On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
Also, given London is usually pretty full of tourists, the gain will be that much more marginal.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
I didn't. Inflation is always higher than you think (in the stats) but always lower in reality, strangely.
It's a lagging indicator the calculations for which are rather contrived.
I'm not worried.
The reporting of inflation figures really pisses me off
They say that, because inflation is still over 10%, prices are still going up
Ignoring the fact that ever since prices shot up by 10% over a couple of months, inflation is then baked in at around 10% for the following year, unless prices actually fall again during that year
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
The difference between 9.9% and 10.1% is surely irrelevant. A slightly differnet basket of goods would be at 9.9% and the media reaction would then be quite different. Weird to me.
Psychologically it makes a big difference. The longer inflation is over 10% the more embedded and “normal” that becomes.
It really should fall below 10% next month as the big April 2022 energy rises will drop out then.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
We could also pay the Premier League around £100m free cash, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There would be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up boosting the economy and getting TV coverage.
Neither the Premier League nor the Royal Family have any particular need for the £100m and the tourists and TV will come with or without such payment.
The Premier League doesn’t attract much tourism at all, and top flight football is rich enough to pay for their own policing in many cases.
The money isn’t going to the royal household, most of it is for security and other staff working, facilities for the crowd, and cleaning up afterwards. The two biggest recipients of it, will be Met Police and Westminster Council.
One question that brings up - are PL media rights subject to VAT? @TheScreamingEagles ?
Why wouldn't they be - but it's a Business to Business Transaction so probably income neutral..
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Nicola’s post FM Career planning
EU Sinecure. BREXIT UN Role “That woman from the UN” Some other international role Criminal investigation (at best) into Party her husband managed (sound like a good fit for the EU - ed.)
I want King Harry. He could cut the costs of the monarchy significantly. Disowned by the rest of the family who get cut off from the royal list. And lives in California, with the lower cost of overseas Buck House paid for by his endless chat show appearances.
And we could modernise the legal system instead. Rather than have the final proclamation of laws made in feudal French and signed as such, replace it with "Whatever" when a bored co-regent Queen Meghan scrawls a big MR on documents handed to her by flunkies in her dressing room in Hollywood.
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
We're also going away with flights massively cheaper on the Coronation day than the day before or after. So maybe everyone else is watching it
Except the Red Arrows, of course. An expensive and increasingly disprop[ortionate element of the shrinking RAF. And I was reading that the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight have had to rejig their normally carefully calculated and rationed maintenance and flying programme because of the coronation.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
I didn't. Inflation is always higher than you think (in the stats) but always lower in reality, strangely.
It's a lagging indicator the calculations for which are rather contrived.
I'm not worried.
The reporting of inflation figures really pisses me off
They say that, because inflation is still over 10%, prices are still going up
Ignoring the fact that ever since prices shot up by 10% over a couple of months, inflation is then baked in at around 10% for the following year, unless prices actually fall again during that year
Unless one is a PBTory in which case one claims that there is no justification at all for a pay rise.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
It's odd that you and disagree on virtually everything except this.
A left-wing monarchist is an interesting but rare beast!
Not quite as rare as you might think! We can suspend hostilities next month to raise a toast to his Majesty together.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
Yes, the cost argument is a bit of a red herring. Provided they don't go mad with the spending (which isn't the case here), it arguably pays for itself.
'Metaphysical transcendence', nope.
How do these things get costed? Does it include opportunity costs (ie the police/military could be doing something else with their time)?
And then there is the hit to GDP, which is the weirdest criticism. They'll be banning weekends next.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
The difference between 9.9% and 10.1% is surely irrelevant. A slightly differnet basket of goods would be at 9.9% and the media reaction would then be quite different. Weird to me.
Psychologically it makes a big difference. The longer inflation is over 10% the more embedded and “normal” that becomes.
It really should fall below 10% next month as the big April 2022 energy rises will drop out then.
Should...
Its a less happy month for anyone with business leccy...
I want King Harry. He could cut the costs of the monarchy significantly. Disowned by the rest of the family who get cut off from the royal list. And lives in California, with the lower cost of overseas Buck House paid for by his endless chat show appearances.
And we could modernise the legal system instead. Rather than have the final proclamation of laws made in feudal French and signed as such, replace it with "Whatever" when a bored co-regent Queen Meghan scrawls a big MR on documents handed to her by flunkies in her dressing room in Hollywood.
There’s a good reason that Her Late Majesty went totally off the wall at William, when he flew his own helicopter with all three of his children on board.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
I'm highly indifferent to the monarchy, but actually I agree with you. If you do things, you should do them properly.
Trouble is, it's getting to the point where a non-trivial part of the Army is on horse, just for this sort of stuff.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
The coalition cut the social housing budget by 60% in 2010. I don't think it's been much improved since. The problem goes back at least a couple of decades before that, though.
The social and economic cost of inadequate housing is huge. No government has really addressed it in decades.
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
This is my plans for that weekend.
