BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3

Subject: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 05:57 AM

Because part 2 of the single thread for UK politics has reached over 1000 posts I hope to start a new one here. The old one should be closed soon.

The end of the old thread

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:12 AM

The end of the old thread?   The old thread just told me that it's a frayed knot...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 08:05 AM

Is this the joke thread? :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 09:30 AM

I've just done a longer post that won't post. Grr. I'll try again, whenever...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 10:20 AM

The Cat's had hiccups on and off for a few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:50 PM

Only if it's Tories we're talking about...

Watched a documentary called the Labour Files on YouTube last night. OK, it was made (or put together) by Al Jazeera. It dealt with the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn, particularly with regard to the trumped-up antisemitism nonsense. How Labour apparatchik insiders and not a few MPs, including John Mann, Luciana Berger, Margaret Hodge and Ruth Smeeth, especially those with sympathies for Israel, ganged up to demonise him. How Labour were forced into the position of having to accept the deeply flawed IHRA definition of antisemitism. How Zionism, antisemitism and criticism of Israel were conflated in order to prevent any criticism of Israel and how reporting of the treatment of Palestinians was virtually set aside. There were plenty of other disturbing revelations.

I'm not looking for confirmation bias and I was extremely aware of the Al Jazeera logo at the bottom of the screen. But I'm piqued into delving a bit more. Anyone who feels the need to criticise Corbyn (and he certainly isn't beyond criticism) should reflect on whether their opinions were formed by dint of what they got from our mainstream media. Even the "unbiased" BBC has a lot to answer for in light of that infamous Panorama documentary. It's lazy talk to characterise him as "a weak leader who led Labour to their worst defeat since the thirties," etc. A bit more deep digging is required in order to see what really went on, especially in the Labour Party. And Starmer doesn't get a free pass either, far from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 01:40 PM

I just can't bring myself to watch that, Steve. What the Labour party has become is so sad that I cannot bear to get it confirmed any more!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jul 23 - 02:08 AM

Labour ‘throwing the kitchen sink’ at Selby byelection as hopes grow of shock win
I can't see how that could really work out well. If Labour do get the seat, they will send a signal that they can win similar seats in the General Election when it occurs, but they will not be able to "throw the kitchen sink" at every such seat, so it will give a false impression of their ability to win. And of course, there is a very high chance of letting the Conservatives win by spittibg the vote.

Probably the best result is if Labour do throw the kitchen sink at the seat, but the LibDems still win. In that case, maybe more intelligent tactics will be used for the GE.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 23 - 06:25 AM

I agree. And byelections tend to produce maverick results, and these two, whatever happens, will be relegated in the public mind by the time the next election comes round. Playing a straight bat would be less unseemly. That reminds me: I'm just about due to tune into the third Test...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jul 23 - 05:27 AM

Following the ‘painting over cartoon-character murals’ exercise at a reception centre for the children of asylum-seekers because, according to the Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick, they were ‘too welcoming’, I’ve borrowed this from the social media post of a person I know personally. Nail/head, AFAIC…

”Three poems for a Morally Vacant Government that uses Petty Cruelty as a stick with which to beat lost, lonely and already damaged children...

#1) "WELL, MR JENRICK, IF WE DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW WHAT TYPE OF HEARTLESS PEOPLE YOUR PARTY ARE, WE DO NOW.

Don’t let the children have a look
At Mickey Mouse or The Jungle Book
Paint over, make them disappear
We don’t want a welcome here"
- Paul Cookson

#2) "No Mickey Mouse
Allowed in this house
We’re not talking child protection
It’s about votes
‘Stopping the boats’
So this is a house of correction
A cartoon’s too nice
For a heart made of ice
It must be painted over
The message unsaid:
Your folks may be dead
But the graves don’t end in Dover"
- Attila the Stockbroker

#3) "Paint over Mickey Mouse
Burn Where the Wild Things Are
Pulverise the lego
Set fire to the Christmas tree star.

Seize all the teddies
Bury every skipping rope
Paint the walls dark brown
Abolish all hope."
- Michael Rosen

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 10 Jul 23 - 01:32 PM

.... Ah *that*'s why the English news is wall-to-wall coverage of that kerfuffle about a Beeb presenter: stir up a Saville-storm, and nobody remembers Mickey Mouse being painted over, or Thames Water being sold off and collapsing in a cloud of debt and excrement, or [snip: I too forget them all]. The only escape is Radio Four, whose news bulletins cover more than one subject (they don't yet suffer from Bone-of-the-Week syndrome), and where the satire programmes tell us what's really going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 03:05 AM

Jeremy Corbyn, particularly with regard to the trumped-up antisemitism nonsense

As I remember it, he overtly supported things "not Israel/Jewish" and that was to garner support from those less covert in their anti-Israel stance. Other views are available, subject to confirmation bias.

And while we are "on topic", Corbyn was not only un-electable, and obviously so, he wanted Brexshit so he could make his own laws that weren't necessarily European ones. His public stance on Brexshit was to leave a free vote. A prudent or timid position depending on which side of the 50/50 you sit.

