this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
56 points (95.2% liked)

UK Politics

3063 readers
178 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tweak@feddit.uk 31 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The modernisation of the royal palace has long been used to justify increases in the sovereign grant, which was just £31m when it was first introduced in 2012-2013. Under a “golden ratchet” clause in the Sovereign Grant Act, the amount of money handed to the monarch can never fall, even if the crown estate’s profits decrease.

A Treasury spokesperson said: “The grant has been largely unchanged since 2020 and this temporary increase covers the remainder of the Buckingham Palace refurbishment. We will review the grant in 2026, expecting to bring it back down in 2027.”

How can they bring it down in 2027 when there's this golden ratchet clause that says it never goes down?

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

As I understand it. The clause is based on as a % of the income from the crown estates.

And as all income from the estates has been given to the government since Charles III. In exchange for the sovereign grant. With the fact that that grant is used to maintain the palaces.

It not being below 12% of the money earned from the land. Is hardly an onerous rule.

How many other land owning corperations pay a maximum of 88% tax and survive. Would be very different if the government was expected to fund maintainance from the non grant part.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

it's worth noting that the crown estate is exempt from a lot of maintainence requirements normally imposed by law on normal landlords.

As i found out when the freehold for my flats building was in danger of falling into the crown estate portfolio.

How many other land owning corporations arent required to maintain the buildings they lease out?

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 8 months ago

Nods lots of dodgy stuff. But that is why I think it is very important to be accurate.

When folks refer to it as public land. And tax payer money. They are helping the royal family hide 8its power and wealth.