It’s an easy way to move VIPs, security details, catering, briefing rooms etc around the world to where you want them.

more true in 1921 than 2021

I once attended a conference in the HMS queen elizabeth’s hangar – certainly a great way to provide a secure area and project soft power. Whilst not quite the same scale I see how they can come up with this.

I’m not against the idea providing it’s built by British shipbuilding, who desperately need constant work to maintain staffing levels. The cynic in me wonders if that if tendered and designed relatively quickly (i.e an adaption of an existing hull design), it would tide over a commercial yard like cammel laird until the FSS auxiliaries start construction in the mid 20’s.

I imagine it’ll never actually be used by the royals for pleasure cruises – that spin is probably to appeal to old tory voters.

The main problem is given the UK’s history of naval procurement, I’d be amazed if it actually comes in on budget.

Ah, once again proud and strong Great Britian stands united to steam forwards at full ahead into the 1950’s.

The rest of the world have moved on, we haven’t……..

The rest of the world is apparently fascinated by the Royal family and an invitation on board is in effect the same as an invite to Buckingham Palace. The old Royal Yacht paid for itself many, many, many times over in the trade deals etc that were struck on board. Delivering a version of “Buck House” to various places has enormous value and none of the difficulties of hosting the guests at the real palace.  Whether or not the new one would carry the same kudos remains to be seen but it would be worth a shot IMO. 🤷‍♂️

SO, bascially our actual trade offering is soo bad we have to bribe other countries into doing business with us. Sounds like a good long term solution to me.

The rest of the world is apparently fascinated by the Royal family

According to who? It’s certainly fascinating that in the 21st century an advanced nation should still have feudal structures which most other advance countries abandoned long ago, but I suspect that’s not what you meant.

I don’t have any serious misgivings about the proposed new Royal Yacht other than it’s backed by Boris Johnson, a man who is known to favour grandeur attention-seeking vanity projects such as the farcical London Garden Bridge or the ludicrously expensive London Routemaster buses.

Maybe I need educating but I can’t see why an unarmed Royal Yacht which could possibly provide a floating conference centre/trade mission in various parts of the world is such a bad idea.

It certainly appeals more to me than the 2 mindbogglingly expensive aircraft carriers ordered by a Labour government. Aircraft carriers have nothing to do with the defence of the UK and everything to do with launching military strikes and wars against distant faraway countries.

If the 2 aircraft carriers are the Tony Blair’s legacy and the Royal Yacht is Johnson’s legacy, I know which one I prefer.

Ah, once again proud and strong Great Britian stands united to steam forwards at full ahead into the 1950’s.✓

HMS Carrie Celeste *

*Not my joke, I saw it on Twitter

It’s an easy way to move VIPs, security details, catering, briefing rooms etc around the world to where you want them.

As long as “where you want them” is a port, and you don’t mind it taking weeks for them to get there. Moving VIPs by ship is just not going to happen, not even once.

I’m I the only one thinking…

The old Royal Yacht paid for itself many, many, many times over in the trade deals etc that were struck on board.

To make a statement like that wouldn’t you need to be able to show that those deals definitely wouldn’t have happened without the massive fancy boat?

Is the estimate of £200m a bit “optimistic”?

Given recent purchases of naval/military shipbuilding, yes. Probably by a factor of two. If the government says 200mil, I would expect it to be built late and costing nearer 400.

And yes, no one apart from staff will travel on it long distance if it is built. It would be far, far easier to fly the VIPs to the destination, then get them to stay on it for the duration. I don’t think even Johnson would want to spend weeks on a boat getting to some place like China.

I can see it in my mind’s eye now:

C-team royals being made to Bob about the oceans a decade or so from now, the disappointed look on some far flung trade secretary’s face, having travelled hours from his nation’s capital (with its international airport) to meet a real life British Royal only to be faced with Beatrice…

It’s another little bit of vapid, jingoistic fluff to keep the core voters happy. It doesn’t matter if it gets built or not, it’s an empty and irrelevant promise to people who don’t actually know what they want, but know that if it pisses off lefty’s and/or remoaners they’re definitely in favour…

TBH, Boris seems almost bulletproof at the moment. He could announce the UK was going to have the first real life ‘Running man’ game show tomorrow and I think it would only raise a light murmer of disapproval, while the sweaty masses got all flustered making sure they’re clear on the phone voting rules…

igm
Full Member

I’m I the only one thinking…

The bridge especially, and of course Ferguson’s do have 2 to get rid of…..

To make a statement like that wouldn’t you need to be able to show that those deals definitely wouldn’t have happened without the massive fancy boat?

The deals would probably have happened anyway but may well have taken a lot longer to come to fruition. Whether or not that is a good enough reason to have a “fancy boat” is obviously a matter for some debate!

Below taken from the minutes of one such debate in Westminster in 2016…

Britannia was decommissioned in 1997 after more than 40 years in service. She conducted 968 official visits and clocked up more than a million miles at sea. In her later years—between 1991 and 1995—she is estimated to have brought £3 billion of commercial trade deals to our country. In 1993, on one trip to India alone, £1.3 billion of trade deals were signed. It is acknowledged that those deals would have been signed in any event, but the presence of Britannia sped up the negotiations from years to days. To put that into the context of the renewal and running of a royal yacht, the deal signed on that one trip would have paid for a royal yacht in its entirety and its annual running costs for 100 years.

And that information came from the government, right? The same people that have been scrupulously honest in their communications to the people of the UK for years, right?

if all you need is a big fancy yacht to close a deal just charter one for a week.

The next time I’m going to buy a car I’m going in a boat.

if that concept is anything to go by it’s so **** dull and backward looking, like a reimagined rover p5 yeah 1955 calling. Why not a real Yacht?

