Petition to make UK royal family pay for Buck Palace repairs

[CTK]

Re:

KDM is your support for the Royal Family purely because they bring money into the economy?

NB I doubt the Royal Family costs as little as they'd like us to believe. e.g the Police have to pick up the tab for security etc.

 

[KDM]

Fair question

I am neither pro or anti monarchist. What cannot be denied is that they put more in that they take out and by a substantial amount, a majority of those tourists who visit London do have high on their list, Royal places such as Buck house, the Tower, windsor etc.

Now if you want to talk about security whilst putting nothing back in, then why has no one mentioned Blair? who still gets police security?

I don't mind people having a view on the monarchy but most anti's seem to have the politics of envy more than than the politics of equality as their drive and those type of people I would suggest, would even drive their cats to having a hopeful deafness whilst listening to radio 4 and reading the socialist worker on a quaint Sunday morning.

 

[dyna-ti]

Re: Re:

Technically aren't they paying for it indirectly?

I thought the treasury got all of the rents of their considerable land owning and the Queen takes a salary in return? The repairs are being paid for by an increase in that salary...

Understand it's a different argument as too whether the repair money should come from their post office savings book though...

You're quite right but if it helps stir up the anti monarchists then it makes some newspapers headlines.

In 1760 George the 3rd effectively leased the royal buildings and land to the nation. What this has meant is that 85% of all monies from Royal lands from that time until now, has gone to the government for the benefit of the people.

The Royals kept the other 15% to fund themselves, this was called the civil list but is now known as the sovereign grant.

They have always been self funding and since 1760 put 85% INTO the public purse. But why let facts get in the way of a good hate the rich story :facepalm:

I think with the actual income the Royal pay off is rather cheap.
Had this argument the other week, and my point was that way back when, and how the landmass went from warring tribes, through alliances, battles, lots of blood and lots of gore and the winners continuing down the line.
The nation was forged, it didnt come about through talk it came about through action and the actions of the ancestors of our royal family. Thats why they ended up owning pretty much everything. They paid in blood.
And yes i know it was the common man(who after the formation of a peoples parliament, werent actually represented.) But then they were tied to whoever owned the land, and that ownership was fought for.

This petition isnt driven for the good of the people or the good of the country. :?



Example of comments -

The benefits of the poor, long-term sick and disabled have been cut when they can least afford it. Those who are tenants have had to undergo the dreaded 'bedroom tax', if the Queen is a 'tenant then should she not also undergo the same treatment. If she is not a 'tenant' then she should pay for the repairs herself, with may be the need to claim some grants, if she met the criteria. So she is either a tenant or not, otherwise she is in receipt of special treatment.

The treatment of the disabled or 'benefit scroungers' as the media and general public appear to prefer to portray them,as well as the bedroom tax and every other nasty policy was not, repeat NOT, the fault of the royal family.

So this clown is blaming the royals for the policies of the government, (the same he votes for each time) ,the worst by far being conservative party.
A party i might add that you can trace right back to post Cromwellian times and who have worked tirelessly to drive the population into a Dickensian existence. Obviously as they passed through that period, they discovered a liking for it.

"If the queen is a tenant" Oh FFS :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

 

[Harryburgundy]

Fair question

I am neither pro or anti monarchist. What cannot be denied is that they put more in that they take out and by a substantial amount, a majority of those tourists who visit London do have high on their list, Royal places such as Buck house, the Tower, windsor etc.

Would you care to provide some evidence that proves your statement. The old tourism chestnut is bogus, there is absolutely no evidence of this.
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423

The royal family's undisclosed security bill is picked-up by the Met.

Income from the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall go directly to the royal family on top of the 15% surplus revenue Sovereign grant.

I don't mind people having a view on the monarchy but most anti's seem to have the politics of envy more than than the politics of equality as their drive and those type of people I would suggest, would even drive their cats to having a hopeful deafness whilst listening to radio 4 and reading the socialist worker on a quaint Sunday morning.

Erm, to be honest, this made absolutely no sense to me. Is it too difficult to have a debate without puerile stereotyping?

If we really must keep the royal family to appease royalists, I don't get it but I can appreciate some do, we need to change it.

Reduce the royal family expenditure by cutting out all the minor royals.
Set an annual fixed budget for the reduced royal family, to be managed by government NOT Buckingham Palace
All security cost to be open and accountable
Make all the royals subject (no pun intended) to the same tax rules as everyone else
Transfer ownership of the Duchies to the public.

I'd gladly wave a flag if that happened.

 

[CTK]

Oo HB you've thought about this haven't you! Agree wholeheartedly.

Tourism thing is bollocks. Just look at France.

 

[KDM]

Would you care to provide some evidence that proves your statement. The old tourism chestnut is bogus, there is absolutely no evidence of this.
http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423

Absolutely happy too

Alva does not even show Buckingham Palace anywhere in it's list, why would that be?

Let me help you with some real facts http://www.uncsbrp.org/tourism.htm Buckingham Palace is by far the most popular tourist attraction in London, as it attracts around 15 million tourists each year.

Add a few extra non visitors and the most photographed places in the UK, you might see a familiar place in there http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-most- ... in-2015-19

The royal family's undisclosed security bill is picked-up by the Met.

Well of course it's picked up by the met, Buck house is in London and they never disclose senior vip funding for security as some parts would identify parts that could be siezed upon who wish them harm, That is why it is called security, keep up man.

Income from the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall go directly to the royal family on top of the 15% surplus revenue Sovereign grant.

They do? Not according to their accounts http://duchyofcornwall.org/assets/image ... 202015.pdf

Erm, to be honest, this made absolutely no sense to me. Is it too difficult to have a debate without puerile stereotyping?

