h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, RF...I do undretand that Capital does a good job.

My point, though, is why we're regarding this as the Royal's money. Even allowing that they have historical rights to it having stole it fair and square...in a constitutional monarchy, shouldn't it be regarded as the *state's* money? And shouldn't they be regarded as (over?) paid public servants?

The constitutional answer is, of course. 'No'. They are sovereigns, we are subjects and they own the rights to all the wild crustaceans on our seashores.

>they just magically generate cash.<

Yes I know you were being ironic RF. But it's actually literally true, you can buy Charles' Duchy Original Ltd free range chickens in Sainsburys. They are about 2 or 3 times the price of the bog standard free range chickens. I once bought one, and it tasted no different from the bog standard free range hens. That's pretty magic. And of course when I bought it I had a little fantasy in my mind, that this hen was oh so special because Charles personally had probably talked to the plants that made the grain for the hens to feed off. That was certainly a magic moment for me. And even though rationally I decided it tasted no different, I made a little promise to myself, that as soon as I could afford it I'd buy another, and have another magic moment, especially if by then he has become my new King.

Akkshully...Duchy Originals aren't part of the Crown Estates, nor even part of the Duchy of Cornwall. iirc, they're an independent offshoot. But I still don't buy them. On principle.

Yeah you're right, according to this link, he originally set it up, but he off loaded to Waitrose, and they pay something or other to his Charitable Foundation..but its now in trouble..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7197421/Prince-of-Waless-Duchy-Originals-slumps-to-loss.html

But there's probably a fair few dumb saps like who still think of it as a Charles thing...I mean that's the magic branding Waitrose paid for.

Ochh man, swallow your principles..and go for a magic moment..mind you now it'll only be a magic Waitrose moment

So from a Royal fiefdom to a worker's cooperative!

If only they would supply a British Restaurant.

So now we're sending benefits recipients to Waitrose.

As long as they take their credit card with them.

'course I wouldn't know. So far there's only one Waitrose in Scotland.

(But a second one opening soonish...near my home. )

So are we all very excited that ministers are to ditch their official cars, and should we all get very very excited that the many Windsors, and a bunch of hangers on, in their annual display of going the course at Royal Ascot each day, in big carriages, will swap that for a variety of pony and traps, and cart horses pulling carts?

< So are we all very excited >
Not at all effers a few odd £millions on window dressing before the main event.
Hope it doesn't end up with you having to dig up your garden for Britain.

Problem with money spent in securing the future of public sector workers :-
F19585?thread=7402548&skip=440&show=20#p96484867
Local authorities were once in a position to advance loans to home buyers.
Does that money now go towards paying local authority workers pensions ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/4330721/35-billion-black-hole-in-council-pensions.html

What are you waiting for ?
A real life chance at bottom of this article:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10261136.stm

This is all very odd. Haven't we just had a general election? Wouldn't *then* have been the time for all the parties to spell out their plans and then for the public to vote on them? Also... (and call me old fashioned here), but don't we expect our politicians to lead rather than just follow? And finally (and call me an elitist here if you will....) how many of the general public really know enough to express an informed view? Expressing value judgements and preferences is one thing, but this seems to go beyond that...

In any case, it's hard to see that this is in any way a serious attempt at consultation, as they've already decided. They're talking solely in terms of cuts (including to benefits), but not at all in terms of the other side of the coin - raising revenue, and how this might be done. I've said it before, but it's odd how, in the good times, the rich got richer and inequality ballooned.... the defence of this was that it was the "masters of the universe" who created all this wealth, and therefore we shouldn't object. But NOW, of course, when things go bad, suddenly we're all in this together - which is code for 'soak the poor and lower income earners'.

What's being proposed is not an open consultation exercise - it's an ideologically-motivated programme based on dogma and doctrine, not experience. From the article:

"Every spending programme would face "probing questions", he said - including whether it was essential, could be done cheaper or could be delivered by the private or voluntary sector. "

Is it essential? Could we do it cheaper? Both excellent questions. But 'could it be delivered by the private sector'? Er.... why? There's no reference in there at all to saving money, just a dogmatic assumption that by privatising stuff, you can somehow magically have all of (a) cheaper services, (b) services that are at least as good, and (c) a profit margin for the private sector.

We've seen this tried over and over and over again, and each time it fails. PFI. Rail privatisation.
(1) Private sector company offers moon on a stick for tuppence ha'penny.
(2) Credulous government accepts lowest tender without further thought.
(3) Service standards plummet; and
(4) Private sector company goes back to government for more money, with threats either of withdrawing or of letting their subsidiary go bust. Essentially holding the government to ransom.

Shamefully, a Labour government did not reverse what the Tories started, and in fact made it worse. And now we're going to have even more of it, disguised or dressed up as pragmatism.

The whole public consultation stuff is just a PR event. An expensive pointless PR event at that. In some ways a bit* simular to the public consultation that happened in Canada in... err early 90's I think it were...

All of the UK media, print, TV, radio, online, news etc., is seemingly in on the big pretence of the whole 'cuts' thing. Of course, as this is from wehre we all get our information its helping create a situation where we're all utterly hurded into the same cattle pen of 'consensus'. Its worked pretty well from waht I can tell, as everyone seems to be of the opinion that the cuts are both necessary and desirable.

Well, of course, they are necessary and desirable, but only if your a banker. Seriously. the banks mucked up, we, the general public, via taxation, via the government coffers, handed them lots of used ten pound notes to the value of some new invented giant number, and then we, the public are told that this money is 'gone'. Its just vanished. No. We've no idea what happened to it, oo dear we are forgetful and clumsy. So now we have to pay that money back all over again, in order... in order,... so that we can...

Ensure the middle classes don't have to deal with the reality that the housing market is still wildly overpriced. To ensure for some reason I just can't fathom, that we don't piss off a few bankers too much, and so... no. I can't see the logic behind it.

Anyone actually know why we should give them this money they want? I don't see it in the governments interest, nor in the publics interest.

Which came first money or the public sector ?

Couldn't have said it better myself Otto.

That consultation is as if they asked:

-Where and how do you want to be slapped?
-Here and softly, please.
-slap!
-OUch! that´s too hard! And I said in the bottom not in my face!
-Yes, we know, but you agreed with being slapped, you can´t complain now.

Here's another thing:

I'm not at all denying that public finances are in need of some repair. Note, though, that the party of government has an ideological commitment anyway to low taxation (and therefore) low spending. To what extent might the current situation give them some convenient cover? To what extent might their approach to spending and taxation go beyond what is necessary for fiscal prudence?

Two names - Post 244 :- F19585?thread=7402548&skip=240&show=20#p95622341

Who is it - remember your space.
< In the real world I'm student at Manchester Uni, doing a highly intellectual subject with a very light workload *giggles at the thought the Government are paying me over 5 grand a year to sit on my backside 5 days a week* >
It's pay back time.