So what does everything think of "The Engagement"?

@Old Goat,

You must need a really big shovel to pitch the manure that rapidly . . .

0 Replies

@Old Goat,

Quote:

Show me one Brit who is dead against them, and I'll show you ten Brits (and hundreds more non Brits from other shores) who will fill with pride on the day of the wedding, and no doubt shed a tear as they watch it all on TV.

I could go on....

Their function in 2010? To keep our communal feeling of history, and I'm not just talking about 200 or 300 years of the stuff here, but thousands, alive and well.

OK.
If you say so.

But I'm glad I don't live there & am not not (apparently) living in the past.

Personally, I'd have much more concern for the folk who are living through severe hardship right now.

But who am I to tell you what's the right way to go in 2010?

Enjoy your nostalgia! Smile

0 Replies

@msolga,

What empire?

Quote:

Now, Now, after all you are still part of the common-wealth. What's that on the corner of your flag. (mischievous grin)

http://t1.gstatic.com/iq=tbn:01GVy0is2me/Australian20flag.jptqR8Bj9EM:http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a480/ydoth=1g&
mages?

2 Replies

@eurocelticyankee,

Quote:

http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a480/ydothis2me/Australian20flag.jpg

0 Replies

@eurocelticyankee,

well it's like this, euro, the Queen wants us to go our own way.

She's sort of made that clear, in her majestic way.

But we have a problem. We want to be a republic but we can't collectively agree on an appropriate model.
So we have a bit of bickering amongst ourselves to go yet ....

In the meantime, her majesty's a pretty nice girl ... Smile

1 Reply

@msolga,

I say, One should not presume to know what ones Queen wants.

Anyhow you are a republic in all but name, soon me thinks.

1 Reply

@eurocelticyankee,

Quote:

I say, One should not presume to know what ones Queen wants.

Indeed.
But she has politely indicated that she would not be in the least bit upset, or surprised at all, if we went our merry republican way ... Smile

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I think that argument assumes that the "Charles problem" can be dealt with, that he can be bypassed

still plenty of tunnels in Paris

Wink

2 Replies

@djjd62,

He He. Vroom Vroom.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
All due respect msolga, but do you realize how little that amount is?

I just Googled, and see that (I've heard this figure before) that the royal family costs each british subject a whopping 64 pence a year. That's 18% of ONE pence a day. A little more than a pence a week.

I didn't think we were discussing the maintenance of the "royal family" on this thread, chai. Just responses to the forthcoming wedding. But seeing as you've brought this subject up ...

Quote:
The Queen and the Royal Family cost the UK taxpayer £37.4m in the last financial year, her financial public accounts reveal..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5123580.stm

That is something close to $60 million in US dollars each year. Paid by taxpayers. Plus extras.

I think, in the process of evaluating whether that amount of money is worth it or not, it might depend on whether you might see better uses for taxpayers' money? Depending on whether you're a monarchist or not?

Or perhaps whether or not ordinary British taxpayers are getting a reasonable return for underwriting such expenses?

My goodness msolga, haven't you been reading my posts? Or ehbeths or saabs?

Yes, I mentioned both the annual upkeep and the wedding.....showing that each separately will cost every person a penny a week. I was trying to put it in perspective, as is ehbeth and saab

The wedding will cost each person a penny a week, for that year alone.
For the entertainment value of this thread alone, I'd toss in 50 cents, and take the burden off one Brit.

I think I'll donate my 50 cents to Old Goat.

The money spent is going to people in the form of goods and services.

PLUS - in addition to that money being spent and earned by the people of the land, the people will also be making and taking opportunities to make MORE money through work they get, products they produce and sell, services they render.

The 30 million being spent on this event is going to stimulate many many millions more being earned.
If one tourist comes in and spends 200, well, they just covered the annual cost for 400 people. More than likely they will spend 1000, and cover the cost for 2000 people.
1 tourist covering the cost for 400 or 1000 people. Do the math.

A reasonable return?

