BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 06:36 AM

Backwoodsman:
If you're going to blockquote some external source could you at least give your opinions on the matter, not just state "finger right on the button"?

For example, do you agree with his comment "because closing pits and wrecking communities was a Tory ideological class war decision"? Are you aware, or is he aware, that more pits were closed under Wilson (Lab.) than under Thatcher (Con.) ?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 05:56 AM

Time was when people would complain of unduly cold weather, and I'd say "I blame global warming", meaning climate change shifting the weather patterns around. England's suffering a mild cold spell this week, while much of Europe, and the rest of the world, burns. Be careful what you wish for, Stanron.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Stanron
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 04:58 AM

The planet isn't burning in Clayton Manchester UK. It's colder here than it has been for the last four weeks and five days. 14 degrees C as I write this. Perhaps it's a Guarniad typo and he meant to write " The Lefties are boring".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Aug 23 - 03:51 AM

Ignoring American attempts to derail this thread, and back to UK Politics - Attila the Stockbroker on FarceBook this morning, finger right on the button as usual…

”The planet is burning and Sunak is issuing new oil and gas licences, ripping up commitments and sending a message to the world that the U.K. doesn’t give a monkey’s. He’s doing it because he thinks it will glean the Tories working class votes. And his excuse is that these new fields will use ‘carbon capture’ technology.

Now I may be wrong, but I seem to remember this phrase from the latter days of the miners’ campaign, when it was posited as a way of keeping pits open while minimising carbon emissions.

Back then of course it was dismissed out of hand, because closing pits and wrecking communities was a Tory ideological class war decision which had nothing to do with climate change concerns - the coal was simply imported from elsewhere.

If it had been implemented then there would have been less carbon in the atmosphere and fewer mining communities destroyed - but destroying mining communities was the Tories’ Thatcherite aim. Back then, they were ‘the enemy within’, and obliterating them was part of a strategy to cut off the head of the trade union movement and destroy organised labour once and for all.

But in this new era, when the right wing tabloids have, incredibly, managed to persuade some of those very same communities to switch sides by blaming ‘immigrants’ for the crimes committed by the Tories, feeding xenophobia and stoking division, re-opening oil and gas fields and granting new mining licences is seen as a strategy to win votes.

And, as before, the climate crisis doesn’t even enter the equation. It’s all just a cynical electioneering strategy.

Close down communities for ideological and electoral reasons, offer them false hope on the same basis. A cynical crime against the planet.”

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 05:39 PM

As an internet ghost, you aren't worth a pense of legal fees.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 05:00 PM

Go ahead, Donuel! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 03:52 PM

BG :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 03:48 PM

It’s frictional too, Dave - it certainly rubs some people the wrong way! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 10:24 AM

Everything you do seems fictional Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 23 - 10:09 AM

The British monarch can't be arrested or be the subject of civil and criminal proceedings, meaning he is effectively exempt from the law. King Charles enjoys sovereign immunity, meaning he can't be prosecuted under a civil or criminal investigation.

HOWEVER I could sue Steve Shaw for defamation or pay to have 4,000 of his internet posts removed but since I use a fictional avatar it complicates matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Jul 23 - 06:43 PM

€250,000 is the President of Ireland's salary. That does actually go into his own pocket, whereas as far as I am aware the King does not receive a salary. The cost of running the Office of the President is more than €4.8m. That is of course considerably less than the Sovereign Grant, but it covers the same sort of expenses - staff, office costs, travel etc.

I can't find a figure for the number of engagements the President carries out, but it is probably in the hundreds rather than the 3000 or so carried out by the Royal Family, which as you point out includes those carried out by other working royals as well as the king, so of course the costs are less.

If you like to think of these engagements as "junkets" fair enough, although they seem to be popular with the public. You may wish to replace the monarchy with a republic. but I think you'll find that in many republics the president's role includes similar junkets. I also think you'll find that the state pays for them. Republics also have state funerals and investitures. However I quite understand if you feel there are too many of these junkets and that they're unnecessary.

You say "it's a matter of principle". To me, the principle is that the state should pay for activities carried out on its behalf. However I'll leave it there, as you've clearly made your mind up.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Jul 23 - 05:53 PM

Steve:
Imagine this.
We go back to everyone owning their own little plot of land, and using it to grow vegetables (and if they're very lucky to fatten livestock).
If they can't provide for their families just from this, and from trading food for services that they require (work on their habitations, etc.) They will probably end up using someone (further up the 'food chain') to arrange a 'fair' method of exchanging what they can produce for what they need to buy.
Allowing for this intermediary to make some sort of a living from this eventually you'll get a system where those who produce foodstuffs and are providing goods to those who can't, need a middle-man arranging the dealings, and taking a cut.
Eventually the middle-man will expand what he's doing and make a small profit from everyone who he is helping to deal 'what they have' for 'what they want' as people with a product to sell don't always want something that their prospective buyers want to exchange.

