WORTH IT?

I see that our dear friends at the BBC have been giving much prominence to the news that our Monarchy costs us £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year. OK – and the BBC costs £3bn+ per annum. Which is best value for Britain?

Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to WORTH IT?

  1. Barry says:

    A contributor to an entirely different blog commented favourably that the Monarchy costs us 69p per week.

    I think this was an understandable mistake. "69p per person" is being quoted all over the place without any time reference and "69p per week" sounds credible.

    In my view, 69p per person per year is negligible, even in a recession. We have FAR bigger things to worry about.

    Would we get "President Blair" for 69p? Possibly, but I doubt it.

       0 likes

  2. Anonymous says:

    The true cost of the BBC is measured in many trillions not billions. BBC promoted policies, such as those proposed to halt non existence CO2=AGW, should be measured in 3rd, 2nd and 1st world blood and almost infinitely more then a measly £3 billion per year.

    What price FREEDOM? For I am sure you will all agree FREEDOM is simply priceless, and worth far more then a £145 TV tax.

    Please understand that conspiracy theory is nothing of the kind. It is here now, and long since been so, self confessed conspiracy FACT. Which does not suddenly become so, because at sometime in the near future it will become BBC TV.

    The BBC is not sad, bad, costing to much cash, or run and controlled by a bunch of mindless leftist school kids.

    The BBC is EVIL beyond all imaginable belief. It does not lie to us some of the time, or most of the time. The BBC effectively lies to the entire planet, ALL of the time. By design, and most surly in practice, the BBC is the promoter of ALL that is truly and perfectly EVIL.

    Discussing the details of which may keep this site in a job, and help keep some of you from worrying your pets, or indeed the old ladies in your area. However there is little other point to all this waffle if most of you simply refuse to see the rampaging elephant who has now taken up residence in your own living room.

    May I make this appeal to what remains of your independent mind and spirit.

    When the inevitable happens and mans common concerns finally hits the streets as planned. Please remember what I have told you and keep it as peaceful as humanly possible. They are ready, trained and motivated to handle the worst the ordinary people can throw at them, which is not much.

    They WILL confiscate your home property and liberty at the first sign of real protest from the general tax paying public.

    You have been warned, you ignore this warning at your own risk.

    Atlas shrugged

       0 likes

  3. Anonymous says:

    I would happily pay a pound a year for the monarchy, and I would also happily pay a pound a year for a BBC license.

       0 likes

  4. Martin says:

    I'm not a big fan of the monarchy. However, until someone can come up with a better system I'd prefer the Queen over some Liebour stooge like Ken livingdead, Mandelson (he'd love to be Queen rather than President though) or Kinnock as el Presidente.

    The BBC have a bit of neck pointing the finger at the queen. I understand the civil list hasn't been increased for several years, unlike the TV tax.

       0 likes

  5. Anonymous says:

    To be fair, you dont have to pay for the BBC.You could just not buy the telly tax.

       0 likes

  6. naldo says:

    The monarchy should get a job or sign on the dole like the rest of us.

    Parasitic, effete bastards every last one of them.

       0 likes

  7. Scott M says:

    "Which is best value for Britain?"

    They're both good value. Of course, Vance only throws his approval behind one, so the BBC wins on points.

       0 likes

  8. pounce_uk says:

    Naldo. What the bBC isn't telling you is the Queen surrenders her entire income from this, that and the other and hands it over to the taxman.In the year to 2005 that was over £185 million she got back £37 million.
    Now the Queen could like say MPs claim the lot, she doesn't, she also actually works very hard for her money. You may not think so. But if you opened your eyes to see just how much work she puts in you'd be surprised.
    But hey don't take my word for it herr are her accounts which can be found on-line.
    http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/AnnualFinancialReports/Annualfinancialreports.aspx

    And lord Martin tried how hard to prevent you finding out how much he cost the country.

       0 likes

  9. pete says:

    Maybe the monarchy model is the way forward for the BBC. We could pay a few of its top people £41 million per year between them in return for them doing next to nothing except live the high life at Wimbledon, Glastonbury and the Olympics and and close the rest of the BBC.

    This would save money and be a great cultural improvement for the nation – no Eastenders, Casualty, Top Gear, Celebrity Cash in the Attic or any of the other junk that the BBC currently mass manufactures.

       0 likes

  10. Gosh says:

    Neither are good value.

    Elizabeth is fine, but there are too many hangers on, and the licence tax should go. The stuff produced by the beeb sucks.

       0 likes

  11. happyuk07 says:

    41500000 / 3500000000 = a bit over one hundredth…

    Peanuts compared to the profligate BBC.

       0 likes

  12. Tarquin says:

    pounce uk

    nobody deserves 37 million, no matter how 'hard' they work – and their version of hard is an intrusive media and lots of engagements, hardly compares to people who actually have to work hard and fear for their low-paying jobs

    first place we should be cutting expenditure is frivolous royal spending, they make enough money as it is

       0 likes

  13. Barry says:

    Gosh said… "Neither are good value. Elizabeth is fine, but there are too many hangers on…."

    How many hangers on are there exactly?

       0 likes

  14. Alison says:

    Tarquin "…and their version of hard is an intrusive media and lots of engagements, hardly compares to people who actually have to work hard and fear for their low-paying jobs"

    And if a president took over these duties, would it miraculously become a 'proper job' involving 'hard work'?

    You could argue that the president would take on more executive duties but where would the extra work come from? Would Gordon do less?

    We need to be consistent. If the Queen's duties are not work, a lot of other people's 'work' should be discounted as well. How much time does Obama spend on 'work'? Is Michelle a 'hanger on'?

