 |
| HM - value for money? |
People who
are in favour of equality often get more worked up about wealth than
poverty. It is the huge houses with
solid gold bath taps, the expensive cars and Swiss bank accounts that exercise
them more than the family struggling to put food on the table and clothes on
their children. Conspicuous consumption is just that – far more conspicuous
than the problems of poverty and thus more likely to provoke anger.
When it
comes to wealth no-one shows it off more than the royal family. They wear expensive ornate clothes on special
occasions and always look well-dressed at even ordinary events. Soldiers who guard the Queen at the royal
palaces have to wear colourful specially made uniforms to do so. The Queen rides in a gold carriage to open
parliament, the beating heart of our democracy, wearing a crown encrusted with
diamonds which the vast majority of her people could not afford. They have it and they flaunt it, so the royal
family becomes the target of many of those who want to promote a fairer society.
This is
understandable but I think mistaken. How
much does the Queen actually cost us? The
Sovereign Grant, which replaced the Civil List five years ago, currently stands
at just over £42 million a year, which comes to sixty two pence per citizen, or
around one pound per taxpayer (defining a taxpayer as one who pays income
tax). When I am working as a tourist
guide I usually say that, if you asked the British people whether they would
like a pound back on their income tax if it meant losing the Queen, the vast
majority would reply emphatically ‘No!’ – especially as they would never
actually get their pounds back.
Republicans
argue that The Sovereign Grant does not represent the true cost of the royal
family because it does not factor in the expenses of royal engagements, which
are met by local and national government. It has been argued that the real cost
of royalty is around £350 million a year. However, this figure is suspiciously similar to the weekly amount that the Brexit
campaign said would be saved if we left the European Union. It did not factor in the amount we receive
from the Union but just stacked up all the conceivable costs without
considering the benefits. In fact, if
you look at the earning potential of having a royal family, the balance sheet
looks very different because it undoubtedly brings in a huge amount in tourism
revenue. This is not an overriding
argument in favour of royalty: it has to be justified intellectually rather
than financially, in its own right rather than as a way of making money.
Stonehenge would still attract tourists if it was situated in the United
Republic rather than the United Kingdom, just as bridges and community centres
would have to be opened by someone, whether they were president or monarch.
The debate
about the details goes on but it is the principle of whether we have a royal
family that is important, whatever the real cost of it. I would argue in favour if only because those
who believe in equality must surely concede that this must entail everyone having
a vote on the issue in one of these referendums we are so keen on
nowadays. There can be little doubt that,
if we did have a vote on the issue the British people would choose overwhelmingly
to retain the royal family. There is not
much point in having equality if you do not give people an equal say.
In fact, I
would go farther and say that the royal family is actually a kind of socialist
institution. It is paid for by all and
can be enjoyed by all. Many of the
things we finance with our taxes, such as roads, education and healthcare, are
used far more by people on above average incomes who tend to drive cars,
encourage their children to go to university and make better use of the NHS. It is poorer people who have to use public
transport, leave school early and get stuck at the end of long waiting
lists. Yet they can enjoy the royal
family and all the pomp and ceremony that goes with it as much as anybody
else. You do not have to pay a penny to
watch the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace or to join the crowds and
cheer when a royal wedding takes place.
In the same way, you do not have to visit the National Gallery or the
British Museum. These are free
activities enjoyed by British and overseas tourists alike and paid for through
taxation. Yet it is the colour and
pageantry of the guard change which attracts many people on low incomes rather
than the more intellectual pleasures of our fine free museums.
By all means
keep the museums free. Goodness knows,
we spend public money on less worthwhile institutions. But let us leave some money aside for
retaining the royal family. It is what
we do in Britain and we do it well. Very
few countries in the world have managed to retain a monarchy while developing a
democracy. No monarch has anything like
the same recognition and affection that the Queen commands with approval
ratings that politicians would kill for.
If it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change. Or, in modern speak, if it ain’t broke, don’t
fix it.
My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com
Edwin Lerner
