01 Nov 2009
A post from ‘Simon’, looking at a number of claims made by Republic.
I have a question for Republic about the claim that £100 million a year is spent on security. Now I have in the past asked for more details on this claim but I have not seen a response (maybe I missed it) so I have been doing a little research. The notes claim
Security is an estimate based on a number of press reports over the years. This is the estimated *#163;33m cost of the Royal Protection Squad plus costs met by other police divisions and constabularies and the MoD.
The bit about basing this on a number of press reports over the years makes sense, but the “163;33m” is confusing, what is the 163 for? The 163 may not belong there at all or perhaps that is meant to say 100 which is the stated total estimate?, then it explains how that 100 is made by saying estimated cost for the Royal Protection Squad is 33m and the rest is MOD and other policing. The 33 million for the Royal protection Squad makes sense and is in line with this source I found,
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/188302/Prince-William-has-been-branded-LAZY-by-a-TV-documentary-His-royal-idleness-Prince-Wills.html
News of the World / Channel 4 Dispatches February, 2009.
The documentary also highlights the annual cost of the Royal Protection Squad, which an ex-police chief estimates at £30 million to £40 million
So does that mean 60 million a year is picked up by the MOD and other police forces? That sounds very high, so as it says this is based on press reports I did some searches on Google for the 100 million claim and I found one which may be the original source in a Times article from 2004.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article482303.ece
Although the Palace never discusses security or includes it in its annual balance sheet, the cost of protecting the Royal Family is said to be almost £100 million a year.
That is the only first hand report of £100 million I could come across, all other mentions I found were via Republic or someone quoting the Times. Again if I am missing something I would love the other sources for how this 100 million is estimated.
Compare that to the sources I did find on this matter. Two BBC articles saying around 30 million in 1999 and 2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/398076.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/683698.stm
Understandably following 9/11 there was a need to increase security for the Royal family, this would fit in with estimates in press reports in May 2009, all 3 reliable sources quoting 50 million for protecting royals.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23691711-royals-face-cut-in-police-guards.do London Evening Standard,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/5325467/Junior-royals-should-not-have-24-hour-protection.html Daily Telegraph,
We also have a Times article (the only source which I could find saying 100m originally) from September this year saying estimated cost is 50 million in line with the other sources,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6829796.ece
It is believed that some senior officers at Scotland Yard have expressed concern over the expanding bill for royalty protection, which is estimated to have reached as much as £50 million a year.
So I am rather confused about where the extra 50 million is coming from and would like more details please, if its 50 million for local security what sources are you basing this “estimate” on because i can not see that coming to 50 million. Especially as Councils are meant to contribute to the security costs and its already counting 10 million for them. Also even republics would not calculate cost of local visits by the president into a grand total of how much the president costs the tax payer.
Clarification on this matter would be most useful thank you.
Now on to something else, I want to check on the costs of “comparable European Heads of State” listed on the finance page. Some of the figures seem wrong, although I accept this is likely to be because of rising costs in those countries (it is not just the Royals who need extra money) and also currency changes with a weakening of the British pound. Anyway
Republic of Ireland
This is the country most often quoted in the blogs but it is a very unreasonable comparison for reasons that I will come onto in another post. Anyway currently it states the head of state costs £1.5 million. However if we look at page 7 on the following document there is a table showing expenditure. “Presidents Establishment” is at the top of the list and says 3.5 million euros. That would be £3.1 million.
http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2009/Documents/BudgetaryTables2009.pdf
Republic of Finland
The figure for Finland is more accurate from what I can see. Republic says it is £7.9 million. The government figures show that in 2007 and 2008 it was 10 million euros which is just under £9 million. However the budget proposal for 2009 was 13 million euros which works out at £11.6 million.
http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_valtiontalous_en.html
The next two are slightly more complicated and I may be wrong because of translation issues as they are both in German but it would make sense. Ausgaben = Expenditure in both cases.
Republic of Germany
Republic says Germany’s head of state costs £9.9 million. However government figures show 24.8 million euros in 2008 and 27.6 million euros for 2009. That would be £22.2 million and £24.7 million.
The figures are displayed on this Wikipedia page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haushaltsplan
Half way down the page is a table of expenditure. The first in the list is “Bundespräsident und Bundespräsidialamt” which translates into Federal President and basically what is the office of Federal President, if you follow the links for the two words, one takes you to the President the other takes you to a page which says the “authority of the federal president”, it then goes on to talk about the President’s office.
Those figures are sourced from this government document.
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/bundeshaushalt2009/pdf/vsp_2.pdf Page 4
It is possible to use Google Translator to view that document in English as well as the German Wikipedia page, as I say I could be wrong on the translations, but I have used different sites and it all checks out.
Republic of Austria
The same problem with translations applies, especially as they use a different word than the Germans. Republic says it costs £3.5 million but according the following sources it was 6 million euros in 2008 and 7.8 million euros for 2009. That would be £5.3 million and £7 million.
https://www.bmf.gv.at/Budget/Budget20072008/Budgetbericht_2007_2008Web.pdf
Page 88
https://www.bmf.gv.at/Budget/Budget20092010/Budgetbericht_2009_2010.pdf
Page 33
It is called “Präsidentschaftskanzlei”
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Präsidentschaftskanzlei
Translated = “The presidential office is the support organization of the Austrian Federal President”
Anyway if the above figures are correct then all those need updating although even if they are accurate its still unfair comparisons for reasons I will go into in more detail later.
One other thing I would like to comment on today is this,
“Some people have argued that figures from countries such as Ireland don’t count, because it’s population is so much smaller. This argument doesn’t make sense – both countries have one head of state, each head of state has one family, each head of state has only 365 days of the year to fill with engagements and official duties. How many people live in the country makes no difference to how much it should cost to run the office of head of state, provide security and so on.”
