…where there has been economic growth, but the workers got poorer.
In Italy and Portugal GDP, between 2007 and 15, is down, as are wages. Fair enough.
In Denmark, Latvia, Slovinia, Spain and Finland there has been a reduction in the GDP over the period 2007-15, meanwhile, workers have become better off.
In the top right-hand quadrant (Sweden, Norway, Slovak Republic, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Czech Republic, US, Ireland, South Korea, Japan and Israel both economic growth and Wages have increased.
Alone, standing out like a sore thumb, in the UK, although the GDP has increased, ordinary workers are worse off.
Better Together No Thanks, Ukok.
AND
Meanwhile, once again in OUR united kingdom, a tiny, temporary committee of MPs set up explicitly to consider doubling the publicly funded income of the Royal Family took thirteen minutes to decide that, yes, the Royal Family should indeed have its income doubled.
We all know that Buckingham Palace has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. We know its repairs now will be at a huge cost to the taxpayer. (Not unreasonable questions might be: Why has it been allowed to get to into this state? Why were not repairs and improvements ongoing? Could the queen have managed her finances better? Why are we bailing out her failures to look after the palaces?)
According to a report in the Independent: The project will involve replacing around 100 miles of electrical cabling 30 miles of water pipes, 6,500 electrical sockets, 5,000 light fitting and 2,500 radiators. I assume that most of this is to do with health and safety rather than aesthetics given that everything will have to be replaced looking exactly as it did. It seems to me that the palace has been neglecting its responsibilities to the high number of staff of all sorts it employs there. (I imagine that it can do this legally as ordinary laws do not apply in royal palaces.)
In 2014, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the royal household had mismanaged its finances. it seems that it did so disastrously. The estimated cost was £350 million, but we know that that will have increased considerably by the time the work is done.
We can only imagine that if the household managed to mess up Buckingham Palace’s repairs and renewals, then other palaces, housing other members of the queens expensive family will also need to be investigated. Will Kensington Palace (above), St James’s Palace, Thatched Lodge, Clarence House and the unrestored parts of Windsor Castle require the same sort of expenditure? And in Scotland, what is the state of repair of The Palace of Holyrood House? What kind of bill will that involve?
In my opinion, it is time to rationalise the housing arrangements of junior or pensioned members of the royal family. I’m not asking them to live in council flats, but family members who don’t work for the country shouldn’t be living in palaces at our expense. It’s not like any of them are living in penury. Many have country residences.
Other countries manage perfectly well with a president and their partner being kept at the expense of the people. Why we have the queen’s cousins and grown grandchildren being accommodated at our expense is beyond me. An argument that one day Beatrice might be the queen won’t wash. One day Munguin might be first minister. He doesn’t expect the salary and a suite in Bute house now, on the equally remote off chance.
MUNGUIN'S NEW REPUBLIC 
Put them all on the buroo, and sanction the parasites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I’d happily do that, but realistically, brits are sycophantic celeb lovers who cling to their “great” past and the rubbish they are fed by the tabloids about the royals.
So that’s not going to happen.
But these people live in incredible splendour at our expense. They don’t need all these palaces. The ones who do little or nothing, whether becasue they are old or because they are lazy, shouldn’t be living at our expense.
Ordinary old people who can no longer work get a state pension of £122 a week, and anything they have managed to put away during their working lives. They don’t get rooms in fabulous palaces.
Lazy people get nothing, or nothing much for very long.
I wish we would realise that there is nothing different about these royals, except they were born with golden spoons in their mouths.
Golden spoons we put there while we get poorer and poorer.
LikeLike
they are already on the buroo just on a higher rate poor souls
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL. If I could get onto that rate, I’d be unemployed ina flash!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m watching a series on Channel 4 called “The House of Windsor”. The one thing that so far has surprised me about the programmes are the frank comments made by English historians about the Royal family.
I only watch such programmes to try find out things I know very little about, and while I was aware there was an anti-royalist feeling during W.W.1 because of the German origin of the ruling elite of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, I didn’t realise it was so widespread. Apparently the name change was brought about because of their fear that they would suffer the same fate as their Russian relatives.
And that brings me to the decision of King George V to deny the Russian Tsar, and his family, sanctuary in the U.K, resulting in their murder later the same year. Of course, for many years the P.M at the time, David Lloyd George, was blamed for this decision, and it’s only recently that the truth of the matter has come to light.
And nothing has changed over the years. The only thing that matters to the House of Windsor is their survival, and they will go to any lengths to ensure that their dominance will prevail.
They are at the very top of the establishment, their power, and influence, permeates through all of our lives, and more fool us, we still continue to let it happen.
All this hogwash about them caring about “their people” is just that, hogwash. They only care about themselves, and we are the mugs who continue to fund their extravagant lifestyles.
I know, independence is our first objective, but after that is achieved we should have a vote to decide who we want as head of state. For me, it certainly wont be The House of Windsor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t know about the tsar being refused sanctuary by the Sax-Cobergs.
