Things that cost €30 million

later12

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And what better way to keep it like that than to invite their head of state over every once and a while for a knees up and a gawp at our castles?

I'm sure no reasonable person has a problem with that, but it is quite unreasonable to say that such a visit is welcome at any cost. How much is too much? €30m? €40m? €60m? what?

I would suggest that the evidence of a positive effect is lacking, and that the money could be spent elsewhere, to good effect. Such as going towards business start ups. Or tourism campaigns that doesn't include unemployed hooligans throwing stones. Why not triple the internships mentioned in the first post and help to get those hooligans off the streets instead?

Onikage

Deleted User wrote: »

Totally different - our no 1 tourists are the British, for 30 years all they heard on tv about Ireland was bombings and shootings with bombs in their cities too.

I was once asked by a chinese girl if Ireland was a "terrorist country". I jokingly said yes but quickly realised she was deadly serious. So, this is how we are perceived from abroad. Why not show we can play nice? Challenge potential tourists perceptions.

dvpower

later10 wrote: »

What? I am asking for evidence. No evidence of a financial benefit has been supplied anywhere. It would be rather foolish to accept a benefit without evidence.

Tourism Ireland estimate the advertising value to be €150m
http://www.businessandleadership.com/marketing/item/30080-tourism-ireland-looks-to-ca/

Welease

later10 wrote: »

How do you know the protests won't? Why do we want to risk this?

For symbolism, they all cried in unison.

So we should never do anything in case some idiots cause problem??? gotcha...

If they do.. then we might look bad.. and more people might lose their jobs.. that's the way the world works..

It's nothing to do with symbolism.. this is just another pointless thread.. If you actually have an economic point to make.. then make it..

later12

dvpower wrote: »

Tourism Ireland estimate the advertising value to be €150m
http://www.businessandleadership.com/marketing/item/30080-tourism-ireland-looks-to-ca/

Yes that's a curious story, since it seems to involve their taking out advertising, as opposed to any natural inflow following on from the trip.

Online ads targeting the Irish diaspora will run on key websites including IrishCentral.com. Full-page ads in Irish-related publications such as Irish Echo and Irish America will be supported by advertorials with literary and genealogy themes.

Certainly we should (and it is the govt's intention) to widen the scope for genealogical research and US and international interest in Irish roots, but where the Queen comes into this is very muddied, it seems.

later12

Welease wrote: »

So we should never do anything in case some idiots cause problem??? gotcha...

You clearly have no interest in looking at this logically or examining the evidence. Yes I want to abolish tourism and cut off our links with the outside world and never "do anything". You are, as always 100% correct, welease. There you go.

Welease

later10 wrote: »

You clearly have no interest in looking at this logically or examining the evidence. Yes I want to abolish tourism and cut off our links with the outside world and never "do anything". You are, as always 100% correct, welease. There you go.

Examing what evidence?, you have provided none...

You have been shown how much British tourism is worth, you have been shown the recent declines and what that cost the economy, you have been shown how people believe it will effect us... a report was linked to (but I havent read)..

What evidence have you actually provided?

GSF

So again this €30m cost. Its for 4 events isn't it?

And the cost is mainly overtime to the guards. So that would be taxed at nearly 50% so the net cost would be €15m to the state assuming no multilplier effect from the guards spending their o/t.

Tourism Ireland estimate we are getting free advertising worth €150m alone before the return from that advertising in additional visitors.

Seems like a no-brainer really.

GSF

Onikage wrote: »

I was once asked by a chinese girl if Ireland was a "terrorist country". I jokingly said yes but quickly realised she was deadly serious. So, this is how we are perceived from abroad. Why not show we can play nice? Challenge potential tourists perceptions.

Every time I'm in the UK or the US meeting people through workwith no Irish background in their family, you quickly become aware of how little people know about Ireland in general.

It shouldnt really surprise me though. I know very little about say Costa Rica or Norway.

later12

GSF wrote: »

And the cost is mainly overtime to the guards. So that would be taxed at nearly 50% so the net cost would be €15m to the state assuming no multilplier effect from the guards spending their o/t.

That's not really a logical nor an efficient approach to spending. With that line of thinking we would just distribute money from helicopters. Money has to be distributed efficiently and with a logical basis for a return on that money.

At a time when we are borrowing to such a grave extent, we must examine our spending. This trip sounds like a relic of some sort of celtic tiger excess. Why not put this money into jobs funding, like other apparently similarly wasteful projects?

Saruman

Apply Eurovision logic to this... yeah I said that

Eurovision costs Millions to put on but everyone wants to win because it is pure advertising for the country.

Know much about Azerbaijan? Ever thought to visit? Come next year they will spend Millions to put on a stupid song contest but the advertising for their country could well turn them in to not only a tourist destination for years to come, but an economic destination.