       0 likes

  15. Anonymous says:

    The BBC will only tell the truth, when it is far too late for the people to do anything about it.

    If the above statement does not strike you as an absolute TRUISM especially since the country went effectively bankrupt a few months ago. Then please be very careful, when next crossing a busy road. For no other reason then you owe it to your children.

    The Queen of England, does not tell lies, simply because she is not basically allowed to say anything of any importance in public. Otherwise she would talk establishment AGW bullshit, like there is clearly not going to be another tomorrow, very much like her eldest son repeatedly does. Chuck may be a pathological idiots, and a rather aesthetically challenged one at that, but he certainly knows one very important thing.

    Which is; It is a very good idea indeed to keep your own personal BANK MANAGER very happy. Especially when he has virtually all of your vast family wealth invested in a world wide financial AGW scam.

    I am beginning to feel quite sorry for you people. You really can't see Fascism coming, even when it has already arrived, can you?. You can't even see it when the plane FACTS of the matter have been carefully laid before you. You cant even see it when the main stream media ( The Times for example )have been telling you so in virtually no uncertain terms for months.

    Reality does not become so, simply because it becomes common knowledge, or is broadcast on the BBC six O'clock news, by some script reading so called journalist. Surly we have now come to a clear understanding that our establishment selected politicians, and our establishments STATE broadcaster can be trusted even less then our so called free press. Which is not trusted at all, in any way shape or form, anytime of the night or day.

    The utter ignorance of so called educated people in this and in all western countries, is as stunning as it is also highly depressing.

    What happened to you people at university, did they take your entire brains out, or did they just mash-up what was left to find?

    Atlas shrugged

       0 likes

  16. pounce_uk says:

    Tarquin you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. But the fact remains the queen could keep all her money and say sod off (Like every MP and nearly every British person going)
    Are you telling me if you had £187 million in the bank you would hand it over to the Tax man and get back £37 million.
    Yeah right of course you would.
    As I said the Queen works for a living, that £37 million pays the wages of the plebs who work for the queen, it pays the utility
    bills and the rest.
    But then I did like your "They make enough money as it is" That told me you haven't a scooby do on the subject at hand.

       0 likes

  17. Anonymous says:

    bbc-obviously.next

       0 likes

  18. Anonymous says:

    I know somebody who rents a farm off the Duchy of Cornwall. Gets it very, very cheap he says. If the monarchy wanted to make more money they could. I'm sure Tarquin/any MP/any BBC employee would charge the 'market' rate.

       0 likes

  19. Sam Duncan says:

    Spot-on, Alison. The costs of having a Head of State wouldn't magically go away if we elected one instead. And if you look at the costs of a Presidency to various republics around the world, it's pretty obvious that the chances are they'd increase.

    Obama's inauguration cost over $150m, or about £90m. That's nearly two years of Her Maj. It was compared unfavourably to Clinton's first, which “only” cost $33m (£19m), or a little over six months' monarchy. And they have one every four years. Just saying.

       0 likes

  20. Alison says:

    Sam Duncan: Thank you for the facts and figures. There are always two problems with this issue. Firstly, it attracts people who want to prove how non-deferential they are by being as rude about the Queen as they can get away with. It doesn’t add much to the debate. Secondly, people assume that because the Queen is unelected, she cannot have a ‘proper job’ or be doing any ‘real’ work. This is not a logical argument as it covers two totally separate issues. I’ve known many people in so-called regular employment who did very little real work.

    If cost is the real concern, I don’t think a presidency would be the answer and anon’s interesting comment about the farm in the Duchy of Cornwall suggests to me that a lot of not-so-obvious benefits would be disrupted or lost altogether.

    I also suspect that many of the most vociferous critics of the Queen wouldn’t like a president either.

       0 likes

  21. MarkE says:

    If we didn't have the royals we would have to have something, and that would be an elected president. When a royal says something we don't agree with we have a rant or a laugh and get on with our lives. If an elected president says the same they would claim a mandate (even if elected with a majority of one vote in a turnout of three) and try (and probably succeed) to presurize parliament into giving their stupidity the force of law. The royals are at worst no more expensive than a president and quite probably (as noted by other ocntributors), cheaper.

    If we didn't have the BBC we would still have TV and radio broadcasts; some would be interupted by advertising (like the BBC, albeit in-house advertising but still intrusive) while others might be subscription services without the advertisements; some would be politically biased to the left (like the BBC) and some to the right; some authoritarian (like the BBC) and some libertarian; some would produce high qualirty programming (like Sky Arts or Five's art output) and some would concentrate on unmitigated dross aimed at the lowest common denominator (like the BBC).

    Without the rotyals we would still have to pay, quite possibly more, for something worse. Without the BBC we would not have to pay and we would get nothing worse, quite possibly better.

    On balance the royals are better value than the BBC.

       0 likes

  22. Anonymous says:

    If the sum quoted is true, it's around one quarter of the £126 m of taxpayers' money Ed Balls wasted on the SATS fiasco.

    The biased BBC propaganda omits to mention that our sovereigny is the envy of the world, except for the Hail Brussels Brigade. Our Royalty accounts for vast revenue from tourism – not mentioned by the disgraceful BBC.

       0 likes

  23. Anonymous says:

    MarkE,

    You appear to be confusing Britain with the EU – their Presidents are not elected by taxpaying 'Joe Public' as prime ministers are !

    The Queen is unique in that she has unreservedly served 'her people' for over 50 years, is admired and respected worldwide for her many attributes and long may she reign !

       0 likes

  24. Sam Duncan says:

    Brilliantly argued, MarkE. :) Your penultimate paragraph hits the nail firmly and squarely on the head.

       0 likes