Government spending £8 million on portraits of the King for schools, police stations and council offices

[birchesgreen]

Love how people get bogged down and obsessed with stuff like this while billions flows into the bank accounts of the elite.

 

[AlterEgo]

Love how people get bogged down and obsessed with stuff like this while billions flows into the bank accounts of the elite.

Bread and circuses as per usual, promulgated by our necrotic political culture.

 

[Busaholic]

Would the same amount of bile be directed at a Presidental picture?

Remember the golden rule, they who have the gold make the rules!

Not the same amount, but way more, except bile would be replaced by death threats on social media, whichever sap happened to be President. If the latter was a woman or non-white, or a combination of the two, multiply by a factor of ten.

 

[102 fan]

Not the same amount, but way more, except bile would be replaced by death threats on social media, whichever sap happened to be President. If the latter was a woman or non-white, or a combination of the two, multiply by a factor of ten.

I think you're confusing British politics and American politics.....

 

[McRhu]

I’m all for it. I don’t mind forking out my 2/6 or whatever it is. And I’m sure the good king’s visage will be gazing down benevolently from the wall of many a civic hall and humble domicile for many years to come.*

* cf Larkhall

 

[dangie]

Don’t see anything wrong with it.

 

[102 fan]

A trap that many Republicans fall through is the mistaken belief that a Presidency would be cheaper. In reality, anything Royal would simply become Presidental. The one difference would be an elected office, but what if the result is similar to the Brexit vote? Endless arguments about validity?

 

[DarloRich]

I have been in plenty of police stations, courts, prisons, military bases and government offices that have displayed a picture of the Queen. Why would they not be updated on a change of monarch? I know there is usually a portrait in Civic Centres but its prominence tends to depend on who runs the council!

 

[Meerkat]

A trap that many Republicans fall through is the mistaken belief that a Presidency would be cheaper. In reality, anything Royal would simply become Presidental. The one difference would be an elected office, but what if the result is similar to the Brexit vote? Endless arguments about validity?

Then they talk about the cost of protecting the RF, forgetting that if we had elected presidents they would have to be protected for life. How many living ex PMs are the plod currently looking after? Six?

 

[43096]

Then they talk about the cost of protecting the RF, forgetting that if we had elected presidents they would have to be protected for life. How many living ex PMs are the plod currently looking after? Six?

Seven, although they really shouldn’t bother with Truss.

 

[gswindale]

Then they talk about the cost of protecting the RF, forgetting that if we had elected presidents they would have to be protected for life. How many living ex PMs are the plod currently looking after? Six?

Although if we had a republic, surely it would only be the immediate families of Presidents past & present that need "protection", rather than Charles, Edward, Andrew, Anne & William's families (noting that Henry no longer get's public funding for his protection in the UK)

 

[najaB]

If a establishment really wants a picture of the monarch they can buy one at their on expense not the taxpayers

Given that these 'establishments' are police stations, town halls, etc. "their expense" and the taxpayer's are one and the same.

 

[Meerkat]

Although if we had a republic, surely it would only be the immediate families of Presidents past & present that need "protection", rather than Charles, Edward, Andrew, Anne & William's families (noting that Henry no longer get's public funding for his protection in the UK)

Do all those you name get protection, apart from if they attend events (ie doing their job)?
And is it going to add up to more than doing the same for multiple ex-Presidents?
And don't forget the cost of the elections - they are not cheap.

 

[gswindale]

Do all those you name get protection, apart from if they attend events (ie doing their job)?
And is it going to add up to more than doing the same for multiple ex-Presidents?
And don't forget the cost of the elections - they are not cheap.

I've no idea on the actual level of protection - the only time I saw Charlie Boy, I wasn't impressed as I nearly missed my train thanks to him turning up (and I'd allowed 30 minutes to buy my ticket!) I presume Will & co get a relatively high level of protection as I seem to recall reading in our local paper that parents were concerned about the impact of the young royals having on the freedoms of everybody at the school in question.

As for the cost of elections though, we bring back a fixed term parliament and include the "Presidential election" as part of that - no point having it on a separate time scale - keeps the costs down as you only need to hire the halls for one event rather than having say a general election in December, the council elections in May and the Presidential election in August.

 

[Meerkat]

As for the cost of elections though, we bring back a fixed term parliament and include the "Presidential election" as part of that - no point having it on a separate time scale - keeps the costs down as you only need to hire the halls for one event rather than having say a general election in December, the council elections in May and the Presidential election in August.

Is it normal for presidential elections elsewhere to be on the same day as parliamentary ones? Not sure its a good idea at all.
The election costs, plus an inauguration which will be more frequent and far less tourist worthy than a coronation.

 

[SteveM70]

To me this nonsense falls into the same category as the current government's unhealthy obsession with flags. Nothing is less likely to make me feel patriotic than having patriotism forced on me

 

[najaB]

Is it normal for presidential elections elsewhere to be on the same day as parliamentary ones? Not sure its a good idea at all.

It is definitely a better idea to avoid changing both your head of government and head of state at the same time.

 

[duncanp]

It is definitely a better idea to avoid changing both your head of government and head of state at the same time.

Particularly if the head of state has any constitutional role in selecting the new head of government.

The UK would have been in that position last September if The Queen had died two days earlier than she did.

 

[gswindale]

It is definitely a better idea to avoid changing both your head of government and head of state at the same time.

In which case keep general elections every 5 years. Election first Thursday in December.

Give the president a four year term and hold the elections on the same day as the council elections (i.e. first Thursday in May).

 

[duncanp]

In which case keep general elections every 5 years. Election first Thursday in December.

Give the president a four year term and hold the elections on the same day as the council elections (i.e. first Thursday in May).

Or stick with the current system and not bother having presidential elections at all.

Whilst the Coronation will undoubtedly cost money, it will also provide a boost to the economy in terms of increased tourism and spending.

Not only that, but it will give most people a feel good factor after all we have had to put up with over the past three years.

No-one is forced to watch it, and you can spend the whole weekend doing other things if you wish.

 

[najaB]

In which case keep general elections every 5 years. Election first Thursday in December.

Why on earth would you want to hold elections in December? If we're going with fixed election dates then surely it makes sense to hold them in either the late spring or early summer for campaigning by daylight and likely better weather driving a higher turnout.

 

[Busaholic]

Why on earth would you want to hold elections in December? If we're going with fixed election dates then surely it makes sense to hold them in either the late spring or early summer for campaigning by daylight and likely better weather driving a higher turnout.

If we're going with fixed elections (a rather loaded term methinks!) then they need to be every four years maximum.

 

[A0wen]

Not to mention the fact that £8 million could be spent on other more resourceful things such as improving NHS services etc.

The NHS budget is circa £ 150 bn - £8m is completely and utterly insignificant. Much less than 1% of the NHS budget.

 

[Revilo]

The NHS budget is circa £ 150 bn - £8m is completely and utterly insignificant. Much less than 1% of the NHS budget.

And also the same argument can be made for virtually everything, including spending on the railways. It can always be said that it would be better spent on the NHS.

 

[AlterEgo]

And also the same argument can be made for virtually everything, including spending on the railways. It can always be said that it would be better spent on the NHS.

Indeed, the national religion. The way we conceptualise the NHS and hold it up as an exalted concept is really backward.

 

[najaB]

And also the same argument can be made for virtually everything, including spending on the railways. It can always be said that it would be better spent on the NHS.

I think you might have missed the point. The OP was saying that the money spent on the portraits would be better spent on the NHS. @A0wen was making the point that it really wouldn't make any meaningful difference if they did.

The NHS budget is circa £2,800 per second. £8 million would fund the NHS for less than an hour.

 

[52290]

I think you might have missed the point. The OP was saying that the money spent on the portraits would be better spent on the NHS. @A0wen was making the point that it really wouldn't make any meaningful difference if they did.

The NHS budget is circa £2,800 per second. £8 million would fund the NHS for less than an hour.

Does anyone know how much the monarchy costs per second? Working it out is beyond my mathematical competence!

 

[birchesgreen]

Does anyone know how much the monarchy costs per second? Working it out is beyond my mathematical competence!

£2.12

Assuming the figure for 67 million a year is correct, divide by 31536000.

 

[duncanp]

Does anyone know how much the monarchy costs per second? Working it out is beyond my mathematical competence!

It depends on what costs are included in the "cost of the monarchy"

The official accounts of the royal household put the cost at £102m, per year, which would work out at £3.23 per second.

Others say that security costs should also be included, as they are currently picked up by the police. Republic say that the true cost is £345m per year, which works out at £10.93 per second.

I do think though that the figure per second is somewhat meaningless, and that the cost per person per year is perhaps more useful.

Taking the UK population as 67.33 million according to the 2021 census, the cost per person per year works out at £1.51 according to the royal household, and £5.12 according to Republic

The question is how much, if anything, would we save if the monarchy was abolished.

The government would be responsible for Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, as the King does not own these properties personally. You would have to have some formal residence for the president, in the same way that the French president uses the Elysee Palace, and the US president uses the White House.

A president and his/her family would still need taxpayer funded security, and if you look at the entourage that surrounds a US president, you have to wonder how much that all costs.

The King has stated that he wishes to have a slimmed down monarchy, and you may see reforms to its finances in the years to come. It is not inconceivable that the British monarchy evolves to become more like the monarchies in many European countries.

Personally I think the cost per person per year is worth it to have a head of state who is above politics and can help to unify the country, rather than someone who is a member of a political party, and would thus be more of a divisive figure.

 

[dangie]

I think you might have missed the point. The OP was saying that the money spent on the portraits would be better spent on the NHS.….

The NHS costs money. A lot of money.

The Monarchy also costs money, but it also makes money. The UK attracts visitors from all over the world. Many are attracted by royal palaces and the pomp that goes with it. All these foreign visitors spend money. Lots of money.

It would be interesting to know ‘How much the Monarchy costs vs How much the Monarchy makes’