But, but, public spending….public spending on anything at all….this is stimulus!

How can you be against stimulus? Ed Balls will be very angry you know…..

It’s time we got rid of this bloody monarchy: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/king-and-peasants-discuss-monarchy/

“No doubt crowds will turn out for jubilee events, but the vast majority of the public simply aren’t interested in these celebrations.”

Do they have any polling evidence to back this up? Republic are hardly a massively popular group themselves. They might have more support if they weren’t so arrogant. Of course they are entitled to stage their own protests but it will probably come across as mean-spirited even to the millions who are agnostic about the whole thing.

That said focussing on cost will probably have more effect than some of the more abstract and frankly hard to relate to arguments against the Monarchy.

A prediction: between now and June we’ll keep being told that the jubilee will add millions to the economy but, come the autumn, George Osborne will blaming it for yet another quarter of non-growth.

How can you be against stimulus?

Because not cutting jobs or services would be a better stimulus.

Ah, surprise, surprise, surprise. Any old excuse for a bit of vanity spending, eh?

London’s got the Olympics (that everyone else is bloody paying for), England (most of us really don’t care up here) has the jubilee…although we Scots aren’t immune to the disease – Edinburgh’s Great Tram Fiasco is still, of course, ongoing.

ho hum.

Oh, you might want to fix the typo in the first sentence, by the way – “The Royal Borough of is spending”. Tsk. Bak two prouff-reeding skule yoo goh

“London’s got the Olympics (that everyone else is bloody paying for)”

Your use of “everyone else” suggests that London isn’t contributing anything, despite the fact that Londoners are paying more than anyone else – they’ve all had a decade’s worth of council tax increases especially.

I’m not sure if the same can be said of “everyone else” in Scotland paying for Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games in 2014.

British eccentrics are wonderful.

Aren’t Republic the lot who said in their last piece of ‘research’ that the Monarchy costs us £200m a year, with £100m of that being a guestimate of Security Costs copied from thowaway line in a Daily Mail article?

http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf page 14.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391916/Edward-Sophie-lose-1m-police-protection-Royal-security-costs-cut.html

As a pragmatic monarchist, I find the quality of Republican arguments very encouraging.

@1

Not sure how these events are a stimulus.

@3

Do you have an evidence that Republic are unpopular or seen as arrogant?

@ 3 Richard

“Republic are hardly a massively popular group themselves. They might have more support if they weren’t so arrogant. Of course they are entitled to stage their own protests but it will probably come across as mean-spirited even to the millions who are agnostic about the whole thing.”

This has become a real knee-jerk response, hasn’t it? If you disagree with Republic, all you need to do is cede their right to a point of view, but declare that them EXPRESSING that point of view where someone might hear them is “arrogant”. I note that you haven’t actually bothered to explain in what way they’re arrogant – the official line’s been repeated, so job done, right?

As for mean-spirited, I’m pretty sure that withdrawing much-needed services and kicking people out of work, just to pay for your lovely party with lots of fireworks, is a far better example of this attitude.

Two questions:

No doubt crowds will turn out for jubilee events, but the vast majority of the public simply aren’t interested in these celebrations.

Does Republic have any evidence to support this claim?

And; does Republic have any figures on how many jobs (of the 70 lost) not spending £157,000 would have saved?

OP: “Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is spending an estimated £62,000 on a range of jubilee events including a jubilee-themed “Tunbridge Wells in Bloom” competition.”

A thirty second search would reveal that “Tunbridge Wells in Bloom” is an annual event: http://www.royaltunbridgewellsinbloom.org.uk/ The jubilee event spends money that would have been spent anyway.

@ 10 Robin

“Does Republic have any evidence to support this claim?”

I agree that they ought to present some, but I’d be stunned if the number of people who attended a partly or fully publically funded jubilee party last time around even approached 50%. It’s hard to get that kind of turnout for anything.

“And; does Republic have any figures on how many jobs (of the 70 lost) not spending £157,000 would have saved?”

Fair question: we could do with some real-world analysis of the data beyond “this is the money spent, money could be spent on maintaining jobs”.

Anti-monarchist arguments, like this one in the OP, about the cost of the Jubilee celebrations come over as very petty and mean-spirited to me. Similarly, if the boot were on the other foot, I would feel that monarchists who were arguing about the cost of celebrating the 60th anniversary of the United Republic of Great Britain & N I (or the 60th anniversary of the republic’s life president) were being petty and mean-spirited, too.

There are serious matters to discuss and debate about our constitution and the (dis)advantages of constitutional monarchy vs a republic, but focussing on the issue of cost – particularly of one anniversary celebration – trivialises an important subject.