Forget the tourism value the Queen and Obamas visit will bring. It is the economic exposure we need and will get.

GSF

later10 wrote: »

Why not put this money into jobs funding, like other apparently similarly wasteful projects?

errrr what CREATES jobs.... let me guesss............ exports..... oh wait tourism is an export.......

sounds like a perfect subject for a post event cost/ benefit review. Perfect for an economics thesis. maybe the British council will sponsor it, if any economist wants to do it.

later12

Saruman wrote: »

Apply Eurovision logic to this... yeah I said that

The flaw in your logic is that the coverage of the Eurovision is always convivial and, apart from perhaps the rare occasion when the UK fails to supply us with 12 points, does not incite much controversy.

This visit is controversial. There is no evidence to suggest, at this moment, that its cost will bring about a return, nor that it will damage the tourist industry (lets wait and see the coverage and the protestors, first).

But why are people insisting that this will make us popular as a tourist destination (one poster saying it could increase our numbers from the UK by 25%...why???), or at least be revenue raising? Is there evidence? I would prefer if people simply admitted, where appropriate, that they enjoy the symbolism or the pomp. But please don't pretend there is evidence of an economic benefit if there is, in fact, none.

dvpower

later10 wrote: »

Yes that's a curious story, since it seems to involve their taking out advertising, as opposed to any natural inflow following on from the trip.
.

The €150m was a figure they put on the positive exposure. They intend to capitalise on this with their own advertising spend.

Saruman

later10 wrote: »

This visit is controversial.

Only to a very small minority of the population I would guess.

Locust

30million .... and how many 100's or whatever of millions would we lose in trade etc... if something happened to Liz whilst she was over here? I could certainly see the UK boycotting anything Irish.

later12

Saruman wrote: »

Only to a very small minority of the population I would guess.

Indeed; a small and a somewhat backward minority. Nevertheless, one with the potential to cause harm, and shock horror, even harm our image. Nobody wants a repeat of the Love Ulster fiasco, and I am sure we are all glad that it didn't feature a head of state, and even more glad that the major news networks were not around to cover it.

Again, everybody seems to have costed, and done a little dance around the figures proclaiming how much this will improve our image, and nobody seems to be counting the cost of it diminishing the image of Ireland as a secure and a well adjusted state - damage that, in monetary terms, is only too well known in Ulster.

OS119

later10 wrote: »

We have *excellent* diplomatic relations with Britain. To the point where we share embassy work, in some cases.

indeed we do - to the betterment of both sides (witness, for instance, the mutually supportive consular work involved in the Libyan evacuation) - however it would be difficult to describe the damage that would be done to that relationship if the visit were to be cancelled or curtailed because Ireland could not guarantee the safety of a visiting Head of State from its closest neighbour and largest trading partner.

these things can be kicked into the grass for a while, but at some stage this nettle is going to have to be grasped - otherwise people are going to ask if the 'sensitivity' is just a smokescreen for 'not a place where the governments writ actually runs'.... and then my friend, €30m is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the business Ireland will lose.

later12

OS119 wrote: »

these things can be kicked into the grass for a while, but at some stage this nettle is going to have to be grasped - otherwise people are going to ask if the 'sensitivity' is just a smokescreen for 'not a place where the governments writ actually runs'.... and then my friend, €30m is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the business Ireland will lose.

I don't actually believe that business operates on the basis of hurt feelings arising from the sovereigns travels.

Prince Charles once hunted with my local hunt when I was a kid down the country, drank in the local pub, and even brought a tear to john bruton's adoring eye. There have been other official visits before, including the far more relevant PMs on both sides and members of the royal family. So no, I don't think this is a big deal, but I do think it is a waste of money that could be applied very usefully elsewhere.

I'm sure the unemployed watching the state visit in their weary sitting rooms, desperate for work, would rather it was spent elsewhere as well.

OS119

later10 wrote: »

...and nobody seems to be counting the cost of it diminishing the image of Ireland as a secure and a well adjusted state....

sorry, you fundamentally don't get it, if the Head of State of Irelands closest neighbour and largest trading partner can't visit Ireland at the invitation of the Irish govenment because Ireland either can't guarantee her safety or can't afford that security, then Ireland is not a 'secure and well-adjusted state'.

Ireland will be Somalia with crap weather.

later12

OS119 wrote: »

Ireland will be Somalia

sweet jesus.

swampgas

To quote Oscar Wilde:
"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

The value of a well run visit by the Queen (or a US President) to Ireland is significant on many levels, athough the Queen's visit has much greater political symbolism.

Quibbling about the security cost seems (IMO) to miss the bigger picture.

later12

swampgas wrote: »

To quote Oscar Wilde:
"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

The value of a well run visit by the Queen (or a US President) to Ireland is significant on many levels, athough the Queen's visit has much greater political symbolism.

