Visit the Naim E-Store | Visit the Naim E-Store |
forums Naim Users Padded Cell Re Crumbling Palaces and failure of owner to conduct repairs for 50 years. Topic Closed|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
|
Senior Member |
Is that the best view you got on your trip Jim?   Back on topic ... Seems to me if wheeling out a Royal makes or breaks a business deal it's a pretty strange form of commerce. How many business deals get done due to mega-backhanders, apparently with uk.gov.con approval? I think £40m is a bit more than a drop in the ocean, even in terms of the national economy, but the civil list is the tip of the iceberg. The RF bring much to the economy, but it's intangible Not a dig a you Jim, but this type of argument for the Monarchy is regularly made & is a cop-out IMHO. If they do significantly benefit the economy surely the figures would be relatively easy to produce? As the figures aren't in the public domain I conclude the argument a red herring, or the numbers aren't published as they would be damaging to the RF. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
555
By far the best view - as part of me is in the pic!  Well, when I do deals (which is what I do for a living) I figure out the best time to wheel out our CEO or someone other body for Exec level dialogue (that won't be detailed "deal" discussion as such) and it is all part of getting the buyer comfortable - so using HRH as part of the overall deal closure cycle is not unusual and it happens a fair amount. At the highest level these deals concluded for all sorts of reasons...and I'm not talking about shady business deals here. 40M is not a lot....I regularly spend seven figures in deal pursuits (not my money of course)....it's the cost of doing business so 40M is not much....IMO. That comes across as arrogant or big headed but I don't mean it that way. As for intangible I really meant hard to accurately calculate...it will be tangible so a bad choice of word and not meant to be a cop out. Cheers Jim |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
I go away for an evening and this is what you do while I am away!
Far too tired to answer the points now. Tomorrow will bring another dawn, if I am lucky! George |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
I have been a big supporter of the Queen whilst I have been living in Australia as I get a day off work to celebrate her birthday. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
And countries with no royal family have no tourist industry? Jeez give us a break and start thinking for yourself. Apologies if I've missed your sarcasm smiley. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
What instrument does he play in HMHB then? Or is he a football kicker from some out of the way team?   |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Howard, The 3rd Earl of Harrow was Screaming Lord Sutch. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Oh ignorant me.
 Never was a fan.As I was telling the 21 yr old oik at work "when I was his age I knew everything too, I'm just surprised how much I have forgotten since"! |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
I'd recommend
LORD SUTCH AND HEAVY FRIENDS Wailing Sounds 'Cause I Love You Flashing Lights Gutty Guitar Would You Believe Smoke And Fire Thumping Beat Union Jack Car One For You, Baby L-O-N-D-O-N Brightest Light Baby, Come Back Gotta Keep A-Rockin' Roll Over Beethoven Country Club Hands Of Jack The Ripper David Sutch gave up music in 1984 to concentrate on the serious matter of politics. It was in his manifesto that we should sell the crown jewels and spend the proceeds on a big political party to which everybody would be invited and there would be free drinks. It is probably the most sensible policy I've heard and yet he frequently lost his deposit. One of the best political ceremonies, I ever saw was when John Major, the then PM, was re-elected in Huntingdon. Pictures of the Prime Minister went around the world - on his left was David (Screaming Lord) Sutch [Official Raving Monster Looney Party] and on his right Lord Bucket Head (who polled 183 votes IIRC). It is worth noting that John Major was a Conservative and, like Katie Boyle, not a Looney. Please click for associated broadcast from Rutland Weekend TV ATB Rotf |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
So what you are telling us in summary is your company doesn't need HRH to close a deal! Of course a CEO is chosen on ability & potential, rather than who mum & dad are. If the CEO doesn't do a good job they depart, rather than handing over to a sprog. A CEO doesn't require a few castles & palaces for accommodation, & in a well run company is paid the market rate for their services. I could go on but I think I've made my point.
