Buckingham Palace: Where Public Money Goes to Waste

Photo © 2009 Kyle Wood

Discovering severe financial mismanagement by the Royal Household, the Public Accounts Committee have now suggested that Buckingham Palace should be opened up to more paying customers when the Queen is not in residence.

Every year, £31m of taxpayer funds is handed over from the Government to the monarchy to allow them to perform their “official duties”. Arguably a nationalised institution, the monarchy spends this massive sum of money maintaining their palaces, paying their staff and funding Royal duties, like state visits.

It’s a well-worn analogy by now, but we must consider the hypocrisy of our funding of this historic institution. Whilst measly citizens tire themselves out with endless work and constant anxiety, hearing headlines around rising council taxes and electricity bills and seeing their friends, family and neighbours evicted from their homes because they have one too many bedrooms, the Queen seems exempt. Her home is taxpayer funded much like council houses but, with 240 bedrooms, the monarch, unlike less-privileged members of the population, isn’t faced with an eviction notice.

Yes, having a monarchy does come with its benefits – they do bring in some income through tourism – but these are benefits that can easily be found by pumping this extraordinary amount of money into other sectors. And, in light of the Public Accounts Committee’s findings that the Household has been overspending, what trust can we have in those that manage the Queen’s finances. According to the Committee’s reports, poor management by the Queen’s staff has meant that adequate funding has not been found for the monarchy to perform their duties that provide these benefits. “The Queen has not been served well,” the report finds. With just £31m a year and only £1m in their reserve fund, it must be difficult getting the food on the table in the evening. We mustn’t forget also that the monarchy does have its own private source of income, generated from their land, property and wider assets. Despite this, and the Public Accounts Committee’s criticism, the grant is set to rise to £37.9m this year.

And, therefore, it is simply ludicrous that those in the population with sincere adoration for the Monarchy, a keen interest in historical architecture or a curiosity to know what a life of luxury looks like, should be the people laden with the task of coughing up for the household’s poor financial management. To ask us, as citizens who contribute massively to this £31m grant, to pay even more to have the privilege of seeing a tiny proportion of the inside of a palace we technically all own a small part of is, quite frankly, appalling. It is those household staff with the remit of ensuring the funds are distributed appropriately that should be required to find a way of plugging their shortfall. This should most certainly be done in a way that does not mean that the public suffer even more.

Whatever your beliefs about the monarchy, it is a slap in the face to know that you should have to pay to visit a house that you are helping to fund. This house, filled with impressive art collections, and architecture of enviable grandness is just one of several that is given to the Monarchy and paid for with our taxes. If we are to truly end the financial mismanagement within the Royal Household, there is one clear solution: stop using public money to prop up this out-dated and useless institution.

A Tory Guide to Getting Quick Cash

Image by Palestine Solidarity Campaign

In times of economic crisis, the Conservatives usually find themselves in Government (cheekily proclaiming themselves the ‘natural party’) and with the task of cutting the deficit and balancing the books. This is a task they have long developed a strategy for – if you can’t cut the services, privatise them – easy. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the kind of strategy that has been in place since the 2010 General Election win.

They are a party of supposed economic credibility; they can decrease the expenditure and debt of the country. But the tactic of privatisation is just an easy way of getting quick cash; if you can sell something for a good enough price, you’re going to get the money much quicker than if you persevered and waited for the profit (if there even is one) to add up. Take some examples that have come out recently: student loans debt, Royal Mail, blood plasma and, more recently, social services. Here we have a wide range of government-provided but publicly-funded services that are part of the majority of society’s everyday lives. These institutions arguably provide the backbone of UK stability and health, but the government is proposing to sell them off to possibly reckless profit-orientated major corporations.

The latter case, the idea of privatising the social services, is simply abhorrent. These services help the most vulnerable children in society, protecting them from harm and helping to enable themselves to get a better lifestyle. Whilst publicly run, this is exactly the kind of service the government should be funding and providing; a government should be concerned about the welfare of its paying citizens and working on behalf of its citizens. To grant this service to a major corporation is to ignore the fact that most companies have a primary interest in raising as much money as they can as quickly as they can. As long as they provide a legally compliant service, that’s as high as they will aim, whilst asking for extortionate price. We are only able to hope that, if the sale does indeed go ahead, that the resulting managers of the social services aren’t of detriment to those who desperately need them.

This isn’t just a made-up negative judgement; it’s fact. We saw earlier this week how security companies such as Serco and G4S have been overcharging the government and, thus, the public for the installation and monitoring of security tags on offenders. Our train providers are among the most expensive in Europe. And, there’s the ever-growing problem of companies moving abroad to rake in cheap labour, destroying jobs back in the UK. In a capitalist economy, it should come as no surprise that corporations only exist to make as much money off their consumer as they can get away with. They may not even care how their services are used, only that they are gaining some money in the process. Take for example, the reports that Palestinian children are being held and, allegedly, tortured, in G4S prisons in Israel. They claim they are not breaking “international law” but surely their actions are still immoral.

But this description can surely be applied to the Tory government too. Their strategy of making cuts and selling companies is simply a way of getting as much money back as they can almost ignoring the detrimental side-effects it may have on society. Meanwhile, they will report that borrowing has fallen, the deficit has fallen, and the Government is recovering the UK’s economy. Is this really the case or just an illusion?

Prime Minister's Questions - 26th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions was dominated by questions on infrastructure, with members eagerly awaiting the Spending Review to be delivered by the Chancellor immediately after the scrutiny session. Miliband seemed in his element today as he attacked the Government for their poor record on delivering their promises on infrastructure, highlighting that only 7 of 756 infrastructure projects have been completed under this government, and 5 of those were started under Labour. Cameron tried to deflect the argument by questioning Labour’s record in their 13 years of power, to which Miliband easily answered that there 3700 rebuilt schools, 1000 new hospitals and 3500 new children’s centres. Cameron returned to his usual defence and stated that it was because of this that the country was in this “mess”. According to the Prime Minister, half of the population think Miliband belongs in Sesame Street rather than Downing Street. Serious concerns over the alleged bugging of the friends and family of Stephen Lawrence by police were raised by a Labour MP, with a positive response from the Prime Minister that two independent inquiries had been set up by the Home Secretary to investigate and that no additional oppositions were ruled out. Labour were attacked for the conflicting reports from Miliband and Balls about their commitments in regard to borrowing, with both contradicting each other. The session only served to prove that neither of the main parties are prepared to commit to further investment if elected in 2015.