Just swap the 'government' or 'the royal family' for the 'middle man'.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:04 PM

More facts about the Sovereign Grant that could have Howard shifting uncomfortably from one buttock to the other:

The money pays not just for Charlie's junkets but also for those of a good number of royal hangers-on, identities unspecified. The Queen's funeral and his subsequent coronation cost the taxpayer over £200 million. It's late but I'll keep digging...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 05:48 PM

Michael D Higgins, the President of Ireland, earns 250,000 Euro for his role.

I make that 1 500th of the fee.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 04:28 PM

It's not the cost saving to the public purse. It's the principle. Anyway, you're a dyed-in-the-wool royalist and I'm a republican (small r please). Sadly, the twain are unlikely to meet in this case. I'm sure you're a lovely, jovial fellow. That'll do me.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 04:01 PM

The Royal Family carried out around 3000 engagements last year. These included community visits, meeting visiting heads of state, investitures, garden parties etc. It doesn't include the weekly meetings with the PM, approving legislation or other constitutional duties. You may think these unnecessary or pointless pageantry, but successive governments have agreed that these are appropriate activities for the head of state. They are not of a nature which directly generates income for the country, but indirectly they contribute to international relations, and community visits and garden parties help to boost morale within the UK.

If you don't like that, campaign for change to elect a government which will get rid of it, as may happen soon in Australia. However I think you'll find that an elected president has a very similar workload. Take a look at the Irish president's engagements for example and you'll see they are of a very similar nature.

Steve is concerned that the money "doesn't rightfully belong to him", but it goes to him only in the same way as a government department's budget goes to the Secretary of State. The money is to cover the costs of the king's official duties. It doesn't go to the king personally. As far as I am aware he isn't paid a salary for performing these official duties, and his personal expenditure comes out of his private income.

You seem to have an inflated idea of his personal wealth. The Sunday Times Rich List estimates his personal wealth at £600m. That's a very tidy sum, but it's capital, not income. He could not "well afford" to pay £125m a year. Do the sums.

To repeat, these are the facts:

The Crown Estate belongs to the state, it is not the personal property of the monarch. 100% of its profits go to the Treasury, and its board is answerable to parliament. For those calling for it to be nationalised, that has effectively been the position since the eighteenth century.

The Sovereign Grant does not come out of general taxation but from the profits of the Crown Estate.

The Sovereign Grant is to cover the costs of the official duties of the monarch. It does not go to the king personally. It is overseen by trustees who are also answerable to parliament. Any surplus does not go into the king's pocket but to a reserve fund.

The Sovereign Grant amounts to around 0.01% of all public expenditure. Any changes to it either way don't materially affect the public finances. There are many respectable arguments for getting rid of the monarchy, but the cost savings to the public purse would not be noticeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 12:56 PM

Doing his job Howard? How does that equate to earning millions from the properties that he inherited from the people who 'acquired' them in various dodgy ways or being paid for doing sweet FA in the running of the country? I would never expect people to pay for doing an honest day's work but you are being very disingenuous suggesting that Charlie is doing either an honest day's work or making money for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 12:33 PM

It's still money that doesn't rightfully belong to him whether you call it tax or not. I don't equate what he does with a "job", either. And comparing his "expenses" with those of the PM is simply laughable. The PM runs the country and, on the whole, does not indulge at frequent intervals in extravagant pageantry. When the PM resigns or loses an election, he's booted out of Downing Street in summary fashion. That can never be the fate of Charlie apropos of Buckingham Palace or any of his other ill-gotten residences.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 11:33 AM

People aren't normally expected to pay the running costs of doing their job. For example, if a minister travels on official business you'd expect their department to pay for their travel costs regardless of their personal wealth. Why should the King be different? We don't expect Rishi Sunak, who's very nearly as rich, to pay for the costs of Downing Street and its staff out of his own pocket. The Sovereign Grant is actually the budget for running a department of the state. It is not a payment into the King's own pocket for him to use for his own purposes. If the monarchy were to be replaced by an elected president would you expect them to pay for all the costs of official business themselves?

