I noted this in The Observer this morning:
Ministers have been accused of “losing the plot” after setting aside £8m to offer every public body a free portrait of King Charles.
In a move that drew criticism amid complaints of shrinking budgets across Whitehall and local government, Oliver Dowden, the cabinet office minister, said it was part of plans to celebrate the new reign and bring the nation together.
I have not tried to hide my republican feelings on this site. In my opinion the whole idea of having a royal family is a deliberate eugenic ploy intended to promote the idea that those with wealth and privilege as a result of birth are inherently superior people who have an intrinsic right to both retain that wealth and privilege and to govern.
I think that wealth should very largely be earned and the right to govern is earned by those who can prove the ability to do so, from whatever background they come.
There is, in that case, an inherent political conflict in the whole process of 'royal worship' which the supply of photos of Charles Windsor for use in public buildings deliberately promotes, with the Tories being very keen to advance this cult. Personally, I would replace the monarchy with an Irish-style presidency, sweeping away the Lords at the same time and reforming our electoral system to abolish the privilege inherent in it as well.
But I may be out of line with the readership of this blog. What do you think? The poll sticks to the pictures alone, but as they are totemic bigger issues are in play:
Should we be spending £8 million on supplying photos of Charles Windsor to all public buildings?
- No (59%, 457 Votes)
- No, because there are so many better uses for that money (35%, 270 Votes)
- It's not a lot, so what are you worrying about? (3%, 21 Votes)
- Yes (2%, 17 Votes)
- I'm abstaining, but show me the results anyway (1%, 9 Votes)
Total Voters: 774
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I want to tick
“NO” and “It’s not a lot, so what are you worrying about”.
Lots of reasons not to have pictures of the Monarch everywhere – or indeed a Monarch at all! But money is not one that is significant.
But this one doesn’t really suit multiple answers
Sorry…
Fair enough…. but Republicans will never win this argument on cost.
I agree entirely
But sometimes pegs are needed on which to hang stories
The obvious thing to me is that Charlie has an estate that earns him income so in my view he should pay for it.
I’ve already picked up that the affection his mother generated is absent in his case and it is startling to me that this has not even been considered by him or ‘his’ government?
Whilst we are a monarchy then I think we should have pictures of the current monarch in public places.
But I see no reason why the cost of replacing the image within an existing frame should not be born by each “public body” themselves.
And I’d have thought it should have been done, as a normal part of “maintenance”, by now.
‘Maintenance’ – you’re joking aren’t you?
I think that the pot holes in the road need doing first in most local authorities.
For most people, if we want a portrait, he is (or will shortly be) on the stamps and coins and notes. While Charles is head of state I can see why public bodies might want to display a portrait of him somewhere. Perhaps it is more efficient to centrally procure and distribute lots of identical official large format photographs rather than thousands of public bodies sourcing their own?
For one person it is a fortune, but in the grand scheme of things £8m is peanuts. Let’s compare to say the amount that the government spends on private aircraft each year. Or how much we will spend on the coronation jamboree.
If government spending does not come from taxes, then £8m is just spent into the economy, it hasn’t cost taxpayers a penny.
If there was a choice, then there are much better things to do with £8m, but we can probably buy pictures as well as the alternatives.
Likewise, when we buy ourselves treats, there are better things to do with our money.
The Royal Family may be anachronistic, but the only thing that’s worse, is the thought of the Tories in the palace.
We spent £9.3 million on a leaflet to every household in 2016 money and what a waste that was.
£8million for a guy who will be on every coin and stamp shortly anyway. Also a waste.
This should be devolved to Local Authorities – sorry to approve devolution, I know it’s not particularly welcome on this blog, centralisation of farmland owner support and levelling up support being your thing
What a total load of rubbish
I am not opposed to devolution?
Do you live in a world where you make everything up so you have a fantasy to oppose?
It’s true. You support the centralisation of a wide range of policies, programmes and budgets to Brussels. You also support global taxation structures which take devolution even further away from localities.
Might be a good idea to centralise, might not, but please strop living in denial that you are a devolutionist.
This is crass
Devolution always happens within a framework of law
Devolution is not independence: it is about tweaking delivery to local need
You don’t even realise that
And yes, devolution within the EU is not only possible, but essential to its structure
The same is true of tax where, for the record, there is no global tax system
Politely, you are talking utter drivel
Name one competence which was previously reserved to the EU which has since been devolved to Member States?
You can’t.
So what?
The EU worked p[reciswely because rules are consistent
You want evidence?
Go to Dover right now
And very politely, stop wasting your life on a dedication to failure
Fair enough, you can’t name one example to support your claim that the EU has devolution as an ethos.
