Page 15 | To not understand how the UK can afford to pay £250 million for the coronation?

Kedfs · 2023-04-30T08:13:17+00:00

When there are people reliant on food banks to survive and we are told that there is no money to pay for nurses and teachers pay rises? Whatever your thoughts are on having a monarchy, having a coronation is unnecessary and was abandoned by other monarchies years ago. If he really wants one, can’t he pay for it himself, given that he has billions of pounds?

Flappingtarps · 04/05/2023 16:28

Where is this rhetoric coming from that republicans wouldn’t respect the outcome of a fairly instigated referendum on the monarchy? It’s total nonsense! And pure conjecture!

I know I would respect a fair vote and so would many of my friends and family.

It’s the fact that the population is at last being consulted that we are most exercised about.

And everyone must understand surely post-Brexit, that a referendum on the monarchy would allow the opportunity for all of the various arguments, for and against, to be fully aired and debated.

Something that hasn’t happened in at least
… oh let me see …can’t really count murmurings after Diana died … or the stronger rumblings that occurred when Queen Victoria sequestered herself up in Balmoral don’t really count … so let’s say many hundreds of years back to the mid- seventeenth century.

I think it’s time we at least discussed it!

I don’t what is so unreasonable about the suggestion either? Nor do I understand why monarchists are so resistant to the idea if they are that sure of winning? It needed cost a fortune either. We have the technology should we choose to use it.

Flappingtarps · 04/05/2023 16:29

I don’t understand

It needn’t cost a fortune

Frankola · 04/05/2023 17:34

@Mostar Yes! I'd travel to Scotland to see that! Not so much to see Charlie parading in a gold carriage...

DownNative · 04/05/2023 18:56

Flappingtarps · 04/05/2023 16:28

Where is this rhetoric coming from that republicans wouldn’t respect the outcome of a fairly instigated referendum on the monarchy? It’s total nonsense! And pure conjecture!

I know I would respect a fair vote and so would many of my friends and family.

It’s the fact that the population is at last being consulted that we are most exercised about.

And everyone must understand surely post-Brexit, that a referendum on the monarchy would allow the opportunity for all of the various arguments, for and against, to be fully aired and debated.

Something that hasn’t happened in at least
… oh let me see …can’t really count murmurings after Diana died … or the stronger rumblings that occurred when Queen Victoria sequestered herself up in Balmoral don’t really count … so let’s say many hundreds of years back to the mid- seventeenth century.

I think it’s time we at least discussed it!

I don’t what is so unreasonable about the suggestion either? Nor do I understand why monarchists are so resistant to the idea if they are that sure of winning? It needed cost a fortune either. We have the technology should we choose to use it.

What do you think this thread is if it's not discussing it?!

And this:

"Nor do I understand why monarchists are so resistant to the idea if they are that sure of winning? It needed cost a fortune either."

Is flat out circular reasoning! In other words, its not a valid or credible argument. Put it this way, Irish Republicans use the exact same argument you do and they'll not get a border poll using it. To do so would be a breach of democracy via a treaty. The only way one will happen is if it looks likely its what a majority wants.

The exact same applies to the Monarchy - there will be no referendum unless it looks likely it's what a majority wants.

And you don't have that majority which clearly annoys you....🤷‍♂️

That's democracy for you.

DownNative · 04/05/2023 19:04

Mostar · 04/05/2023 15:49

50% plus one isn't a decision. It's the opposite. It's indecision. It's saying the population is absolutely divided. The country doesn't know. The people can't decide one way or the other. With very narrow margins you might as well flip a coin. You could have the same poll a week later, and everything could be exactly the same except a big shower of rain in Aberdeen around 2 o'clock affects turnout just enough to swing things ever so slightly, so you get a different result, but again with a margin that's tighter than a gnat's arse. What does any of it prove?

And where does it end? Who knows. More reasoned debate, maybe. Compromise, cooperation, a bit of give and take, politicians who work in the best interests of society as a whole. What do we have now? We're right, you're wrong. We're good, you're bad. We're the best, you're a bunch of twats. I can't hear you LALALALALA...

La La Land indeed.

My point is, if you're going to do BIG STUFF (Brexit, Indyrefs), you should only go forward is there is sufficient support in favour. You need the people saying "Fuck yes, LET'S DO THIS!!!", not "Ooh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not..."

You could vote me Queen of the World, but if my winning margin is 0.00005% or whatever, I'd be a bit concerned about the legitimacy of my rule. But that's just me.

Feel free to argue this among yourselves. Those fish fingers aren't going to cook themselves you know. Over and out. Peace.

Show quote history

If we took your logic to it's ultimate conclusion, you'd be considered globally to be in favour of breaching the Belfast Agreement.

There's a reason I referenced that earlier regarding 50% +1 which seemed to go right over your head.

Look, no-one would love a double majority on constitutional change that me, but the fact is we cannot do this. The UK is made up of four integral parts and we cannot change to a double majority for three parts whilst leaving one stuck in 50% +1.