The reason why people say we can not compare to a country like Ireland is for the following reasons.
Royal Family,
First of all it is true that both countries have just one head of state, but the Queen has a family who carries out Royal duties on her behalf. That is not what happens in Republics, with the exception of a country like the USA who’s First Lady does have a role paid for by the tax payer. So it is not a simple swap between the Queen and a president of Ireland, The Queen and her family are able to carry out around 3000 visits in the United Kingdom a year, I wonder how many events the president of Ireland attends?
A list of her engagements each week can be found here, http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=6
I have not counted it all up but you can be sure it is not even 1000 visits in one year let alone 3000. The members of the Royal family there for need greater protection if they are carrying out lots of royal duties, which explains the large security and travel costs. I should just point out that this is one of the things I consider good about our constitutional monarchy, rather than your proposed republic which would limit it to one person restricting the number of people who can attend events that their president gets involved in (if people like going to that sort of thing, many do for royal visits). It’s a price worth paying as far as I am concerned.
Size of the country,
United Kingdom: 94,526 Square Miles
Republic of Ireland: 27,133 Square miles.
Considering £6 million of the current cost of monarchy is travel, size of a country does clearly impact on travel costs. If the Queen is to carry out a royal visit in Scotland one day and then a visit on the south coast of England clearly travel will cost more than it would for the President of Ireland to attend an event on each coast of her country. Air travel is obviously more needed by the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland than the President of the Republic of Ireland.
Further to that point as aircraft use is one of the costly parts of royal travel, The metropolitan area of Dublin has a population of 1.6m, which is just below 40% of the Republic of Irelands population of 4.4m. Londons metropolitan area is between 12-14m, which is just over 20% of the United Kingdoms population of 61m. There for the President of Ireland has much easier access to a lot more of her population making road transport more usable than it would be for Her Majesty in many cases.
Not enough space to fit this all in so will have to go onto a second post (sorry for 4 posts in a row, but someone asked for monarchists to make an effort).
Continued…
Status and security,
Ireland is a politically “neutral” country which tries to stay out of wars, including of course WW2. Today the United Kingdom has internal threats, those who would use violence against the British people and State to further their political goals. Sadly we have evidence this is the case based on the number of terrorist attacks and plots carried out on British soil, in London especially. There for security is a bigger issue in this country than it would be in Ireland anyway.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, like it or not is the most important person in this country today. She is known and respected world wide and there for a far bigger target for our enemies (and we have a lot of enemies) than the President of Ireland ever could be. The idea that Her Majesty would be put at risk is totally unacceptable, and I am sure the amount we spend on protecting the Prime Minister and royal family is tiny compared to what the Americans spend on their president and his family. Queen Elizabeth II is also Head of State of 15 other sovereign states, making her security even more important than if we just had our own monarch who we might be prepared to put at risk more.
Castles and Palaces,
£15 million of the 40 or 183 million is for the Royal Palaces and Castles, such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Kensington Palace etc. How many does Ireland have which may fall under the cost of the Presidency? From what I can tell there is just a single official residence of the President of Ireland known as the “Aras an Uachtaráin”
There is an interesting paragraph on the Wikipedia article for the building which I couldn’t resist sharing.
Though Áras an Uachtaráin is possibly not as palatial as other European royal and presidential palaces, with only a handful of state rooms (the state drawing room, large and small dining rooms, the President’s Office and Library, a large ballroom and a presidential corridor lined with the busts of past presidents (Francini Corridor), and some fine eighteenth and nineteenth century bedrooms above, all in the main building), it is a relatively comfortable state residence, and to a size and aspect commensurate with the nation it represents.
Somehow I think maintaining that building will be alot cheaper compared to Buckingham Palace, which has 775 rooms and is a symbol of our nation and its former imperial glory.
According to the website.. http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=21
“The house is open to the public each Saturday and 5200 people visit the formal rooms and view the grounds each year. In addition to official guests at the many state functions hosted by the President, more than 11,000 visit the house by invitation each year.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/201/20106.htm
Yet figures show over 360,000 visited Buckingham palace (this doesn’t include 10,000s who just go to see the changing of the guard etc) generating over 7 million and as you point out Windsor Castle gets a lot more visitors and income which goes towards the royal collection, something that does belong to the nation.
If we did do away with the monarchy then wed still have to pay to maintain both the collection and the palaces, but I do accept and agree with the point Republic makes on those matters, far more of the Royal collection should be loaned to galleries and museums across the country and Buckingham Palace should be opened up for a lot longer each year to generate more revenue.
We can of course do this without removing the monarchy, perhaps we should look in more detail at the Spanish monarchy that was restored a few decades ago following decades of fascism. The Royal palaces there are owned by the state (as ours are) but they are kept quite apart from the monarchy itself, so unlike in our own system £15 million doesn’t appear on the cost of the monarchy the way it does here for maintaining the palaces.
Anyway I have tried to address certain points in a serious way. I look forward to the responses.
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
November 1st, 2009 at 9:57 am
This was an error on our page, the figure is £33m. The html symbol for £ is £ and it had been mis-typed as *#163;
The £33m figure is the estimated cost of the royal protection squad. Royal security also involves other police forces, MI5 and the MoD.
The total costs have been estimated to be between £50m and £100m. We are quite clear that these are estimates based on newspaper reports and make no apologies for that.
The simple truth is that citizens should not be left guessing about how much of their money is being spent on royal security. It’s our money, we should be told.
The estimated £10m spent by councils is not for policing and security.
Maybe, I’ve not done new calculations recently. The figure we have was calculated a little while ago and the budget may have risen and the exchange rate may have changed. It’s not really a fundamental point though, is it?
On Finland: so the figures have changed slightly since we last updated the page. Your point?
Germany: I appreciate you doing some research for us. We had originally written to the offices of president for each of the name countries, I’ve got the letters from Finland and Ireland but can’t put my hands on the German one. I’ll check those figures and amend if necessary. Still doesn’t add up to any meaningful point in this debate though.
Austria: Again, thanks for doing the research. It would seem the figures have risen and perhaps the exchange rate has changed too. I’ll look into it.
Yes, but that’s not the point we were making in the paragraph you quoted. Of course we have an extended family, that’s part of the problem. The security for these people is way over the top and well beyond what is necessary. If we had a president we wouldn’t need to provide the whole Windsor clan with protection.
I hear the sound of straw clutching.
Are you seriously telling me Ireland is a trouble-free country with no terrorism and no security threat?
Yes, we have a security issue, but where is the evidence that the royals are under threat. A report not so long ago said the Met now believe the threat to the royals is the lowest its been since before the 1970s.
Compare royal protection with that of cabinet ministers and you’ll see why it is excessive.
Maintaining our castles and palaces would be cost-neutral in a republic as they could be opened to tourists all year round and raise revenue through tickets sales to pay for their upkeep.
Actually the monarchy was in place throughout the years of fascism, but the throne was vacant. It was Franco who put the king back on the throne.
November 1st, 2009 at 10:02 am
Simon
I’m afraid you’ve spent time researching a peripheral issue. We’ve never said the monarchy should be abolished because of cost, so even if your research amounted to more than updating a few of our figures it doesn’t add anything at all to the substantial debate about our constitution and democracy.
If you want to spend some time researching why not research our constitution, research how government works, what legal and constitutional mechanisms it uses to ensure it always gets its way, research the power of the monarch and the royal prerogatives, research the meaning of democracy, the history of the struggle for democracy, even research the personal lives of the Windsors.
November 1st, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Saints preserve us. Is it me? WHY is this guy so money-obsessed and busily investigating the workings of the moon rocket rather than debating if we actually need one. These are not core issues as Graham says. And then this:
“Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, like it or not is the most important person in this country today.”
Really! In whose view and in what respects? If this collective of multi-millionaires are in any way bothered about their security, let them PAY for it like anybody else. The social uselessness of their position, set against the public cost of protecting them is a paradoxical farce. They exist firstly for themselves Simon, and for the wealthy, powerful coterie who suck up to them for their own selfish ends.
And a future magnificent exercise in unbridled, massive ’security’ and publicly-funded, financial waste – if it happens? The proposed visit of God’s vicar and his retinue en route to an interaction with our holy superstars at Buckingham Palace. (In my humble view.)
November 1st, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Sorry for posting on the other page, thankyou for creating this new thread and putting the 4 posts here.
I totally agree that as the costs are not fully published the only option is to go by media reports, but this then raises the question about what sources? As i have shown 4 reliable newspapers this year used the 50 million estimate. I only found one saying 100million which was in The Times from 5 years ago, and this year The Times said it was 50 million. So what other sources is the between 50 and 100 million based on please, it is a huge amount of money (50 million is 25%+ of the total cost of monarchy according to Republic).
No its not a fundamental point but considering the position Republic holds with its growing media exposure there is a need for figures to be kept as accurate as possible. I totally accept in the case of the comparisons with other countries these differences are in the most part caused by exchange rates which have radically changed in the past year or two and rising costs in those countries which obviously can not always be kept up to date.
On the Royal family,
I agree and said that if we became a Republic we wouldnt have to spend so much on protecting the whole family and there would be less travel. But i wanted to address the point that each country only has one head of state, but in our system we have many who carry out duties on behalf of the Queen. Not something you would see in Ireland. Its up to people if they think having more people to do such jobs is a good thing or not, i happen to think its one of the benefits.
Not at all it was an example to highlight common sense. The Queen does attend events in Scotland, Wales and England. There is more travel involved in getting around those 3 countries than there is for someone to get around the Republic of Ireland.
No i am not saying that, what i am saying is that security is a far far bigger issue in this country than the Republic of Ireland. How many bombers have carried out attacks in the ROI, compared to how many have carried out attacks here? The United Kingdom is at far bigger risk both from internal traitors and external aggressors than a neutral country like the Republic of Ireland. Again this is common sense.
The Royal Family is still a target, even if there are less direct threats to them. We ofcourse saw that when 2nd Lt Wales had to be withdrawn from Afghanistan when the American media published the information that he was out there. Certain people need security and the Royal family is one of them, even if people want an end to the monarchy, whilst we have one they must be fully protected.
Only certain Cabinet ministers need some form of protection anyway. I am sorry but a cabinet minister is not as high value target as the Queen or senior Royals.
I accept that far more revenue could be raised if the palaces were open year round, i said i would support Buckingham Palace being opened alot longer to bring in more revenue. But revenue is not the point here. The point is in most countries, even in a monarchy like Spain. The cost of maintaining a Royal Palace is not included in the cost of the monarchy. It certainly means £15 million difference between Ireland and the UK system is misleading because it would appear they only have one building considered the presidential residence. I dont think maintaining palaces should be included in the cost of monarchy, security should be though.
I dont know the details, the fact remains a King was restored to the throne who helped see Spain from fascism to democracy. My point was some of their systems may be better, an example being the way they keep the Royal Palaces separate from the cost of the monarchy and how the King doesnt spend much time at the main Royal palace.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Tim,
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II outranks every single person in this country, including the Prime Minister of the day. I know some may not like this fact, but it is fact. Her Majesty must be protected at all costs, if that meant spending 100 million just to protect her then its a price worth paying.
