OP: “£31,753,620 … is approximately 6 new primary schools every year at a cost of just over £5m per school”

But if there were no hereditary parasites who on earth would cut the ribbon to open them all?

Convention is that employment cost (to the employer) is roughly 1.5 * salary. It is a rule of thumb measure that covers the cost of office space (or the cleaner’s cupboard), NI, other pension employer contributions, personal but general equipment required for the job role (safety equipment, tools, computer facilities) etc. It excludes the cost of infrastructure such as assembly line tools or specialised equipment. It is very much a rule of thumb and, say, for NHS employees the 1.5 multiplier may underestimate employment cost.

No surprise here.

Brownshirts never have a problem spending tax payers money on themselves.

But, to continue the logic, 3000 nurses is only 0.00005 of an extra nurse each…

First of all, it is unlikely that any new nurses would save any lives at all. They don’t do very much these days and there is a diminishing return on more nurses. At some point we just have enough and given the amount we spend on the NHS I would hope we had long since reached that point.

Second, someone has to do the Head of State job. Even if we got rid of the Queen, someone would still have to be President or whatever. And hence would cost us some significant fraction of those costs – indeed France’s President seems to cost them even more.

So the point is interesting but spurious.

The “net of tax” point about nurses runs full tilt into the problem that most of the Civil List money presumably goes on paying for door-holders and so forth – who also pay taxes. The net effects to the Treasury in terms of returning taxes & NI are probably in the same general area whichever way the £30m is spent.

@4. So Much For Subtlety: “First of all, it is unlikely that any new nurses would save any lives at all.”

And secondly, there are comments that do not deserve further response.

Brown shirt sought. Quick delivery ideal. Purchaser is a lefty liberal. Buyer is smarter than Sally.

“The United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family.”

You should check out this video Sunny: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-family/

Sally – well done for getting under their skin so reliably.

If the Royals are worth so much, why not just sell them off? We could sell the contract to supply the Royals at any event, Country, trade show, garden fete or whatever and let the rest of alone to manage without Brenda and here dysfunctional brood?

Perhaps Group4 to run the Royal family, in return for a slice of the entire tourist tat and tea towels and other shit hovered up by the bowers and scrapers and the piss soaked pensioners that fawn over the Royals? Everybody wins, the Royal get their true value, the forelock tuggers get to keep their figurehead the treasury can collect revenue (160 million according to one newly tugged forelock) and the Republicans get to claim that they have are now longer part of a corrupt system.

AS far as I am concerned these scroungers only have children in order to cream off more benefits.

Would rather pay 51p p/a for the royals than paying for all the supposed civil servants who spend their entire time working for the unions. They really add value don’t they…

“why not just sell them off”

Apparently the 3G spectrum auction was a great success (Tim Harford said so in his excellent book ‘The Undercover Economist’), so we have a very good example of how to approach this task…

Tyler @ 11

If we sold the Brenda and the rest off to the highest bidder, then you buy as many shares as you want. No doubt there are enough obnoxious people like you and the other cunt, SMFS, to more than cover the costs.

@ 11 Tyler

“Would rather pay 51p p/a for the royals than paying for all the supposed civil servants who spend their entire time working for the unions. They really add value don’t they…”

By helping to protect workers from their powerful employers? They do add value, I agree.

The Queen and her entourage, by comparison, have a good line in hand-waving. Oh, they’re probably reasonable diplomats, but horrendously overpaid and overprivileged.

I really don’t get it when otherwise sensible right-wingers (i.e. those of a “rights of the individual” bent) suddenly get all sentimental when it comes to Our Liz. I suspect it’s just an attempt to piss off the left, but that seems rather hypocritical (not to mention childish).

“Oh, they’re probably reasonable diplomats”

Cough*andrew*cough

I really don’t get it when otherwise sensible right-wingers (i.e. those of a “rights of the individual” bent) suddenly get all sentimental when it comes to Our Liz. I suspect it’s just an attempt to piss off the left, but that seems rather hypocritical (not to mention childish).

It’s mainly irrational emotion (like ‘patriotism’) but there’s also a strong underlying sense that tearing down large parts of national identity (and the monarchy has been a central part of English and British life for over a thousand years, and was fundamental in the creation of the unified nation state of England, and then the imperial construct state of the United Kingdom) with no clear sense of what should replace it or why it would be any better is mindless iconoclasm.

It’s also because arguments in favour of removing the monarchy are either intellectual abstractions (“it’s not fair”, effectively) or mendacious cost-based assessments that fail to acknowledge either the benefits accrued from a monarchy, or that any replacement would face the same sort of cost implications.

It also doesn’t help of course that so much of the opposition to the monarchy is expressed in crude, racist terms, of the sort that most republicans would be swift to condemn were it aimed at any other target.

Tim J @ 16

The point being that many on the Right have absolutely no problem tearing down institutions that they have little interest in. Anything that seeks to impede the path to the promised land of Neo Liberalism is to despatched at the earliest opportunity in a search for ‘modernisation’. We could go on all day about the things that modern day Tories have ripped up that we could argue was cherished by their post and pre war counterparts.

I wonder how many Post War Tories would have reacted to the destruction of the civil service, or the idea that public servants would be denied adequate pensions, for example. We have people on here who have trashed the nursing profession and equating civil servants as parasites. Would that have been the prevailing attitude, circa 1950s? I wonder if Churchill would have approved of the sale of Council housing, or even the Nationalised industries. Churchill was no friend of the miners, but I personally doubt he would have seen many mines closed and cheap coal bought in from aboard, the saving being paid out in benefits to keep miners on the dole.

Perhaps he would have? I think it is at least debateable though.

The point being that many on the Right have absolutely no problem tearing down institutions that they have little interest in. Anything that seeks to impede the path to the promised land of Neo Liberalism is to despatched at the earliest opportunity in a search for ‘modernisation’. We could go on all day about the things that modern day Tories have ripped up that we could argue was cherished by their post and pre war counterparts.

I wonder how many Post War Tories would have reacted to the destruction of the civil service, or the idea that public servants would be denied adequate pensions, for example. We have people on here who have trashed the nursing profession and equating civil servants as parasites. Would that have been the prevailing attitude, circa 1950s? I wonder if Churchill would have approved of the sale of Council housing, or even the Nationalised industries. Churchill was no friend of the miners, but I personally doubt he would have seen many mines closed and cheap coal bought in from aboard, the saving being paid out in benefits to keep miners on the dole.

Perhaps he would have? I think it is at least debateable though.

@ 16 Tim J

“It’s mainly irrational emotion (like ‘patriotism’) but there’s also a strong underlying sense that tearing down large parts of national identity with no clear sense of what should replace it or why it would be any better is mindless iconoclasm.”

Certainly mindless to destroy a system without any idea of what system you want to replace it. But generally republicans do have a system in mind (republicanism, natch, details of which differ from person to person).

As for “national identity”: you can’t actually destroy that. If it really exists as a thing at all, then it’s changeable. Our national identity, not so long ago, included seeing ourselves as kind overlords of the weaker nations and races (the whole “White man’s burden” thing), to pick one example. Not any more.

And no, I’m not comparing the British monarchy to that, I’m just pointing out that yesterday’s national identity often looks embarrassing or actively evil today.

“It’s also because arguments in favour of removing the monarchy are either intellectual abstractions (“it’s not fair”, effectively) or mendacious cost-based assessments that fail to acknowledge either the benefits accrued from a monarchy, or that any replacement would face the same sort of cost implications.”

Would you accept a properly costed approach, with the principle of equality possibly being part of the analysis? In other words: would you be on-side if we could a) get rid of the Queen and save money or b) get rid of the Queen at very little financial cost?

“It also doesn’t help of course that so much of the opposition to the monarchy is expressed in crude, racist terms, of the sort that most republicans would be swift to condemn were it aimed at any other target.”

