National News Extinction "Rebellion"

[bashamwonderland]

Hmmm, it's not quite the clear cut argument you would have us believe........so if we abolished the royal family and opened up all of these royal palaces and houses on a full-time basis, there is an argument to say we would earn even more money for the public purse, not less. After all, the French and Austrians seem to do very nicely out Versaille and the Schonbrunn Palace respectively.

Likewise, abolition wouldn't make difference to the money generated by the Crown Estate - that is, in a sense, passive income based on years of unmerited inheritance and publicly funded acquisition.

Personally, I find it depressing that the Crown 'owns' nearly 2 million acres of our agricultural land and forest and vast swathes of expensive real estate. They key word here being 'our'.

If you've got an issue with the methodology or calculations in the article, that's probably a question for you to raise with Forbes or Brand Finance, the analytics company. I'm happy to trust their assessment. As for your argument that abolishing the monarchy and opening the houses on a full time basis would earn us even more money, that's an entirely unproven guess.

It also neglects the fact that admission income for visiting properties only actually accounts for less than £50m of the 2.5bn value, so I would question your logic? Even if the houses were open for 5x the amount that they are now, it would be a drop in the ocean against the total £2.5bn.


What do you mean by "our"? They've owned it in some form or another for over 1000 years. How are you defining "our"? People with a British passport? People who simply come here and settle on the land? People who have some form of legal title? People who can trace their lineage in the UK back to pre-royal origins? Anyone who happens to be in the UK at any given time?

 

[chuckbert]

The point is they didn`t specifically buy a ticket, the comparison made regarding football supporters, to attend the event.

They may pay general taxation, they be "tax efficient" ...........but they didn`t lose/miss out on anything.

Being detained so that you couldn't attend a party that you had paid for? Sounds like missing out on something. Sounds like North Korea!

 

[Big Ron]

If you've got an issue with the methodology or calculations in the article, that's probably a question for you to raise with Forbes or Brand Finance, the analytics company. I'm happy to trust their assessment. As for your argument that abolishing the monarchy and opening the houses on a full time basis would earn us even more money, that's an entirely unproven guess.

It also neglects the fact that admission income for visiting properties only actually accounts for less than £50m of the 2.5bn value, so I would question your logic? Even if the houses were open for 5x the amount that they are now, it would be a drop in the ocean against the total £2.5bn.


What do you mean by "our"? They've owned it in some form or another for over 1000 years. How are you defining "our"? People with a British passport? People who simply come here and settle on the land? People who have some form of legal title? People who can trace their lineage in the UK back to pre-royal origins? Anyone who happens to be in the UK at any given time?

It's also entirely unproven that the abolition of the monarchy would earn less in terms of actual tourism spend. It is as you point out, an entirely unproven guess. It's not entirely clear but this research also seems to include some related spend on hotels, transport, hospitality, etc - that's a difficult sum to estimate given, I would guess, that tourists will be usually visit the royal estate as part of a wider holiday which will include a wide range of attractions.

Given that actual spend on visiting royalty properties is actually a tiny percentage of the £2.5bn, a lot of money seems to be generated by ownership and management of the Crown Estate - those figures won't change regardless of ownership, they certainly are not underpinned by royal tourism.

Given the sources of revenue and the sundry tax breaks enjoyed by the royal family, it seems ridiculous that the state provides any money. Surely, at the very least it should be self funding given the extraordinary privileges they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy?

 

[Marked Ox]

The point is they didn`t specifically buy a ticket, the comparison made regarding football supporters, to attend the event.

They may pay general taxation, they be "tax efficient" ...........but they didn`t lose/miss out on anything.

They did pay to get there though which is direct expenditure so they did lose out and they lost their right to protest.

 

[chuckbert]

they lost their right to protest.

And that's the real money shot here. People underestimate the value of the right to protest without being preemptively swept up until it affects them.

 

[bashamwonderland]

It's also entirely unproven that the abolition of the monarchy would earn less in terms of actual tourism spend. It is as you point out, an entirely unproven guess. It's not entirely clear but this research also seems to include some related spend on hotels, transport, hospitality, etc - that's a difficult sum to estimate given, I would guess, that tourists will be usually visit the royal estate as part of a wider holiday which will include a wide range of attractions.

Given that actual spend on visiting royalty properties is actually a tiny percentage of the £2.5bn, a lot of money seems to be generated by ownership and management of the Crown Estate - those figures won't change regardless of ownership, they certainly are not underpinned by royal tourism.

Given the sources of revenue and the sundry tax breaks enjoyed by the royal family, it seems ridiculous that the state provides any money. Surely, at the very least it should be self funding given the extraordinary privileges they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy?

You're right that it's totally unproven that the abolition of the monarchy would earn less for tourism. But we know as a fact that we already get a c.£50,000,000 tourism boost from admission fees alone, and have a £2.5bn asset sat in this country, so it seems odd that we would want to risk that based on any unproven claims otherwise.

 

[SteMerritt]

You're right that it's totally unproven that the abolition of the monarchy would earn less for tourism. But we know as a fact that we already get a c.£50,000,000 tourism boost from admission fees alone, and have a £2.5bn asset sat in this country, so it seems odd that we would want to risk that based on any unproven claims otherwise.

Hey, we voted for Brexit on exactly that basis...

 

[Big Ron]

You're right that it's totally unproven that the abolition of the monarchy would earn less for tourism. But we know as a fact that we already get a c.£50,000,000 tourism boost from admission fees alone, and have a £2.5bn asset sat in this country, so it seems odd that we would want to risk that based on any unproven claims otherwise.

