THERE ARE SOME PUBLIC SPENDING CUTS THE LEFT CAN SUPPORT
The swinging cuts in public spending being suggested will be economically disastrous, given the fragile state of the economic recovery, as it will depress demand, and increased unemployment will further reduce income tax revenue. However, there are areas where public spending could be cut, and the saved money diverted to other projects.
The annual cost to the British tax payer of the monarchy is usually quoted as having been £41 million in the financial year 2008/2009; but this is not the full picture, and the total cost is nearer £183 million.This is an enormous cost given the ceremonial nature of the British Monarchy, and per capita is around the same cost to taxpayers as the American presidency is to US taxpayers – but the costs of the American presidency includes running the government!
Scrapping the government’s stupid ID card scheme would save£1.3 bn.
The annual bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been £4.5 bn so far. The war in Afghanistan currently costs £2.5 bn per year. As part of Britain’s bloated £38 bn military budget: we spend roughly 50% more than Germany, which has an economy twice the size.
The Royal Navy is the second largest military naval force in the world, and Britain is recognised as having the second largest capability for “forward military projection” in the world – a euphemism for the ability to wage aggressive rather than defensive war, and use British troops against other people’s countries.
The two new Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft carriers under construction are costing over $4 bn; with additional costs mounting, such as the $1.8 bn contract to Thales for radar systems. By definition, Aircraft Carriers are not used for national defence of the British Isles – they are for projecting military power abroad. These will be the second largest warships afloat anywhere in the world
The three new Astute Class submarines have cost £4 bn.
The true cost of upgrading Trident is expected to be as much as £76 bn, over its lifetime. This year alone the maintenance cost of Britain’s existing Trident missiles is £95 million. The Trident replacement programme will be 3% per year of Britain’s expense budget.
Of course the thousands of manufacturing jobs involved in the defence industry need to be protected, by diverting them towards socially useful alternative projects.
But the cost of Britain’s exaggerated military is a huge strain on our society, and there needs to be a serious debate about why Britain sees the need for a totally disproportionate military role, compared to other countries like Spain or Germany.
Good piece, Andy.
Notions of empire still dominate the thinking of the British establishment.
How do we counter such notions among the working class, though?
Comment by John Wight — 18 September, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Yeah Let’s get rid of the Queen. After all, she costs us £183 million according to “Socialist Unity”.
And how much does she “bring in” in the form of tourist money etc?
Socialists really are PILLOCKS . . . which probably explains why whenever we have a Labour Government; they collapse the economy.
Comment by Silent Hunter — 18 September, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
The Queen’s Civil List £12.7m
Parliamentary annuities (Prince Philip) £0.4m
Palaces and castles £15m
Travel £6.2m
Expenditure met by gov depts £4.9m
Security £100m
Duchy of Cornwall lost revenue £16m
Duchy of Lancaster lost revenue £13m
Costs to councils £10m
Unpaid tax £2m (?)
Travel and accomodation for Prince Charles £3m
Total £183.2m
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 September, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
#2 “And how much does she “bring in” in the form of tourist money etc?”
Hardly anything I suspect.
Tourists flock to France, Italy, Greece, the USA, Turkey and other republics.
In fact, the biggest tourist draw in Russia is the Hermitage museum, which would be shut to the public if it were stil a royal residence.
But in any event, I haven’t actually called for the monarchy to be scrapped here (though it would be no bad idea), but they could do the job for a lot less money. How about just one castle, and a salary of £200000?
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 September, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Get the message out and campaign. Can’t you get Labour people involved in your excellent suggestions above. This is what the next election needs to be about.
Comment by Giles Smedley — 18 September, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
I remember well the disappointment I felt, when I arrived in Paris to find that the royal family were no longer seated upon the throne - and had indeed been gone for some two hundred years. It didn’t quite feel the same. Although the robust red and menu de jour nearly filled the aching void royalties absence engendered within me.
I could never countenance eating such a meal in London, however, knowing her majesty was absent(and would never return) from the palace because of the jealousy and scorn of socialists.
“The combined cost of replacing the Trident nuclear missile system and building, equipping and running two large aircraft carriers will be as much as £130bn, far more than the government has admitted, an in-depth study of the huge defence projects will reveal…”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed
Comment by Seán — 18 September, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
If we were to erect a guillotine in Trafalgar Square that might bring in the tourists…
Comment by attila — 18 September, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Well assuming that the Royal familly really are a huge tourist attraction, wouldn’t we be better off with a professional entertainer in the job?
I have long been convinced that Bruce Forsyth would be a first class King. Admittedly he is perhaps a bit old now, so we may want to consider someone younger, it would be hard to imagine a better paragon of professionalism than Cat Deeley, or perhaps Melanie Sykes?
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 September, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
If the British monarchy is good for tourism why dont we get the British Tourist board to finance it?
Comment by Anon — 18 September, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Indeed, why don’t we get Canada, Australia and New Zealand to chip in a bit.
they get a head of state for free.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 September, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
New Zealand tourism has done alright without hosting the monarchy, as to has Australian tourism, not too sure about tourism in Canada, but I’m sure enough yanks cross over the border to have a look at a country with free health care at the point of use.
Yeah, I reckon we’ll be just fine if we shelved the monarchy.
Comment by Luke — 18 September, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
This is an enormous cost given the ceremonial nature of the British Monarchy, and per capita is around the same cost to taxpayers as the American presidency is to US taxpayers – but the costs of the American presidency includes running the government!
There’s only one solution for it then - a return to absolute monarchy!
Comment by Ciarán — 18 September, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
I remember Mark Steel’s joke on the topic of royalty and tourism: “Yeah, Paris is nice and it’s a great view from the Eiffel tower, but the absence of a monarch seems to spoil it somehow.”
Comment by Max — 19 September, 2009 @ 2:50 am
Oh dear, there are arguments that socialists could make against the monarchy but the cost is not one of them.
Comment by Thomas Byrne — 21 September, 2009 @ 5:22 pm