Interesting, although I don’t think many people will rally behind the cause of not getting a day off.

My suspicion about the $600-odd figure is that it may not have been costed against transactions that would have happened were it not for the wedding: someone buying a ghastly royal wedding plate may well have spent that money on another piece of chintz otherwise.

What do you expect from the TPA?

If we are going to have a monarchy then we have to pay for it. Simples.

As Jim Jepps has said –

‘Now thirty million is not a huge amount in the big scale of things. It’s half the cuts Lewisham council are going to be making over the next three years for example. That’s something obviously – libraries saved, nurseries staying open an extra year, that sort of thing – but seeing as the coalition want the cuts and won’t even save front line police it seems unlikely that the money would have been spent on that rather than ordering a new Afghan gobbling machine.’
http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2010/11/lovely-things-happening-to-lovely.html

Incidentally, it’s possible that the Mail is knowingly jumping the gun on the bank holiday thing in the knowledge that, should it not go ahead, it can sell papers with an outraged BANK HOLIDAY CANCELLED story (possibly IN CASE IT OFFENDS REPUBLICANS AND MUSLIMS).

I’m somewhat sceptical of this claim that a Bank Holiday necessarily involves a £6bn loss of production. Economic activity doesn’t cease on a bank holiday: don’t all those bars, eateries, DIY and sofa sales keep GDP at a healthy level?

If we are to have a bank holiday on the day of the nuptials I propose we pro-democracy types stage a republican party (errr might need to change that name..) in Hyde Park or somewhere to counter the myth that the only patriots are royalist arselickers.

That’s a fantastic idea, Pill. Although I’m adverse to travelling all the way down to London for that reason alone: get this going as a nationwide thing and it could be good.

My only worry is that it could turn into an anti-monarchy protest type thing which, on the day of the wedding itself, would look churlish. It should make the point that republicans are good citizens too without picketing people on their wedding day.

5

I’d suggest Rally for the Republic, but people might think you’re a Gaullist

Putting republicanism and royalism to one side, the wedding could easily be paid for by selling the coverage rights. Exclusive interviews with and photographs of the happy couple. And the global TV rights could be auctioned to the highest bidder. It could all be done very tastefully, nothing demeaning to the nation or the Royals. This looks to me like a classic case of a private sector solution saving public cash.

It’s preety obvious that the Taxpayers Alliance think it’s ok that those DECENT and HARDWORKING taxpayers should pay towards the cost of a Royal wedding but it’s not ok that they should pay for anything that benefit minority groups, especially black gay lesbian Muslims etc etc.

Nothing to worry about on this one, tens of £billions will be earned from international media coverage alone – long before, during and long after the wedding. For example, public exposure to advertising will be unimaginable not to mention foreign tourism.

There is something deliciously appropriate for the communications director of the TPA, Emma Boon having a degree in er, Mental Philosophy.

The people who fund the tpa love Royalty. They like unelected elites. No problem with tax payers funding the elites.

That is why an honest name for their organisation is The Rich Taxpayers Alliance. As long as they fail to admit this they should not be taken seriously.

I’m somewhat sceptical of this claim that a Bank Holiday necessarily involves a £6bn loss of production

Figure put out by the CBI

TED “Nothing to worry about on this one, tens of £billions will be earned from international media coverage alone – long before, during and long after the wedding. For example, public exposure to advertising will be unimaginable not to mention foreign tourism.”

Always priceless to see the tory trolls support Keynesian economics. So you admit that govt spending creates wealth?

14 – It won’t create wealth but it will divert it from elsewhere to the UK economy.

15 I refer you to Ted, who says otherwise.

10
Surely this would also happen if the wedding was funded privately, and the taxpayer would also be £120 million better-off.

@ 14. sally. Yes, but only when it has a guaranteed profit attached. This has.

16 – If there wasn’t a Royal Wedding the money would be spent elsewhere.

TED “, but only when it has a guaranteed profit attached. This has.”

Oh I see you are back to picking winners.

Hmmm it makes me wonder why the TPA never seem to make any noise about the corporations who are getting away with billions in tax avoidance. Or the massive sums of public money that are being spent on corporate welfare, or thrown away on hugely expensive inneficient PFI deals etc. Could it be (shock!) that they aren’t entirely neutral and unbiased?

@ 20 sally. definitely. Think of the foreign revenue that we stand to make and desperately need.

@12 sally

Rich tax avoiders, surely?

*blink*

Why is ‘royal wedding’ getting the Proper Noun treatment?

Yay, some people are getting married. No big deal. Can’t see why they don’t pay for it out of their own, not insubstantial, coffers.

22 But as another poster has mentioned, this would happen if the wedding was privately funded.

Sunny @ 13

Figure put out by the CBI

Yeah, that’s why I’m sceptical.

I bet they’ve just guesstimated the amount employers pay out to those who don’t work on a Bank Holiday and call that an extra “cost”, when, in fact, it’s already factored into the rates of pay staff get and actually costs zilch.

Also, the original CBI quote says up to £6bn… so could be 1p, 4p, £50 and that would still be a “true” statement. Mmmm

@ 10

“Nothing to worry about on this one, tens of £billions will be earned from international media coverage alone – long before, during and long after the wedding. For example, public exposure to advertising will be unimaginable not to mention foreign tourism.”

If I got married it would probably be very mildly beneficial to the economy (think of all those train tickets and hotel rooms for the guests). Where’s my handout?

More pertinently: why should we support a system where the very rich get something for free that everyone else has to pay for out of their own pocket? Surely that’s the opposite of sensible?

Also, though this is strictly speaking none of my business, I think His Royalness is missing a trick by not volunteering to pay for it himself, which would make him look (unfairly) generous.

@26

And how much is this “Liberal Conservative” prepared to bet on the six billion figure not being six billions?

I note that you are otherwise out of ideas on how to rubbish this one.

So if the economy loses out by upto £6bn for just one day’s lost work, why do we have weekends. We should be working every single day to ensure that the economy doesn’t lose out.

@ 30

It’s just data. The economy will lose £X due to an extra bank holiday. We’re debating the financial impact here, not the rights and wrongs of giving people a day off.

If a Royal wedding creates wealth, surely it is equally true that a funeral can create wealth as well?

How much did the hysterical weepfest that was the Princess Diana funeral produce or even the more muted Queen Mother’s bereavement chalk up to the Nation?

Given that the Royals are ‘always’ willing to bat for Britain, shouldn’t we see an orderly queue forming for the digitas clinic? Surely they are all willing to take one for the team? Even a minor member of the Aristocracy could create enough plastic tat and Cameron with a truly heartfelt soundbite.

“You know, he was…in a very real sense (sob) the people’s lotus eating junkie”