As for taxation, I’m well aware that there’s a mix of local, national, and international systems.
Can you give one example of where you have argued for less power in taxation for the international one?
Let’s ignore your inability to answer the point on the EU (that it works)
Let’s talk tax where I have only ever asked for international harmony on multinational corporations
What us your problem with that?
And excepting, of course, cases of international tax abuse
But perhaps you favour them?
No. Just no. It wouldn’t matter if we could afford everything we chose to do (oh, we can!) we shouldn’t choose to worship a man for no other reason than the identity of his parents. Who were only worshipped because of the identity of their parents; who were only ……….
I’m in sympathy with your republican sentiments but the monarchy – to some extent by luck – has provided some stability and a bit of restraint. I fear we could get worse.
On reflection, my vote should have been ‘It’s not a lot, so what are you worrying about?’ rather than abstention.
One conclusion: posing questions for votes – and giving them adequate thought before voting – is more complex than they first appear.
It is
I will get better at it
But it seems to be working
Monarchy provides stability. ? There is a lot of stability in the graveyard.
I have been on this earth for 82 years. No matter how hard I try I can’t think of one benefit I have derived from the Royal family. Every one of them have been totally irrelevant . One cannot be a true democrat and support an institution that depends on an accident of birth.
For me, the money involved is irrelevant. I’ve no doubt that most public bodies were happy to display an image of the last monarch, and I suspect it happened without the need for any explicit or implicit coercion. The worry here is “the offer”, which can easily convert into (at least) implicit coercion.
Like Richard, I’d rather have an Irish-style president. If the government, or the incumbent, wanted his or her image to be displayed by public bodies, I’d object to that too.
If it is public money, then I would say no on the principle that I am not in favour of the monarchy. That said, 8M isn’t a lot compared to how much other money is spent on public services, and assuming Charles lasts a while it shouldn’t be a recurring spend.
I do wonder though, there are surely at least 8M royalists throughout the country that would be willing to pop £1 into a crowdfund, that way we don’t have to spend any public money at all? In fact they’d probably generate even more.
Quite so
Do a crowd funder
For the coronation too
Whilst it is on a smaller scale, it is proof that when a government wants to spend then it ‘finds’ the money.
Craig
There are two questions here that are almost unrelated. It is normal in many countries to have national regalia in certain public buildings, including a portrait of the Head of State. There is a question of whether that should still be the case in the twenty-first century, but in that context changing the portrait when the Head of State changes is hardly controversial.
But it has got confounded with the separate question of whether the Head of State should be hereditary or elected. For most of the readership of this blog there is no logical justification for our Head of State having the role regardless of personal merit but simply because of who his mother was – but in the wider population there seems to be widespread acceptance of the current arrangement, for better or worse.
With an elected Head of State portraits in public buildings would have had to be changed many times in the past 70 years, and you could argue the current proposed expenditure is a bargain.
But why would you need pictures of a head of state at all?
Paradoxically this is precisely the sort of action that might undermine support for The Monarchy.
Either that or its meant to do so to allow the creation of a Presidency of the sort that will suit the neo liberals
Lots of countries, monarchies and republics, put pictures of the head of state in public buildings. The concept isn’t shocking but maybe it could have been done for less.
It’s fine, but please, just spend the money in the UK, rather than China. Then at least there can be a bit of multiplier action.
At £50 a pop (seems reasonable for a print + frame + postage) that 160,000 pictures.
Seems a lot of pictures, but maybe the quote came from an MP’s ‘friend’ in the VIP lane so its not £50 a pop.
How many HEPA filter units would £8m buy? They might only save a handful of children in classrooms from death or serious harm, but every time I look at one of the portraits of our sovereign’s handsome features, I will think of it as representing a dead or injured child.
8m better spent on NHS! If royalist councillors want a picture of a Right Charlie then let ’em pay for it out of their own pockets.
Surely a large format photograph file could be distributed, and printed out on an A3 printer and put in a frame? It surely costs next to nothing to distribute by e-mail?
The days of formal oil paintings in corridors of power are anachronistic in the electronic age.
It’s all about deference and why would we want to promote that at a time when we need dissent, as in France? I want to be a citizen, not a subject, and the sooner the better.
I too think the Monarchy is an anachronism.
After all, everyone alive today shares an ancestral mother, and an ancestral father (although not contemporaries science suggests).
So Charles is only King because his more recent ancestors were better at pillaging their way to the top than mine.
I’d prefer to elect a head of state but I dont want a presidential system like most republics, I want them to be someone who has demonstrated public service outside of politics. I do not want a petulant Windsor either.