Re Crumbling Palaces and failure of owner to conduct repairs for 50 years.

Posted by: DAVOhorn on 01 July 2008

Dear All,

It seems Her Majesty is down to her last 700 million and is asking that the British Taxpayer help fund much needed urgent repairs to her homesssss.

Now most home owners are required to ensure the upkeep of their homes without the subsidy of the UK taxpayer.

So why should the UK taxpayer subsidise a multi millionaire in the maintainance of their homes.

Perhaps the Royal Family could donate all their properties and lands to the people, who would then be responsible for the upkeep.

The Royals could then pay a commercial rent to live in these beautiful buildings.

The result would be the buildings restored and maintained for posterity and the Royals become Council Tennents in these properties.

The rents raised would include costs for maintainance and upkeep.

Seems fair to me.

After all the Royal Family by their own admission have not conducted the required maintainance on these properties and as result they have fallen into disrepair.

I read that Princess Anne was nearly hit by falling masonry once. Could have proved fatal if she had been hit on the head.

Any comments?

regards David
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by BigH47
Oh ignorant me. Red Face Never was a fan.

As I was telling the 21 yr old oik at work "when I was his age I knew everything too, I'm just surprised how much I have forgotten since"!
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by Guido Fawkes
I'd recommend

LORD SUTCH AND HEAVY FRIENDS
Wailing Sounds
'Cause I Love You
Flashing Lights
Gutty Guitar
Would You Believe
Smoke And Fire
Thumping Beat
Union Jack Car
One For You, Baby
L-O-N-D-O-N
Brightest Light
Baby, Come Back
Gotta Keep A-Rockin'
Roll Over Beethoven
Country Club
Hands Of Jack The Ripper

David Sutch gave up music in 1984 to concentrate on the serious matter of politics. It was in his manifesto that we should sell the crown jewels and spend the proceeds on a big political party to which everybody would be invited and there would be free drinks.

It is probably the most sensible policy I've heard and yet he frequently lost his deposit.

One of the best political ceremonies, I ever saw was when John Major, the then PM, was re-elected in Huntingdon. Pictures of the Prime Minister went around the world - on his left was David (Screaming Lord) Sutch [Official Raving Monster Looney Party] and on his right Lord Bucket Head (who polled 183 votes IIRC).

It is worth noting that John Major was a Conservative and, like Katie Boyle, not a Looney.

Please click for associated broadcast from Rutland Weekend TV

ATB Rotf
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by 555
quote:
Well, when I do deals (which is what I do for a living) I figure out the best time to wheel out our CEO or someone other body for Exec level dialogue (that won't be detailed "deal" discussion as such) and it is all part of getting the buyer comfortable - so using HRH as part of the overall deal closure cycle is not unusual and it happens a fair amount. At the highest level these deals concluded for all sorts of reasons...and I'm not talking about shady business deals here.

So what you are telling us in summary is your company doesn't need HRH to close a deal!
Of course a CEO is chosen on ability & potential, rather than who mum & dad are.
If the CEO doesn't do a good job they depart, rather than handing over to a sprog.
A CEO doesn't require a few castles & palaces for accommodation,
& in a well run company is paid the market rate for their services.
I could go on but I think I've made my point.

quote:
As for intangible I really meant hard to accurately calculate...it will be tangible so a bad choice of word and not meant to be a cop out.

I think you were right; it's intangible & I find this highly suspicious.
Is the performance of a company CEO intangible?

I'm not claiming the RF brings nothing to the economy, but if we didn't have a RF I can't imagine the B.E.R.R. (formerly the D.T.I.) suggesting we should set one up as a cost effective way to boost the economy.

My other big gripe with the RF is they live in luxury while so many of their subjects live in poverty. Am I the only person who finds this obscene?

The revolution starts at closing time!
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by rupert bear
quote:
Originally posted by TomK:
quote:
Originally posted by rupert bear:
You're a Republican, then. But not a UK taxpayer, I assume.

Someone is about to point out how many billions in tourist cash the Royal Family is worth to the UK.


And countries with no royal family have no tourist industry? Jeez give us a break and start thinking for yourself.

Apologies if I've missed your sarcasm smiley.


I think you missed several layers of irony there, Tom old chum.

I was merely pointing out the ensuing counter-response.