We saw a few months ago an attack which came close to the Dutch Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth herself in the past has been shot at and woken up to an intruder in her bedroom. The idea we have excessive security for Her Majesty is sadly not the case as endless security mistakes highlight. Security for less senior members of the royal family is a different matter, but senior royals need alot of protection and ive no problem with spending 100 million on that if its an accurate figure, but i think its not.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II outranks every single person in this country…I know some may not like this fact, but it is fact.” Simon
No Simon it is NOT a fact. For a start she certainly does not ‘outrank’ me – and herein lies the problem. As far as I am concerned human beings are all born equal. They are not awarded wealth, rank and status simply by whose uterus they may have inhabited. You, on the other hand, are quite prepared to accept that there is a mystifying spectrum of people who are your betters and who demand deference, power and perpetual funding – a situation absurdly arising from notions of bloodline, purity or other dubiously fanciful lineage.
The army of crawlers who seek to bask in the reflected light of ‘royalty’ use it to justify themselves and the wealth-seeking, socially-divisive game they are all playing. The ‘bloodline’ has thrown up all manner of dysfunctional freaks, madmen, cowards, perverts, tyrants and murderers. You can safely assume that there is a strong likelihood that no genetic or other physical link to unearned privilege and entitlement exists. Consequently to pretend that it does is inegalitarian, inaccurate and the province of the gullible.
And you are still at it – commenting on the level of Windsor security and the need for it. You are justifying its cost against minor breaches over thirty years. This is not what anyone here is talking about. Vast expense is just a sympton of the rot. We have been innoculated to be unquestioning in this country and to follow Leibnitz’s theory embodied by Dr Pangloss, (Voltaire) that all is probably for the best – even that England IS the best of all possible royal worlds. Just a few years ago class dictated how you were received by those who imagined themselves to be your betters. It affected entitlement, status and how you were treated socially and politically.
The class system appears now in an attenuated form, although some people are seeking to maintain it by stealth. You, of course, are working hard on their behalf, having swallowed its residual effects hook, line and sinker. I’m sure they are eternally grateful.
This campaign is for an elected head of state, within a context of seeking wider constitutional and democratic reforms. ‘Royal’ awards, perceived values and the gangling apparatus that supports them is of no real interest to republicans only as ammunition for change. To assert that any of these people ‘outrank’ others in human worth, or are so valuable that they need protecting, funding or cossetting by us all, are arguably significant drivers for republican ideologies anyway. Well done.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Tim Cooper,
The Queen being of Royal blood is not the issue here. She is head of state of this country rightly or wrongly and the Crown outranks anything and everyone. I understand the endless attempts to make war on our class system, which is often down to jealousy do make people feel better but we can never all be equal. That is not the case in a Republic. The President of the USA is the most important person in that country, American soldiers will defend their president if needed, just as our soldiers would follow their oaths to defend Her Majesty.
I asked this before but the simple question is, If Queen Elizabeth II is not the most important person in this country who is? The Prime Minister? He ofcourse needs protecting but the two are on completely different levels. We all must know our place and to think a Republican president will be treated like a commoner is silly. A classless society will never exist, we all must accept our place.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
SIMON – “we all must accept our place.”
What!? I do not believe it! You, Simon, can carry on ‘knowing your place’ if you so wish, down there amongst the grockles, as Prince foot-in-mouth Edward has been known to call us, but I am not a lesser-being and will never ‘know my place’ or show deference to anyone, just so you know. Your world view is warped and makes me cringe.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
It is not the case that a head of state ‘outranks’ everyone in society. The head of state is the senior public office within the constitution, but they ought, in a democracy, to be equal in law and the servant, not the master, of the people.
In a democracy the people outrank all public servants, including the head of state.
This has little to do with the class system and much more to do with a basic level of self-respect and a commitment to democratic values.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Simon, over the past week I have continued my attempts to engage you in serious, constructive debate. But today you have destroyed the last traces of credibility you had in my book. I apologise, Graham, for going slightly off-topic here, but under the circumstances I’m sure you’ll understand.
Firstly, Simon, in the small hours of this morning, you stated in the ‘Pointless Goal’ thread, “My main priority is the monarchy continues.” Now I realise you said this in the specific context of the monarchy v republic debate, so you might plead that it does not in any way give the lie to your previously oft-repeated insistence that you consider the Union more important than the monarchy. But the problem is, despite your apparent scepticism as to the sincerity of Alex Salmond’s current pro-monarchy stance, and despite your undoubted desire to see the separatists defeated, you don’t appear to even begin to comprehend the very real danger that a separate Scottish Crown could be used as a political weapon against England following the possible break-up of the Union, leaving the English government with little choice but to play along and give tit for tat. That danger provides another very good reason for pursuing a republic now whilst there is still a danger that the separatists will succeed in splitting the Union, even if attaining the former goal wouldn’t do anything to reduce the likelihood of the latter, as you suppose it wouldn’t but I believe it would.
What’s more, I would’ve mentioned this in the ‘Anonymous Monarchist’ thread when I asked you to consider how you want history to remember Elizabeth II centuries from now, but ran out of space: from the monarchist point-of-view, how much further do you think the Queen’s image would be tarnished if she became not only the monarch on whose watch the Union ended, but the monarch who in her new separate guises was used as a political tennis ball in what would surely be a long-running political conflict between England and Scotland? The break-up of the Union would be terrible whichever way you look at it, but at least if the united Britain’s last head of state was a president, then with no chance of England and Scotland continuing to share heads of state, there’d be far less room for skulduggery and shady attempts by one side to out-manoeuvre the other.