The leader of Britain’s largest anti-monarchist group says more than 1,350 people have pledged to protest during the coronation parade in May.
Graham Smith, the head of Republic, said the demonstration would mark “the largest protest action” in the group’s 50-year history.
Republic activists will wear yellow T-shirts and wave yellow placards to create an “unmissable sea of yellow” along the procession route in central London, he said. When the newly crowned King passes in his gold stage coach, they plan to boo loudly and chant: “Not my King”.
Most of the demonstration will be in Trafalgar Square but smaller groups of anti-monarchists will be dotted along other sections of the route.
Smith, 48, said activists would aim to arrive early in the morning to be as close to the barriers as possible. He stressed, however, that they were not planning any Extinction Rebellion-style stunts, because “it’s not a good look” and “doesn’t help the cause”.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
The coalition cut the social housing budget by 60% in 2010. I don't think it's been much improved since. The problem goes back at least a couple of decades before that, though.
The social and economic cost of inadequate housing is huge. No government has really addressed it in decades.
UKG, more precisely; the SNP has had a go with some success (though one informed observer I read seemed to think it ought to have done twice as much, I suppose the Barnett consequential just isn't there!). No idea about Wales or NI.
When Rishi said 'stop the boats', he apparently didn't mean the boats would actually stop.
When he said 'halve inflation'...
@TorstenBell Inflation remains in double digits at 10.1% in March: - twice the 5% in the US (Europe is the wrong continent to be on energy prices wise) - partly reflecting dreadful food price rises (forgot double digits - we’re talking 20%)
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
Also, given London is usually pretty full of tourists, the gain will be that much more marginal.
Logically giving extra days off (while welcome) seems unlikely to increase GDP - otherwise it would be a very popular way to grow the economy! And discretionary spending on quiche ingredients is probably money that just doesn't get spent on something else.
Even in tourism terms I'd need to see some good evidence that the net effect isn't negative in current account terms at least. Giving British people an extra day off and therefore an extra chance to go abroad on a long weekend, when all non-British people will not be given an extra day off, seems more likely to have negative effect on the balance of payments.
As I’ve probably said before, I’m not a monarchist but I’m not exercised about creating a republic. I pity rather than loathe the royal family. I’m not sure the Palace ought to be too worried either; my instinct says that this is more apathy than discontent.
It is quite heartening to see that most young people won’t be interested, as it implies they have something better to do, which is nice for them. I’m also not going to begrudge the people who enjoy this stuff; as the funeral showed we do this pomp and nonsense very well.
I do wonder how much of the opposition and protest is really just a channelling of unhappiness with the wider establishment and status quo (not the band), rather than genuine republican sentiment.
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
The 1953 Coronation came at an opportune time, and for a glamorous young woman. The grim war years and the rationing and hardship of the immediate post war years was over. Despite the loss of India and nascent independence movements elsewhere, the Empire was substantially intact, with room for optimism and a bright new future.
Seventy years later, with a man well past retirement age at the centre of events, and with massive squeeze on personal finances, there is less enthusiasm to party. It just isn't the national mood right now, but it doesn't itself mean that the institution is obsolete. Archaic, pompous and bizarrely ritualistic as it is, the Monarchy will plod on for longer.
I actually couldn't disagree more with the last bit - the pomp and pageantry, and rituals, is (Guardian excepted) what everyone enjoys and loves. It's uniquely British and a fantastic ceremony.
It's the magic that surrounds it that's the problem. And Charles just doesn't seem to believe in himself or it very much.
Only the most bonkers believe in Divine Right nowadays, and all that archaic obscurantism is lost on me. I like my Church stuff simple and puritanical. This high church vulgarity is anathema to me.
I am not anti Monarchist, just not my cup of tea. My mum will watch, I suppose.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
The difference between 9.9% and 10.1% is surely irrelevant. A slightly differnet basket of goods would be at 9.9% and the media reaction would then be quite different. Weird to me.
Psychologically it makes a big difference. The longer inflation is over 10% the more embedded and “normal” that becomes.
It really should fall below 10% next month as the big April 2022 energy rises will drop out then.
Should...
Its a less happy month for anyone with business leccy...
Energy prices should drop substantially later in the year. My Octopus Tracker rates today are 5.21p for gas and 20.01 for electricity.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
You are lucky that that was an option and that circumstances have not intervened.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
I didn't. Inflation is always higher than you think (in the stats) but always lower in reality, strangely.
It's a lagging indicator the calculations for which are rather contrived.
I'm not worried.
The reporting of inflation figures really pisses me off
They say that, because inflation is still over 10%, prices are still going up
Ignoring the fact that ever since prices shot up by 10% over a couple of months, inflation is then baked in at around 10% for the following year, unless prices actually fall again during that year
I mean, sure, but inflation also rose by almost 1% in the month of March 2023 alone.
Prices are continuing to go up, it's not just reporting of previous increases still in the 12 month numbers.
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
The 1953 Coronation came at an opportune time, and for a glamorous young woman. The grim war years and the rationing and hardship of the immediate post war years was over. Despite the loss of India and nascent independence movements elsewhere, the Empire was substantially intact, with room for optimism and a bright new future.