Neither does it come out of your or my taxes. It comes out of the income from property owned by the state. State spending runs at over £3 billion pounds a day, and abolishing the Sovereign Grant would pay for less than an hour of that. That's not going to bring down your or my taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 09:13 AM

That's not really the point Howard. The bloke could easily afford the £125 million a year himself but the government choses to pay it out of taxes raised on everyones income. Including mine and yours. I object most strongly to my meagre income being used to subsidise the 263rd richest person in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:56 AM

Nice bit of whataboutery there, Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:54 AM

Oops, sorry, Nigel. I failed to spot that narrow white strip at the top of the table. That doesn't change my view that the Tower should in no way be regarded as a royal asset. As you point out, it has not be used by the royals for four hundred years except to house their disgusting collection of jewellery, which anyone with even a smidgeon of principle should boycott.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:51 AM

Of course to you or me these are large sums. But in the context of total public spending of £1182 billion a year the £125m Sovereign Grant represents only 0.01%. As I said in a previous post, that's a rounding error.

If every penny of public expenditure were spent effectively then perhaps if the Sovereign Grant were abolished it might make a difference. The fact is that some waste and inefficiencies are inevitable even in the most rigorous organisation, and the public sector does not have a record of rigorous financial controls or efficiencies. The reality is that even if the Sovereign Grant could be entirely abolished it would not enable the government to cut taxes or improve public services. This is why I used the word "trivial".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:48 AM

Well I'm not going to argue with you over those technicalities but I'd like to come back at you with two points. First, so he's "only" no 263 on the Sunday Times rich list and you don't think that's exceptional. Well in a country of sixty-odd million people, I think that 263rd richest is exceptionally exceptional. By the way, he's as rich as that because he inherited his riches, not because he worked for them, and his ancestors amassed that wealth over centuries by nefarious means, including taking it from the people, exploiting the labour of the people and indulging in the slave trade. Nice.

Second, you say that the amount is trivial in the overall scheme of things. Apart from the fact that £125 million is hardly what I'd call trivial, it's the principle of the thing. Millions of people in this country, given the choice and the facts of the matter, would probably disapprove of this gift from the nation, but choice in the matter we have not. As for his necessary expenses, etc., which he has the money hundreds of times over to pay for out of his own pocket, he travels everywhere in the lap of luxury and is carted around, not in a J-reg Astra or on Ryanair but in a fleet limousines that has cost us millions and in private jets that are entirely at his disposal. A bit more comfy than my budget flight to Malaga in a few weeks' time, yet I'm giving HIM money and he gives me nothing.

Trivial? Well that bunch of bananas I'm thinking of stealing from Sainsbury's is trivial to Sainsbury's, almost representing a victimless crime. But you wouldn't defend it, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:37 AM

Steve: Good post. Just to reiterate that the Visit Britain website includes neither Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle nor the Tower in either top ten. Though I must say, you did forget the Beefeaters... :-

Nice of you to iterate. But you haven't given a link to your source. Yes 'Visit Britain' can be searched, and their list of attractions is Here
Not only is it false to claim that The Tower doesn't appear, it is listed as No1 in the 'paid' attractions.

So your best shot is Buck House at number 11! And we've had this thing about the Tower of London before, haven't we? Would you care to tell us when it was last occupied by any royal? 1603 apparently

Shifting the goalposts?
hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country.

There is a difference between 'royal assets' and assets 'occupied' by royals.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:26 AM

"However in the context of total public spending the amount is trivial"

Perhaps you could arrange for me to have just 10% of the costs of running Downing Street, as you say £2.2 million is a trivial amount. I promise you will never hear me complain ever again.


.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:12 AM

In the British constitution (and we do have one, even if it's not set out in a single document) "the Crown" represents what in other countries might be referred to as the State. It includes not only the Sovereign but also the executive (the UK and devolved governments), the legislature (parliament) and the judiciary. Most of the powers of the Crown are exercised by these institutions.

You don't seem to recognise the distinction between Charles as an individual and the position he holds. As an individual is indeed very wealthy (although not exceptionally so - he is only 263 in the Sunday Times Rich List). However as Sovereign he also performs an official role on behalf of the State, and the cost of this should be paid for by the State. These costs don't come out of your or my taxes but from income from property owned by the State.

You call for the Crown Estate to be nationalised. The Crown Estate belongs to the Sovereign, but this means the role rather than the person holding it. In other words, it belongs to the State, and to all intents and purposes has done since the eighteenth century. It is not King Charles's personal property. It is managed by an independent board who are accountable to Parliament, and its profits all go to the Treasury. In what respect is this not nationalised?

The State has overheads, which include the costs of performing the Sovereign's official duties. To repeat myself, the Sovereign Grant is not a personal payment to the King, any more than the £22m or so it costs to run Downing Street are a personal payment to Rishi Sunak.

