6 ms·

The claim of income from tourism is wrong: https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism (At least if you believe the figures from Vi

• OJFord 4y ago
  I said ignoring that, largely because I didn't want to cause an argument about the value of it. That said, it seems silly to argue it brings no tourism whatsoever, and indeed the page you linked doesn't - it claims £500M, which it (fairly enough) goes on to say is negligible in the scheme of UK total tourism revenue and economy. But that's not the point is it - when people make the claim it says is wrong, or certainly for the point I was making (again which I think tourism can be ignored for anyway) it's about expense vs. revenue from the royal family, i.e. whether there's net income - because if there is then it seems a futile argument for republicans to say they 'cost too much' - not whether or not that income is large enough to put a meaningful dent in GDP.
  • Symbiote 4y ago
    The linked page says Visit Britain claimed £500M, but couldn't justify those figures, and has internal documents showing tourism reduced for previous large royal events. I don't much care about the costs, but it is a good demonstration of how opaque this part of government is.