“So much”? I don’t deny that you get people making stupid jokes about us being ruled by Germans, but it’s hardly the driving force of republicanism. Anyway, this is a bit of a straw man when you’re talking to a reasonable republican – I don’t hold you responsible for the small group of people who think that the Queen should be our absolute ruler by divine right.

Simply saying “the monarchy costs us £x” is a bit misleading, since a lot (most?) of the money would have to be spent anyway, regardless of our government type (e.g., the cost of maintaining royal palaces, security costs, etc.).

Certainly mindless to destroy a system without any idea of what system you want to replace it. But generally republicans do have a system in mind (republicanism, natch, details of which differ from person to person).

Up to a point. Except that it’s those different details that are troubling. Replace the monarchy with a non-executive figurehead President, like Italy or Germany? Or an executive head of Government like France or the US. The first seems fairly pointless – either a reward for an antiquated politician or a safe non-entity. The second involves the wholesale replacement of our political tradition. And it very rarely seems to have been properly thought through.

Would you accept a properly costed approach, with the principle of equality possibly being part of the analysis? In other words: would you be on-side if we could a) get rid of the Queen and save money or b) get rid of the Queen at very little financial cost?

Honestly? No, probably not. I accept that this is a bit of a dead-end for debate, but the irrational emotion point would probably still hold sway for me. I like the pointless pomp and circumstance of the constitution. I like the fact that there are things that Britain does for no better reason than that we’ve been doing them for 800 years. I also feel (hey – “feel” again) that where symbols have been changed recently, the change has mostly been for the worse. Whether that’s the new translations of the Bible or the new passport. And it’s on that basis that I don’t really think that a President Blair (or Fry or Beckham or whoever) would be much of an improvement. I certainly don’t think that we’d be much better off if David Cameron was head of state.

I don’t deny that you get people making stupid jokes about us being ruled by Germans, but it’s hardly the driving force of republicanism. Anyway, this is a bit of a straw man when you’re talking to a reasonable republican.

Hell no, but then most arguments about republicanism aren’t with reasonable republicans (I am aware of the irony of talking about reasonableness, when I’ve admitted that my own stance is intrinsically irrational…). And when the argument is pitched in terms of parasites/benefit cheats/foreigners it tends to entrench opposite positions.

@ 14:

“I really don’t get it when otherwise sensible right-wingers (i.e. those of a “rights of the individual” bent) suddenly get all sentimental when it comes to Our Liz. I suspect it’s just an attempt to piss off the left, but that seems rather hypocritical (not to mention childish).”

Given that constitutional monarchies generally seem to protect their subjects’ rights better than most republics do, I don’t think it’s inconsistent to support both individual liberties and the monarchy.

Although speaking of hypocrisy, quite a bit of the royal budget goes towards employing people, and I thought the usual LC line was that government spending to keep people employed was a good thing? Ah well, I suppose anti-monarchism > consistency.

@ 17:

“Certainly mindless to destroy a system without any idea of what system you want to replace it. But generally republicans do have a system in mind (republicanism, natch, details of which differ from person to person).”

Well yes, but like you say, the details of which system to use differ from person to person. So whilst individuals usually have a fairly clear idea of what they want to see, the republican movement collectively doesn’t.

“And no, I’m not comparing the British monarchy to that, I’m just pointing out that yesterday’s national identity often looks embarrassing or actively evil today.”

And maybe when the monarchy is seen as embarrassing or evil, we should get rid of it. But as things stand, it’s seen as an important part of British national identity by many, and most people would be sorry to see it go.

Right. Two posts lost in an electronic hole. Can’t face a third.

@ 14 Chaise

Public sector workers (by definition, taxpayer funded) doing UNION work. Have no problem if they were union funded…but they’re not.

If nothing else the law protects workers rights making the unions ever more superfluous in terms of “protecting workers rights”. It’s not a great surprise that this is refelcted in the fall in union membership.

