202
King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
202 points (97.2% liked)
UK Politics
3066 readers
127 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Firstly, they're hardly a cornerstone. There's more than just one reason to go on holiday around the UK. People could still go to Buckingham palace. The biggest scroungers in the country just wouldn't live there on taxpayer money anymore.
Secondly, tourism is hardly the "critical" part of our economy. The finance industry is critical, as if we lost that we'd be genuinely fucked. But tourism? No. It's more beneficial for seaside towns, which don't exactly have the royals as an attraction. But if tourism in London, the wealthiest of all the cities in the UK, of all place, slows down a bit (which it wouldn't - people still go to France after all) then that would be a blip compared to other parts of the economy.