Where Can I Buy Clindamycin Gel Buy Prilosec Cheap Cheapest Place To Buy Chloroquine And Proguanil Allegra Hervey Bay For Sale Cozaar 100 Mg Generic Equivalent

Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers?


9:00 am - November 18th 2010

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Tim Fenton

We the people still enjoy a good Royal wedding – or at least the broadcast and print media reckon so, because from the announcement yesterday that Prince William of Wales is to marry the future Princess Catherine of Berkshire next year, it’s been wall to wall coverage throughout.

The Government have led the way in lapping up the news: Young Dave was outside 10 Downing Street sharpish to pitch a few soundbites, telling how the Cabinet had been banging the table in approval.

But hang on a minute: Royal weddings cost serious money.

In this case, it could be into the tens of millions, when the ceremony, security and clearing away is totted up. Moreover, there will inevitably be a day off for everyone, so that’s a further cost in lost productivity. Maybe someone should be pressing the case for a value for money approach.

Fortunately, there is always one group hot on any hint of unnecessary public expenditure, and that is the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA). So what do they say about next year’s nuptials? Well, what they say is not exactly unequivocal. TPA campaign director Emma Boon has accepted that taxpayers would “carry some of the costs”.

Ms Boon also said “ordinary taxpayers should not be left with a bill fit for a king”, a selection of words that could have come from Baron Mandelson of Indeterminate Guacamole, such is the amount of wriggle room it provides.

Had there been a local or national Government organisation about to splash out an eight figure sum on a one off event next year, the TPA would have already gone into overdrive about it. Yet when that event involves Royalty, their best shot is to say that “it’s OK so long as it doesn’t cost too much”. Sort of. Yeah but no but.

Ditching any consistency to make sure you keep in with all those hacks and editors that obligingly reprint your knocking copy? Perish the thought, eh?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Reform

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Terminate the civil list, give the crown estates back to the monarchy and let them use the income from said estates to fund the wedding and other royal business.

Could have something to do with this: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/847591-royal-wedding-could-be-600million-lift-for-economy

Although, I agree that as much of the royal wedding should be paid for privately. Perhaps it could be sponsored?!

Haha… I love the way lefties pretend that the monarchy is only popular because of the eeevil ‘rightwing’ meeeja. Actually it’s popular because the vast majority of Brits, including and especially the working class, love and revere our Queen and want to see the royalty continued. Carp from the sidelines and be miserable if you want to, just let the rest of us enjoy the glorious spectacle of a royal wedding.

@ comment 3 from Bruno:
I guess this would look differently if the “working class” realised that the whole spectaculum will be paid with their tax money.

I think a fund should be set up and then people can contribute and show their love and support for the monarchy. Either enough comes in and William can have a huge wedding, or he will have to come up with some of his own funds.

Because they are the elite. The people at the top deserve the money spent.

2

They were quoting £1billion on the Radio this morning, which will of course have all the forelock tugging toadies frothing at the mouth about how wonderful it is, and what an asset they are etc., etc.

We’re talking about the grandson of one of the richest women in the world; why should it cost the taxpayers anything at all? No doubt they could turn a profit if they sold the picture and interview rights to Hello magazine.

Not that I often find myself agreeing with Sally, but she was right yesterday on another thread….. bread and circuses!

7. status update : drinking beer and smoking tabs

Yes us working class people all act the same and like the same thing Mister Bruno. Thanks for telling us that. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! As all us working class people like to say, eveyday, on the hour.

Shouldn’t the bride’s parents pay??!!

3

As was demonstrated at the time of Diana’s death the nation is pretty divided, and even many who don’t mind the principle of monarchy can turn against it pretty quickly when it shows quite how out of touch with the real world it is.

Large numbers couldn’t care less about anything to do with the royals and think it’s all way over the top; many others are luke warm but don’t mind the Queen cos she’s an old dear and does a good job, whilst others who are fully paid up, commemorative plate buying, enjoy a glorious spectacle, stand to attention for the national anthem sorts.