@ 14

How can costs be trivial when we’re making damaging cuts due to a claimed lack of money? Money is extremely important precisely because of its potential applications. It’s easy to dismiss complaints about costs as “petty” when you don’t consider all the good things the money could otherwise be spent on.

If cost issues are trivial, political parties are wasting 90% of their time arguing about an unimportant subject.

As a Bath resident I find this quite interesting. I’d have liked it if Republic could have found out what the picnic entailed. It’s interesting to note that whilst the Occupy group on Queen Square were getting a bit of stick and people were concerned about the state of the grass after they left, when the Occupy group said they re-turf it/pay for re-turfing the council said this wasn’t an issue as they were going to re-turf it for the jubilee anyway – I guess thus creating jobs, as well as meaning Occupy is seen in a more positive light and the council end up being more lenient on the Occupy group than they might have been entitled to be

With the Bath figure of £80,000, that’s, what, 3 jobs (£26,000), which could be argued as being spread over 3 years (there might be a lasting impact of this kind of event in terms of uniting communities), and I imagine that money will be spent predominantly on employing someone (or two) to organise the event, thus creating jobs.

In terms of the cuts it’ll be interesting to see how it develops, as Bath is potentially a testing ground for the Big Society concept (although a lot of this is stuff being done before that agenda started being pushed). A conservative estimate is that the Christian community invest £1m-worth of time and resources into youth work provision each year, which is more that the Local Authority invests (£700k, although I think this was around £1m until recently) – comment on this research is here: http://springboardbath.org.uk/news/1386-bath-yfc-research-shows-huge-increase-in-christian-work-with-baths-youngters.html (follow the links at the bottom to get the actual research). So it might be that the cuts in spending aren’t felt as severely as they might have been, and there might even be more of a benefit, as faith-based youth work tends to be more relationship-based, which in my experience is more fruitful and longer-term.

In terms of the republican/monarchy question, I’m generally of the opinion that hereditary roles don’t make sense, although I think with the current Queen this isn’t really an issue, and given that the monarchy have few exercised powers, I don’t think it’s something to particularly worry about if people are concerned about abuse of power. I wouldn’t want a president anyway, unless they had as few exercised powers as the Queen currently does. I’m happy with having local councils doing most things, and then national assemblies, and a Parliament to govern the UK – that should be enough. I get the impression most the public really aren’t bothered about abolishing the monarchy and are actually fairly warm towards this Queen at the very least, if not the monarchy in general – that’s why Republic come across as arrogant as someone said above, because they seem to presume they speak for most of the general public, when I find it hard to believe they actually do.

On a separate note, please could Republic put lines on their spreadsheet next time so that it’s easier to read?!

Occupy Queen Square? Seriously?

The Tory Tax payer alliance appear to have something very interesting to say on the subject, but for some reason, none of the papers seem to have printed it.

Is it possible that this normally vocal group are not interested in paying for Parties just as long as it is spent on Tory scum?

@ 14:

Yes, money is important; but raising the costs about a particular celebration relating to our head of state does trivialise the important constitutional issue of republicanism vs constitutional monarchy – particularly when we would probably spend a similar amount of money doing similar things in a republican system.

Moreover, the amounts of money mentioned by Republic are relatively small and the survey takes no account of what other events may have been cancelled in 2012, or other economies made, to pay for the Jubilee events. So Republic and their opponents will squabble pettily about what is new expenditure and what is not, and what sums might have been spent for similar events under a republican system. Then, inevitably, we get claims that what was spent on this Jubilee event by Borough X is enough to pay for (say) three nurses, when the Jubilee expenditure was a one-off and the money would employ three nurses only for one year (or whatever). Then the monarchists mention the the financial benefits of associated tourism….It’s all very tedious, and it gets us nowhere.

Assuming you are a republican, would you change your mind about introducing a republic if it were shown that a republic were more costly than a constitutional monarchy? I think not; and you would be right not to, because what matters is the quality of our constitutional framework and the extent to which it promotes good, democratic governance.

TONE @ 19

Yes, money is important; but raising the costs about a particular celebration relating to our head of state does trivialise the important constitutional issue of republicanism vs constitutional monarchy – particularly when we would probably spend a similar amount of money doing similar things in a republican system.

The point being that IF the same type of money was been spent of celerbrating a landmark of a Republic, there would be endless objections. And you know it. If we are going to look for saving in ‘trival sums’ then at least start with the things that don’t matter. A shindig for the Royals can be disposed of without too much social impact.

@ 19 Tax Obesity

“Yes, money is important; but raising the costs about a particular celebration relating to our head of state does trivialise the important constitutional issue of republicanism vs constitutional monarchy – particularly when we would probably spend a similar amount of money doing similar things in a republican system.”