I think you were right; it's intangible & I find this highly suspicious. Is the performance of a company CEO intangible? I'm not claiming the RF brings nothing to the economy, but if we didn't have a RF I can't imagine the B.E.R.R. (formerly the D.T.I.) suggesting we should set one up as a cost effective way to boost the economy. My other big gripe with the RF is they live in luxury while so many of their subjects live in poverty. Am I the only person who finds this obscene? The revolution starts at closing time!  |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
I think you missed several layers of irony there, Tom old chum. I was merely pointing out the ensuing counter-response. Don't forget we live in the post-Diana world - and there are many in that world thinking for themselves less than this poor bear. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Nice idea, but I find it hard to swallow that all those tourists are here only because we have a royal family installed. They might want to come here for other reasons too you know. It's not as though they get to meet them or anything. Diana frenzy was never higher than after her demise, and that tends to be the case with all celebrities. I think that if we sacked the royals, the heightened interest and visitor numbers would be enough to get this country through its current recession. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Dear Ewan,
What system have you in mind to replace the Monarchy with? I hope you have a good plan well worked out. I would not mind a bet that a President might well prove to be rather more expensive to finance than the current arrangements for head of state. I am by no means saying that there is no case to be examined, but be careful to consider what we have and also what we do not have currently and might soon regret having if your wish came to be. George |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Fair points George,
but you don't need to have an alternative to see the need for change. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Dear John,
On the E II R thread I wrote something about the potential alternative constitutional arrangements - the last post on that thread currently - and really you are quite right that that does not mean there is no reason to avoid examining the costs, the actual role of, and even future developments of the Monarchy. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss even such a change as adopting a Presidential system, and what I wrote at the end of the other thread may be worth reading as a contribution to this. ATB from George |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
In the late 70s Just to prove a point and a bet , A few years before he got banged up.
JK Put together a plan. He hit the streets and got enough votes over 2 month's to make him a MP. Part of his Manifesto[Spelling is prob wrong] Was get them to pay there way. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I've not got as far as thinking of an alternative - that isn't the point. The point is dissatisfaction.
The American system may not be perfect but at least it is a system made by the people themselves, and even though every system will have its flaws, they at least have something they created themselves to be proud of. But we're just subjects of a bunch of crusty old farts who have no idea who we are, care even less, and I think, treat us with contempt. It baffles me why the whole tradition thing has to persist, as though time stood still in the late 18th century. Why do we have to have the state opening of parliament with these twats in powdered wigs and stockings? I'm sure my grandmother would say "but, it's nice". I'm afraid that "being nice" isn't a good enough reason for total alienation of the population of the country. Sorry, but they've got to go, and we've got to once again be a major player in the world instead of being some quaint museum piece to be pushed around by Europe and America. We've got to get some teeth again. Our strength is our multi-cultural society, and I'm pretty sure the royals just don't approve of that at all, but that's who we are now, so if they don't like it they should sod off and leave us to manage a system ourselves that represents us all. So..err..you've probably spotted that I'm not a big fan of the royals then. |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Dear ewan,
You enthusiasm for the Royal Family is clear! Beware the knee-jerk reaction which brings something less palatable. It is fair enough to expressive unhappiness, but unreasonable to suggest change until you have taken the trouble to at least have a well formed plan. Here is something I wrote on the subject last week. I think you will see that it is argued quite clerarly, and offers some thoughts on various options for the future: ----- Posted by GFFJ on Sat 28 June 2008 0:13
ATB from George |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
At least it should be something de-selectable, with the present system there is no accountability. Why should these people have all this just because of their birth credentials? |
|||
|
|
Senior Member |
Dear Howard,
If the accountability issue were politically destabilising, then a change would be necessary. If anything the crazy anachronism of a tribal leading family has been a rallying point in times of crisis, a real focus of widespread affection among the popualion as a majority if not as a whole, and certain point of focus for the military, which is a good thing when you consider how powerful the UK Military is even today. I accept that the Military could perfectly well swear allgance to serve the country as led by an elected President for all that. But even if change were [and it is by some even in spite of the above] considered essential, then we do have to examine whether we jettison Parliamentary democracy for a Presidential one, which is why I would be so keen to advocate the adoption in the circumstance of this constitutional overhaul in the line of a constitutional presidency, the role of which would be to appoint the elected government, oversee constitutional issues such as the power of the Judiciary and the Elected Parliamentary Government [Executive] and act as the Head of State in International Affairs etc. In other words effectively elect someone who would continue to fill the constitutional role of the Monarchy, but as you say, elected, and accountable. I find the system of government by Executive Presient produces some very seriously poor candidates, though it may well be apt for the US situation, but it would deplorable in the UK. Can you imagine the overwhelming power crazed Tony Blair as president, without the need to keep a Cabinet on line, or even ultimately the Commons?  About the only way you can sack a President is by impeachment, and that requires some very serious breech of trust, whereas a Prime Minster can be toppled in a vote of confidence at any time. This is a most valuable safety valve, and we should be pleased that the PM remains accountable to Parliament between elections, even if only to the electorate [effectively at least] at elections. This is where I always counsel caution with wild plans top scrap the Monarchy without a fully workable plan to replace it. George |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | forums | ||
| Servlet | eve1da042 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "01 NaimStyle2 Regular" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
Topic Closed forums Naim Users Padded Cell Re Crumbling Palaces and failure of owner to conduct repairs for 50 years. | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