As for the royals, we pay that 51p to do their particular role (of which a massive part of the cost is simply maintenenance of buildings etc). Exactly what it says on the tin. The problem I have with the “pilgrims” is that they are supposed to be perfoming other roles, and we pay them for it, but instead many are simply left wing political agitators. As Sunny proves so well, you don’t need to be paid from the public purse to do that.

@21. Tyler: “Public sector workers (by definition, taxpayer funded) doing UNION work. Have no problem if they were union funded…but they’re not.”

I reckon that you are being overly obnoxious, Tyler. I appreciate that obnoxiousness is part of the Tyler brand, but this time it is economically misplaced.

Big companies need full time union officials. They are the friends of employees when relationships break down. They may even be friends of employers (without shitting on workers).

What is the cost of a lawyer? What is the cost of a union official? What is the cost of strife?

@ 19 XXX

“Given that constitutional monarchies generally seem to protect their subjects’ rights better than most republics do, I don’t think it’s inconsistent to support both individual liberties and the monarchy.”

Given that the worst two dictators of the modern era had moustaches…

Yes, many of the countries that have a good internal human rights record are constitutional monarchies, but you’d need to show a causal connection there. How does the Queen prevent you from being extradicted to Gitmo in a way a president wouldn’t?

It’s also worth pointing out than in most (all?) of those countries the most recent trend has been to reduce the power of their monarchies, often coinciding with their improving human rights.

“Although speaking of hypocrisy, quite a bit of the royal budget goes towards employing people, and I thought the usual LC line was that government spending to keep people employed was a good thing? Ah well, I suppose anti-monarchism > consistency.”

You could argue that republicanism was more important than jobs. Although personally I probably wouldn’t. But you can’t just shut a pro-employment person (are any of us anti-employment) up just by pointing out that a cause more important to them than employment could lead to job losses.

“Well yes, but like you say, the details of which system to use differ from person to person. So whilst individuals usually have a fairly clear idea of what they want to see, the republican movement collectively doesn’t.”

…So? Does conformity confer legitimacy?

“And maybe when the monarchy is seen as embarrassing or evil, we should get rid of it. But as things stand, it’s seen as an important part of British national identity by many, and most people would be sorry to see it go.”

I personally find it very embarassing… but yes, a referendum would probably preserve the monarchy, and maybe that’s our answer. It’s no reason to waste public money on them, mind.

@ 21 Tyler

“Public sector workers (by definition, taxpayer funded) doing UNION work. Have no problem if they were union funded…but they’re not. ”

I was just saying they’re more useful than the monarchy. They increase the sum of human wellbeing. How they should be funded is a different question, but if it was a choice between them and the royals, I’d pay for the unionists.

“If nothing else the law protects workers rights making the unions ever more superfluous in terms of “protecting workers rights”. It’s not a great surprise that this is refelcted in the fall in union membership. ”

That makes them less essential, not superfluous. Firstly, they protect workers’ interests, as well as rights, in a field that is otherwise hugely one-sided. Secondly, as Charlieman rightly points out, many people would not be able to pursue their rights in court without union support. The law, like the Ritz, is open to the rich and poor alike…

“As for the royals, we pay that 51p to do their particular role (of which a massive part of the cost is simply maintenenance of buildings etc). Exactly what it says on the tin. The problem I have with the “pilgrims” is that they are supposed to be perfoming other roles, and we pay them for it, but instead many are simply left wing political agitators.”

If they’re agitating on paid time, in a way that isn’t relevant to their job, then fair enough. Examples, please.

@ 23:

“Yes, many of the countries that have a good internal human rights record are constitutional monarchies, but you’d need to show a causal connection there.”

No, I’d just have to show that monarchy and the rights of the individual aren’t in conflict, which they obviously aren’t.

“You could argue that republicanism was more important than jobs. Although personally I probably wouldn’t. But you can’t just shut a pro-employment person (are any of us anti-employment) up just by pointing out that a cause more important to them than employment could lead to job losses.”