They might be even more popular if they announced that rather than expecting the tax payers to shell out tens of millions, they were going to flog a few paintings or art works and foot the bill themselves.

State funded marriages by convention only apply to the Monarch and the direct next in line to the throne, so Prince William’s marriage will probably have to be paid for privately anyway.

As to the security issue – that would apply to any celebrity getting married. The taxpayer already funds the cost of policing public events, so the scale is somewhat larger, but the principle is unchanged.

The pomp&ceremony will be using existing soldiers in existing uniforms who would be in the barracks on any other day.

It is likely that the whole thing will generate a net profit for the UK due to the expected boost to tourism – especially from the USA. If anything, we might want more Royal Marriages over the next few years to bring in the cash!

1) The monarchy is cheap compared to a President.
2) Most people will consider this a bit churlish. A young couple who appear basically normal and decent are about to tie the knot; most people who aren’t miserable, envious socialists, consider this to be a “good thing”.
3) The TPA are conservatives (note the non-capitalisiation. NOTE IT). They are probably instinctive supporters of the Monarchy. They feel the same way about it as you do about the Miners’ strike: all gooey and nostalgic.
4) I thought you lot were against “whataboutery”

Does anyone know whether the TPA issued a press release about Cameron’s decision to put his photographer and make up people on the public payroll? (yes I know this was reversed).

@ 4

I guess this would look differently if the “working class” realised that the whole spectaculum will be paid with their tax money.

But the “working class” barely pays any tax. The lowest 10% in income terms pay less than 0.6% of income tax. Consumption taxes (except those levied on fuel) tend to apply to luxury or non-essential items.

Besides, the worst off (as we have been told so frequently in recent months) are the biggest consumers of public services. So they are already taking out much more in benefits, free education for their kids, free health and benefits than they are putting in.

Accordingly, any charges for the royal wedding will inevitably fall upon those who are net payers-in to the Treasury pot: i.e. the rich.

It’s really a bit much when the parasites moan more than the host.

It’s not surprising that broadcast and print media argue that most of us enjoy a royal wedding, it provides hours of footage, and the ‘fail’ can produce a special edition so that all of those adoring working-class can show it to their grandchildren.
11
Perhaps you could start a fund to finance the wedding, and then those who
support the monarchy can pay.

13
You confusing class with income.

Wedding is quoted at 50m, with the royal family contributing….but it is estimated that the lift to the economy is going to be 620m.

Not a huge surprise then that the TPA isn’t complaining – it will generate the government more revenue that it will cost them. Simples.

Though I do love lefties frothing at the mouth about it.

“g – it will generate the government more revenue that it will cost them. Simples.”

Converted to keynesianism tyler?

Re: cjcjc @ 8

The funny thing is, they could probably afford to. They’ve certainly got more cash than the Windsors. 😀

Assuming the public will join together to celebrate this event with parties and merch, which is a huge assumption, this could have been perfectly timed to kickstart the economy. We could indeed get more back from this than we’re putting in.

Could do wonders for inter-cultural relations too, though that’s just wild speculation on my part.

16

..or of course you could just wonder why the bill should be for “our” (i.e. taxpayers) account in the first place?

Even if you support the monarchy, the lift to the economy would be £670 million if they paid for it themselves.

@ Planeshift

No I haven’t converted Keynes’ – this *isn’t* deficit spending.

@16

Tyler, I consider myself privileged to have you make adverse comment on my scribblings, but have to say that you are talking total drivel.

The 620 million figure has been reached after making a series of estimates which are all subject to more caveats than the Iraq war “intelligence”. Here’s some quotes to show what I mean:

“Merchandise sales could top 26 million here in the UK”
“Food and grocery retailers could cash in to the tune of 360 millions”
“[travel and tourism] could well add an estimated additional 216 million benefit”

[Note that the first two claims do not feature the word “additional”]

Aye, and Tyler could be 45 minutes away from getting a credible cite for his assertions. But it ain’t going to happen.