Don't forget we live in the post-Diana world - and there are many in that world thinking for themselves less than this poor bear.
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by Ewan Aye
quote:
Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
No he doesn't have a good point....you have to look a lot deeper than the superficial view of tourist's paying their sixpence at the door of Windor castle....you need to look at the hotel income, restaurant bar income, spending income etc...a much larger number.

Nice idea, but I find it hard to swallow that all those tourists are here only because we have a royal family installed. They might want to come here for other reasons too you know. It's not as though they get to meet them or anything.

Diana frenzy was never higher than after her demise, and that tends to be the case with all celebrities. I think that if we sacked the royals, the heightened interest and visitor numbers would be enough to get this country through its current recession.
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Ewan,

What system have you in mind to replace the Monarchy with?

I hope you have a good plan well worked out.

I would not mind a bet that a President might well prove to be rather more expensive to finance than the current arrangements for head of state.

I am by no means saying that there is no case to be examined, but be careful to consider what we have and also what we do not have currently and might soon regret having if your wish came to be.

George
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by 555
Fair points George,
but you don't need to have an alternative to see the need for change.
Posted on: 02 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear John,

On the E II R thread I wrote something about the potential alternative constitutional arrangements - the last post on that thread currently - and really you are quite right that that does not mean there is no reason to avoid examining the costs, the actual role of, and even future developments of the Monarchy. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss even such a change as adopting a Presidential system, and what I wrote at the end of the other thread may be worth reading as a contribution to this.

ATB from George
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by Ewan Aye
I've not got as far as thinking of an alternative - that isn't the point. The point is dissatisfaction.

The American system may not be perfect but at least it is a system made by the people themselves, and even though every system will have its flaws, they at least have something they created themselves to be proud of. But we're just subjects of a bunch of crusty old farts who have no idea who we are, care even less, and I think, treat us with contempt.

It baffles me why the whole tradition thing has to persist, as though time stood still in the late 18th century. Why do we have to have the state opening of parliament with these twats in powdered wigs and stockings? I'm sure my grandmother would say "but, it's nice". I'm afraid that "being nice" isn't a good enough reason for total alienation of the population of the country.

Sorry, but they've got to go, and we've got to once again be a major player in the world instead of being some quaint museum piece to be pushed around by Europe and America. We've got to get some teeth again. Our strength is our multi-cultural society, and I'm pretty sure the royals just don't approve of that at all, but that's who we are now, so if they don't like it they should sod off and leave us to manage a system ourselves that represents us all.

So..err..you've probably spotted that I'm not a big fan of the royals then. Smile
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear ewan,

You enthusiasm for the Royal Family is clear! Beware the knee-jerk reaction which brings something less palatable.

It is fair enough to expressive unhappiness, but unreasonable to suggest change until you have taken the trouble to at least have a well formed plan.

Here is something I wrote on the subject last week. I think you will see that it is argued quite clerarly, and offers some thoughts on various options for the future:

-----

Posted by GFFJ on Sat 28 June 2008 0:13

quote:
I used to think that a republic might be a good idea for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and sometimes I find myself deploring some of what appears to be excess spending on the Royal Family, but as time has gone by, I have seen some of our potential presidents, of all political stripes, and I did not like what I saw: Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, or even Neil Kinnock. Even Price Charles looks a more sane option than any of these, in my opinion of course.

If we went for a republic, I would hope we have one based on the German or Irish model, which involves a constitutional presidency, rather than as in the USA, an executive one.

I rather like the moderating effect on the views of one individual of having government by committee, led by a first among equals Prime Minister, who can be toppled by the even bigger committee of the House Of Commons, who collectively do demonstrate more conscience than most individuals in politics.

In this way perhaps the result is less dynamic, but certainly preferable to a solitary and extremely powerful executive president, who then selects a "kitchen cabinet" of unelected people to implement his or her vision. I doubt if Britain would have invaded Iraq if she were still "Top Nation" with our Parliamentary system, though of course we did follow the USA once led from there on the issue, and that says something about the dependence, at some level we are not being told about, on the USA even now.

I am not sure this is not so much a special relationship as somehow, secretly still being "in hoc" to the US over the Second World War. No other reason seems reasonable for a [nominally] left of centre British PM taking the course of action he did. It was indeed a very strange partnership between TB and GWB.

Back to the Royal Family though. In my view I really hope the Queen has the stamina and good health to stay on the Throne long enough for Prince William to be the next King, and bypass Prince Charles, or ensure his reign is rather short at the least.