You may consider some of these costs to be unnecessary or wasteful. That's a perfectly respectable point of view. However in the context of total public spending the amount is trivial, and even if the Sovereign Grant were to be abolished entirely it would make no discernible different to the public finances.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:25 PM

Good post. Just to reiterate that the Visit Britain website includes neither Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle nor the Tower in either top ten. Though I must say, you did forget the Beefeaters... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:12 PM

That is a bit of a daft presumption, isn't it?

Do you really believe that the draw to the Tower of London is the current members of the royal family? I would have thought that the attraction would be the associations with William the Conqueror, the tudors, imprisonments, tortures and executions, the ravens. In all, distant history - I don;t think the 1940s executions are much of a royal connection. I will concede that the crown jewels is an attraction, but I would dispute id this would a sole reason or even a main reason for visiting the attraction. I would argue that people visit Windsor castle because it is a castle that is accessible and just outside of London. I suppose I should concede regarding Buckingham Palace which would mean that the royal family co contributes to no more than 5% if hospitability and tourism. Also, if the monarchy was abolished, would Buckingham Palace be any less of interest? From my knowledge the Palace of Versailles doesn't suffer in visitor numbers through France being a republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:01 PM

So your best shot is Buck House at number 11! And we've had this thing about the Tower of London before, haven't we? Would you care to tell us when it was last occupied by any royal? And please don't regale me with the fact that it's the shameful home of the disgusting Crown Jewels...

As for the most popular, it's depends on which website you look things up. The Visit Britain site gives two top ten lists, free ones and paid ones. No royal attraction makes it to either list, not even the Tower if you really insist on having it as a royal attraction, which I heartily dispute. And that website does it by numbers of visitors, not by someone's subjective opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 07:36 PM

Steve: hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country.

This site gives:
#9 The Tower of London
#11 Buckingham Palace
#12 Windsor Castle

Would you care to let us know where you find your top 20?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 06:42 PM

That Charlie or his parasitic offspring owns, I should have said...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 06:40 PM

"Buck House is mainly an administrative building for the head of state, with offices and function rooms."

Absolutely not the case. Do read the wiki article on Buckingham Palace. You'll be amazed at what goes on there on top of the "administrative" side of things (which could easily be executed in ordinary offices anywhere in the country, by the way). And we pay for it, including the hundreds of millions needed to renovate it. As for the Crown Estate, and those huge "duchies" that Charlie owns, they simply should not exist beyond full nationalised control, and the filthy-rich monarch should not be able to hive off tens or hundreds of millions per annum from them for purposes that are generally hidden from public view and which are dubious at best.

Finally, are you able to tell us what happens to the fifty million that the "royal residences"(gosh, don't they need so many of them! Still, I don't suppose there are too many grouse to shoot at round Buckingham Palace) earned last year?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 03:49 PM

When an extremely rich man is obtaining the price of a half-pint from someone on a low wage who relies on food banks, and does it without that person's permission, I call that stealing.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 02:18 PM

I doubt many publicly owned buildings generate income, that is not really what most state activities are intended for. Nevertheless the royal residences earned nearly £50m from tourism in 2019-20.

Buck House is mainly an administrative building for the head of state, with offices and function rooms. Come the revolution you can sell it off, and it might raise enough to pay for the NHS for a day or two. Until then it is the responsibility of the state. It is not the King's roof, it is the government's, and they are giving him the money to fix it. An elected head of state will still need an official residence and an administration.

The role of head of state, whether a hereditary monarch or elected president, is a function of government to be paid for from the public purse, which is funded by taxation and income from revenue-producing activities, including the Crown Estate. It is legitimate to question those costs, and in a democracy to campaign for change. However it is a nonsense to claim that this is "stealing" from us, any more than the costs of running other state functions such as 10 Downing Street, the Foreign Office or indeed your local library are stealing from us.

In the context of the public finances £125m is a rounding error.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Rain Dog
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 01:24 PM

"brainless tourists who go to gawp"

And how many places have you gone to gawp? Or does that count?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 10:31 AM

Minimising the impact of the grant on us all is the real red herring. It's the principle of the thing. He's one of the country's richest men yet we get to pay for his new roof "because it's a state asset." Really? It's actually a very average building and an "asset" to no-one except brainless tourists who go to gawp through the railings. And you'd have a tough time showing that its presence brings in any extra revenue, as (as has been mentioned several times before) hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country. We'd get by very nicely thank you in terms of tourism without their "assets." Pretending that it doesn't matter because it's only the price of a half-pint he's stealing from each and every one of us is like me justifying stealing a bunch of bananas from Sainsbury's because "they're only worth a quid." Yeah, right...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 09:57 AM

I'd rather have the half.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: G-Force
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 09:50 AM

£125 million is about £2 each, which is less than half a pint in a pub round here. I'd miss the monarchy but I don't notice the half pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 09:11 AM

When you say the profits from the Crown Estate should go to the people, that is what happens. Or rather, they go to the Treasury, which is as close as "the people" are going to get. The Sovereign Grant isn't the King's wages but is to cover the cost of official duties, including staff salaries and travel. It doesn't go to enrich the King personally, and any surplus goes to a reserve fund to be used for future spending.