[My thanks to Sunny for featuring the post on LC]

Well as we are running a deficit, then it is really.

Your logic is still absurd.

My wedding next year will benefit the local economy. We have several people travelling for it, so hotels are already booked. Plus we’ve been forking out for a venue, catering, band, clothes etc.

So given my wedding is a boost to the economy, why shouldn’t I get a subsidy from the state? After all, it will get the money back through VAT, alcohol taxes, etc.

23. the a&e charge nurse

Constitutional experts have apparently confirmed that Prince William will be barred from the throne unless “he spends at least £80m on his wedding”?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/william-has-constitutional-duty-to-spend-£80m-on-a-party%2c-say-experts-201011183266/

Oh come on! How is the Royal wedding going to improve productivity?

Its not, this is purely a demand side thing and, you know what, it isn’t going to be a particularly efficient one, is it?

“Terminate the civil list, give the crown estates back to the monarchy and let them use the income from said estates to fund the wedding and other royal business.”

Hahahahahaha, yes lets give the distant descendants of a bunch of thieving nobles their property back. You do know what the royals were? Basically an organised crime syndicate. See this very interesting article by Charles Tilly.

So for many on the right taxation is theft, but theft legitimised by inheritance is a-okay!

25. FlyingRodent

If you were looking for a lesson in modern living, then millions of broke Britons gazing in awe and adoration at a stupidly expensive, gold-plated, aristocratic wedding while their own jobs and prospects vanish down the bog is about as apt a metaphor as you could find.

No wonder the TPA aren’t complaining – royalty ostentatiously pissing its wealth up the wall while the outsourced multitudes cheer in approval is pretty much everything they’ve been arguing for, these past few decades. (Tugs forelock, buys commemorative plate).

I LOVE that lefties are pissed off about this

“Hahahahahaha, yes lets give the distant descendants of a bunch of thieving nobles their property back.”

The republicans would hate it. Their argument that “the royals are sponging off the taxpayer” would be extinguished.

28. Luis Enrique

FR

“modern”?

if anything I’d have guessed the degree of respect and admiration for ones “betters” has been on a downward trend in the UK for centuries.

mind you, now it’s getting a blip from mixing royalty with “celebrity culture”.

[I’d also put “jobs and prospects” on an upward trend too, although one with a flaming great dip in it right now]

Of course, if the Crown Estates were the monarch’s private property, they would become subject to inheritance tax, and they’d be broken up as soon as the Queen died. On that basis there is indeed something to be said for giving them ownership of the fruits of Bastard Bill’s looting: it would be strictly temporary.

30. Luis Enrique

[LO a nitpick: if resources are under utilized – like now – then increases in demand do increase productivity]

31. FlyingRodent

if anything I’d have guessed the degree of respect and admiration for ones “betters” has been on a downward trend in the UK for centuries.

Sure, but interest in the activities of ultrawealthy brain-donors who get a lot of face-time on TV has been skyrocketing for years.

I’d add The Apprentice into this phenomenon – a nation of people slogging away in their jobs, voluntarily tuning in during their spare time to watch a bunch of hateful, entitled suits being deservedly tormented by a millionaire. I’m at a loss to see the fun in it myself, but I imagine that psychoanalysts would have a field day.

32. Luis Enrique

FR,

yes you’re right. I was just trying to cheer myself, and you, up.

The headline on this post is:


Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers?

The post then links to a TPA blog where the organization IS making a plea for a frugal royal occasion. Just as one would expect. And didn’t we all see the TPA’s Emma Boon touring the TV studios last night making a more public plea for frugality?

Yes, we did.

So no hypocrisy there, then.

Since this fact doesn’t fit Mr Fenton’s narrative, he makes light of Boon’s words thus:

TPA campaign director Emma Boon has accepted that taxpayers would “carry some of the costs”….

and suggests this is a pathetic cave-in. But let’s just check the context in which Emma Boon wrote that…..

Security and policing around the event will have to be tight, for everyone’s protection. The Royals have a high profile and there will be international interest. We already pay for the protection for prominent public figures and the level of security for the future King’s wedding means it’s likely to be one of the big ticket items on the taxpayers’ bill.