Yes, I'd say chipping in 50 cents, then selling someone a commemorative doo-hicky, or selling a tourist a nice handbag from their inventory, or selling people some gas for their rental car, letting someone park in your driveway for a fee, getting a temp job to fulfill the openings created in related activities is more than a reasonable return.

The simple fact is, throughout the ages, events, festivals, special occassions bring in money.

1 Reply

@chai2,

We could go on & on chai, but basically it boils down to the best way that one believes that tax payers' money could be spent.
As I said earlier, opinions are likely to be divided along the lines of whether one is a monarchist supporter or not.
It seems that you are a monarchist supporter & I'm definitely not.
I don't really want to go over ground already covered because we'll come to exactly the same conclusions.
You are entitled to your opinion, the same as I am entitled to mine.
I think we'll just have to accept that we have very different attitudes on this issue.

2 Replies

The wedding costs are peanuts compared to the Olympic Games in London and the mess before, during and after the Games.

The costs of mounting the Games are separate from those for building the venues and infrastructure, and redeveloping the land for the Olympic Park. While the Games are privately funded, the venues and Park costs are met largely by public money.

On 15 March 2007 Tessa Jowell announced to the House of Commons a budget of £5.3 billion to cover building the venues and infrastructure for the Games, at the same time announcing the wider regeneration budget for the Lower Lea Valley budget at £1.7 billion.

On top of this, she announced various other costs including an overall additional contingency fund of £2.7 billion, security and policing costs of £600 million, VAT of £800 million and elite sport and Paralympic funding of nearly £400 million. According to these figures, the total for the Games and the regeneration of the East London area, is £9.345 billion. Then Mayor Ken Livingstone pledged the Games Organising Committee would make a profit.

1 Reply

@saab,

i don't much care one way or another for the royals, but i'd rather spend the money on a royal wedding than the debacle of having the G8 and G20 fucks hanging around like we (Canada) had to put up with this summer

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

We could go on & on chai, but basically it boils down to the best way that one believes that tax payers' money could be spent.
As I said earlier, opinions are likely to be divided along the lines of whether one is a monarchist supporter or not.
It seems that you are a monarchist supporter & I'm definitely not.
I don't really want to go over ground already covered because we'll come to exactly the same conclusions.
You are entitled to your opinion, the same as I am entitled to mine.
I think we'll just have to accept that we have very different attitudes on this issue.

Well, this is the first time you acknowledged that an opinion was made on how the money's could be spent in another way besides through government programs.

I do have a question though. Since I've expressed many possibilities of how the people could benefit via the open market, I'd like to hear from you what you think should be done with 30 million, as far as what government programs that could be changed for this 1 isolated year. What is your opinion on how many people such changes for this one year would effect, and how would it benefit their lives?

Now, I'm just musing here, because I enjoy playing with numbers.

you have 30,000,000

You could give 10 agencies 300,000 each. A given agency hires on 2 more people at 30,000 each for the year.
Another 40,000 is used on other administrative costs, materials for whatever the project is, etc.
That leaves 200,000 left over.
You decided to assist 200 people, and they end up getting 1,000 each.
times the 10 agencies, 2000 people are assisted with 1000 each for that one year. Less than 20 a week.

I think that's being really optimistic. In reality maybe 2000 people will end up with 200 each, or 10,000 people with a voucher for a free block of cheese.

Now, the government could build 20-30 dialysis clinics with 3,000,000, which could service 100 people each. That would be keeping 2000 people alive, which would be very good.
But, that would only cover the cost of the building. Taxes would have to be raised to pay the 500K to 750K salaries for the people working in each of the clinics....That's at least 10 million for that year alone, and rises each year after.

I'm just trying to figure out how the government could make any kind of lasting effect on a large number of people with 30 million.

If such good could take place, why hasn't the government just taxed the people an extra 50 pence last year alone, and be done with it?

If that 50 pence goes to help just one percent of the population, they get a whooping 50 dollars.

I like to deal with specifics and reality msolga. What exactly do you think should or could be done with 30 million for this one time deal?

Don't think of it as going on and on. Whenever anyone starts talking in generalities of how money or time could be better used, my immediate thought is "How?"