Your second faux-pas today, in this thread, is much more damning. But I will come to that later, for I see that you have just written the following in the ‘Battle of Ideas’ thread:
Matt has in the past talked about some form of Crowned Republic, I don’t understand what exactly that implies
I’m sorry, Simon, but now you’re just being ridiculous. I have explained time and time again what I mean by Crowned Republic, and I’m not going to waste my time explaining it once more, especially now that I have finally seen the light and accepted the need for a Parliamentary Republic.
So, finally, this:
A classless society will never exist, we all must accept our place.
There is, indeed, no such thing as a classless society (though New Zealand’s pretty damn close to being one), and Britain’s class structure certainly won’t crumble overnight if or when we become a republic; but that very fact gives the lie to your bizarre view that the republic debate has actually got anything to do with class. Which means, Simon, that your urging us all to accept our place, is symptomatic of a bigoted lack of belief in human aspiration, reducing your frequent insistence that if the people want rid of the monarchy then it must go, to nothing but one big fob-off. I cannot and will not accept that from anyone.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Graham,
In a republic the head of state is more important than the common man.
Anyway i do not want this debate on a few words i used in my comments be it “most important person” or the class debate to distract us from the other issues i raised which i was after more detail on. If you could find me the other sources which say security costs between 50-100 million it would be very useful thanks.
Matt,
The union is my first priority as i have always said, you were right when you said my comments were in the context of the debate on a republic. My point being i am prepared to accept radical changes to address many of the issues republicans raise whist still keeping the monarchy. As the union is the priority concern about what may happening if Scotland did become an independent country is not something i think about. If Scotland became independent it would possibly keep the monarchy until the Queens death and then hold a referendum on doing away with it. I see no reason right now to presume taking on the monarchy will help win the battle on the union or make it harder to win. Its a distraction.
On the Crowned Republic, i have seen it talked about before but not read full details of what exactly it would involve and i was not asking for an explanation of it just using it as an example of major reform without doing away with the Queen and monarchy entirely.
I do not think i have said the class issue is a reason why people want us to become a republic, but in previous debates it does from time to time become just an attack on the whole class system despite them existing in republics anyway. In the USA which is a republic i would consider the President the most important person in that country, In France it would be the French President, in this country it is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I dont see how that is so wrong.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Simon, I have refrained from replying as I believe others, probably more knowledgable in certain areas can argue better than I can. However, you are just being plain bloody daft when you say:
“In the USA which is a republic i would consider the President the most important person in that country, In France it would be the French President, in this country it is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I dont see how that is so wrong.”
The Presidents of France, the US, Italy, and Germany can all be UNELECTED. VOTED OUT OF OFFICE!!!! I don’t know how else this could be made clearer to yourself! Indeed, in the US and France, a President can only serve two terms max! So even the most popular US President ever can only serve two eight year terms, and quite right too! (I wish we had the same in this country for Prime Ministers!) If you cannot and perhaps will not see that CRUCIAL difference, then you’d better reconsider whether posting on this forum makes any sense whatsoever!
It seems you have a low opinion of yourself as you seem to want to “know your plce” all the time! WHY? Is it some form of inferiority complex or do you see the Queen as some sort of surrogate mother!
November 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
imatt:
even the most popular US President ever can only serve two eight year terms
Make that two four-year terms, my friend!
November 1st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“we all must accept our place.” Simon.
I cannot imagine what you are thinking about. “Make war on our class system”? At least you are tacitly accepting there is one. ‘Jealousy’ is hardly a term which describes a desire for more equality in this pluralistic society
‘The Crown’ does not outrank everyone; ‘the people’ are served by it, providing it is intrinsic to them. The trouble is that, currently, sovereignty does not fully rest with the people. Why try to define who ‘the most important person’ is? What a pointless if not moribund concept. Perceived levels of ‘importance’ are precisely what drive the clambering slough of imaginative, social climbing hangers-on – as they all crawl inexorably towards a higher, more worthy, status; and probably all over you in the process.
What a willing, cap touching drone! Wake up for hell’s sake!
“A classless society will never exist…” Probably not fully – and certainly not all the while royal apologists obfuscate the issue with their voluble non-arguments of inevitability and hopeless deference. Accept everything. Question nothing. Your nose is for pulling. Hah!
November 1st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Im sorry people are making a big deal about me saying the Queen is the most important person in the country. Ofcourse presidents come and go. Today Obama is the most important man in the USA and needs protecting more than any other. A year ago Bush was the most important man in the USA and needed protecting the most. Well today in our system no matter how you feel about that system, the Queen is the most important person and there for needs the most protecting.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Matt, thanks for the correction!
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:52 am
How many times must it be said that dislike of the extremes of the class system in our country is not just down to jealously. It might be for a few,but for serious critics and thinkers , including republicans,the extremes of our class system cause un-necessary social injustice which can be put right. Monarchy in our country is the embodiment and symbol of a divisive class system based upon hereditary factors and related misconceptions,( such as arrogant claims about genetics ). It is true that human societies arrange themselves naturally along certain groups or classes,which vary all across the globe. However in apparently “advanced” technological societies like ours it is surely desirable to iron out gross inequalities caused by certain factors ,including extreme class distinction. There is no doubt that certain classes of people in our country have been bred to believe that they are superior to other groups as a result of birth. In my book this is just plain wrong. The queen is a figurehead in our country . She is ,unfortunately, a symbol of extreme class distinction based upon hereditary privilege. Although everyone is obviously not “equal ” in many ways, I do not see how one person can be deemed to be the “most important ” person in a society ,based upon hereditary principles. Even if elected,the queen or king would ,in my eyes be an”equal ” figurehead,and subject to the law of the land , just like everybody else. The royal family obviously carry out a lot of engagements per year. Probably the extended family are busy filling their diaries just because they are “there” and they have to do something. Obviously a lot of what they do is very good,inspiring and necessary. However if all the actual engagements are broken down and studied ,it would probably be found that many are actually not particularly necessary. For example I have known royalist headmasters who have had “royalty” along to open a new part of a school building, just for kudos. Such work could easily be done by other local dignitaries at less cost. I have known M.P.s do such things. To my mind a president of a republic could share a lot of the load of a figurehead by having a group of assistants to share the engagements. This should cost a lot less than current royal arrangements, and would there be so much need for heavy,expensive security ?