So, what’s your beef Mr F? Are you seriously suggesting the Met should stand aside and give Al Qaeda an access-all-areas pass?

@33 Good idea Flowerpower, that’s sure to make the wedding even more entertaining!

“Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers?”

Because the TPA is a bullshit out fit only interested in the taxes of the global rich elites. Welfare for rich people has never been a problem for them.

33

No, I think what is being asked for is that if they insist on having a wedding which turns into a circus costing tens of millions of pounds, then the bill (any of it)shouldn’t be paid from taxes.

All they need to do for this to be achieved is to either foot the bill themselves, get some other mug to foot the bill (no doubt many magazines and media barons would be happy to do so for exclusive rights), or have a relatively modest wedding which doesn’t cost millions in the first place.

37. FlyingRodent

If the lift to the economy is going to be £620m, I suggest that they make me a prince too.

Give me fifty million quid, then I’ll make an honest woman of Mrs. R – guaranteed Yes, if you’re royalty, I’d have thought – and then we can all reap the benefit. I won’t like all the media attention, but if it’s the price of my patriotic duty, then I’ll soldier on.

In fact, fuck it – why not crown everyone who gets married this year, and refloat the entire economy on our regal nuptuals? I can’t believe nobody thought of this before!

37

Yes, funny how the rich elite suddenly like govt spending to boost the economy as long as it is rich people who are getting the hand outs.

The same people insist that Thatcher should have a state funeral. Even when she spent her entire life preaching the line that the state should not do anything. Priceless.

sally,

I’m with you on Mrs Thatcher’s fueneral – I could just about see the logic for Winston Churchill but not for a peacetime prime minister. But then again, she’s on record as saying she doesn’t want one (state fueneral that is – I imagine she accepts she will have a fueneral, unless she really is undead…).

But I think you may be missing the point here – this wedding is going to happen, and unless we declare a republic before next May, this is a probable future head of state of quite a lot of countries getting married, so the guest list will have to be diplomatically sorted so as not to upset Canadians and Bermudans, whilst also inviting other countries along…

Another way of looking at this is that when I got engaged about ten people found out quickly (my now wife was one of the first…), and about a hundred were told overall (I suspect the number who knew I was getting married was higher than that, but we didn’t tell them…). It was not front page news in all the papers (although it was such a picturesque proposal it should have been…). The thing is, I can get married cheaply (or could – I think that boat has now sailed) but I do not live my life in the constant glare of press cameras. Prince William does, and somehow does it well; furthermore, unlike say Katie Price, he has not chosen to do this, and nor has his wife to be (she is marrying a person, not a post – they would still be married if we were to become a republic). So we cannot just apply the same rules here, but have to admit that a man who has no choice but to suffer huge intrusions and responsibilities because of his birth may be entitled to something more than you or me in terms of his marriage, because it is bluntly not his marriage but everyone’s.

40. status update : doing the do

no doubt If it is raining on the day of the wedding, Bruno is going to chuck himself down on the floor in front of them, so they can walk on him and not get their feet wet, saying ‘gawd bless’em the Royal family. They understand us working class people proper’

I am going to be sitting at home drinking some beer and watching a few DVD boxsets cause there is going to be sod all on TV that day…I’m taking it that we will be giving a day off, right? Otherwise this whole endeavour is pointless.

Surely this wedding ticks all the boxes for the ‘Big Society’, instead of a top down solution, why not invite local communities to contribute to the smooth running of this whole shooting match? Why not get the W.I. to do the flowers and the cooking for example? If the Royals are so wonderful and loved by all and sundry, they should have no difficulty is rounding up tons of volunteers to bypass the State.

One group of people who will do best out of this are the tabloids who will sell millions of papers up to the event and millions more when the marriage ends up the inevitable train wreck, so perhaps they should stump up a pretty big whack of the cash.