Quibbling about the security cost seems (IMO) to miss the bigger picture.

That's fair enough, but with respect I started this thread to discuss money. Not particularly vulgar of me, since it is the Irish Economy forum not the Politics or Humanities forums. That's why I asked that symbolism be left aside (on both sides) and we examine this visit for its supporting logical basis -- or lack thereof.

Out of interest, do you put a price on symbolism, or is symbolism worth blank cheques? At what point would the cost of symbolism go over its value? €40m? €60m? €100m?

RichardAnd

We could do alot with 30 million but, given the circumstances, we might be best served by not spending it at all?

later12

By the way, just to get back to this issue of the value of €30m.

We have become so used to speaking in terms of billions, rather ironically for a country which finds itself in a fiscal crisis, that we may have lost sight of the magnitude of our expenses.

I will use my wages as an example. I earn a very average industrial wage sort of salary. I pay €130 per month on the dreaded Universal Social Charge. For many people on my wage, this generally might mean moving to a cheaper apartment, delaying a wedding, or not holidaying abroad, to make the budgetary correction in our personal finances. But I'm a single bloke in my 20s. For many others it is more serious, meaning mortgage and debt pressures, or possibly arrears.

On that USC, with whose effects so many people on a similar wage struggle, it would take me 19,000 years to pay off the cost of Queen Elizabeth's visit. If I were to spend every cent of my wages to pay it off, in gross terms, it would take me between 900 and 1000 years.

When we talk in billions and millions, lets not forget the struggle that working people - but especially families - have to go through to contribute those millions and those billions.

I invite you all to calculate how long it would take you to pay off this security bill.

Mad_Max

Is it fair to assume that the majority of this 30 million is actually been spent in our economy? Pay for the security personnel, equipment etc.

If so, then it's got to be considered a net gain for the country with all the exposure we'll get. The first royal visit, and Obama visiting his ancestral roots. They aren't normal heads of state stop offs.

swampgas

later10 wrote: »

That's fair enough, but with respect I started this thread to discuss money. Not particularly vulgar of me, since it is the Irish Economy forum not the Politics or Humanities forums. That's why I asked that symbolism be left aside (on both sides) and we examine this visit for its supporting logical basis -- or lack thereof.

Fair enough.

Out of interest, do you put a price on symbolism, or is symbolism worth blank cheques? At what point would the cost of symbolism go over its value? €40m? €60m? €100m?

I honestly couldn't put a figure on it. I would assume (naively, perhaps) that providing security for a visiting head of state wouldn't make much difference to the state of the country's finances.

Given the significance of the visit, I would be approaching it from the view that security needs to be provided at the lowest cost possible, rather than looking at cancelling the visit based on some kind of opportunity cost analysis.

Personally I look at it as money spent supporting the long term strategic interests of the state, I don't think measuring the cost of the visit in hospital beds or extra teachers to be all that useful.

Can I ask you, perhaps, what you think a reasonable figure would be?

later12

Mad_Max wrote: »

If so, then it's got to be considered a net gain for the country with all the exposure we'll get.

Leaving aside the aspect that has already been dealt with, I presume your hypothesis relies on 100% positive exposure? And even then, I don't really buy into the notion that the tourists of the world are going to come here in their droves to congratulate us for not blowing up the Queen of England.

It's supposed to be taken for granted that we don't go around exploding little old ladies.

later12

swampgas wrote: »

I honestly couldn't put a figure on it. I would assume (naively, perhaps) that providing security for a visiting head of state wouldn't make much difference to the state of the country's finances.

That's not necessarily the point, it makes a difference to individuals because they are the ones struggling to come up with these sums of money. It makes a difference to the unemployed, who could enjoy a tripling of the jobs initiative internship programme this year with this money.

Can I ask you, perhaps, what you think a reasonable figure would be?

I'm not the man to ask, I think I must have a heart of stone because this symbolism notion doesn't do anything for me. The working reality is that our states, more importantly, its peoples, are friends. That is how things are, and next week won't change it a damn.

swampgas

later10 wrote: »

[ ... ]

On that USC, with whose effects so many people on a similar wage struggle, it would take me 19,000 years to pay off the cost of Queen Elizabeth's visit. If I were to spend every cent of my wages to pay it off, in gross terms, it would take me between 900 and 1000 years.

When we talk in billions and millions, lets not forget the struggle that working people - but especially families - have to go through to contribute those millions and those billions.

I invite you all to calculate how long it would take you to pay off this security bill.

I agree with you on the millions/billions. It's unnerving how three order of magnitude don't seem to register with so many people.

However would it not make more sense to calculate the cost per capita? A state visit is intended to benefit the state, the cost of the visit is borne by the state. Perhaps a cost per head, or per taxpayer, would give a better perspective?