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:20 am
Simon,
It seems you have done quite a bit of research regarding the costs, and provided soruces, so I will take your figures as though they are accurate.
If they are accurate, all it seems to point out is that the monarchy is a vast bloated overcost. Berlin has less than 10% of the popultation in but the German president costs less then the monarch. By a substanital ammount. The head of state only needs one residence (I do not agree with the US president having camp david as well) so what you appear to have done is provide numerous reasons and examples of the parasitical nature of the monarchy.
The fact the 3000 egagements can be conducted is not a support, as many of those engagements are private and non-public. Even those which are do no need a royal to conduct it. It would foster a greater sense of community if local MP’s conducted openings not some distant Windsor.
Your efforts are appreciated but unfortunately for you, you seem to have provided further justification for republic to advocate the abolition of the monarchy.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:50 am
@Graham cum Gray
Why was an exception made for Simon in regards to standards for posting an article here?
He did not submit his picture. He did not write a thorough article that meets the high standard required for a blog of this nature. He shows no respect to the leadership of the Republic. He only displays deference to the Monarchy. He has no respect for Members of Parliament; or ‘the people’. Why must he be elevated beyond what he deserves? We have witnessed him go round and round on the same circular argument: Queen Elizabeth II deserves to be head of state because she is respected all over the world. Nothing else.
Simon has given this website a character. And it is a stagnant, and bad one. This should be a campaign for a republic. The debate should be vibrant, informative, discoursive, intellectual and unpredictable. If we continue to allow Simon to paint this place a certain image, we will not attract ‘brainier’ monarchists. He has to up his game or made to be a reader of the post only.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:12 am
Further…
Monarchists should not be begged to submit anything! If they have an argument let them make it on their own; no one should be babied into this forum or to debate. I have a feeling some of us will miss Simon and his redundant tirades; I will not. Maybe the blog will be less busy, so be it. If we are going to be artificially busy, it will hurt the ‘character’ of the blog site to read the same posters with the same arguments. What would you do with someone who can always say “well, she’s going to be head of state whether you like it or not”?
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
This is simply not true. Do at least try and understand republicanism before attacking it.
On the security cost, as I’ve said, we are going on the various newspaper reports. Our issue is principally that the palace cannot claim the monarchy is “value for money” (and regardless of the cost such a claim cheapens what ought to be an important institution) and that we should not be left guessing how much of our money is being spent on the royals.
There is no such thing as a ‘Crowned Republic’. It’s a fantasy dreamt up by monarchists devoted to their need for an icon to worship and incapable of reconciling that with modern standards and principles.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
@eclub
I posted this here as an “I’m a monarchist” post because Simon put all this in another thread. I think it’s useful and healthy to allow open debate with those who oppose us, if only to demonstrate time and time again that monarchists have no substantive case on their side.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Morning Graham
There is no such thing as a ‘Crowned Republic’. It’s a fantasy dreamt up by monarchists devoted to their need for an icon to worship and incapable of reconciling that with modern standards and principles.
Linguistically speaking, I would have always acknowedged the phrase to be a contradiction in terms. As for the Australian monarchists who coined it, given the sheer cultural absurdity of that country retaining the monarchy – which exists even if you remove politics and democracy from the equation – then I’d have to say I agree with that label being applied to them in terms of their ultimate goal of killing off the republican debate.
However, I’m assuming you and most other republicans would agree that Australia’s system of government is far more democratic than our own, monarchy or not: it has a wide distribution of power, a very strong system of checks-and-balances, and above all, any amendment to the constitution must be approved by the people. Although I have now accepted that such a system (federal or not) would be unworkable in Britain without abolishing the monarchy, and have other ideological & moral reasons for wholeheartedly supporting a republic, I would still be hesitant to concede that it is only thanks to Australia’s unique position as a far-flung independent Commonwealth Realm that she is able to retain the monarchy yet still enjoy a very strong democracy. The fact that New Zealand has arguably an even worse elective dictatorship than Britain, despite her constitutional development since colonisation having largely mirrored Australia’s (the federal aspect aside), would seemingly put paid to that idea. Indeed, that being the case, the fact that NZ actually comes higher than Aus in the Democracy Index, just goes to show how flawed that Index is; so without knowing much about the governments of the Scandanavian monarchies, which Simon constantly praises as model democracies, I will take your word on those, Graham. But Simon has already demonstrated the patronising one-sided attitude towards Aus, NZ etc. – “What they do is their business alone, but what we do is still theirs as well as ours” – which, from where I’m standing, is the only feasible explanation for anyone believing that Aus has just been plain ‘lucky’ in its admittedly unique constitutional development.
