This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Government says there's no money...but Gove says get a £60m yacht for the Queen?

Scroll to see replies

Is that the best reason you can come up with for using taxes to buy someone who can live in a wide variety of palaces a yacht?

Except it's not for her though is it? It's part of the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee. It's like me saying, 'Ohh nah, you don't need a suit for your wedding, you've got loads of Jeans and T-shirts...' :facepalm:

This is a one off thing, we can afford a little pomp and ceremony.

Reply 41

lambert1

Original post by Jon of the North

Can someone honestly give me a ball-park figure of how much a President would cost to maintain?

We've got to have some kind of head of state, and whether we have a President or a Monarch, both would cost an arm and a leg, thus people would always moan.

Why would having a president cost any more than we currently pay to have a prime minister?

Reply 42

QwentyJ

I'm a Monarchist and a fan of Gove, but even I do think he's shot himself in the foot with this one.

bitch be crazy.

Original post by rockitrosie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/15/queen-royal-yacht-diamond-jubilee-gove?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

So it's all very good saying "oh there's tough times, we can't afford anything anymore, yadadadada" yet they can afford a goddamn boat for the Queen?

I get it's the Diamond Jubilee and all, but if we're all in this together than surely she can accept something a little less...costly, given the difficult times and all?

+ rep

That is just idiotic, why does she even need a boat? Give the money to invest into the nation I say

Reply 45

planetconwy1

The people need to stop blabbing about how much the queen costs etc.

In actual fact she makes money for the taxpayer at the tune of 79p per person per annum.

For those without a calculator thats £49,217,000 a year, so she has practically paid for that stupid boat herself.

Reply 46

ladsh

Original post by Marc Fiorano

That would be one yacht I would not be disappointed about if it were to sink. Preferably with her in it.

I agree

Reply 47

electriic_ink

Original post by Steevee

If I had to choose between feeding and educating myself and renting/buying a suit for a wedding, I'd think people would understand if I chose the former. However, Michael Gove (and you apparently) think it's better to choose the latter. Why?

Original post by Steevee

This is a one off thing, we can afford a little pomp and ceremony.

In other words, we should do it because we can. :facepalm:

Reply 48

electriic_ink

Original post by planetconwy1

Does that take into account the £5bn the royal wedding cost?

Reply 49

Bhumbauze

Give a family £10,000 of taxpayer's money to live off of for a year and they're branded "benefits scum"... even if they slog their guts out for 40 hours a week.

Give a family a few £million of taxpayers money to live off of for a year and they're hailed as an institution.

Absolutely ****ing bonkers.

Reply 50

Steevee

Original post by electriic_ink

Because it's one or the other right. Herp Derp.

No my dear, we should do it to stand on ceremony, to keep the Monarchy grand, to celebrate a joyus national occasion, to keep National standing on the international stage, for publicity, for tourism. The list goes on.

Reply 51

Bellissima

Original post by Jon of the North

yeah... except the president does this little thing called... RULING THE COUNTRY? (s)he is also ELECTED!

i am also sure, unless it is a corrupt society, the president does not get £60million gifts from the tax payers in the form of a shiny new yacht.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 52

That Bearded Man

Original post by Steevee

Bearing in mind the amount the Crown Estates contribute, the amount of tax money spent on normal people's enrichment and providing services and so forth, I don't think they should have to.

The profits on the land that is repaid to the government is money on land seized by the government x number of years ago. Either reclaim them government property and use them for other purposes or find whoever owned them. Of course it's a bit late for this now but they could still be renovated into hotels or some such.

Reply 53

takethyfacehence

I really don't care about the Royal Family personally, but I find it absurd that people can say things like 'I'M SO ANGRY THAT STUPID OLD WOMAN AND HER FAMILY GETTING MONEY THROWN AT THEM OMG IT'S SO OBSCENE' ... I don't know much about the topic but I'm under the impression at least that they do bring in more money than they take... in any case I don't see anyone who thinks it's so abhorrent coming up with any real figures that support their view...

Reply 54

electriic_ink

Original post by Steevee

Because it's one or the other right. Herp Derp.

Yeah. If you spend £60m on a yacht, you can't spend it on keeping hospitals open.

No my dear, we should do it to stand on ceremony, to keep the Monarchy grand, to celebrate a joyus national occasion, to keep National standing on the international stage, for publicity, for tourism. The list goes on.

This yacht won't be a profitable tourist attraction and the Olympics will give us plenty of publicity this year. The other reasons aren't really reasons at all: "to keep the Monarchy grand" wtf does that mean?

Reply 55

66310346671011

Yep let the taxpayer foot the bill of a £60m yacht for the queen, let's also invest £32m in a pointless rail line thats half an hour quicker than normal, we'll get even get the nhs to clean up the mess created by the private healthcare firms.

god damn, someone sack him.. doing an atrocious job in his role regardless. I'm sick of reading about luxuries coming at the expense of the taxpayer. Is there no one doing a cost benefit analysis of anything?

Reply 56

theronkinator

Can we not just giver ther the Ark Royal?

Reply 57

planetconwy1

Original post by electriic_ink

Does that take into account the £5bn the royal wedding cost?

We are not talking about the royal wedding, we are talking about this stupid £60m boat!

Reply 58

Steevee

Original post by That Bearded Man

This debate has been had manh times on TSR, the outcome is always the same. Neither the Government nor the Crown can independantly claim the Crown Estates, that said, the Crown is under no obligation to keep to the agreement made years ago that benifits the Government far more than them.

Original post by electriic_ink

Yeah. If you spend £60m on a yacht, you can't spend it on keeping hospitals open.

This yacht won't be a profitable tourist attraction and the Olympics will give us plenty of publicity this year. The other reasons aren't really reasons at all: "to keep the Monarchy grand" wtf does that mean?

Herp Derp. Guess spending x on EMA meant we couldn't spend it on hospitals, damn students denying us our healthcare! Spending x amount on outreach schemes meant we couldn't spend it on hospitals, damn youths killing my grandparents! If you honestly believe the NAtional Budget is so simple I;d advise you to go back to Primary school where you belong.

I'm sorry, what qualifies you to make that judgement? I'll point out again just how many visitors have flocked to see Kate Middleton's wedding dress :facepalm2:

Yes they are, the Monarchy plays a key role in our international standing. They are a National insitiution and should be kept in such esteem as befits their place.

Reply 59

internet tough guy

Original post by Steevee

Oh please. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the Olympics or the benifits bill. The Diamond Jubilee isn't something that happens everyday, when was the last one?

Its always a small drop in the ocean when it comes to vanity projects like these, but when schools want funds to improve their dilapidated buildings and facilities, suddenly they can't because ''we're all in this together'' and ''we all must have to tighten our belts for the sake of the country'' :rolleyes: