Thread: A Chinese Firsale - A exercise in lateral thinking - humerous

I was lying in the bath musing about how we Brits are going to get ourselves out of the mire debt wise.
A recession is looming and in order to reflate we are going to have to spend money, which we haven’t got and should not borrow. But where is it to come from ? Obviously we are going to have to sell something priceless to the Chinese who have got all the money and don’t know what to do with it.
We have already sold MG to a Chinese company.
We missed out on selling Hong Kong. They reckoned it was on lease from them already and we couldn’t really argue at the time.

What else is about which the Chinese can’t copy and for which they might pay a premium price?
It will have to be something else which is typically British - perhaps even English - preferably a fixed asset, the actual ownership of which won’t matter to the English, because they can still use it.

There are precedents in the past.
We gave the thirteen colonies to the Americans
We’ve sold Rolls Royce Motors, Bentley and the Mini to the Germans.
We’ve sold the Severn Bridges to the French
We’ve sold Cadburys to Swiss Nestle.
We’ve sold Rover to the Indians
We’ve sold the odd castle to Dutch Millionaires
In fact in the past we have sold anything not screwed down which we can assign a legal title to.

Say we started to think about fixed assets!

I suggest the obvious , the Royal Mint in Llantrisant- they have more use for it than we do.
Then how about:
Hampton Court Palace as the British residence for the Chinese Premier when he‘s on a trip to Europe.
Tower Bridge- as a brand image its superb - we could let them keep the toll fees.
The Tower - it would make a fantastic Chinese restaurant in the centre of London.
Oxford University to teach the 1.3 billion Chinese how to speak English.
The Isle of Wight to set up a European entrepot port and to spy on the ships of the competition
(ie those Sth Koreans) sailing up the Channel.
One redundant aircraft carrier, a dozen outdated Harriers and numerous destroyers to keep it safe
A new as yet unfinished aircraft carrier. They could have the latest model.
British Gas and all its supply contracts, they need power.
Britain’s half ownership of Shell and all its crude oil contracts. They need Oil
The Tin mines of Cornwall (they could be a penal colony). Copper is short.
British Airways and Luton airport. They could buy an airline instead of airplanes.

Then, as a sales incentive, we could show them around the museums in Kensington to see if there is anything on display which should be in Beijing. (Sorry The Elgin Marbles are Greek)

The mind boggles. We are rich.
We need the dosh - ASAP

Any of the readers got a suggestion to add to the list: ???????

(Sorry Guys, I was feeling flippant - The FTSE is back to 5000)

.

What about offering the Royal family on lease?

I don't think we should part with it permanently.

The Courtjester

A lease wouldn't float because the Royal family is completely useless. Your best bet is to put the Queen on consignment with a taxidermist. There are always new families looking for something special to mount over the fireplace in their first home. And it's win-win! If the taxidermist is honest, you should receive a check in the mail; even if he is not honest and pockets all the money from the sale, you will no longer have to shoulder the burden of supporting the old bat in the opulence to which she is unjustifiably accustomed.

The RF doesn't fit the criteria. It is not a fixed asset

Originally Posted by Edgewise

A lease wouldn't float because the Royal family is completely useless. Your best bet is to put the Queen on consignment with a taxidermist. There are always new families looking for something special to mount over the fireplace in their first home. And it's win-win! If the taxidermist is honest, you should receive a check in the mail; even if he is not honest and pockets all the money from the sale, you will no longer have to shoulder the burden of supporting the old bat in the opulence to which she is unjustifiably accustomed.

I much prefer the royals to the alternative of having a president as the UK's figurehead... the horrors of David Cameron or Tony Blaire being presidents... *shudders*

The Royals are a major tourist industry for the British, especially since Beckham moved to the USA and nobody there can name you another footy player from Europe.

What you need is better licensing!

Hm, well - yes ...

Well, I can think of several other British soccer players who I am sure could bring a little sparkle into US soccer.

DB is a mild flavour, some of the others will remind you guys of Hot Mexican chilli.

But nobody has any clue who they are, and it's the cult of personality that sells here.

What you need is to convert some of your Rugby props into linebackers and have them come over and tear some heads off in the NFL. Then you'd have some more sports royalty over here.

Rugby and NFL have one thing in common - an oval ball. There the similarity ends.

But soccer could become a major sport in the US. We've got a few clubs who can't seem to make it in the Euro game - maybe you guys could start with them
Base them in a state with a reasonable climate - say Virginia and I'd reckon the team would be pleased to visit and stay.

Originally Posted by InsanityStrickenWriter

I much prefer the royals to the alternative of having a president as the UK's figurehead... the horrors of David Cameron or Tony Blaire being presidents... *shudders*

Prime Ministers represent the government of the UK to a greater extent than a US President represents the American government; the party of the President does not necessarily control either the Senate or the House, whereas a Prime Minister usually enjoys almost total control of the Commons through the majority party of which he is a member. Although the Sovereign is nominally your head of state, the PM is the de facto face of the UK as the most recognizable personage in the most current government.

It strikes me as odd and anachronistic that the symbol of your countries soul is a vestige of fuedalism, when "nobility" of blood and birth was considered a more important requisite to leadership than the ability to actually lead, especially since the UK is so thoroughly modern in every other way. Although I suppose it's not too serious considering the Queen is only a walking, talking, bejeweled rubber stamp.

Originally Posted by Edgewise

It strikes me as odd and anachronistic that the symbol of your countries soul is a vestige of fuedalism, when "nobility" of blood and birth was considered a more important requisite to leadership than the ability to actually lead, especially since the UK is so thoroughly modern in every other way. Although I suppose it's not too serious considering the Queen is only a walking, talking, bejeweled rubber stamp.

It is in a politican's nature to divide oppinion, so it seems odd that such a person ought to be seen as a nation's figurehead. Generally, the winning party of the election only gathers about 35% of the vote, many of those votes simply being for the lesser of the evils. Should a man with 35% of the vote be at the top of the pile? There's also the matter of power and celebrity. I'd much rather have the Queen, a woman who has very little actual power, worshipped than a prime minister/president, a person capable of turning society upside down.

Edit: Also note that a great deal of politicans, in fact the vast majority, are completely despised by the public.

How about shipping all the unwanted dogs and cats over there? Save us looking after them and give the Chinese a delicacy boost.

Probably the best thing we can do is invent a whole load of new brands and flog em quick before they notice its just a set of daft names with no real value.

ie. Spendthrift, the new personality disorder, ideal for those quiet moments when you cant think of anything to do.