Really, I would love to think that a 30 million 1 time windfall could go to benefit a lot of people in a lasting way.
I'm ignorant on how the government could do this.

1 Reply

@chai2,

Quote:

Well, this is the first time you acknowledged that an opinion was made on how the money's could be spent in another way besides through government programs.

Pardon?

Quote:

I'd like to hear from you what you think should be done with 30 million, as far as what government programs that could be changed for this 1 isolated year.

If you'd read my posts & the links I provided, if you have been following the news from the UK, you would be aware that there are fierce budgetary cuts being imposed right now.
How would I spend any available money, if I had any such power in the UK?
I would use it to reduce the number of jobs that are to be lost, to save as many of the the public services which are being drastically cut. Reduce the hardship experienced by ordinary people.
That's what my priorities would definitely be if I had any such power.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

How would I spend any available money, if I had any such power in the UK?
I would use it to reduce the number of jobs that are to be lost, to save as many of the the public services which are being drastically cut. Reduce the hardship experienced by ordinary people.
That's what my priorities would definitely be if I had any such power.

Well, that's a very general goal.

With that amount of money, how many jobs would be saved, considering this money is a one time amount?
Well, even if the 30,000,000 went directly to jobs saved (which it wouldn't) if each person made 30,000, that 1000 jobs saved for that one year. That's good, but we all know that isn't how it would play out.

Which public services would be saved? For how long? How many public services can be saved by 30 million?

How much hardship of ordinary people will be reduced if, by my calculations if one percent of the population is given this 30 million, they will get a whopping $50 in their pocket this one time.

30,000,000 = .50 per citizen. .50 X 100 = 50

The direct and indirect stimulation of the economy, through trade, additional jobs would bring in many times more, by my figures.

Please explain exactly what programs, what jobs, and how many would be saved, and for how long, if it was in your power.

1 Reply

@msolga,

The yearly interest on 30 million is 1.5 million, enough to create 20-25 full time, permanent positions in law enforcement, education, health care, etc. On the other hand, spending that money on a wedding will also create work. The stimulus will be one time, but will be much larger in the short term, creating lots of temp jobs to support the big event. Spending money is spending money although it changes who keeps their jobs. From an economic balance, the net effect is close to zero. Both pump money into the economy, only it goes to different segments so depending on your priorities you might not be as happy with the result.

The real question is the same one facing any couple, only magnified in scale. How much do you allocate to a fun event, a quality of life type celebration, when there are other priorities? If the median wedding cost is $10-$15K, why on earth would any couple spend that when a justice of the peace is essentially fast and almost free? At what point do we say it is better to celebrate community than to preserve cash? I really don't have an answer here. 20+ years ago, my wife and I spent a couple grand and had a great wedding, money well spent. My view from across the pond is that a royal wedding is a English community event of the highest order, something that parents tell their children and grandchildren about. I don't begrudge the spending of money on a national event that holds such cultural meaning to the Brits (especially since it's not my money) just as I don't begrudge Presidental spending on their inaugurations.

Speaking of weddings, my favorite Improv Everywhere event: Surprise Wedding Reception

1 Reply

On CBC, a spokesman for the English tourist industry claimed that the event would generate more income than the amount to be spent on the event, even were the government were to pay for the entire event, which will not, apparently, be the case.

0 Replies

@chai2,

Look, I'm sorry, chai, I'm not remotely interested in playing with any hypothetical amount you might be quoting.
Let's just say, in a nutshell, I think the a "royal wedding" would be far less important to me in the grand scheme of things than attempting to maintain essential jobs & services.
This thread asked for responses to "The Engagement" & that's mine.

Quote:

Please explain exactly what programs, what jobs, and how many would be saved, and for how long, if it was in your power.

Exactly?
And for how long?
How many would be saved?

My own particular priorities (not being the treasurer, you understand) would be on maintaining as many essential services as possible, like health & education public housing, particularly for those who are most in need. Of which there are quite a few since the impact of the global recession.

1 Reply

So what does everything think of "The Engagement"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know