Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
I think there’s a couple left isn’t there? Either way, if it’s not the dogs, it’s something else. Get them sheriffs round off BBC one, that’d be a good watch.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Austerity My A***
- Thread starter Daz_Blue
- Start date
I think there’s a couple left isn’t there? Either way, if it’s not the dogs, it’s something else. Get them sheriffs round off BBC one, that’d be a good watch.
Daz_Blue
Well-Known Member
Everytime there’s a budget cutback, we should get to take away one of her dogs.
Eugenie or Beatrice ?
Can't argue with the apparent economic benefit of having royalty, but the whole idea of being born into free luxury, and not having to earn it, stinks rotten. Thou fellest out of the best vagina.. congratulations!
This.
One day our ancestors will look back and think we were absolutely insane.
GFBlue
Well-Known Member
This.
One day our ancestors will look back and think we were absolutely insane.
Some of us are there already!
And as for the economic benefit, what’s the saying ‘there’s none so blind as those who believe any of the establishment bullshit you can find online’.
We have food banks and a £200k wedding dress for a ‘Princess’. Fucking obscene is what it is.
Some of us are there already!
And as for the economic benefit, what’s the saying ‘there’s none so blind as those who believe any of the establishment bullshit you can find online’.
We have food banks and a £200k wedding dress for a ‘Princess’. Fucking obscene is what it is.
Or there's none so blind as those who don't realise that tourism is 10% of our economy.
GFBlue
Well-Known Member
Or there's none so blind as those who don't realise that tourism is 10% of our economy.
Aye and they all come to see the Queen I know. We had a few in Scotland last week that we had to apologise to because she wasn’t available.
Perhaps we should let other countries in on the secret. Make someone head of state simply because one of their ancestors chopped the head off somebody else’s (at a time when the world was Universally known to be flat) and hey presto ‘tourism’. Simples!
Aye and they all come to see the Queen I know. We had a few in Scotland last week that we had to apologise to because she wasn’t available.
Perhaps we should let other countries in on the secret. Make someone head of state simply because one of their ancestors chopped the head off somebody else’s (at a time when the world was Universally known to be flat) and hey presto ‘tourism’. Simples!
Have you ever been past Buckingham Palace? Seen the numbers from abroad in London at big state events? I don't have the slightest issue with those opposed to the monarchy, I'm not lover of it in principle myself. But denying the draw that it is for tourists is downright bizarre. We're 7th in the world, and the tourism sector is about the same size economy wise as banking. Why would you dismiss that?
GFBlue
Well-Known Member
Have you ever been past Buckingham Palace? Seen the numbers from abroad in London at big state events? I don't have the slightest issue with those opposed to the monarchy, I'm not lover of it in principle myself. But denying the draw that it is for tourists is downright bizarre. We're 7th in the world, and the tourism sector is about the same size economy wise as banking. Why would you dismiss that?
Who’s dismissing it? It’s the link you make to the royal family that I don’t buy. Take them away and the tourism impact would be negligible. I don’t go on my holidays to see the head of state of the country I am visiting.
The establishment will tell you otherwise because it is in their vested interest to do so. If you are happy to believe them then carry on.
Personally i’d move the fuckers to Middlesbrough and let them work for their living like the rest of us.
The truly bizarre thing in all this is that so many British people still think we need the parasites! Which goes to prove that you can fool a large number of people all of the time.
Who’s dismissing it? It’s the link you make to the royal family that I don’t buy. Take them away and the tourism impact would be negligible. I don’t go on my holidays to see the head of state of the country I am visiting.
The establishment will tell you otherwise because it is in their vested interest to do so. If you are happy to believe them then carry on.
Personally i’d move the fuckers to Middlesbrough and let them work for their living like the rest of us.
The truly bizarre thing in all this is that so many British people still think we need the parasites! Which goes to prove that you can fool a large number of people all of the time.
Or it says that others come to a different conclusion.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 18,879
Buckingham Palace gets half a million visitors per year. Versailles gets 3 million, despite being a bit of a trek from Paris. Might I suggest that they get more visitors precisely because they don't have a royal family and you can visit it more than a few weeks a year?Have you ever been past Buckingham Palace? Seen the numbers from abroad in London at big state events? I don't have the slightest issue with those opposed to the monarchy, I'm not lover of it in principle myself. But denying the draw that it is for tourists is downright bizarre. We're 7th in the world, and the tourism sector is about the same size economy wise as banking. Why would you dismiss that?
Top tourist countries:
1. France - republic
2. USA - republic
3. Spain - monarchy
4. China - republic
5. Italy - republic
6. Turkey - republic
7. Germany - republic
8. UK - monarchy
9. Russia - republic
10. Thailand - monarchy
It's almost as if people don't visit countries according to their political arrangements. Don't get me wrong, they have obviously generated shit loads of publicity this year, but let's not pretend that our entire tourist industry is based around the royals.
The reality is that the effect that the royal family have on tourism is incredibly hard to prove either way. Often anything royal is lumped in as a benefit, when in reality, people would still be visiting castles and palaces regardless. Obviously it's difficult to argue that people visiting specifically for a royal event are a boost, and certainly that does tend to lead to an uptick in tourism. The other question you have to ask is how much do comparable countries spend on tourism advertising compared to the cost of the royal family? If the queen is costing £86m a year, is that value for money purely in an advertising sense? It almost certainly leads to a greater level of advertising than could be bought for similar money, but is that advertising actually leading to more tourists? Again, these questions are very difficult to answer. I couldn't really find any stats on per country spend on advertising tourism. Again, probably because it's a huge mess of private, public and regional budgets, along with all sorts of events that are designed to bring in tourists.
The other interesting question will be how will the brand be effected when the queen dies. She's become a fixture on the world stage in a way that none of the others will be able to (unless Charles abdicates and William gets a similarly long run at the job).
As for the queen's pay rise, it really depends on what it's being used to pay for. It would be a bit rich for her and her staff to be getting a personal pay rise when other public sector workers haven't had a proper raise in 10 years. But if it's to meet the rising costs of effectively running the business, then to quote Pep, it is what it is. Although even then, given that councils have had their budgets slashed and are expected to continue to provide the same service, maybe the same rules should apply to the royals.