When my article is published, the older members of my Conservative Association will no doubt lay into me over this issue, telling me it’s acceptable for Governors-General to be politically active in ways they themselves would never want the Queen to be, “because those countries have their own unique relationships with the Crown, completely different from ours.” I will not hold out from translating that for them, “they’re dominions so of course they need the governors to keep them in line,” and from offering my rebuke, which is that such attitudes are disgusting. In democratic terms, we are not worthy to clean Australia’s boots; and in moral terms, we are not worthy even so much as to dream of cleaning New Zealand’s. Only with the fresh start of a republic, giving power to the people, can we change that.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Perhaps Simon needs to be more concise! It it no good having a myriad of Obama bashing links and tons of text, expecting myself and others to read it all. Simon has to put in the length of a couple of short paragraphs why a monarchy is the best solution without putting his own personal pejudices forward as fact such as “everyone loves and respects the Queen”.
If this were substantiated fact, then we’d have a talking point. However, Simon cannot back this up as this is simply how he feels inside which is not based on logic or fairness.
It would be better if Simon were to imagine he were talking to an alien who has no real concept of monarchy. How then would Simon be able to justify a monarchy, esp the British model to this extra terrestrial visitor in a single paragragh, without using overly emotional language?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
@Matthew
I can’t say I agree that NZ is a worse ‘elective dictatorship’ than Australia. New Zealand has PR, which breaks the one-party monopoly, and its single parliamentary chamber has a strong committee system.
Australia certainly has a stronger democracy than the UK, but is still has deep flaws. The PM is still very powerful, and the federal structure is nothing like as strong as it is in the US, either politically or culturally. Their lower house is marginally more democratic than our Commons, but the AV electoral system makes it very difficult for a third party to get elected and entrenches those parties already in parliament.
Their written constitution says little about individual rights and mainly deals with the relationship between the Australian Commonwealth and the states.
It is still a constitutional monarchy, albeit one with a de facto head of state in Canberra in the form of the Governor General. In fact Australia demonstrated the power of the Crown more clearly than ever in 1975 when the G-G sacked the PM and replaced him with the leader of the opposition, a power he received from the monarch and for which he was entirely unaccountable to the people.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Graham:
I can’t say I agree that NZ is a worse ‘elective dictatorship’ than Australia
Well I actually said that NZ is a worse elective dictatorship than Britain, though since you believe NZ’s system is in some ways more democratic than than ours, your remark there makes sense. However, putting aside differences of opinion on voting methods, I must ask if you’re familiar with the NZ Electoral Finance Act 2007, which I followed very closely as I was working in Auckland when Helen Clark started ramming it through to enactment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Finance_Act
I can’t help but conclude that the committee system failed here. Thankfully, though, the ghastly legislation, which represented a last desperate attempt by Clark to buy the 2008 election which she knew she’d lose, has now been repealed. But most importantly,
In fact Australia demonstrated the power of the Crown more clearly than ever in 1975 when the G-G sacked the PM and replaced him with the leader of the opposition, a power he received from the monarch and for which he was entirely unaccountable to the people.
Agreed, such power must be granted by popular mandate and exercised in an accountable mechanism.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“Simon has given this website a character. [etc]” eclub
I agree broadly with eclub over this. Simon is very evident with his circular, drawn-out, empty arguments. The sheer volume of his rather cloying posts does seem to be awarding the forum an image. For me, Simon certainly demonstrates that he, personally, has no substantive case for a monarchy and also possesses a naive viewpoint – even one which might make our hereditary dynasts squirm in their neatly-pressed underwear – but I’m not at all sure if he typifies monarchists.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
One thing we all agree on is that cost is not our primary reason for keeping or wanting to get rid of the monarchy. All my post has done is highlight what appears to be a rather misleading claim made by republic that security is estimated to cost 100 million a year.
When Graham is asked a question in the national media, is it right for him to say that security is estimated to cost 100 million if that is only based on one source from 5 years ago which a few others have repeated? A cost which is double what sources today estimate to be the cost of security?
We are not talking about a little mistake here, we are talking about £50 million, 25% of the claimed cost of the British monarchy according to Republic. If the security costs are based on a number of press reports, it should be saying 50 million which is what reliable news sources currently quote.
In response to my post Graham said
well im sorry but that is not the impression people here have given in the past nor is it what the website says. The website says its estimated to cost 100 million a year, not between 50 and 100, even the small notes do not say that. In the interests of open debate and full disclosure all the sources for the 50-100 million claim would be useful.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
SIMON – You have staying power Simon I give you that. The reason the exact cost of security is not known is because it is hidden. Who is it hidden by? If all you can do in support of monarchy is criticize Republic’s estimate of a figure that should be in the public domain in the first place then that just demonstrates to everyone the paucity of your position.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Bob Wiggin,
I fully accept as security costs are not fully published (which i think they should be) then we have to go on estimates. Well this year i see articles in the Evening Standard, Telegraph, Daily Mail and The Times saying its estimated to cost 50 million. The Times is the key one, because it appears to be a Times article from 5 years ago that put out the “100 million” estimate and since then republic have understandably used that number and others have quoted it.
There is a reliability question here. Considering the position this organisation has with the media, i think its important they are making accurate statements. Some of the other parts of the costing is debatable aswell, but this 50 million, 25% of the claimed cost of monarchy does concern me.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Simon
We estimate that to be the cost, based on reports in the press. It is quite accurate to say we estimate it to be that cost, because we do.
That is all we say. It is an estimate, one point among many, a point that is not remotely related to the fundamental issues at hand.
I’m hearing that sound of straw clutching again. Still no defence of monarchy? Still no principles to offer? Still no argument against the republican case?
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Graham Smith,
Please provide the sources you base the 50 – 100 million claim on. It seems to me that the 100 million is only based on the original times article from 5 years ago, yet the times 2 months ago reported it as an estimated 50 million in line with the other press reports.
