entrenched, and where wealth and income gaps are increasing faster than ever.

[ahinton]

Just because something makes a profit, or is cheaper than some alternative, doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, morally right, or a sensible option.

I didn't suggest that this is the case; indeed, I have gone to some trouble to clarify that I do not believe that it is the case.

In any case, the problem with the cost of the monarchy isn't the direct cost, but the indirect cost to most of us of living in a country where hereditary wealth and privilege, exemplified and justified by the monarchy, are so deeply entrenched, and where wealth and income gaps are increasing faster than ever.

That's a quite different argument, the principal trouble with which is that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this would be any different were the monarchy to be replaced by an alternative system; "wealth ad income gaps" are by no means all down to hereditary wealth and privilege and, even if they were, the only way to avoid that would be to make it illegal for all people to give or bequeath any of their assets or income to anyone, irrespective of the scale involved.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As a constitutional agnostic, the more of this thread I have read, the more convinced I have become that the monarchy is fundamentally a Good Thing. The arguments "for" seem to outweigh the arguments against by a significant margin (in my opinion).

Ideologically, however, it is more difficult to justify.

And Alfie Boe nearly turned me the other way...

[teamsaint]

I didn't suggest that this is the case; indeed, I have gone to some trouble to clarify that I do not believe that it is the case.


That's a quite different argument, the principal trouble with which is that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this would be any different were the monarchy to be replaced by an alternative system; "wealth ad income gaps" are by no means all down to hereditary wealth and privilege and, even if they were, the only way to avoid that would be to make it illegal for all people to give or bequeath any of their assets or income to anyone, irrespective of the scale involved.

I wasn't really looking to argue with your always closely argued case, AH.
really more a case of standing back and looking at rights and wrongs.
However, you are right about inequalities. These are not just down to inherited position and wealth...but these ARE very important, and we would do well, in my opinion, to encourage genuine wealth creation by increasing taxes on wealth (inherited especially) and reducing taxes on income, and perhaps altering taxes on spending.

As for the idea that replacing one system with another might not bring about improvement...well that is possible, but perhaps it would be best to start with a principle, and work from there. of course some people think that a hereditary head of state is good in principle.....

[Beef Oven]

You can pick over the Royal Finances here.

The 62p per capita must, of course............ Millionaire republicans must be furious, however.

Millionaire republicans don't have to be furious, they can re-locate to France and give up 75% of their earnings in a socialist republic if they feel that strongly about it

[Flosshilde]

As a constitutional agnostic, the more of this thread I have read, the more convinced I have become that the monarchy is fundamentally a Good Thing. The arguments "for" seem to outweigh the arguments against by a significant margin (in my opinion).

Have any arguments for the monarchy been put forward on this thread - apart from 'most people like it', 'it would cost less than a president', & 'it's good for tourism'?

[teamsaint]

the bunting industry loves the monarchy.

perhaps if a republic is established, a concessionary bunting bank holiday with obligatory bunting could be brought in to compensate.

[Beef Oven]

As a constitutional agnostic, the more of this thread I have read, the more convinced I have become that the monarchy is fundamentally a Good Thing. The arguments "for" seem to outweigh the arguments against by a significant margin (in my opinion).

Ideologically, however, it is more difficult to justify.

And Alfie Boe nearly turned me the other way...

Egg wetter gree

[heliocentric]

the problem with the cost of the monarchy isn't the direct cost, but the indirect cost to most of us of living in a country where hereditary wealth and privilege, exemplified and justified by the monarchy, are so deeply entrenched, and where wealth and income gaps are increasing faster than ever.

Right. And what are the "arguments" against this position? I haven't seen a single one.

[aeolium]

As is the case with many others opposed to the continuation of the British monarchy; that said, if we leave aside the just fate of the House of Lords for a moment (which, for all its commonality of hereditary principle, needs to be considered separately from tht of the monarchy for a number of reasons), the monarchy's "operation in any part of government" is surely severely limited, especially in the case of the Queen herself who, whilst she has regular meetings with the prime minister of the day, is supposed to be "above politics" and there seems little if any obvious evidence that she tried to force the enactment of any legislation by the back door; she could close the Houses of Parliament at a stroke if so she chose, but she's never gone near there.

It's true that the monarch's powers are severely limited by the constitution, though since the latter is unwritten there remain grey areas, notably relating to the royal prerogative. There are some pernicious effects of the royal prerogative in discretionary powers exercisable in theory by the monarch alone but according to the constitution by the monarch on the advice of the PM (and in some cases the cabinet). The royal prerogative was used (via order in council), for instance, to prevent the return of the depopulated Chagossians to their islands from which they had been forcibly removed, and this use was upheld by the House of Lords.

Although it is assumed that the role of the monarchy is largely ceremonial, there is nothing in legislation which confirms this. It cannot be regarded as not really involved in government if every statute has to be signed by the monarch, there are theoretical powers to declare war or annexe territory by royal prerogative etc. Because we have had a benign and non-interventionist monarch for 60 years, that does not mean we could not have one who is far more involved and less benign - after all, in the 1930s Edward VIII (or rather in his later capacity as Duke of Windsor) was known for his pro-Hitler sympathies, even giving the Nazi salute on his visit to Germany shortly before the war.

[Beef Oven]

Right. And what are the "arguments" against this position? I haven't seen a single one.

Down worry teamsaint, we're much richer overall these days, forget about the so-called 'gap'

Here it is with Spanish subtitles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2TK37ffBOs

[teamsaint]

Down worry teamsaint, we're much richer overall these days, forget about the so-called 'gap'

Here it is with Spanish subtitles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2TK37ffBOs

Just for a moment , Beefy, I almost mistook that for the royal "we" !!

we could have a statistical battle, but the last two governments have made that too easy, so I shall let it go.

Here is one that both you and Brenda would enjoy though... me too.. !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbXfk51R1o

[ahinton]

I wasn't really looking to argue with your always closely argued case, AH.
really more a case of standing back and looking at rights and wrongs.
However, you are right about inequalities. These are not just down to inherited position and wealth...but these ARE very important, and we would do well, in my opinion, to encourage genuine wealth creation by increasing taxes on wealth (inherited especially) and reducing taxes on income, and perhaps altering taxes on spending.

I'm afraid that I cannot and do not agree with your advocacy of the idea of increasing taxes on inherited wealth as a solution to or an encouragement of anything useful; as long as humans still have to contend with compulsory mortality (and, like you and everyone else, I have no idea how long that might be), heavy inheritance taxes and gift taxes will constitute major disincentives for wealth creation, because no one wants to create wealth out of little or nothing just so that the state can be its ultimate principal beneficiary. One major tax reduction that I've long advocated in UK is that on jobs in the form of employers' NIC1; abolish that and more employers will be able to afford to employ more people to do more jobs for which the employees' salaries will generate more tax revenues and be better for the development of the economy; as I never tire of saying, such a move as part of a massive simplification of the British taxation régime will cut costs immensely, to the general benefit of British society.

As for the idea that replacing one system with another might not bring about improvement...well that is possible, but perhaps it would be best to start with a principle, and work from there. of course some people think that a hereditary head of state is good in principle.....

Frankly, I'm moved neither one way nor the other about the principle of hereditary heads of state in Britain except that I do believe that the continuing practice needs to be monitored in order to ensure that it is not damaging to the British economy or becomes unduly interfering in the day-to-day operation of government to the potential or actual detriment of British society, neither of which I have any evidence to suggest to be the case at present.

As I've also said bvefore, I am really rather more exercised by poverty than by socio-economic inequalities, much as the latter can often exert destructive influences.

[ahinton]

Millionaire republicans don't have to be furious, they can re-locate to France and give up 75% of their earnings in a socialist republic if they feel that strongly about it

Or, far better still, relocate to the Isle of Man where they can for the time being be guaranteed a ceiling on total tax liability of some £100Kp.a. and then spend not more than 6 months of the year in France if so they wish...