MPs take 13 minutes to double Royal family income and approve £360m Buckingham Palace refurbishment - Polidicks

[QUOTE][B]A tiny, temporary committee of MPs set up explicitly to consider doubling the publicly funded income of the Royal Family took thirteen minutes to decide that, yes, the Royal Family should indeed have its income doubled.[/B] The "Seventh Dedicated Legislation Committee" was only established to consider raising the so-called 'Sovereign Grant' from 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the Crown Estates income, in order to fund the estimated £360m upgrade to Buckingham Palace, and now it has done so, it will be disbanded. Only the Scottish National Party, via its representatives Tommy Sheppard and George Kerevan objected to the decision.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-take-13-minutes-to-decide-to-double-the-royal-familys-income-a7607986.html[/URL]

Can some UK FPers help me understand how the locals justify arbitrarily making one family rich by bloodline?

[QUOTE=bitches;51909614]Can some UK FPers help me understand how the locals justify arbitrarily making one family rich by bloodline?[/QUOTE] iirc the uk earns more from royal tourism than they lose

Buckingham Palace is a historic building in need of preservation anyway. A lot of British landmarks are crumbling.

[QUOTE=bitches;51909614]Can some UK FPers help me understand how the locals justify arbitrarily making one family rich by bloodline?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51909658]iirc the uk earns more from royal tourism than they lose[/QUOTE] People like having them around and we earn more with them than we would without them.

At least they're doing to to fund upkeep of various historical buildings.

[QUOTE=bitches;51909614]Can some UK FPers help me understand how the locals justify arbitrarily making one family rich by bloodline?[/QUOTE] It's not taxpayer money. It's a percentage of the profits made from the management of crown properties, mineral rights and assets. So for example the tours of the Tower of London and such. The rest of the profits are given to the Treasury for the government to do whatever they like with. All this is doing is agreeing to give them a little more. At to put it in perspective the £360million is over ten years which is £36millon a year. And in 2015 they made £304million from Crown properties, so it's a good investment and the media are spinning it in a dumb way.

seems like they could spend the time saved and debate raising funding to other services too

I don't know many people who are opposed to this sort of thing. Like it or not the monarchy is ingrained into British culture and they benefit the public in he long run.

[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;51910061]I don't know many people who are opposed to this sort of thing. Like it or not the monarchy is ingrained into British culture and they benefit the public in he long run.[/QUOTE] why are people against entire bloodlines being regarded as special and being born into riches just for being born in the lucky family ? oh my i wouldn't begin to understand!!

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51910126]why are people against entire bloodlines being regarded as special and being born into riches just for being born in the lucky family ? oh my i wouldn't begin to understand!![/QUOTE] It's not exactly like the British Royal family are Saudi princes. They are generally well liked and do a lot of charitable stuff. The Queen was an ambulance driver during the war

[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;51910209]It's not exactly like the British Royal family are Saudi princes. They are generally well liked and do a lot of charitable stuff. The Queen was an ambulance driver during the war[/QUOTE] Not going to lie, she looked cute in that uniform. There's just something about the way women wore their hair and dressed in that era that seems so natural to me. [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/05/d6/d5/05d6d580d1a5b198033e881ee7cc503f.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Mr. Sarcastic;51910226]Not going to lie, she looked cute in that uniform. There's just something about the way women wore their hair and dressed in that era that seems so natural to me. [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/05/d6/d5/05d6d580d1a5b198033e881ee7cc503f.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] when I see that fashion sense all I see are boyish women its quite weird to me honestly

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51909658]iirc the uk earns more from royal tourism than they lose[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;bhyYgnhhKFw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw[/video] Old video, but remains relevant.

More money for the queen's corgi fund.

[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;51910061]I don't know many people who are opposed to this sort of thing. Like it or not the monarchy is ingrained into British culture and they benefit the public in he long run.[/QUOTE] I'm strongly opposed. I understand the economics of it, but it is still wrong to have a royal family, whether empowered or not, within a democratic society.

[QUOTE=bitches;51909614]Can some UK FPers help me understand how the locals justify arbitrarily making one family rich by bloodline?[/QUOTE] Mostly tradition, it's sad really.

[QUOTE=Noss;51911126]I'm strongly opposed. I understand the economics of it, but it is still wrong to have a royal family, whether empowered or not, within a democratic society.[/QUOTE] They never really intervene with politics though do they? They're more for tourism purposes.

