this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
733 points (97.4% liked)
Bluesky
137 readers
580 users here now
People skeeting stuff.
Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://mhclgmedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/11/01/budget-boost-for-housing-local-growth-and-remediation/
Framing the costs against how much gets spent in a year on X doesn't really work if the renovation isn't happening every year, which I'm going out on a limb and saying it isn't.
He could pay for it himself of course, but to all those saying to get rid of the monarchy - who pays for the renovation then..? It's a landmark heritage building, it needs upkeep.
I'd happily pay for the upkeep if I got to go inside and see it. If it was maybe a museum or an art gallery open to the public. As it is I'm paying upkeep on the multiple sprawling estates owned by the wealthiest people in the country, so that they can enjoy privacy in huge palaces, while I get one tiny box with a broken boiler.
On top of that you're actively paying the wages and costs of guards that do funny dances twice a day but will shoot you in the face if you try and go into the property you're paying for. You pay for it, but it belongs to some toff. Give your head a wobble lad.
Well get you wallet ready then!
https://www.rct.uk/visit/buckingham-palace
Those guards who do funny dances are the oldest serving unit in the British army. They have always participated in active duty in addition to the ceremonies, so paying for them shouldn't be thought about any differently to the rest of the armed forces we (under) pay for.
I'm not against scaling back the monarchy, but the idea that your tiny box and broken boiler is going to be any different by doing so is misguided.
You're barking up the wrong tree there. I give zero fucks about military tradition, except to find it sinister and unnecessary. I'm well aware of the guards having other duties. Wouldn't it be better if they didn't have to do the silly dances in their silly hats and nutcracker uniforms. Then they could maybe do something worthwhile and effective with their time.
At no point did I say that ridding ourselves (not "scaling back") of these particular leeches would solve my housing situation or even the housing crisis at large. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of it. A point which you failed to address, for some reason.
If we only do things that are worthwhile and effective, the world would be an utterly dull place. You're happy to use the palace as an art gallery, when the traditional guards and uniforms are performing a similar function now.
There is a perfectly acceptable scenario where we don't have a royal family, but keep the guards. There would be no hypocrisy there.
I said I'm happy to scale back the costs because of some of the reasons you have said, but I'm not going to demand an end to the whole circus because the costs involved just aren't as significant as you may want to believe, especially when looked at as part of the annual £1.3t budget.
But they're doing those ineffective and worthless things in the course of guarding against public entrance to a privately owned building that the public pay for. Do you still refuse to see the hypocrisy and injustice there?
Let me stop you right there
Would you just demolish the palaces then? They're beautiful buildings. They just need to belong to the public.
They currently belong to the Crown Estates. It is argued that this is the same as public ownership, but that smells like bullshit.
It smells like bullshit and looks like bullshit, has passed seventeen double blind trials for the detection of bullshit, and has been stepped in by a connoisseur of cowpats who consequently confirmed its credibility.
Pointing out that you personally can’t afford it..
Oh ok, I didn't see that meaning. I mean I can't personally afford an army and health service for the entire nation, but I'm still paying for it!
The crown has property and investments that pay out all the time (for example a lot of rental properties).
They also get a cheeky 500m allowance a year. Presumably plus expenses.
I suspect if these all were divided up between the national trust (looks after things like parks and historical sites) and the government, they'd be able to manage it themselves.
It was built in the early to mid 1800s, how much renovation could it need? Sheesh. Slap some makeup on it, bit of the ole duct tape and she's good as new. I can only imagine how much of a pain it has to be to have gone back and ran electricity, network cables, heating/cooling and stuff in buildings made to last that long that didn't have designs for them. I'd almost say to just make it all smaller inside by framing and putting up sheet rock inside, and then running everything between the external walls and the sheet rock would be easier.
Just want to point out that refurbishing is often just modifying stuff to his liking instead of routine maintenance.
Outrageous!