Thread: Prince of Wales costs us £3m!

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Originally Posted by tattybadger

...
By extension, therefore, I assume you suggest that we do away with democracy?

I've yet to be persuaded that demcracy's the best form of government in the long term. It's only been around for a few hundred years and hasn't really achieved much in that time; just a popularity contest in fact. Much better, perhaps, to have a state which responds to the needs of the people and environment rather than the greed of an electorate.

How does that state find its executive etc? I hope you are going to say that they are elected and that we don't go back to feudalism?

You mean: " ...forward to feudalism", don't you?

There is a crucial advantage that feudalism has over democracy - with feudalism, the price of failure is often your head, and it kind of focuses the mind on delivery of results. With democracy, at this time, it seems that the price of failure is a big fat pay-off, a job for life in the House of Lords, some nice directorships and a moat.

I'l be just as happy with democracy if it has heads on spikes as the price of failure.

Originally Posted by Biped

...
I'l be just as happy with democracy if it has heads on spikes as the price of failure.

Now you're talking. But who to start with...?

Here's a clue - he may not see it coming.

And the price of feudalism is your blushing bride losing her cherry to Prince Edward (or another mediocre dimwit like him) - lucky bastard!

Originally Posted by tattybadger

And the price of feudalism is your blushing bride losing her cherry to Prince Edward (or another mediocre dimwit like him) - lucky bastard!

You've just described the very reason why those succeeding in the feudal system are so incentivised - often more than current politicians.

Mandelson's shagging your leg as we speak. I think I'd rather my blushing bride got some royal knob than have Blair, Brown and The Minister With No Wife on my back.

Originally Posted by Queensman

£3million is chicken feed compared with what the Government's long list of expensive fcuk ups have cost us:

1. Selling the gold reserves
2. NHS computer system
3. Iraq
4. Afganistan
5. ID cards
6. Europe
7. Stonehenge By-pass project
8. Rescuing the Banks

... feel free to add your own, it's making me too angry/depressed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...control-system

Originally Posted by Nagra

Originally Posted by Queensman

£3million is chicken feed compared with what the Government's long list of expensive fcuk ups have cost us:

1. Selling the gold reserves
2. NHS computer system
3. Iraq
4. Afganistan
5. ID cards
6. Europe
7. Stonehenge By-pass project
8. Rescuing the Banks

... feel free to add your own, it's making me too angry/depressed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...control-system

A democratic system, better than a monarchy. It costs something like £1,000,000,000 annually when you take into account ALL the running costs of our Parliament (both houses, plus staff, maintenance etc).

This system goes on to steal millions over 20/30 odd years, plus wasting literally hundreds of billions on badly managed, or ill-advised projects; giving billions more away in foreign donations to the 'poor' of India, Mugabe and various other countries, giving away our gold reserves for peanuts, losing yet more billions, bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions after failing to govern their actions, giving billions more away to the work-shy, or the out of work because of destroyed industries, stealing the pensions of those who HAVE saved . . . . .

Sorry, how much did you say the Prince's royal engagements cost?

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by Nagra

Originally Posted by Queensman

£3million is chicken feed compared with what the Government's long list of expensive fcuk ups have cost us:

1. Selling the gold reserves
2. NHS computer system
3. Iraq
4. Afganistan
5. ID cards
6. Europe
7. Stonehenge By-pass project
8. Rescuing the Banks

... feel free to add your own, it's making me too angry/depressed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...control-system

A democratic system, better than a monarchy. It costs something like £1,000,000,000 annually when you take into account ALL the running costs of our Parliament (both houses, plus staff, maintenance etc).

This system goes on to steal millions over 20/30 odd years, plus wasting literally hundreds of billions on badly managed, or ill-advised projects; giving billions more away in foreign donations to the 'poor' of India, Mugabe and various other countries, giving away our gold reserves for peanuts, losing yet more billions, bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions after failing to govern their actions, giving billions more away to the work-shy, or the out of work because of destroyed industries, stealing the pensions of those who HAVE saved . . . . .

Sorry, how much did you say the Prince's royal engagements cost?

You're absolutely right. Democracy costs too much. Feudalism is sooooo much more cost-effective.

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by Nagra

Originally Posted by Queensman

£3million is chicken feed compared with what the Government's long list of expensive fcuk ups have cost us:

1. Selling the gold reserves
2. NHS computer system
3. Iraq
4. Afganistan
5. ID cards
6. Europe
7. Stonehenge By-pass project
8. Rescuing the Banks

... feel free to add your own, it's making me too angry/depressed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...control-system

A democratic system, better than a monarchy. It costs something like £1,000,000,000 annually when you take into account ALL the running costs of our Parliament (both houses, plus staff, maintenance etc).