Is Honesty stereotyping?

If we really must keep the royal family to appease royalists, I don't get it but I can appreciate some do, we need to change it.

Are you using the Royal "WE" Harry? careful, you will be called the monarchy. Most people it would seem are happy about it other than the anti monarchy teeth grinders and lets be honest, who cares what they think, they are a rather small bunch of what tends to be angry with everyone, men.

Reduce the royal family expenditure by cutting out all the minor royals.

You do know that happens already?

Set an annual fixed budget for the reduced royal family, to be managed by government NOT Buckingham Palace

It was set by Government and the royals, 85% of the estates earnings go to the public purse and 15% to fund themselves.

Of course under your ideas we could say Mam, I know we do not fund you but the anti monarchists think we do, the rascals. Would you mind awfully if we changed the agreement and so you kept the 85% you currently give to the public purse as well as the 15% so can say see they keep all their money so must be funding themselves?

All security cost to be open and accountable

This just shows your anger is at the monarchy, why else would you just ask for theirs? To explain all of the security costs would show weak points causing security issues and that is why almost ALL vip protections costs and information are kept private

Transfer ownership of the Duchies to the public.

You are not quite with it Harry, if they transfer it over, then the state would have to support them in a way that they support themselves now and so you keep the circle of hate going, you are going to have to come up with something far better than what you have offered other than blind hate. You want them to hand over everything after saying they should not be funded

On that basis, if you own your own house and land, would you transfer it to the public, after all what you are saying is equality for all?

I'd gladly wave a flag if that happened.

I doubt you'd gladly do anything Harry as the hate would just move onto the next flag

 

[CTK]

Why is it hate? Your arguing is tiresome. I would like to live in a country without a ridiculous unelected king/queen who apparently has been chosen by god to rule over us.

I don't hate the royals, I like some of them actually!

 

[CTK]

Re:

Google provided me with this article from the Mirror which explains the Queens finances... Worth reading KDM it talks about some of your misconceptions.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/qu ... ed-3753404

 

[KDM]

It highlights some of the key points but not all. One thing I did notice is that the article agrees actual figures are not declared but then goes onto guess the figures, is it one or the other?

I'll counter the Daily mirror, rarely known to support the monarchy and give you http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight ... nded-44603

 

[technodup]

That the poorest in our society are getting poorer under this government, whilst the very rich are getting richer is unequivocal. I know it's not an ideology that you embrace, but governments have a duty to support those areas in the UK that have suffered degeneration

How rich the rich are is irrelevant, except in the sense that as they get richer the tax take goes up to help pay for those less fortunate. The poorest workers have had NMW rises, and increases in the tax threshold so they don't pay any. Throwing money at these people is a short term and ineffective solution. I'd far rather we encouraged them, and incentivised employers for training, upskilling, further education or whatever to increase their earning potential. You seem to have the idea that I want people to be poor- it's not the case. But I understand the difference in giving a fish and teaching to fish, and the resultant long term benefit from the latter. Those who are offered the chance to learn to fish and reject it are those who deserve to be poor.

To penalise, for example, by way of a £50 reduction in benefits a single mother who is late for an appointment by five minutes because the bus was late (or whatever) is disproportionately punitive.

Maybe it is. So maybe mum should be making absolutely sure she's there on time. If that means two hours early so be it. If I'm going to work on an oil rig and I miss the flight by 5 minutes because my bus is late I'm not sure I'd get the same sympathy.

I could go on about the downward spiral of malnutrition and its negative affect on the cognitive development of those children who parents are forced to buy cheap nutritional deficient food...but hey, some people are meant to be poor, right, and it's not the duty of a government to interfere. Sick.

You could, and I could go on about a myriad of expensive health information campaigns which are ignored, and that nobody is 'forced' to buy shit food. People buy shit food because it's easier, and they are lazy. I'm not sure why I, who chooses not to have children, have to fund other people's children simply because their parents made poor and unsustainable choices.

I wish no ill on children, but some parents are simply not fit to have them and should be discouraged.

Zero hours contracts deny workers some very basic protections and rights.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Used to be called casual labour, and has benefits for both sides. I go back to my reskilling point above. Leaving aside that many people on 'ZHC' are actually well paid contractors, if we reskilled people maybe they wouldn't have to rely on low wage and irregular work.

We do have a handle on who comes and goes.

No we don't, the government hasn't a clue.

Migration is and has for many decades been a net benefit to this country. You're blaming migration for global economic difficulties. A nice easy target for you, well done.

And you're either a bit simple or you're deliberating misinterpreting my point (I can guess which). Knowing your numbers and controlling net migration to suit our needs is not 'blaming' migration for anything.

The NHS is a bit of a mess and it's difficult to find an answer. People are living much longer through various factors and the population is increasing. The funding is clearly disproportionate and represents real world cuts in spending. I'm not keen on privatisation for obvious reasons, means testing would probably be too complicated. My view is we need to take a more holistic approach to our nations health.

Funding is disproportionately large, which isn't what you meant. Apart from that however I broadly agree. I go back to my previous point of trying to educate, inform and skill people in the basics. We have people three generations out of work with bad diets, smoking and drinking etc. We have people abusing the system because there's no personal investment e.g. unused prescriptions gong to waste, appointments not kept. All because 'it's free'. IMO we need a pared down NHS, together with private sector input where it can improve outcomes, but alongside a big education drive to help people help themselves, as well as reduce the burden on the system.

The BBC is clearly pro-conservative biased

I think we're watching a different BBC. Not that I watch a lot of it.