It's entirely legitimate to argue that these duties should be reduced in scale, but for the time being most people seem to quite like having a royal come to open their new hospital wing. Even if we replaced the monarchy with a president, that would still have to be paid for.

The Sovereign Grant is higher than usual because it includes the cost of refurbishing Buckingham Palace. The building is an asset of the state, and if it weren't paid for through the Sovereign Grant it would simply come out of some government department's budget.

£125 million sounds a lot, and it is. However set against total government spending of £1,283 billion a year it is a drop in the ocean. If it were to be abolished entirely (and there will always be some costs to have a head of state) this would make no discernible difference to the public finances.

There are very good arguments both for and against abolishing the monarchy, but the Sovereign Grant is a red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 05:51 PM

I'm seeing news reports on the BBC about the devastation caused to civilians in the civil war in Yemen. Villages devastated, children with limbs blown off, that sort of thing. Not a single mention of the fact that we have provided £15 billions of weapons to Saudi and the UAE since the start of the war. Weapons being used to bomb villages and blow children up. Still, never mind. We can just let them infiltrate and take over our biggest sports teams and mop up our best footballers with promises of wages of tens or hundreds of millions a year. I think we call it sportswashing.

Let me guess: oil...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:54 PM

Mrs Steve and I were very sad when we heard of the passing of George Alagiah. What a fantastic reporter he was, and, by all accounts, he was a great humanitarian and a lovely man to work with.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:20 PM

What do you mean by "the Crown"?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 08:08 AM

Is the Crown more powerful than the banks?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:55 AM

Yup! The profits from the Crown Estate should go back to the people, which is who the Crown Estate should morally belong to. Instead, a huge sum from those profits is hived off every year to further enrich one of the richest men in the country, a man who does nothing in connection with the Crown Estate to earn that money. In my view it's a massive scandal, but, as ever, the establishment will do its damnedest to legitimise it, and will succeed. That's how people like Stanron are hoodwinked into thinking that it's all OK. Stick a crown and a few robes on Charlie (slaughter a bit of game first), send him abroad every now and then to be cheered by flag-waving picaninnies, get him to ride his regalia-bedecked horse every June and wave at us from a balcony surrounded by his fellow parasites and their brats, and hardly anyone will notice...

Worth a moment looking into the Crown Estate, by the way. It's one of the most powerful institutions in the country. It owns all of our seabed and over half the foreshore, thousands of acres of land and lucrative properties in our towns, cities and countryside, among other things. A graduated land tax would sort 'em out, but there I am again sailing into cloud cuckoo land...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:12 AM

”I can think of only one contributor, maybe two, who is/are sufficiently brainwashed by Right-Wing propaganda to disagree.”

And, right on cue, up pops the second brainwashed one I was thinking of… :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Stanron
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:01 AM

"Feeling the pinch in these days of rip-roaring inflation? Happy to settle (after years of pay freezes and austerity, even though "we are all in it together") for a pay rise around half the rate of inflation? Why, the answer is to be the King! As from 2025, he's to get a 45% rise!"

"I think you’re preaching to the wrong congregation on here, Steve. I get the feeling that the majority of us are already in agreement with you, and I can think of only one contributor, maybe two, who is/are sufficiently brainwashed by Right-Wing propaganda to disagree."

Typical lefty group think. Stoking jealousy with lies.

Sovereign Grant only occurs after all income from royal estates go directly to the Treasury. An inconvenient truth for lefties.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 06:32 AM

I think you’re preaching to the wrong congregation on here, Steve. I get the feeling that the majority of us are already in agreement with you, and I can think of only one contributor, maybe two, who is/are sufficiently brainwashed by Right-Wing propaganda to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 06:25 AM

.... Man shall not live by bread alone, but try thou convincing thine income tax inspector.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 05:09 AM

Oh and by the way, during the ten years of Tory austerity since 2013, the Sovereign Grant has gone up from £31 million to £86 million. To them that have, it shall be given, commenteth the Lord....