Cue accusations of being Tory or something, here it comes..........................

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 11:19 AM

Nope. The appropriate response to that is that you are suffering severely from Daily Mailism. You forget that, against all the odds, he trashed Theresa May's majority in 2017. That's when his own party did the right's dirty work in demonising him, both via senior members refusing to join his shadow cabinet and via a small gang of Israeli regime apologists confecting a bogus antisemitism campaign against him. Yes we party members in massive numbers held our heads and groaned at his stance on brexit. As a party leader he was flawed. Michael Foot was similar in many regards. But make no mistake: it was not that Corbyn was unelectable, rather that his own party made him unelectable - deliberately so. It seemed that they'd rather lose an election than have him as leader. You can largely thank all those Labour right-wingers for delivering Boris Johnson to us. Not the only factor, of course. After 2017 the surprised right-wing gutter press decided that they needed to go to town on Corbyn. The Tories hardly had to bother. It was all also an object lesson on how you can't make it without an army of vicious spin-doctors.

Whether you're Tory or not is your private business unless you choose to divulge.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 11:47 AM

When I refer to the party, I'm talking about the party's political establishment, not the hundreds of thousands of party members who joined when he was elected leader. The right in the party don't like us much, either. They don't care that we're leaching away in droves. In fact, they welcome it. Too many of us are on the left for their taste. And look what we have now: an unprincipled leader whose best skill is U-turning on policy and who is just as unconvincing as Corbyn, with his only saving grace being that the right of the party prop him up while the left are either expelled on the most puny of pretexts or who, alternatively, had better shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 09:57 AM

Steve:
I think you're being a little disingenuous (or looking through RED-tinted glasses) in claiming that Corbyn trashed May's majority.
My view would be that that was mainly down to Theresa may failing to make good on Brexit, and making too many concessions to Brussels thus leaving us in a much poorer negotiating position.
If it was down to Corbyn, why did he not repeat the result against Boris two years later?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 10:23 AM

Who is being a little disingenuous now, Nigel?

Do you not think that the media and right wing of the Labour party had anything to do with Corbyn's defeat 2 years later? When it is known that members of his own party would rather lose the election than have him as leader it became impossible to repeat the earlier result.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 10:23 AM

Well it was a general election with two main antagonists. Admittedly, the old saw that elections are lost rather than won has more than a grain of truth, as you're suggesting in this case. But the result was unexpected (and she did lose her overall majority: trashed?), it set alarm bells ringing on the right (as well as among the right in the Labour Party) and it triggered an onslaught by the right-wing media and from within his own party for the next two years. He is a naive, unspun man (not good qualities in a leader, I'm the first to admit) and he didn't know how to counter the attacks, and he accorded his opponents a field day when it came to brexit. Elections are won and lost for many complex reasons and it's impossible to to assign relative importance accurately to any one of them, but I take your point.

Cheers for your civilly-expressed and thoughtful disagreement, Nigel. We could use more of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 11:47 AM

No-one in Labour is ever going to admit it, but the onslaught on Corbyn from within the party during that two years, executed in the knowledge that the Tories would never contemplate a full term with a shabby minority shored up only by a bunch of illiberal antediluvian types in Northern Ireland, amounted to a deliberate suicide note for the next election. Even had Corbyn resigned before the election, the scramble for a new leader (go on - tell me who!) would still have guaranteed defeat. In the unlikely event of a Corbyn victory in 2019, the right in the party would not have been able to stomach him as PM. The party right wanted him to lose so that they could then do what they're doing now, trying to abolish the left of the party completely and ruthlessly. The last time we had a leftie PM was Atlee, when the circumstances were extraordinary. Labour's core at the top has always been to the right of its centre. It's their party and they're ruthless bastards...

But it won't work for long. That's history for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 02:52 PM

From Attila The Stockbroker today - right on the button as usual…

”Farage is a banker
Who can no longer bank
The rhyme is far too obvious
But just once Coutts I’ll thank
Though while we roar with laughter
And try not to think of tissues
Remember it’s a smokescreen
To distract from other issues”

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 04:59 PM

Of course, the Coutts/Farage story was reported by the BBC who claimed that his account was closed because his funding was insufficient for a Coutts account.
It has now been proved otherwise.

Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Do we really want banks that can deny you an account because they disagree with your political leanings?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 06:02 PM

Most banks have right-wing leanings, at least it seems that way if we scrutinise their predilection for investing our money in organisations which will give them the best returns as opposed to organisations that try to be moral or ethical. There are several banks that abide by Sharia law, and in many ways they are far more "moral" than our friendly high street banks. For example, they will not invest in companies that deal in alcohol or gambling. But hey.