Perhaps the republican movement should donate a few quid as well, seeing that the nauseating sight of a dozen or so chinless inbreds chomping away while millions of people are driven into poverty will no doubt increase their membership as well.

Some people arguing for a huge net financial benefit for the UK are suffering from a make work fallacy AKA ‘ the parable of the broken window ‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Money spent on merchandise. This is only a net benefit to the UK if the merchandise is exported. Money only has a value based on what we give up to get it. If someone spends £50 on merchandise then they have £50 less to spend on something else. It would only be a net benefit if the money rather than being spent on merchandise was going to idly sit around in a bank account. It is discretionary spending and if it was not spent on royal merchandise it would probably be spent in some other shop.

A net benefit from overseas visitors would only occur if they were visiting specifically for the wedding. Then the money they spend when here counts as a UK export of services. If they were visiting anyway and decided to take in the wedding there is no net benefit. Overseas news organisations are already in the UK. Only a net benefit if they inflate their staff crews for the event. The BBC selling coverage to overseas media organisations is a net benefit in export of services.

Overall the claims of benefit to the UK are absurdly inflated and have to be balanced with the costs. Probably the greatest benefit is the thing most difficult to measure and that is it is good PR. If it shows the UK in a good light and encourages tourists to visit who would not have visited anyway then that is a continuing benefit. However, it is impossible to measure and is vulnerable to inflated claims. Remember there is only a benefit if tourists are doing something that they would not have done anyway.

@33

I see that I am doubly privileged today: the reactionary troll known as “Flowerpower” has also posted adverse comment.

What I originally posted included a note that the TPA quotes were what was available at the time the post was published:

http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-tpa-blind-to-royalty.html

The central point stands: for any other spending of tens of millions of public money, the TPA would be off the end of the pier. This is, as I’ve said previously, a malign organisation whose sole purpose is the demonisation of Government – any Government.

But on this occasion, they have been going easy on the knocking copy. My further point was that this coincides most conveniently with the fawningly pro-monarchy line of many of the papers that obediently reprint the TPA’s usual diet of Government bashing.

If “Flowerpower” has a problem with this, then the Doctor recommends lying down in a darkened room while listening to collected speeches of Margaret Thatcher.

HTH. HAND.

44. Luis Enrique

Richard W,

you are wrong on this, I think

Some people arguing for a huge net financial benefit for the UK are suffering from a make work fallacy …. Money spent on merchandise. This is only a net benefit to the UK if the merchandise is exported.

that is wrong. think of a closed economy, in recession, with unemployed resources. merchandise is simply a consumption good. benefits are derived from consumption by the consumer, and by people who get jobs who otherwise wouldn’t. increase in demand for consumption goods raises employment. In economic terms, what delivers a “net benefit” if not an increase in employment, output and consumption?

45. Dick the Prick

It may be because Middleton is a babe.

I am looking at it from a net financial perspective as that is where the cash terms benefits advocates are coming from. People buying merchandise may well derive a non-financial benefit from consuming the good. However, the money they are spending means they are spending less on other goods. Therefore, the boost to merchandise sellers has to be offset with the loss to other sellers of goods and services.

Imagine if I spend £100 pw in Sainsbury. Tesco do some promotion and I switch to spending £100 in their shop. Tesco are £100 better off but Sainsbury are £100 worse off. Now the merchandise consumers may well be spending money they would not otherwise spend. However, just to aggregate the figures leads to absurd claims. The consumers will more likely just be switching from consuming one set of goods to another set. In terms of output one group are gaining and somewhere else in the economy others are losing unless consumers are increasing their discretionary spending. That could happen but not at the aggregated figures.

47. Cynical/Realist?

I’m sorry, but in the news report I saw Emma Boon was pretty clear that the TPA was against the royal wedding costing tax payers a huge amount. It really wasn’t hard to see what they meant, and the ‘wriggle room’ you mention was simply them accepting it wouldn’t be completly free to the tax payer.

Lord knows how much I hate the TPA, honest I do. But I hate even more seeing people on myside of the fence deliberatly misrepresenting things to add to their own agendas. Of all the organisations it was hardly even necessary against its the TPA.