A worthwhile discussion but one that seemingly reduces the retention of the monarchy to a financial debate. For Republican's it's obviously a bit more than that.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Hey, we voted for Brexit on exactly that basis...

Yes, and I'm sure you would argue it was a silly thing to have done for precisely that reason!

Also +5 points for squeezing Brexit into the Extinction Rebellion thread. Although I wonder how we got onto the royal family in the first place ...

 

[SteMerritt]

Also +5 points for squeezing Brexit into the Extinction Rebellion thread. Although I wonder how we got onto the royal family in the first place ...

I was thinking about the advertising boost from all the clicks, might get a pay rise off of it!

 

[Essexyellows]

They did pay to get there though which is direct expenditure so they did lose out and they lost their right to protest.

And that's the real money shot here. People underestimate the value of the right to protest without being preemptively swept up until it affects them.

*some of them........... there were still others allowed to carry on.

 

[OUFCGav]

You're right that it's totally unproven that the abolition of the monarchy would earn less for tourism. But we know as a fact that we already get a c.£50,000,000 tourism boost from admission fees alone, and have a £2.5bn asset sat in this country, so it seems odd that we would want to risk that based on any unproven claims otherwise.

Well we get a £42billion boost to the economy from overseas students and the right-wingers are looking to curtail them as they make the immigration figures look bad. That is more of an issue than the randomly assembled numbers for abolishing the monarchy.

 

[Marked Ox]

*some of them........... there were still others allowed to carry on.

So? Those people had the cost for nothing and their right to protest was stopped for no reason.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Well we get a £42billion boost to the economy from overseas students and the right-wingers are looking to curtail them as they make the immigration figures look bad. That is more of an issue than the randomly assembled numbers for abolishing the monarchy.

Ok that's fine, but I'm not really sure how it relates to what was being discussed.

 

[OUFCGav]

Ok that's fine, but I'm not really sure how it relates to what was being discussed.

well we are counting out 1 because of a perceived benefit to the economy, but doing something worse through dogma.

 

[bashamwonderland]

well we are counting out 1 because of a perceived benefit to the economy, but doing something worse through dogma.

But we can have a monarchy and also international students...

The two things aren't binary, nor are they even closely related to eachother. I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

[OUFCGav]

But we can have a monarchy and also international students...

The two things aren't binary, nor are they even closely related to eachother. I'm not really sure what your point is.

If the main quoted reason for having the monarchy is the apparent value to the economy - which is the 'fact' that is trotted out every time, then it is relatively insignificant compared to other things. Other things which "we" seem happy to self-sabotage despite the economic impact.
So if you negate the economic "benefit" from the royal family - what are we left with for keeping them?

 

[bashamwonderland]

If the main quoted reason for having the monarchy is the apparent value to the economy - which is the 'fact' that is trotted out every time, then it is relatively insignificant compared to other things. Other things which "we" seem happy to self-sabotage despite the economic impact.
So if you negate the economic "benefit" from the royal family - what are we left with for keeping them?

So, you're saying that because we are trying to curtail international student numbers (I have no idea if that is true), that somehow justifies the abolition of the monarchy, as it would be less financially damaging?

And you're asking, if we were to just disregard the £2.5bn annual benefit provided by the monarchy (for god knows what reason), what's the benefit of keeping them?

I'd probably say:

1. They provide a sense of national identity for many people and communities.

2. They maintain an important social, constitutional and religious link to our national history.

3. They stand in place of what would be a divisive republican figurehead.

4. Public opinion polls suggest that people want them to remain, so they are fulfilling a role that people want.

5. They maintain and conserve a huge amount of wild and natural green space in the country.

6. They are internationally recognised and respected.

... But let's not just cast aside the billions of pounds of revenue they provide this country. It's a bit odd that you seem to be minimising that significant contribution, to be honest.

 

[QR]

So, you're saying that because we are trying to curtail international student numbers (I have no idea if that is true), that somehow justifies the abolition of the monarchy, as it would be less financially damaging?

And you're asking, if we were to just disregard the £2.5bn annual benefit provided by the monarchy (for god knows what reason), what's the benefit of keeping them?

I'd probably say:

1. They provide a sense of national identity for many people and communities.

How many? I doubt a majority. They are a sense of an unfair class system to many.

2. They maintain an important social, constitutional and religious link to our national history.

It's not important at all!

3. They stand in place of what would be a divisive republican figurehead.

They are quite evidently themselves devisive.

4. Public opinion polls suggest that people want them to remain, so they are fulfilling a role that people want.

Not the ones I've seen.

5. They maintain and conserve a huge amount of wild and natural green space in the country.

Let's replace 'maintain' to 'make money from'.

6. They are internationally recognised and respected.

The same could be said for other slimmed down royal families.

... But let's not just cast aside the billions of pounds of revenue they provide this country. It's a bit odd that you seem to be minimising that significant contribution, to be honest.

Debatable as above.

 

[bashamwonderland]

How many? I doubt a majority. They are a sense of an unfair class system to many.

It's not important at all!

They are quite evidently themselves devisive.

Not the ones I've seen.

Let's replace 'maintain' to 'make money from'.

The same could be said for other slimmed down royal families.

Debatable as above.

I don't find your comments very convincing, and I would go as far as to say they aren't particularly generally persuasive.