Yet you will continue to state the monarchy security costs an estimated 100 million? because of that 1 news report 5 years ago which a few others have repeated mainly because republic makes comments in the media quoting that cost.
That does not seem quite right to me. Its rather misleading.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Simon
This is simple: there have been reports that security is over £50m. There have been reports that it is £100m. Therefore it is estimated, by us, to be between £50m and £100m.
When asked about this in the media we make it clear what we base that on. We make it quite clear that auditing and accounting for how taxpayers’ money is spent is not our responsibility, it is the government’s.
The issue here is two-fold: 1) we should not be left guessing. 2) it is absurd bit of spin to suggest the monarchy is “value for money”.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
What are the sources for the estimate it is over 50 million or 100 million?
I totally agree with you that more details on security costs should be published. Although as i pointed out before, i doubt if they include security costs when adding up costs of other heads of state.
Surely its best to use the most recent estimates published in reliable sources rather than an estimate from 5 years ago which is clearly out of sync with the others including the same newspaper this year.
Would saying the monarchy cost about 133 million which may be more accurate weaken the republican cause?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“Would saying the monarchy cost about 133 million which may be more accurate weaken the republican cause?”
Like placing a feather on top of a formula one car it would
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 am
Simon’s point seems to provide greater support for the republican cause, by demonstrating not only how much money is wasted upon inflating the egos of these people but also the level of secrecy surrounding the Windsors. However I think that in the interests of accuracy Republic would be better off stating that the security cost is between 50-100 million.
Graham, while an estimate of 100 million, strictly speaking, is not an inaccurate statement it is misleading. Normally an estimate would have a margin of error but not to a level of 50%. I do not think that this changes anything in terms of the validity of arguments for a republic but I think the highest level accuracy must be used. It is misleading to use the upper limit of a range as the estimate rather than stating the range itself.
Matt, would it be possible to get a copy of your article from the internet, or is it in a conservative party internal newsletter?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 am
Sam Walker,
I don’t think the estimate should be changed. The point being made is that, due to the secrecy, the public, including the media, is left to guess, and guessing in a wide range! Personally, I think the figure is closer to 300 Million or more. If the monarchy is hiding it, we don’t need a reliable source to cite it, we should assume it’s hideous, and embarrasing to the monarchy to release. They will be willing for us to use any figure, even as much as a billion, as far as they are not forced to disclose all expenditure.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
Morning Sam
I take it you’ve read the background info on my article in other threads: how I wrote it to promote the ‘Crowned Republic’ model back in June; how it was politely dismissive of republicanism (albeit partly due to the word limit); how it was heavily delayed but finally went to press while I was still desperately clinging to my old views, despite my increasing resignation to the inevitability of a parliamentary republic being the only way forward; and why, for all those reasons, I’ve now asked Republic to ignore it if Graham, James or one of its directors happens to stumble across it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
No, of course not, so why do you go on about this so much?
We’re going to be reviewing the whole finances issue over the coming months and I’m sure there will be changes to the information we provide.
It could be £133m, it could be £200m. We don’t know.
The problem with you Simon is that you’ve written this post but still haven’t provided any substantial argument.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
@Sam Walker, and other well meaning Republicans:
Please, don’t “fall in like” with Simon. We must always be mindful, though Simon is loquacious ( wordy, garrulous, babbling, talkative, chattering), he yearns for the day that the monarchy sets the police and the dogs on republicans for excersing their right to assemble or protest their government; I can tell that, though he is among us, it should only be for debate; we are not one with Simon at all. So, please be ware that the sooner he finishes his arguments and points and go the better for me. Don’t feel emotionally attached to the guy.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I think we need an input now from some other monarchists ,into the blog.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Hi Matt,
Ye, I understand that your article was in your ‘previous life’ as it were, but I would still be interested in reading it, and to see the responses it got amongst the conservative party. However if you would rather that it is not read I understand and will not press the matter.
eclub,
I realise that the lack of information regading royal expenditure is the real concern. However I am extremely concerned about misleading information or jumping to conclusions. Just because we do not know how much the royals cost exactly does not mean we can make up the figures. It seems that Republic used a reliable source, and as Graham said they will be looking at the finances soon, so I think that settles the matter. While it does not affect the reasoning of the republican arguments, accuracy is important.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Agreed. I understand the reason for the figures is down to the fact details are not published by the monarchy on security costs, (which could be done without putting security at risk) there for its right to use press reports and the 100m was put out there by a national newspaper rightly or wrongly, i just wanted to ensure they were as accurate and recent as possible. (25% of the cost is a pretty big figure).
Anyway thank you Graham for saying you will be looking into this further in the next few months.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Expenditure from public coffers, tax-payer money from the treasury, should not be hidden for security reasons. If one wants to shield one from risks, one should put one in undisclosed location, not in castles; if one’s abode is known, ones expenses should be disclosed.
Analogy for the Use of high estimate: If you parked your car in a private parking lot that charges by the hour, the rate is say 5 pounds an hour, and thirty pounds maximum for a day; if for some reason you spent two hours, but somehow lost the ticket to claim your car, of which the time stamp becomes unknown, the lot attendant will be justified in charging you thirty pounds, the price for the full day, the maximum — unless you produced the ticket!
Graham can use the top estimate of 100 million, if the figures ain’t released by the government.
I accept the settlement.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Hi Sam
No problem, if you get James to give me your email address, then once the article’s published I’ll email you a PDF (it’s in a think tank members’ magazine so won’t be available to buy). The reaction to it will certainly be interesting, and – I strongly suspect – will further vindicate my conversion to republicanism.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Hi Matt,
Great. I’m also interested in the repsonses, and what the focus of comments are. Thanks.
James,
If you could provide Matt with my email that be good. Thanks.