Please try harder.

48. Luis Enrique

Richard

This is way of topic … but briefly, you’re essentially denying that an “exogenous demand increase” in a closed economy in recession can increase real output. Mainstream economics does not agree with you. This is not a fixed block of economic activity such that more spent on one thing means less spent on another. Resource utilization increases, production increases, money circulates faster (or money supply increases via multiplier).

@ 48. Luis Enrique

I agree with you that things are a lot more nuanced. However, I am really addressing the naive view of just aggregating and imagining that we are better off as a country by the same amount. There are many exceptions as you outline. Some of the claims being made are a form of ‘ old-style naïve Keynesianism ‘.

50. Luis Enrique

oh right sorry yes very much agree net benefit does not equal “total spending on wedding”

re: 48

Wont “Resource utilization increases, production increases” etc be done in another country? Even memorial plates are likely to be imported these days and the largest corporations that will be buying/selling/turning over the most will be avoiding paying tax in the UK as is their social norm…

and thanks Jim @ 41, that’s the best laugh I’ve had since the tories got in

“[LO a nitpick: if resources are under utilized – like now – then increases in demand do increase productivity]”

Oh indeed, but spending money on a wedding seems like one of the least efficient ways to boost demand.

Unless we get them a highspeed rail system as a wedding gift on the sly.

“Unless we get them a highspeed rail system as a wedding gift on the sly”

I was thinking a Tunnel between Anglesey and mainland Wales would be more appropiate given the occasion.

Tim Fenton @ 43

Reactionary troll, my foot. I’m a meek ‘n’ mild liberal Conservative of the Cameroon persuasion who takes a genuine and engaged interest in the views posted here at LibCon. I suppose your unalloyed aggression is prompted by the fact that on this occasion I pointed to evidence that showed you were talking complete rot.

54

Well no, to be fair you didn’t provide evidence he was talking complete rot. The TPA called for frugality, whereas the accusation was that if this was any “other” non-Royal expenditure of tens of millions of public money, the TPA and many on the right would have had a very public melt down.

@ 55

Galen 10 –

Thank you for demonstrating that it was indeed complete rot.

the accusation was that if this was any “other” non-Royal expenditure of tens of millions of public money, the TPA and many on the right would have had a very public melt down.

Or can you point me to the place where the TPA says it is wrong to spend tens of millions on defence, health, or education?

56

Don’t be crass. You know quite well what was meant; namely that if there had been some public expenditure for a celebration of which the TPA disapproved it would indeed have gone “off the end of the pier” as Tim said.

The fact is that the reaction of this organisation (which many people find pretty hard to stomach) as detailed in the OP, was muted to the point of tugging it’s forelock, due simply to the fact that it involved royalty. Go figure.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  2. Melissa Nicole Harry

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  3. Jayne Grindell

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm @andrew_allison

  4. Gez Kirby

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  5. Ged Robinson

    RT @gezkirby: RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  6. Nick Watts

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  7. Nick Hider

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  8. Steve Woods

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  9. Annie B

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  10. Nick Entwistle

    Tax Payers' Alliance in "being massive hypocrites" shocker http://bit.ly/98LxZC

  11. Kate the Keynesian, meet Mick the Vic « Though Cowards Flinch

    […] with Anton.  Lefties shouldn’t be getting all uppity about the Royal […]

  12. Patrick Cosh

    RT @libcon Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  13. Pucci Dellanno

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  14. Nick H.

    RT @libcon: Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? http://bit.ly/9Ltnkm

  15. Tredhek

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/11/18/why-arent-the-tpa-complaining-about-royal-drain-on-taxpayers/

  16. Spir.Sotiropoulou

    Why aren’t the TPA complaining about the Royal drain on taxpayers? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iliuRRo via @libcon

  17. blogs of the world

    No wonder the TPA aren't complaining ? royalty ostentatiously pissing its wealth up the wa… http://reduce.li/g7l6jw #complaining





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.