No, you can’t. Equally, though, you can’t shut up a pro-rights person by saying that monarchy conflicts with the right to be head of state, because they would presumably value the monarchy over that particular right.

“…So? Does conformity confer legitimacy?”

No, but as there’s no agreement as to what sort of republic we’d have, Tim J was justified in saying that we have “no clear sense of what should replace [the monarchy] or why it would be any better”.

“I personally find it very embarassing… but yes, a referendum would probably preserve the monarchy, and maybe that’s our answer. It’s no reason to waste public money on them, mind.”

I’d have thought the fact that most people want to keep the monarchy is quite a good reason for spending money on it, actually.

@ 25 XXX

“No, I’d just have to show that monarchy and the rights of the individual aren’t in conflict, which they obviously aren’t.”

You’d need to show that to demonstrate that the monarchy doesn’t impair personal rights. I was pointing out that the fact that constitutional monarchies tend to be pretty good countries doesn’t argue FOR monarchy. Basically I don’t think a constitutional monarchy affects human rights one way or the other.

“No, you can’t. Equally, though, you can’t shut up a pro-rights person by saying that monarchy conflicts with the right to be head of state, because they would presumably value the monarchy over that particular right.”

No, a monarchy patently does conflict with the right, such as it is, to be head of state. If the head of state is set by birth, then by definition 99.X% of the population cannot ever become head of state under than system.

My point was about hypocrisy. You could call someone a hypocrite for supporting both the monarchy and the opportunity for anyone to be head of state, but only because those two views are so mutually incompatible that presumably nobody holds them.

The more usual republican attack would be “you say you’re against wasteful spending but you support the monarchy!”, to which you could quite reasonably point out that you don’t see the monarcy as a waste of money.

“No, but as there’s no agreement as to what sort of republic we’d have, Tim J was justified in saying that we have “no clear sense of what should replace [the monarchy] or why it would be any better”.”

Yeah, but the very strong implication was: “…and therefore it would be worse”. Which doesn’t follow. The fact that we have no clear sense what would replace the monarchy is entirely true, but that’s not a valid argument against the monarchy.

(Note: I’m not suggesting that it would be a good idea to depose the Queen and then roll a dice to find out what happens next. Opinions are disparate now, but if republicanism ever looked likely – say an anti-royal party had a change of winning a general election – then presumably they’d have a much more solid game plan by then.)

“I’d have thought the fact that most people want to keep the monarchy is quite a good reason for spending money on it, actually.”

Why? Loads of people like Stephen Fry, but nobody’s suggesting we pay him millions of pounds out of the state purse.

The monarchy is part of our system, and to get rid of it democratically we would presumably need either a referendum or for a party to win an election with a republican mandate. I’m cool with that and can accept the result. But distribution of public funds is not generally decided based on popularity rankings, it’s sorted out by the Chancellor and those below him. Obviously the general acceptance of the monarchy means that the government has to give the royals some material support, but “people like X” doesn’t mean “we should throw money at X”: you know as well as I do that politics and national budgets are more complicated and pragmatic than that.

@ 26:

“You’d need to show that to demonstrate that the monarchy doesn’t impair personal rights. I was pointing out that the fact that constitutional monarchies tend to be pretty good countries doesn’t argue FOR monarchy. Basically I don’t think a constitutional monarchy affects human rights one way or the other.”

You argued in post # 14 that it’s hypocritical for right-wingers of the “‘rights of the individual’ bent” to support the monarchy. But that doesn’t follow unless the monarchy is detrimental to individual rights. Since you don’t seem to think it is, I’m struggling to see why you think that such people shouldn’t support the monarchy.

“Yeah, but the very strong implication was: “…and therefore it would be worse”. Which doesn’t follow. The fact that we have no clear sense what would replace the monarchy is entirely true, but that’s not a valid argument against the monarchy.”