Why not a real Yacht?

More complex (it’d still have big engines), slower and pretty crap for entertaining in comparison (those masts and sails get in the way of the big windows)

I don’t think even Johnson would want to spend weeks on a boat getting to some place like China.

It’s probably actually a fortnights trip. I’d expect the ship to do with modern engines about 25knts, which is 600 nautical miles per day, and just under 6000 nautical miles UK to China, with 2 stops to take on fuel.
Fortnight cruising in the lap of luxury 😕 Im more than sure tory boris would go for that over a 10 hour flight.

minutes of one such debate in Westminster in 2016…

the deal signed on that one trip would have paid for a royal yacht in its entirety and its annual running costs for 100 years

… conveniently neglecting that the value of the deals is in turnover, not profit, and that any profit would belong to the company doing the deal, not the taxpayer paying for the yacht.

The high class escorts of London will be popping the champagne tonight. The Tory party boat should be a guaranteed payday for them.

The main problem is given the UK’s history of naval procurement, I’d be amazed if it actually comes in on budget.

Well certainly if Boris’ missus has anything to do with chosing the interior and how it would survive a dozen or so pissed-up foreign dignitaries on a trip around the bay in sea-state 6 or above.

The crazy thing is, the whole idea is some completely outdated notion dreamt up by old duffers in blazers who believe that pressing the flesh with some foreign government official is enough for them to whip out their chequebooks.

It’s a small (and relatively inexpensive) part of a spin/national advertising/influence campaign, call it what you will. At one end there’s Learning Time with Timmy on Netflix from the British Council, through foreign aid, to military training teams. Having a boat as a tangible centrepiece to the diplomatic campaign is a nice touch – and a practical one.

Compare it to America’s swarms of Secret Service taking over whole areas around VIP visits and think which one would put you in a more friendly state of mind.

I don’t like Boris, I don’t trust government contracts in general – but I still think it’s a good idea.

The crazy thing is, the whole idea is some completely outdated notion dreamt up by old duffers in blazers who believe that pressing the flesh with some foreign government official is enough for them to whip out their chequebooks.

Ah but smoozing/bribing with their old schoolmates 🙁

Dunno what’s more embarrassing, this utter nonsense and the thought anyone will be impressed by it – it looks like something Calmac would sell ye a bacon roll on – or grown men debating what silly wee jingoistic hankie should be on it!! 😂😂😂

How much does a boat like that cost to run, annually?

The upfront cost of the boat is probably not that great when compared to the ongoing annual costs of running it over its lifetime.

I struggle to see how much influence a boat can have over securing some kind of deal for the country, so to me it looks just like another expensive vanity project.

Good point Stumpy. There was a thread on here where someone had inherited a boat. The consensus was get rid if you value your credit rating wasn’t it.

Are bigger boats cheaper to run?

or grown men debating what silly wee jingoistic hankie should be on it!! 😂😂😂

I missed that debate but if you want a laugh have a look at the link below, you will wet yourself.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/17/dominic-cummings-britain-defence-spending-mod

I wanted to copy and paste the funniest bit but there was too much to choose from. “Unaffordable vulnerable metal cans” was an early candidate.

^^ That article is 18 months old and still true.

Although the problem with defence procurement, a bit like IT, is it takes so long in the planning stage to decide what you want to buy, put it out to tender, get it designed and built etc that by the time it’s actually operational, it’s already 20 years out of date and needs a load of urgent updates or you’re running around in something largely obsolete for the next 30 years.

With an aircraft carrier, that problem is magnified several-fold because you’ve spent the last 20 years planning your navy around it/them.

Best thing to do with Brittania (and the aircraft carriers) is to fit a load of ocean clean-up stuff into them. At least that way while they’re poncing around doing not a lot, they can remove some plastic pollution from the sea!

And what about the carbon footprint of this floating hot tub?.

It’s got more than a whiff of White Elephant to me.

It seem the Royals, wisely, don’t want to be associated with it, even if that won’t stop the tabloids, especially given, well, politely 95 year old people don’t usually order expensive things that will take 4-6 years to build. They’ll be shown as wasteful, greedy toffs if they use it, and wasteful, greedy toffs if they ‘leave it to gather dust’ in port.

I get the whole smoozing foreign diplomats and leaders thing, but does that much any sense in 2025? So you’ve got the Japanese Prime Minister on the Yacht Tokyo Bay, get a few drinks into him and he’s putty in your hands, great and then the next day when you’re discussing trade you’ve got their top negotiators tearing you to bits because international relations are ruthless, brutal things.

certainly a great way to provide a secure area and project soft power

However Brexit is a great way to project ignorance and blundering incompetence – I’m not sure a boat will be enough to offset that.

I remember watching a documentary on the Flying Scotsman. Some guy bought it and had it shipped over to the USA and toured there to promote British trade in the 70’s. For the first year it went fine but the second year he ended up going bust and it was stuck over in the States.

It looked like a mobile gin palace. Wonder if this is going to have a similar sort of vibe?

Daily Mash nails it again for me…
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/im-95-years-old-fk-off-out-of-it-with-your-royal-yacht-20210601208734

The design plans are in and have been approved…
.
.
.
.
.
.

Leaving aside the Royal family argument, that is a nice looking boat.

The design plans are in and have been approved…

Extra £100m right there

Raab insists that a touring trade yacht will ‘expand our influence and reach overseas’ and provide ‘soft power prestige’… much like wandering around with a 1970s hostess trolley offering people luke warm, stale sausage rolls.
Embarrassing bullshit.

— sarah murphy (@13sarahmurphy) July 29, 2021

and it’s already £50m overbudget