Scottish Separatists, like Irish Separatists, will hit the roof if we do away with 50% +1 and that's a risk to the Union.

Accept the fact we're stuck with 50% +1 for a long time to come yet. Politics is the art of the possible.

Mostar · 04/05/2023 22:21

@DownNative I'm in favour of Scottish independence, but I feel strongly that something as significant as Scotland leaving the UK requires a sizeable proportion to be in favour. This would be something that affects millions. One person in two is not a sufficient mandate for that sort of change. And it's not about the minority 'winning'. They've lost. The point is that to 'win' you have to make the case and get the backing of a sizeable percentage of the population otherwise you're just going to have more division and seriously, fuck that.

Allow me one more argument.

You have a strange pain in your leg. You don't know what happened, but it is so damn sore, you visit 1,000 doctors. (You can afford private health care, obvs). 501 doctors tell you it's a classic example of something nasty - basically your leg is seriously fucked and it needs amputating. Sooner the better. The other 499 say they've seen this kind of thing loads of times - take a couple Nurofens and you'll be right as rain in a couple of days.

You choose the saw, yeah?

Mostar · 04/05/2023 22:26

Not sure I posted that last one right. I'll do it again. Apologies if you get this twice. Here goes.

(Ahem.)

I'm in favour of Scottish independence, but I feel strongly that something as significant as Scotland leaving the UK requires a sizeable proportion to be in favour. This would be something that affects millions. One person in two is not a sufficient mandate for that sort of change. And it's not about the minority 'winning'. They've lost. The point is that to 'win' you have to make the case and get the backing of a sizeable percentage of the population otherwise you're just going to have more division and seriously, fuck that.

Allow me one more argument.

You have a strange pain in your leg. You don't know what happened, but it is so damn sore, you visit 1,000 doctors. (You can afford private health care, obvs). 501 doctors tell you it's a classic example of something nasty - basically your leg is seriously fucked and it needs amputating. Sooner the better. The other 499 say they've seen this kind of thing loads of times - take a couple Nurofens and you'll be right as rain in a couple of days.

You choose the saw, yeah?

Florenz · 04/05/2023 22:27

Requiring a double majority means that nearly 2/3 of the population would live within the utter tyranny of 1/3. There could be policies which make 1/3 rich and 2/3 poor and we'd be stuck with it. It's a terrible idea.

Mostar · 04/05/2023 22:32

Florenz · 04/05/2023 22:27

Requiring a double majority means that nearly 2/3 of the population would live within the utter tyranny of 1/3. There could be policies which make 1/3 rich and 2/3 poor and we'd be stuck with it. It's a terrible idea.

One third rich and two thirds poor? We must never let that happen in this fair and equitable world we live in!

Brrrrrrrrrrrr · 06/05/2023 08:31

OP I take it you’ve never been to London? Yes it may cost X millions but that’s peanuts compared to the revenue the Royal family brings to the city. Don’t get caught up in the oooooo its 250 million hoopla, think of it as an investment which will have a very strong return regardless of peoples views of the monarchy.

midgemadgemodge · 06/05/2023 08:35

Do the royal family really bring in more money than they cost us ?

Or would most of that tourist income remain because of the history and buildings

DisquietintheRanks · 06/05/2023 09:09

I've always thought they should be funded by public subscription. Then their wealth would be in proportion to their popularity- and if that left them a bit short they could always take on extra work weekends/evenings like the rest of us have to.

SweetSakura · 06/05/2023 09:13

DisquietintheRanks · 06/05/2023 09:09

I've always thought they should be funded by public subscription. Then their wealth would be in proportion to their popularity- and if that left them a bit short they could always take on extra work weekends/evenings like the rest of us have to.

Ooh yes I love this idea

SweetSakura · 06/05/2023 09:15

midgemadgemodge · 06/05/2023 08:35

Do the royal family really bring in more money than they cost us ?

Or would most of that tourist income remain because of the history and buildings

Well quite. I'm really keen to visit Versailles, there hasn't been a french royal family for centuries but the palace is still a huge draw.

DownNative · 06/05/2023 15:07

Mostar · 04/05/2023 22:26

Not sure I posted that last one right. I'll do it again. Apologies if you get this twice. Here goes.

(Ahem.)

I'm in favour of Scottish independence, but I feel strongly that something as significant as Scotland leaving the UK requires a sizeable proportion to be in favour. This would be something that affects millions. One person in two is not a sufficient mandate for that sort of change. And it's not about the minority 'winning'. They've lost. The point is that to 'win' you have to make the case and get the backing of a sizeable percentage of the population otherwise you're just going to have more division and seriously, fuck that.

Allow me one more argument.

