we need rid of the grubs,shove her and her other spongers in a 2 up 2 down.get in the real world.

When I go and look around the Palace of Versailles I can't help but think an actual monarchy would make the place seem better.

The myth of tourism generated by the Royal Family strikes again


They seem to do ok for tourism in France and the USA (to name but 2) neither of whom have a king or queen

Forbes:

"According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year. It has also emerged that the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, the official residence of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, cost £2.4 million of public funding, despite the fact that it was a gift provided to the couple by the Queen."

Viva la revolution.

Hold on . On another thread people of a left wing persuasion were calling £280 million a tiny amount for health tourists.(other estimates put it up to £4.5 BILLION).Now all of a sudden £67 million is a massive amount. At least we get a return for the royal family . Granted some are a waste of space. Make your minds up

Mind? are you seriously suggesting any leftys have salient capacity?

That's a good attempt - but the argument about the health tourism lie, was about the estimated figure, as a proportion of the overall NHS budget.

The "return" for the Royal Family is difficult to quantify, because there are some rather arcane calculations used in most cases; personally, I object to them at a more fundamental level than just the money.

You could always move to a country with no monarchy, I am sure I can set up a go fund me page to help you out.

I was intending to do exactly that, until the gammon uprising removed my freedom of movement.

Nobody has removed any freedom of movement, and the word GAMMON is a slur, stop reading the Mirror, Star.

Maybe try an actual book? You know, one with facts in, I bet you're gutted now Love Island has finished.

Which budget it comes from is irrelevant. The Govt has a pot of money to spend and , among other things,it comes from tax and NI . It's the amount that counts. Now you can argue that you want a republic and that's fair enough but the fact is we spend more on health tourists than we do on the royal family. We can argue till we're blue in the face about the return on the royal family or what the actual cost of health tourism is but the fact remains we spend more on one than the other.

It's relevant to me; as I said, I'm quite content that if someone has a medical emergency whilst in the UK, we treat them - and the numbers who are deliberate co-called 'health tourists' are so vanishingly small, as to not be worth pursuing.

The decision to spend 70 million quid on an inbred, extended family who have inherited wealth and privilege because their ancestors oppressed and enslaved poor people, is an entirely different thing; so aside from the morals of it, you're creating a false equivalence.

True colurs on show, envy, nothing more. Diddums, did they steal your Whippet (in developing news, the earth isn't flat)

I object to health tourists as a matter of principle not just the cash

Although as a human being I get the emergency thing,however it still sticks in my craw that we wouldn't get the same courtesy in other countries I could name.

Quote ="bren2k"Forbes: "According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year. It has also emerged that the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, the official residence of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, cost £2.4 million of public funding, despite the fact that it was a gift provided to the couple by the Queen." Viva la revolution.'" You are talking solely about the Sovereign Grant at c£70m. The actual cost is estimated at c£350m https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 45436.html However, as you say later, the cost is not the main issue.

Quote ="bren2k"Forbes: "According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year. It has also emerged that the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, the official residence of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, cost £2.4 million of public funding, despite the fact that it was a gift provided to the couple by the Queen." Viva la revolution.'" You are talking solely about the Sovereign Grant at c£70m. The actual cost is estimated at c£350m https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 45436.html However, as you say later, the cost is not the main issue.

But you would in some others. So why are you obsessing so much on this rather than the Tories drive to outsource so much of the NHS, which is truly criminal?

If it is "criminal" why don't you make an official claim to the police, who would then spend a few minutes laughing at you and move on to something else.

Why don't you try & produce something constructive in your pathetic little life? Just an idea.

Ah, here comes abuse again, I wish I was as clever as you.

I'm afraid the NHS going forward will have to reform or die. The fact is research is finding more and more ways to keep us alive and it comes at a cost. I truly believe that a complete and honest review is needed instead of tinkering around the edges. We all (i hope) want a properly run and funded NHS. How we do that without bankrupting the country I have no idea. It can't be just throwing money at it or the extra cash will just get swallowed up. And I no I will get derided for this but maybe we need to get back to basics and stop funding, for example, IVF or gastric band operations, sex changes etc

Having watched my Dad die with dementia & seeing how much time my old Mum spends at the doctors/hospital - usually a couple of times a week - it hits you how much it must cost to keep people alive. You do question the quality of people’s lives. Apart from the odd God-botherer I’m yet to meet someone who doesn’t want their life terminating if they got into a similar condition. It is an endless quest to make people live longer. And some people make a fortune out of the misery, so the pressure will continue.

You will get derided, but I completely agree.

If someone cannot get pregnant, then why are we paying for it to be done falsely, if somone is born with a penis, they are male, if someone is fat, stop eating so much, if someone doesn't like their breasts, tough.

The NHS should be for emergencies, not flights of fancy.

Sack 90% of the administration in the NHS, especially the board members, tax the companies that supply the drugs, kill the nanny state that La(boring) created, return to survival of the fittest.

I’ve not insulted you ever before IR. There was a sad loner called Garbutt, who lived in an abandoned house on Preston Road, who could barely string more than a sentence together. But he was brighter than you.

Quote ="wotsupcas"I'm afraid the NHS going forward will have to reform or die. The fact is research is finding more and more ways to keep us alive and it comes at a cost. I truly believe that a complete and honest review is needed instead of tinkering around the edges. We all (i hope) want a properly run and funded NHS. How we do that without bankrupting the country I have no idea. It can't be just throwing money at it or the extra cash will just get swallowed up. And I no I will get derided for this but maybe we need to get back to basics and stop funding, for example, IVF or gastric band operations, sex changes etc'" Since it’s creation the budget for the nhs has risen by 3.7% a year. With our ageing population I’d say that needs to be at least at 4% per year, that is certainly affordable if we (the government) choose to fund it. This article has a nice graphic of how the funding has changed over the years, both Cameron/Clegg and May chose not to properly fund the nhs. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-44495598

Quote ="wotsupcas"I'm afraid the NHS going forward will have to reform or die. The fact is research is finding more and more ways to keep us alive and it comes at a cost. I truly believe that a complete and honest review is needed instead of tinkering around the edges. We all (i hope) want a properly run and funded NHS. How we do that without bankrupting the country I have no idea. It can't be just throwing money at it or the extra cash will just get swallowed up. And I no I will get derided for this but maybe we need to get back to basics and stop funding, for example, IVF or gastric band operations, sex changes etc'" Since it’s creation the budget for the nhs has risen by 3.7% a year. With our ageing population I’d say that needs to be at least at 4% per year, that is certainly affordable if we (the government) choose to fund it. This article has a nice graphic of how the funding has changed over the years, both Cameron/Clegg and May chose not to properly fund the nhs. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... h-44495598