Printable View
Damn right. :up:
The monarchy serves the country and its elected leadership, not the other way around. Whatever she wants is neither here nor there, if she wants a say she should abdicate and run for office.
While a new yacht could arguably be quite profitable in its own right, its worth noting that a quarter of the costs have already been privately donated by one individual: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...acht-k26lhs5pz
RB, can you please explain to me how a 200m yacht is going to be profitable, and what unique role it serves that couldn't be achieved through something much cheaper?
The theory goes that the former Royal Yacht was used to generate billions in trade and investment. That billions were raised for the Exchequer from such trade. Effectively that UK plc were able to capitalise on and use the Royal name and Royal Yacht to generate revenue.
As you know I'm a republican so I'm not sold on the idea myself, but that's the argument monarchists who believe in this use.
Personally I think we should get rid of the monarchy but if we are going to keep them we should use them in a way to further our own interests and what HMQ wants is very much secondary to what HMG wants.
The key question is why you need a yacht to generate 'billions in trade and investment' rather than, say, a trade delegation that would presumably be cheaper.
The argument is that the prestige of a Royal Yacht opens more doors and greases more wheels than a routine delegation does.
So why don't most countries have a royal yacht? Why hasn't the UK had one in two decades? It seems to me that if you want to lend weight and gravitas to a trade delegation, send someone important, not an expensive boat. That's what Vice Presidents and cabinet members (or whatever the UK equivalent is) are for.
Even as a republican I can see that not all countries have a royalty and of those that do, not many have the same global prestige as the British Royal Family do.
As for the UK in the past two decades one thing that is an amusing coincidence is that the last time that the UK ran a balance of trade surplus was when the Royal Yacht was being decommissioned. After then the UK trade deficit exploded.
Probably more correlation than causation, other things changed in 1997.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...1/110917-1.png
The idea of a yacht is to use the prestige of the monarchy etc to facilitate trade in the same way as the Veep does.
So send one of your royals on a plane. You've got plenty of them.
Well yes that's an option. But there's a reason why trade delegations send dignatories in the first place and effectively this becomes a dignatory in its own right, that can be supplemented by other dignatories; what's the more interesting trade delegation: a meeting with Liz Truss or a royal at a hotel conference hall? Or a trade delegation with eg Prince William on the Royal Yacht?
The silly thing right now is we go through all the cost of maintaining the Royal Family, Castles etc but of all the things the royalty does this is probably the best return on investment. I'd still rather get rid of the lot of them, turn the Castles into tourist attractions etc, but if we're going to keep them then getting them to work seems like a good idea.
Less travel time too, so they can make more trips.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
If the Vice President is meeting with you, I don't think people give a shit whether it's in a yacht or not.
Trade and foreign affairs folks spend a lot of time traveling. A yacht is a waste of time and money, there's literally no reason to have it.
And for the record I'd take Liz truss over William any day of the week, she can actually make decisions.
I'd love to see quantification of the roi on a yacht.
Fair point about Liz, I have a lot of time and respect for her. I think she could be a future PM in fact. That was a poor example. Plus I kind of assumed people would be flying to the yacht. :haha:
It's basically a mobile venue that cashes in on the Royal name and reputation.
Anyway, I'd like to see an ROI calculation too. Both to set against the marginal running costs of having the yacht, and the capital investment costs too. But when you're talking about billions in trade it's at least theoretically possible it could be profitable.
PS one other factor in why it hasn't been replaced in past two decades is pure politics. The Tory manifesto in 1997 had a replacement Yacht in it, but they lost to Labour. Labour didn't have a replacement and was generally a very poor government that led to all sorts of systemic problems including the tremendous trade deficit that began in 1997.
Cameron's government in 2010 this was politically unfeasible. Even if there is an ROI it's not really plausible to argue that while engaged in austerity.
Now post Brexit and post Covid the politics has changed. Austerity is behind us, the government is pledging to invest in the future and global trade is a key post Brexit platform.
I'm not convinced it's worthwhile but I can understand where those who think it is are coming from.
You can't build a representative yacht for that kind of money. It's enough for a rich guy's toy boat, but not enough to have a ship to host serious functions.
Also, HMS Prince Philip, would be a piss poor name for a royal yacht. I think he'd be spinning in his tomb if they'd push ahead with this nonsense.
Things do tend to cost way more than originally budgeted for. How much do you think a serious functional one would cost?
At least double that. Optimistically. Then you have to take into account that the UK actually has no capacity to build yachts of the type. To have one built in the UK could balloon costs into the realm of the unacceptable while the ship could be less than desirable.
The yacht Samar is an example of a less than successful British attempt at yacht building. It looks like a ship you'd like to have. But it has more operational issues than a seventies Jag.
If built it could be by Cammell Laird, in my neck of the woods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...could-20513765
That looks like exactly the scenario I was trying to describe; the worst case. Building a commercial ship is not the same as building a super yacht. The specs aren't just different in the decorations department. Yachts are used in a completely different way than commercial ships. And if you're not used to building them you build them wrong. It's no fun to have a toy costing you hundreds of millions with poorly working electric, strangely malfunctioning airconditioning and a marble steamroom smelling like a sewer. Just to mention a few real-life issues I can remember of the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That sounds like it would be the most English thing ever though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen Rand defend. :haha:
I've said I'm not sold on the idea. I just understand the argument behind it, which Wiggin then enquired further about.
They need the yacht to transport the glass beads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Can't wait for the Queen to show up to China 'to sell Britain to the world' in her £200m yacht named after the guy who said "If you stay here much longer you will all be slitty-eyed"
Labour Party Mayoral Candidate casually Tweeting about breaking electoral law on Treating.
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
This is a criminal offence. *facepalm*
The law on this is pretty clear
A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment or provision to or for any person—
for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting;
The box on the treats literally says "Vote Labour" on it. Completely criminal behaviour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treating_(law)
I don't normally say anything this harsh about anyone, but I think Keir Starmer might be the British Michael Bloomberg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What does corruptly influencing mean?
Its a phrase used in a few laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Getting someone to change the vote via campaigning is legal influencing, getting them to do so via "treating" is corruptly influencing. Corruptly tends to be defined as “doingan act which the law forbids as tending to corrupt” - so in this instance giving Treats (which is forbidden) for the purpose of influencing them (in a forbidden way) to vote or refrain from voting is a criminal offence.
Harsh on Michael Bloomberg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Now that the elections are behind us the BBC have apologised for smearing Dyson over texts and his companies seeking efforts to make ventillators during the pandemic, with false and misleading reporting seeking to make things into a scandal, which got quoted here earlier in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC Apology
I wonder if "Leader of the Opposition" Sir Keir who repeated the false claims will apologise too? Who am I kidding, of course he won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyson's response
I don't see why he should apologise. Lying, dishonesty and spreading false claims is an accepted part of public life now.
Its been the case since "whiter than white" Tony Blair I suppose. Why should Keir not follow his predecessors footsteps?
Apart from the fact Blair was popular with his dissembling, while Keir to be polite is not. Have you seen the latest approval ratings? Keir now is rated -48 with YouGov which is absolutely astonishing. Only Corbyn has ever polled lower and that was when he'd been in place for four years, Starmer has only been in place for a year. He does seem to be doing his level best to ensure there's nobody left in the country that respects him. :eek: