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.

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

Photo © 2009 Arthur Picton

A 99p store in Wrexham had to call in police backup when their store was bombarded with shoppers seeking to make the most out of a rare half price sale at the bargain store. People will laugh and cry ‘what is this world coming to?’ but the sad reality is that, in these times of austerity, for some any chance of a saving cannot be missed.

With the shop’s lease expected to come to an end on January 28th, the store had made the decision to mark down all products to fifty pence, causing a surge in customers. However, following last-minute negotiations, the lease was extended and managers made the decision to return products to their normal prices. Stupidly, the management put this into effect in the middle of their opening hours, doubling their prices at midday, and understandably angering customers who had been queuing for nearly two hours.

When people are willingly squeezing themselves into a shop that has already exceeded its maximum safe capacity in order to get their hands on doubly discounted goods, it’s hard to disagree that something has gone wrong. It is far from the fault of the shopper, however. The Government’s programme of austerity is forcing people into harsh economic difficulties, resulting in the need to look for the cheapest way of financing their lives. If that means forcing yourself into an overcrowded shop, well, desperate times call for desperate measures. Anything that makes the money last a bit longer is something that should be pursued.

Besides, it was a poor decision by the store’s management to decide to increase their prices in the middle of the day. It’s logical, for any customer, that if your shopping doubles in price from the moment you pick it up from the shelf to the moment it passes by the till scanner, then you’re going to be angry. You’ll feel cheated and lied to – your ten pound shop has suddenly become twenty pounds. This sale has been advertised for days and yet, after battling with other customers and patiently queuing for an inhuman amount of time, you’re being told that the terms have changed. I find it completely incomprehensible that any person could go through that situation and not be enraged.

So, what is this world coming to? A financially squeezed population trying to be economically sensible and save every penny they can, whilst the Government continues to make their situations harder and shop managers are solely concerned about how much money they make in a day. I think it’s pretty obvious what’s not right about this state of affairs.

Switzerland Begins Assault on Excessive Pay

Photo by 1:12 Initiative for Fair Play

Switzerland are to vote in a referendum on whether to cap pay ratios in organisations at 12:1. This is in addition to previously passed legislation that reduces the number of bonuses granted to senior executives. What we see here is nothing less than a sensible progressive policy.

Instigated by the Swiss Young Socialists, the referendum is a direct result of a petition that gained the support of over 100,000 people. This tremendous declaration of public agreement demonstrates widespread satisfaction with what is increasingly becoming the acceptable status quo: greedy capitalist executives taking more than their fair share. In this sense, Switzerland is leading the way in effectively challenging a system that allows a greedy few to get more, more, more. This is not an unreasonable or unfeasible demand. As Europeans continue to be stifled by austerity measures, we should continue to seek opportunities to garner funds that will help our Government's to make it easier for people to live.

The situation seems even less nonsensical when you put it in terms of statistics. To introduce a pay ratio of 12:1 in the UK would be to set a maximum salary of around £148,000. That's hardly on the brink of an austere budget. Currently, it's more than the Prime Minister's base salary - if the person who, arguably, has the hardest job in the country can only be paid £140,000, it makes no sense that people who do less difficult and liable jobs earn so much more. I'd welcome some reasoning as to why CEOs and footballers can earn eight-figure salaries. Furthermore, what does that money pay for?

Additionally, the maximum wage would be in comparison to a worker paid only the minimum wage of £6.31, for 37.5 hours work a week. It's now widely believed that, in a society where the rate of inflation increases faster than wages, this wage is no longer enough for people to get by healthily or comfortably. What we must see introduced is a living wage: a wage that fluctuates with the economy, so that no person is ever stuck on a wage that becomes more and more difficult to support a life with. When you live in a society where people are no longer able to afford the bare basics, it seems ludicrous that some people would be outraged at the idea that they might only earn ten times more than their lowest-paid measly employee.

However, the situation looks even worse when you look at what the money can afford, rather than just the pay ratios. For example, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham earns around £372,000 this year, along with some other 'perks' that come with the job. That's only a meagre £7000 a week; incidentally, enough in a month to pay off the cost of a three-year degree course (even with the increased £9000 fees that he recommended were introduced). But to add salt to the wound, in two weeks the Vice-Chancellor earns more money than his lowest-paid employee does in a year. 

It is for this reason that what Switzerland is doing is highly commendable. If this is how much someone earning less than half a million a year can afford, imagine what the CEOs can pay for on a daily basis. We must tackle this deeply unfair equality and find some way for that money to be put to a better use, like increasing the wages of the lowest-paid.