I think we need to separate the two things out. Whether or not we should have a monarchy is a different issue to whether we should spend money on celebrating that monarchy at a time when money is tight. Yes, Republic’s view on the second matter is obviously driven by their POV on the first, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t judge each issue on its own merits.

“Moreover, the amounts of money mentioned by Republic are relatively small and the survey takes no account of what other events may have been cancelled in 2012, or other economies made, to pay for the Jubilee events [cut for brevity]”

You’re right that the information is incomplete. I’m mainly against these celebrations if they use money that would realistically otherwise be spent on more important things. If, for example, it turns out that organising the celebrations will be as good for the economy and/or jobs and/or public services as spending the money elsewhere would be (or if the general tendency to have such events has this effect, for example by supporting the catering trade), then I don’t really have a complaint. I’d still find it annoying, but wouldn’t see it as a type 2 political issue using the distinction I drew above.

“Assuming you are a republican, would you change your mind about introducing a republic if it were shown that a republic were more costly than a constitutional monarchy? I think not; and you would be right not to, because what matters is the quality of our constitutional framework and the extent to which it promotes good, democratic governance.”

I’d take cost into account. It’s not the be-all and end-all, but if someone could convince me that we’d actually lose a huge amount of tourist revenue with no increased revenue from elsewhere to make up for it and that the country would suffer as a result (an argument I currently find to be poor), I might decide that the cure was worse than the disease. Republicanism in the UK is mostly a symbolic issue, and I don’t want to see hospitals close for that reason.

@20. Jim: “The point being that IF the same type of money was been spent of celerbrating a landmark of a Republic, there would be endless objections.”

Assuming that a future government abolishes the monarchy (for which the earliest date would be 2016), we would be celebrating the 60th anniversary in 2076. Few of us would make predictions about popular opinion so far in advance.

I note that the local authority where I live reports “No additional costs (funded by normal service budgets)”. The money that is being spent by councils is not for Saddamesque monuments. It is largely being spent on public participation activities (beacons, garden competitions) and public exhibitions. I’m not a monarchist but I appreciate history and I am not so much of a curmudgeon to deny royalists a few hours of fun.

@21. Chaise Guevara: “It’s not the be-all and end-all, but if someone could convince me that we’d actually lose a huge amount of tourist revenue with no increased revenue from elsewhere to make up for it and that the country would suffer as a result (an argument I currently find to be poor), I might decide that the cure was worse than the disease.”

Absence of monarchy will have little influence on foreign tourists visiting Bronte Yorkshire, the Cavern Club, York railway museum et al. London, Bath, Wells, Windsor, Oxford, Cambridge et al will retain their historic beauty. (I leave it to the Scots and Welsh to stick up for their glories.)

Abolishing the monarchy versus tourist income is a gamble worth taking.

@19. Tax Obesity, Not Enterprise: “Assuming you are a republican, would you change your mind about introducing a republic if it were shown that a republic were more costly than a constitutional monarchy?”

I don’t want my President to do much more than being a figurehead for representative democracy (and I would hope that our democracy becomes more substantial than representation). My President would be cheap.

Competition time: Without cheating, name a German President.

If the monarchy goes, then so does Britain. If we can’t hold onto a 1,000 year old tradition/system, then we don’t deserve to be a nation, and should just meld ourselves into a vassal state of Germany and France. Luckily, every poll shows the people of Britain have no intention of changing our form of government. God Save The Queen.

@ 23 Charlieman

“Absence of monarchy will have little influence on foreign tourists visiting Bronte Yorkshire, the Cavern Club, York railway museum et al. London, Bath, Wells, Windsor, Oxford, Cambridge et al will retain their historic beauty. (I leave it to the Scots and Welsh to stick up for their glories.)”

Agreed. Even if tourists visit London and specifically want to see the monarchy-related stuff (Buck House, Tower of London etc.), they can still see that stuff regardless of whether we actually have a monarch. Actually, without a monarch they could see MORE of Buck House.

It’s unlikely that they’ll see the Queen on their travels, even from a great distance. If they do, while it would no doubt make for an interesting diary entry, I doubt that would be the real high point of a historic tour of London.

Abolishing the monarchy versus tourist income is a gamble worth taking.”

Agreed again. What I’m saying is that, should someone present me with compelling evidence that caused me to rethink this position, I would factor that into my assessment of the desirability of republicanism.

@ 24 paul

“If the monarchy goes, then so does Britain.”

Not unless you can describe the mechanic by which the Queen prevents this country from vanishing beneath the waves. And explain how countries like France and the US manage not to blip into nonexistence despite their lack of a monarchy. Give the hyperbole a rest.