I probably should watch more of these things, although the thought of them sicken me.
I’d have rid of them in a second.
I just hope that when it’s Charlie’s turn he manages to argue so much with the government and the archbishops that they will end up getting rid of him. I can’t see him accepting that Camilla can’t be queen Camilla. Hopefully that will cause a constitutional crisis.
Certainly I can imagine Scotland joining the 21st century either as a republic or at worst with a Scandinavian type pared down people’s monarchy.
LikeLike
Whenever I see pix of Andy’s weans I wonder where their sister Cinderella is hiding.
Their status after we are independent is up to rUK. It is important to recognise that the monarch is a symbol of the state. Albeit she is the pinnacle of the class system, and is the personification of the anachronism of heredity. The present queen is undoubtedly personally popular. It has not always been that way, and republican sentiment ebbs and flows.
In the modern world of celebrity culture her grandson is likely to be popular. He gets a very favourable press. Her first son perhaps less so, but you have to wonder if that has more to do with the Diana cult than his own undoubted inadequacies. So I cannot see them being removed any time soon.
We who seek independence should forget the battle for a republic for now. Best not frighten the sycophants. In due course if the institution becomes a vehicle for English interference in our internal affairs the issue will become live. But I doubt they are stupid enough for that. However the whole system of aristocracy, titles, and land hegemony is long overdue for reform. And I hope fervently that in the independent country we create, that we very rapidly tackle those issues.
I am republican, but I cannot see it being a vote winner for now. One step at a time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you completely.
Royalty tends to be popular when young and beautiful, or old and still plodding on.
But they must also be seen to be extremely hard working too.
Thus Diana was incredibly popular. She was young, beautiful and she worked pretty hard with kids, people who were ill or dying, and latterly victims of mines. She also had the ghastly Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles to deal with… in the limelight.
She didn’t get a chance to grow old.
At the other end of the scale the Queen Mother was popular because she was 100 and still out there working, and being gracious to people. That she was a ghastly old dipso racist who spent money like water was never acknowledged.
The queen in now popular because she is old. She has supposedly worked hard all her life, but we all know that behind the scenes she has colluded with the Canadian and British governments to stamp on independence movements. Charles is getting that way but not old enough yet to get to the popular stage. He was popular when he was young. Action man they called him. And every woman was his for the asking.
William is popular enough, but he is lazy and so is Kate Middleton. They do as little as they can. She is reasonably good looking; he is not. I don;t know how long they will be popular. They don’t have the Diana (or queen Mother) touch.
But they aren’t really royalty any more. They are just another set of people who feature in magazines for the masses. Along with Peter André and Jordan and the Kardashians. How pathetic are they?
Air Miles’ daughters are about as much use as he is. And they aren’t even attractive, any more than he is. No one seems much interested in them. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen them on the cover of a “celebrity” magazine, despite the fact they live the playgirl life of holiday party holiday.
We won’t be rid of royals for a while, I agree, but it can’t come soon enough for me.
In the meantime I look forward to Charlie being king and getting rid of the outliers, like his lazy nieces.
I am a republican, but these people are of so little account that I don’t much care whether they are there or not. If they are King and mistress in an independent Scotland, I trust that our taxes will not keep them. They can pay their own way.
LikeLike
Munguin for First Minister! Apparently Ruthie’s been bumping her gums about wanting to be FM – in 2021 no less. So Munguin for FM it is. Can I visit when he’s in Bute House?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, it is a big ask for Ruthie to manage to go from 33 seats to enough to be FM. But it’s not an impossibility, I suppose.
Of course, the SNP can’t go on forever. But for sure if the Tories want to form a government they really will have to get some people who are a little less comical that the present bunch. I mean Tompkins, Jackson, and that Golden blokey… not to mention whatshisname Fraser… sheesh.
You can move into Bute House as Munguin’s Proof Reader…whether he needs one or not.
LikeLike
You mentioned Holyrood Palace, It will need some money spent on it to convert it to MSP accommodation. Then there is no need for second homes, subsidised mortgages, hotel bills. If your constituency is more than, say 45 mins by road from parliament, you qualify for accommodation at parliament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Munguin doesn’t get Bute House I’m sure he let you share his flat at the Palace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aye, that one’s all heart. Anyway, he’ll need a butler!
LikeLike
I’ve always thought that was a good idea. I suggested a converted multi story block for MPs in Westminster, but I think they thought mulits were for ordinary people.
Imagine Fluffy in a multi!
LikeLike
Bill:
Hi Bill,
It was on Jolyon Maugham QC’s Twitter.
It originated from the OECD.
Hope that helps.
Tris
🙂
I can’t get back to you on your email. It keeps sending my response back.
LikeLike
Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. There is no fee, I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our- community and I liked what you wrote. If “OK” please let me know via email.
Autumn
AutumnCote@WriterBeat.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
For sure. I’m flattered.
LikeLike