[QUOTE=LuckyLuke;51911492]They never really intervene with politics though do they? They're more for tourism purposes.[/QUOTE] The royal family has no political power. If the Queen was to say during the yearly show of opening parliament, "NO U CAN'T MAKE A GOVERNMENT", she'd just get removed instantly. We literally pay £40 million for a group of people for £260 million of profit. It's a pretty solid investment. If they started taking more money than they earned, I'd want to kick them out, but they earn us a LOT of money.

[QUOTE=Anteep;51911469]Mostly tradition, it's sad really.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's sad for you buddy.

[QUOTE=MissZoey;51911698]The royal family has no political power. If the Queen was to say during the yearly show of opening parliament, "NO U CAN'T MAKE A GOVERNMENT", she'd just get removed instantly.[/QUOTE] Okay, here's a thought then. Can the Queen refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill removing the power of the House of Lords? Because we're rapidly moving towards that sort of coup.

[QUOTE=Noss;51911126]I'm strongly opposed. I understand the economics of it, but it is still wrong to have a royal family, whether empowered or not, within a democratic society.[/QUOTE] Look at it like this: In every country with an elected head of state, the position is highly divisive and politicised. This means that half of the country ends up hating them. With a monarchy, the institution belongs to the whole country, therefore irregardless of the government of the day governmental power remains legitimate.

[QUOTE=Jon27;51911722]Okay, here's a thought then. Can the Queen refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill removing the power of the House of Lords? Because we're rapidly moving towards that sort of coup.[/QUOTE] In regards to a lot of peoples questions, including yours, yes the Queen does have [url=http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/what-are-the-queens-powers-22069]Royal Assent[/url] powers however the last to do so was Queen Anne over 300 years ago. The sovereignty also retains power to declare war on other nations which may seem benign and unnecessary but she could also veto an upcoming war which the public may not be interested in, in my eyes a good thing. This is more than likely due to this: [b]Commander-in-Chief[/b] – The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. IE: Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal Air Force, tis in the name! [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Noss;51911126]I'm strongly opposed. I understand the economics of it, but it is still wrong to have a royal family, whether empowered or not, within a democratic society.[/QUOTE] Not really, read my above post.

no tourist has ever come to the UK with the intent of meeting or seeing the royal family fuck cgpgrey i hope he dies

weren't the news running the story a few years ago that buckingham palace is essentially falling apart? [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=joshthesmith;51911820]In regards to a lot of peoples questions, including yours, yes the Queen does have [url=http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/what-are-the-queens-powers-22069]Royal Assent[/url] powers however the last to do so was Queen Anne over 300 years ago. The sovereignty also retains power to declare war on other nations which may seem benign and unnecessary but she could also veto an upcoming war which the public may not be interested in, in my eyes a good thing. This is more than likely due to this: [b]Commander-in-Chief[/b] – The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. IE: Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal Air Force, tis in the name! [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] Not really, read my above post.[/QUOTE] not to mention that she has been served by 12 prime ministers. that's a lot of prime ministers

[QUOTE=angelangel;51911836]weren't the news running the story a few years ago that buckingham palace is essentially falling apart? [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] not to mention that she has been served by 12 prime ministers. that's a lot of prime ministers[/QUOTE] Yeah Buckingham palace is in need of a good renovation, its a grand building to be honest and its not like it is an eyesore so I am all for it. Queen Elizabeth II is now the longest living Royal Monarch, poor Prince Charles. I am sure he will get his chance :v:

The tourism argument that they somehow "earn" their money is honestly just shite. People go to England to see the buildings and history, not because of the fact that there is a current queen/king.

[QUOTE=Duskin;51911861]The tourism argument that they somehow "earn" their money is honestly just shite. People go to England to see the buildings and history, not because of the fact that there is a current queen/king.[/QUOTE] They go hand in hand.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;51911866]They go hand in hand.[/QUOTE] They don't though, not at all. It's like saying people travel to America to specifically see Trump instead of seeing the White House itself. It just doesn't happen.

[QUOTE=Duskin;51911877]They don't though, not at all. It's like saying people travel to America to specifically see Trump instead of seeing the White House itself. It just doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] Without a monarchy a lot of things would have to change in Britain which would be pointless. There is no Buckingham Palace without the Monarchy being here, it would just be another old building. A lot of tourists come to see the Palace Guards as well and without a Monarch, well, I feel like I am repeating myself now.