This system goes on to steal millions over 20/30 odd years, plus wasting literally hundreds of billions on badly managed, or ill-advised projects; giving billions more away in foreign donations to the 'poor' of India, Mugabe and various other countries, giving away our gold reserves for peanuts, losing yet more billions, bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions after failing to govern their actions, giving billions more away to the work-shy, or the out of work because of destroyed industries, stealing the pensions of those who HAVE saved . . . . .

Sorry, how much did you say the Prince's royal engagements cost?

Does that £1 billion you quote include local govt etc or did you just invent that figure? Aaagh - I get it now - Charles replaces the entire current system cos he costs less than it? Or does he cost more than the individual parliamentarian? I'll wager his expenses are a feck sight heftier than any of the politicians.

Granted though, he does have a positive impact on employment figures - he employs a slack handful of fawning lackies paid for by us - far more than any President is likely to have.

Biped - quit the whacky stuff, it's screwing your brain! Or do you work in HQ LONDIST and miss out on an MBE this year?

Originally Posted by Whiskybreath

Mandelson's shagging your leg as we speak. I think I'd rather my blushing bride got some royal knob than have Blair, Brown and The Minister With No Wife on my back.

Fuck that - I'd rather have Churchill DNA in my family than Walter Prince of the Softies spunk there!

Biped - just had a thought. We could have Prince Edward as Chancellor (sadly Di missed that one, but her O level maths would have been exactly the right qual for it), Fergie as Home Sec and (best of all and a natural choice) Phil the Greek as Foreign Secretary!

Biped as Bum Licker - in - Chief, but only if he has enough blue blood squirted up him?

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by Nagra

Originally Posted by Queensman

£3million is chicken feed compared with what the Government's long list of expensive fcuk ups have cost us:

1. Selling the gold reserves
2. NHS computer system
3. Iraq
4. Afganistan
5. ID cards
6. Europe
7. Stonehenge By-pass project
8. Rescuing the Banks

... feel free to add your own, it's making me too angry/depressed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...control-system

A democratic system, better than a monarchy. It costs something like £1,000,000,000 annually when you take into account ALL the running costs of our Parliament (both houses, plus staff, maintenance etc).

This system goes on to steal millions over 20/30 odd years, plus wasting literally hundreds of billions on badly managed, or ill-advised projects; giving billions more away in foreign donations to the 'poor' of India, Mugabe and various other countries, giving away our gold reserves for peanuts, losing yet more billions, bailing out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions after failing to govern their actions, giving billions more away to the work-shy, or the out of work because of destroyed industries, stealing the pensions of those who HAVE saved . . . . .

Sorry, how much did you say the Prince's royal engagements cost?

Does that £1 billion you quote include local govt etc or did you just invent that figure? Aaagh - I get it now - Charles replaces the entire current system cos he costs less than it? Or does he cost more than the individual parliamentarian? I'll wager his expenses are a feck sight heftier than any of the politicians.

Granted though, he does have a positive impact on employment figures - he employs a slack handful of fawning lackies paid for by us - far more than any President is likely to have.

Biped - quit the whacky stuff, it's screwing your brain! Or do you work in HQ LONDIST and miss out on an MBE this year?

Well.....technicaly he's self financing, living mostly on the Income of the Duchy of Cornwall....

Which is exactly how the Crown survived for the 1000 odd years England has been under a single Crown. The Crown was expected to live on the income generated by their own land and a very few taxes levied on those able to afford it. If the Crown wanted to go to war, the Commons and Lords Temporal and Spirtual had to agree to pay a war tax..........

Originally Posted by tattybadger

You have a bee in your bonnet about the current issues with parliamentarians and I agree with you - the current crop of politicos are largely either incompetent, dihonest, underpaid (which, therefore, does not attract the creme of British intelligentsia into politics) and have been caught up in a convulted, poor system of remuneration.

I almost agree with you on most of your points. To summarise; develop a truly democratic system that is truly transparent, robust and accountable. Have a balanced parliament and a head of state - here our paths diverge. I would have an elected one, you would allow the Windsors to keep that role. Parlaiment should have regular and invasive scrutiny from non-aligned and impartial organisations to police it on behalf of the people and to weed out the scrotes. Parliament would soon become a house of repute and dignity again, where sound legislation is passed after proper debate and thought. And that would be at the core of the new system that I would like to see in place, alongside a truly representative President and houses. And it's not beyond the wit of man to produce that.

Underpaid so fail to atract good minds? Nonsense! Scientists get paid far less, and I would venture that their intelect might be as good as the average politico. The more money = better people argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

Vote for a truly representative president? Pah! Everyone who didn't vote for the president would feel agrieved to be represented by said person.