“If we can’t hold onto a 1,000 year old tradition/system, then we don’t deserve to be a nation”

Why? So you put blind adoration of tradition on a pedestal; why does that make the rest of us undeserving? Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is by necessity a change. If you think change is bad because change is bad, you can’t improve anything. And I don’t think those of us who would like to see improvement are going to be hurt by the barbs of your anti-rational condemnation.

Try this: “Cupping and bleeding patients is based on the Theory of the Four Humours, which goes back centuries to Aristotle. If we can’t hold on to an ancient tradition/system, but instead insist on treating patients with newfangled scientific things like antibiotics, we don’t deserve to have medicine.”

@23. Charlieman: “(I leave it to the Scots and Welsh to stick up for their glories.)”

With shame, I note that I failed to mention the Irish, Manx, Orcadians, Shetlanders etc and their beauties.

@24. paul: “If we can’t hold onto a 1,000 year old tradition/system, then we don’t deserve to be a nation, and should just meld ourselves into a vassal state of Germany and France.”

Or a state of Denmark? After all, Danes (briefly) invaded England in 1011.

@ Chaise:

“How can costs be trivial when we’re making damaging cuts due to a claimed lack of money?”

Some of these costs do seem pretty trivial, TBH. £27,000? That would pay for, what, one council employee for a year? Hardly likely to herald the collapse of the welfare state as we know it.

@ 29 XXX

Nobody’s saying it’ll destroy the welfare state.

I don’t think “trivial” is a particularly relevant concept here. If, say, £27,000 is a trivial amount to spend on one cause, it’s a trivial amount to take away from another cause. So who cares? You could no doubt break down our entire national budget down into small enough parts that it would consist entirely of costs you would label “trivial”, but they still add up to a hell of a lot of money.

The impact of taking the money away from the celebrations is at the very least related to the impact of spending it elsewhere. So the question becomes: how can the money BEST be spent? Not on flags, fireworks and bunting, one suspects. That £27,000 could do quite a lot of good at a local level.

@26:

‘Try this: “Cupping and bleeding patients is based on the Theory of the Four Humours, which goes back centuries to Aristotle. If we can’t hold on to an ancient tradition/system, but instead insist on treating patients with newfangled scientific things like antibiotics, we don’t deserve to have medicine.”’

Not a good or convincing parallel. Constitutional monarchy works; cupping and bleeding doesn’t.

@25 – And of course you’re all in favour of killing off the monarchy (literally), since stripping private citizens (as the queen would be after…) of their assets is SO non-Tory. Oh, wait…

Chaise @ 30:

“Nobody’s saying it’ll destroy the welfare state.”

Yes, that was a little bit of rhetorical hyperbole on my part. But since Republic’s complaint about these “these unnecessary and unwanted projects” seems to centre around the fact that the money could otherwise go on protecting jobs and public services, I don’t think it unreasonable to point out that, in this case, the effect on local jobs and public services would be minimal.

“You could no doubt break down our entire national budget down into small enough parts that it would consist entirely of costs you would label “trivial”, but they still add up to a hell of a lot of money.”

No doubt. But since in this case, the £27,000 seems to be all that is earmarked for the celebrations (otherwise why not use the full figure?), the cost spent on jubilee celebrations doesn’t add up to anything more.

@ 31 TONE

“Not a good or convincing parallel. Constitutional monarchy works; cupping and bleeding doesn’t.”

Fortunately, it’s not meant to be a parallel. it’s meant to be a reductio ad absurdum. See the previous paragraph in my post that you quoted; I’m not arguing that the monarchy is equivalent to cupping patients. I’m demonstrating that hanging onto old ideas purely because they’re old is stupid.

If the old idea you’re arguing for has benefits, THAT’S an argument in it’s favour. However, Paul is angrily condemning us for not blindly assuming that old = good.

@ 33 XXX

You skated over my main point about trivial benefits being associated with trivial costs there. Plus, in this case, I could claim the “full figure” was ALL of the public money set aside for Jubilee celebrations, nationwide – which goes to my point about it always being possible to narrow your focus until the thing you’re looking at is small. You could KEEP going and say: “But the full figure that they’re planning to spend on Jammy Dodgers for the buffet is £12! That’s miniscule!”

My main (unaddressed) point remains: if £27,000 is a trivial amount of money, presumably the monarchists won’t miss it. And in more concrete terms, if that money could be spent on saving even one job, or preventing one death (by spending it on local road safety measures, for example), then that seems like a better ROI than a free party.

CG @ 34:

OK. I’m afraid I’d taken you as providing not just a reductio of Pauls’s silly claim but also a parallel.

@ 36

No problem, easily done.

Can’t imagine how all that money could be better spent, can you???
and @ Richard – Unelected and unaccountable.
Bring on the Republic