The Farage farrago should be seen for what it is: the distempered blustering of a man who is providing us with an amusing aside. He said today that Coutts is just a political campaigning setup. As they won't have you unless you have three million, I was wondering which side they are supposedly campaigning for. Doubt whether it would for anyone on the left...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 02:29 AM

It was the last two lines in Attila’s little piece that were the most telling and important, AFAIC. I don’t give a flying you-know-what about the gobby man-frog’s financial arrangements or lack of them, and his public display of self-pity disgusts me, but every time there’s a media tempest in a teapot about something inconsequential to the vast majority of us, I wonder what they’re trying to distract us from - usually the actions of this dishonest, rapacious government.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 04:03 AM

I’ve never understood the obsession of the press and media with Farage - a failed would-be politician, the former leader of a small minority-party, who never even managed to get elected to Parliament. He’s a has-been, more likely a never-was, a nobody.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 07:08 AM

Mebbe it's just me, but I regard the Uxbridge result as a shot across Labour's bows. The ULEZ factor clearly lost Labour this seat and there are plenty more vulnerable seats in London. The ULEZ expansion is an unfair and clumsy move, and, now that it's lost us what should have been an easy seat to pick up, it's going to be hard to reverse without Labour looking bloody stupid. Not trying to be environmentally unfriendly here, by the way, but blackmailing thousands of Londoners into having to change their cars within nine months (whilst leaving most Chelsea tractor gas-guzzlers alone) or pay punitive daily fees is simply not the way forward. If you have an older, non-compliant car, you're more likely to be among the less well-off. Punishing their owners is not my idea of the Labour way. Bad judgements costs seats. Blair got in by avoiding bad judgements in the mid-1990s. Can't trust Starmer to do the same. He's put an unfair cap on child benefits, he won't support public sector trade unions, he's backtracked on several pledges already...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 07:33 AM

I agree about Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ changes, a bad miscalculation on his part. But there was still a swing to Labour - a 7k Tory majority reduced to 475. On that basis, ‘vulnerable’ Labour seats in Greater London must surely be ‘safer’?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 01:10 PM

But the ULEZ thing has opened a Pandora's box. These schemes are in the offing in several other large urban (Labour) areas. In each case you are, in effect, telling poorer motorists, the ones with older cars, that they'd better scrap them. I bought a diesel in 2010 when the story was that diesels were the saviours of the world. Its emissions were so low that my road tax was thirty quid a year. I changed that car last year and I don't live in the ULEZ zones, so it doesn't apply to me, but if it had my car would have been non-compliant. Had I been told that I either get rid of my car or pay £12.50 per day, not only would I be hopping mad but I'd also feel cheated after having bought it in good faith. Not good enough, Labour, favouring the rich and shitting on the poor.

And give the Tories the notion that single issues can swing elections. Disastrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 02:39 PM

As I said previously, I agree about the folly of Khan’s ULEZ expansion, for the reasons you’ve given. And the Tories already know that ‘single issues can swing elections’ - don’t tell me you’ve already forgotten ‘Get Brexit Done’?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 02:49 PM

Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:47 PM

I said just after he was elected leader that Starmer is a loser and a follower of what he perceives to be fashion. I said that he will not win the next election. Since then we've had Johnson's disreputable behaviour and we've had Truss and Kamikaze, and a pandemic that the Tories handled so badly that there were tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. I still don't think that Stodgy Starmer will win. At best, he might end up leading the biggest party. Then what. He makes misstep after misstep. He told his MPs that they mustn't join picket lines. The leader of a party spawned by trade unions telling his ministers not to join legitimate trade union pickets! He's tried to sideline the left using the most dishonest and flimsy ploys. He's refused to support public sector unions in their fight against Tory austerity and thirteen years of pay freezes. He supports the Tories' inhuman cap on child benefit. He won't even say that he'll honour pay review body recommendations. Plenty more, including broken pledges. A terrible shadow chancellor. A London Labour mayor who is screwing the poor and indulging the wealthy.

We might hold our noses and do whatever we can to vote out the Tories. Out. But there will be no ringing endorsement of Starmer. Wrong man, wrong time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 07:26 PM

I said just after he was elected leader that Starmer is a loser and a follower of what he perceives to be fashion. I said that he will not win the next election.

This will continue for as long as Keir Starmer tries to be everything to everybody without committing himself to any policies.

I'm quite happy to let him continue as he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 23 - 02:08 PM

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Khan and Starmer have their private barney about ULEZ. I'll bet anyone here at least sixpence that the policy on ULEZ will change.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Jul 23 - 02:10 PM

For once, Steve, I hope you’re right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 05:03 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!

From the Guardian:

...the government has seen fit to offer the new king a rise estimated to be 45% from 2025. The precise figure will depend on profits from the government property portfolio known as the crown estate. The projected increase of £38.5m, taking the sovereign grant from £86m to £125m, undermines King Charles’s often-cited commitment to “slim down” the monarchy.

The decision, which was taken by a committee of three people – prime minister Rishi Sunak, the chancellor Jeremy Hunt, and the keeper of the privy purse, Sir Michael Stevens...

So is this ancient, bumbling national parasite worth it, d'ye think? Does it swing it for you that his missus is such a sparkling, witty personality?

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....

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 07:20 PM

What do you mean by "the Crown"?

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: 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: 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 09:57 AM

I'd rather have the half.

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: 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: 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: 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.