Not wanting to put words in Tim’s mouth here, but I’d guess that he’d say something along the lines of “No, it won’t *necessarily* be worse, but it *might* be, and since we don’t know what it will be replaced with, we can’t tell which it will be. So until we have a clear idea of what sort of republic we want, it’s probably better to play it safe and stick with the devil we know.”

“Obviously the general acceptance of the monarchy means that the government has to give the royals some material support, but “people like X” doesn’t mean “we should throw money at X”:”

As you say, we live in a constitutional monarchy and most people support the present situation, and until that changes the government ought to give the monarchy some money. Whether we’re “throwing money at” the monarchy is harder to ascertain; I would argue that we aren’t, given that most of the costs are related to security and the upkeep of royal palaces, which would have to paid anyway, regardless of what political system we had.

@ 27 XXX

“You argued in post # 14 that it’s hypocritical for right-wingers of the “‘rights of the individual’ bent” to support the monarchy. But that doesn’t follow unless the monarchy is detrimental to individual rights. Since you don’t seem to think it is, I’m struggling to see why you think that such people shouldn’t support the monarchy.”

Well put. OK, you’re right. I’ve conflated my stereotypes of right-wingers with how right-wingers should logically behave. Mea culpa: my original comment was simply wrong. Apologies.

“Not wanting to put words in Tim’s mouth here, but I’d guess that he’d say something along the lines of “No, it won’t *necessarily* be worse, but it *might* be, and since we don’t know what it will be replaced with, we can’t tell which it will be. So until we have a clear idea of what sort of republic we want, it’s probably better to play it safe and stick with the devil we know.””

I’d say that it definitely and deliberately came across as a presumption that, as we don’t have an official and formal idea of what republicans want, it must be worse than the status quo. Look at the original quote and read between the lines. You’re putting honourable words into the concept that the original failed to deliver.

Also, “better the devil we know” isn’t an argument, it’s a convenient cliche used to prevent progress.

“As you say, we live in a constitutional monarchy and most people support the present situation, and until that changes the government ought to give the monarchy some money. Whether we’re “throwing money at” the monarchy is harder to ascertain; I would argue that we aren’t, given that most of the costs are related to security and the upkeep of royal palaces, which would have to paid anyway, regardless of what political system we had.”

I’ve no objection to those costs. Security should be provided for anyone who needs security, I wouldn’t count as a socialist if I didn’t believe that. And yes, we’d have to pay upkeep on palaces and other important national sites.

Nevertheless, the money we spend on the monarchy seems excessive to me, not to mention the assets we let go to waste, such as the Crown Jewels. The head of state does not need Faberge eggs. In a small way, I’m sure they serve as useful collateral for credit, but there’s a huge amount of wealth tied up in national status symbols like that which could really be put to better use.

@ 32:

“Nevertheless, the money we spend on the monarchy seems excessive to me, not to mention the assets we let go to waste, such as the Crown Jewels. The head of state does not need Faberge eggs. In a small way, I’m sure they serve as useful collateral for credit, but there’s a huge amount of wealth tied up in national status symbols like that which could really be put to better use.”

I suppose that “excessive spending” is a rather subjective term, and we’ll probably end up having to agree to disagree on the matter. But do you really think that the Crown Jewels “go to waste” at the moment? As far as I’m aware, they spend most of the time on display in the Tower of London being looked at by tourists. I can’t really think of any better way to use them, TBH, and they’d probably be put to exactly the same use under a republic.

@ 33 XXX

I agree that’s not a totally wasteful use of them. But I suspect that you could sell off most of the really expensive items and still draw in a similar amount of tourists. More broadly, I think you could also get rid of the monarchy and still pull in tourism revenue thanks to the buildings – if you go on a Royal Tour of London or whatever, you expect to see Buckingham Palace but not the Queen. Come to think about it, getting rid of the Queen would mean you could show people more of Buckingham Palace because it wouldn’t be a security issue.