I do think there is quite a case for the British Royal family examining the arrangements for the Norwegian Monarchy, which is nothing like so extravagant in its spending. There is indeed room for pruning the Civil List to former Monarch's Consorts, the Monarch and the immediate children and grandchildren of the Monarch.

HMS Britannia was laid up some years ago, and at the time I thought this was quite sad, but we live in changing times. The move was prescient and correct with hindsight. More rationalisation must, and I am sure will, take place, particularly once our wonderful present Queen’s reign ends.

Thanks for some thought provoking posts, in what I hoped [correctly] would be a debate on this issue!


ATB from George
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by BigH47
quote:
Beware the knee-jerk reaction which brings something less palatable.


At least it should be something de-selectable, with the present system there is no accountability.
Why should these people have all this just because of their birth credentials?
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Howard,

If the accountability issue were politically destabilising, then a change would be necessary. If anything the crazy anachronism of a tribal leading family has been a rallying point in times of crisis, a real focus of widespread affection among the popualion as a majority if not as a whole, and certain point of focus for the military, which is a good thing when you consider how powerful the UK Military is even today. I accept that the Military could perfectly well swear allgance to serve the country as led by an elected President for all that.

But even if change were [and it is by some even in spite of the above] considered essential, then we do have to examine whether we jettison Parliamentary democracy for a Presidential one, which is why I would be so keen to advocate the adoption in the circumstance of this constitutional overhaul in the line of a constitutional presidency, the role of which would be to appoint the elected government, oversee constitutional issues such as the power of the Judiciary and the Elected Parliamentary Government [Executive] and act as the Head of State in International Affairs etc.

In other words effectively elect someone who would continue to fill the constitutional role of the Monarchy, but as you say, elected, and accountable.

I find the system of government by Executive Presient produces some very seriously poor candidates, though it may well be apt for the US situation, but it would deplorable in the UK.

Can you imagine the overwhelming power crazed Tony Blair as president, without the need to keep a Cabinet on line, or even ultimately the Commons?



About the only way you can sack a President is by impeachment, and that requires some very serious breech of trust, whereas a Prime Minster can be toppled in a vote of confidence at any time. This is a most valuable safety valve, and we should be pleased that the PM remains accountable to Parliament between elections, even if only to the electorate [effectively at least] at elections.

This is where I always counsel caution with wild plans top scrap the Monarchy without a fully workable plan to replace it.

George
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
I'm afraid that "being nice" isn't a good enough


Oh well ... back to the drawing board

Please click here to hear somebody sing it far better than I ever could
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by BigH47
quote:
This is where I always counsel caution with wild plans top scrap the Monarchy without a fully workable plan to replace it.


What do we need to replace?
Why do we need a president?
Can't the prime Minister be the head?
Can't the armed forces swear allegiance to the country?
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by Ewan Aye
Great link ROTF, but wouldn't this be equally appropriate?
(Love the cynicism of the video)
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by u5227470736789439
Not really if you examine it. There has to be some authority, usually called the Head of State, to appoint the Prime Minister and accept any resignation or even insist that an election be called at the time a government can no longer function for whatever reason.

Could you imagine Tony Blair sacking himself, and in some circumstances actually having the Labour Majority in the Commons support him.

Of course that is hypothetical, so simply substitute a few names as representing the political leaders and elected governments of the future, and there you have it. You cannot! You could make a respectable guess, but in reality there is no certainty that without a higher constitutional authority, then with the wrong party in power and with the wrong leader as PM there would emerge a dictatotrship, if there be no constitutional brake on process at all.

We all know that some/many/most [?] politicians would rather not bother with the messy business of elections and accountability, and they weald the power to alter the constitution. Some completely respectable and respected Head of State is a required brake on the Executive.

The Nazis were initially elected through a democratic vote into a position of power, and from there went onto rig a plebiscite!

If it could happen in a country like Germany then it could happen here.

It is interesting that Germany has a Constitutional [not executive] President as Head of State. Perhaps reasonable, given their presumed wish not to give history a chance of taking such a terrible course again?

ATB from George
Posted on: 03 July 2008 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by Ewan Aye:
Great link ROTF, but wouldn't this be equally appropriate?
(Love the cynicism of the video)


Superb, he had one of the most honest approaches ever

And if I am elected
I promise the formation of a new party
A third party, the Wild Party!
I know we have problems,
We got problems right here in Central City,
We have problems on the North, South, East and West,
New York City, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago,
Everybody has problems,
And personally, I don't care