You have a strange pain in your leg. You don't know what happened, but it is so damn sore, you visit 1,000 doctors. (You can afford private health care, obvs). 501 doctors tell you it's a classic example of something nasty - basically your leg is seriously fucked and it needs amputating. Sooner the better. The other 499 say they've seen this kind of thing loads of times - take a couple Nurofens and you'll be right as rain in a couple of days.

You choose the saw, yeah?

Allow you one argument?!

No, not when it is in breach of the UKs commitment to the Belfast Agreement. At present, we cannot have a double majority for referendums only for GB because this will drive up Scottish Nationalism. This is unwanted.

Democracy is whatever the majority agree to and politics is the Art Of The Possible. Its a constant tug of war between the two.

Just because we have 50% +1 it doesn't follow we'll automatically have a wafer thin majority for something. IndyRef1 - 84% turnout and 55% in favour of staying in the UK.

You would also be arguing against Welsh devolution as that was tighter than Brexit! 50.30% v 49.70%!

No-one seriously argues this is undemocratic either. 🤷‍♂️

Your analogy is quite obviously ridiculous too!

Tryingtokeepgoing · 06/05/2023 15:49

Didn’t the government spend just over a trillion pounds in 2021/22? That’s almost £3 billion a day. Another £100 million is less than an hours additional spending. A mere rounding. Lumping in the cost of security is just presentation - we’d have been paying most of them anyway I expect. Mind you, it’s still a waste of money. But then that’s government for you… ;)

Clarabell77 · 07/05/2023 19:02

Fansandblankets · 30/04/2023 09:15

Well it’s closer to £100 million and the revenue it will generate will far outweigh what it costs.

For Gods sake why are people so bloody gullible.

Fansandblankets · 07/05/2023 19:10

Clarabell77 · 07/05/2023 19:02

For Gods sake why are people so bloody gullible.

Show quote history

Do you know different then? Will the coronation not generate any income for the uk ? Please explain how I’m gullible?

Notmybloodyking · 07/05/2023 19:12

Aslanplustwo · 30/04/2023 21:25

Exactly this. MNers do love a good froth, and the argument needs to be all one sided so they can indulge..

Also, honestly, those of you who think that if there wasn't going to be a Coronation event then the money would instead go to help people who need it are being beyond naive.

Show quote history

It’s not just about the money spent on the pantomime coronation and in general, disgusting though it is. It’s the flaunting of obscene wealth, travelling around in £2m gold carriages etc., then claiming to serve us. Serve us how, exactly? I don’t see how they have ever served us, they are all about taking and they give nothing.

Clarabell77 · 07/05/2023 20:03

Fansandblankets · 07/05/2023 19:10

Do you know different then? Will the coronation not generate any income for the uk ? Please explain how I’m gullible?

Show quote history

You are trotting out a very worn platitude that’s used to create acceptance/support for the monarchy - their exorbitant annual bill and the coronation are highly unlikely to be covered by revenue they bring in. There are reports available on this which rely on freedom of information requests (you won’t see them in your cow-towing MSM though). Admittedly it is difficult but this is due to the fact that they have deliberately ensured they are above the law when it comes to freedom of information on their finances. This in itself is a red flag.

Countries like France and the Republic of Ireland attract plenty of tourism without a monarchy.

Even if they did bring in enough to cover their costs, would any extra be used to help people or public services UK wide? No, it’s going to mostly London based businesses to add to their huge profits.

cavalier · 08/05/2023 21:50

Food banks are not needed to the extent people keep banging on about them .. Everytime we go to Sainsbury’s the Krispy Kreme donuts are all gone
£8 for 6 donuts …. Thst makes me laugh .. and as you go out the door there’s a food bank donation point …
mutter rubbish … people have phones takeaways clothes on their backs and gambling … there are genuine people out there of course but this leftie food bank narrative is getting very boring …

Florenz · 08/05/2023 21:55

Most people do not hate the Royal Family nearly as much as the antis are suggesting. There is no groundswell of public opinion in favour of a republic.

Babycakes6 · 08/05/2023 22:09

Fansandblankets · 30/04/2023 09:15

Well it’s closer to £100 million and the revenue it will generate will far outweigh what it costs.

Revenue for who? Certainly not the taxpayers who are in dear need of proper medical services!

CaspianPlover · 08/05/2023 22:21

The USA President inauguration cost an average of $100 million every 4 years, makes our one off of 70 years look cheap by comparison, and what an amazing spectacle it was too. 1000 years of history in a deeply religious coronation service which still has meaning today and all the fantastic armed services showing their amazing discipline. It was a joy to watch.

Deadpalm · 09/05/2023 07:07

Babycakes6 · 08/05/2023 22:09

Revenue for who? Certainly not the taxpayers who are in dear need of proper medical services!

Show quote history

These events generate extra vat and paye + with extra hours on rota, they generate extra buying power again generating extra vat etc. Plus other revenue on top.
When we had events around we probably easily generated in two days extra grand of taxes to pay and we were a TINY operation. Staff then went for few pints and burger with their extz tips and wages and the staff from there went for extra meal etc.