Seventy years later, with a man well past retirement age at the centre of events, and with massive squeeze on personal finances, there is less enthusiasm to party. It just isn't the national mood right now, but it doesn't itself mean that the institution is obsolete. Archaic, pompous and bizarrely ritualistic as it is, the Monarchy will plod on for longer.
I actually couldn't disagree more with the last bit - the pomp and pageantry, and rituals, is (Guardian excepted) what everyone enjoys and loves. It's uniquely British and a fantastic ceremony.
It's the magic that surrounds it that's the problem. And Charles just doesn't seem to believe in himself or it very much.
Only the most bonkers believe in Divine Right nowadays, and all that archaic obscurantism is lost on me. I like my Church stuff simple and puritanical. This high church vulgarity is anathema to me.
I am not anti Monarchist, just not my cup of tea. My mum will watch, I suppose.
Also -
PBRoyalists one day - "uniquely British"
PBRoyalists another day - "what do you mean? The French, Americans, etc. do it too ..."
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
This is my plans for that weekend.
The leader of Britain’s largest anti-monarchist group says more than 1,350 people have pledged to protest during the coronation parade in May.
Graham Smith, the head of Republic, said the demonstration would mark “the largest protest action” in the group’s 50-year history.
Republic activists will wear yellow T-shirts and wave yellow placards to create an “unmissable sea of yellow” along the procession route in central London, he said. When the newly crowned King passes in his gold stage coach, they plan to boo loudly and chant: “Not my King”.
Most of the demonstration will be in Trafalgar Square but smaller groups of anti-monarchists will be dotted along other sections of the route.
Smith, 48, said activists would aim to arrive early in the morning to be as close to the barriers as possible. He stressed, however, that they were not planning any Extinction Rebellion-style stunts, because “it’s not a good look” and “doesn’t help the cause”.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
Also, given London is usually pretty full of tourists, the gain will be that much more marginal.
Logically giving extra days off (while welcome) seems unlikely to increase GDP - otherwise it would be a very popular way to grow the economy! And discretionary spending on quiche ingredients is probably money that just doesn't get spent on something else.
Even in tourism terms I'd need to see some good evidence that the net effect isn't negative in current account terms at least. Giving British people an extra day off and therefore an extra chance to go abroad on a long weekend, when all non-British people will not be given an extra day off, seems more likely to have negative effect on the balance of payments.
Think if it as the cost of maintaining the image.
Whatever you think of the monarchy, replacing it would likely be as costly, and any of the alternatives so far suggested are pretty dull.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
I'm highly indifferent to the monarchy, but actually I agree with you. If you do things, you should do them properly.
Trouble is, it's getting to the point where a non-trivial part of the Army is on horse, just for this sort of stuff.
And for the Grand Military Gold Cup, run at Sandown Park every year. The military meeting used to get a whole day before the Queen Mum, its main supporter, died.
As posted a week or two back, the Palace needs to tell people what is the point of the Coronation. Charles is already king, so that cannot be it. And since dukes are not to dress up in their coronation robes, a public display of finery and flummery is not it either. A day off work and the odd street party here or there seems a bit of a duff exchange for acres of newsprint on whether Harry and Meghan will show up, and a flypast from however few Red Arrows are still airworthy.
What's the point? Why should we care?
Charles risks losing support from both angles: alienating his traditional support base - with things like slavery, achingly right-on environmentalism and being, clearly, so uncomfortable with the role - whilst not winning over any new converts from the political Left, or even grudging respect, because they object on principle.
The core problem is that he hasn't yet won respect for himself in the role, and is too full of self-pity to try.
People don't have confidence in you if you don't have confidence in yourself.
Not sure polling would support your view, .....
I do worry about some of the polling, actually.
KCIII needs to be playing a blinder to prove people wrong about him and cement support for the next generation.
At the moment, I'd say he's too inspid and a bit of a wet lettuce. He clearly hasn't yet grown into the role and he needs to - fast.
Royalist complains that genetic lottery doesn't work. Illogical.
It's fascinating how Republicans think posts like this "prove" their point because they totally fail to understand the basis of monarchism is institutional, not personal.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
That's really not a basis for government policy, though.
I want King Harry. He could cut the costs of the monarchy significantly. Disowned by the rest of the family who get cut off from the royal list. And lives in California, with the lower cost of overseas Buck House paid for by his endless chat show appearances.
And we could modernise the legal system instead. Rather than have the final proclamation of laws made in feudal French and signed as such, replace it with "Whatever" when a bored co-regent Queen Meghan scrawls a big MR on documents handed to her by flunkies in her dressing room in Hollywood.
That could precipitate the what is know in constitutional circles of monarchical study as ‘the Nepalese model’
"China has furiously dismissed a call by the G7 for Beijing to “act as a responsible member of the international community” and “work together” with the West."
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
This is my plans for that weekend.
The leader of Britain’s largest anti-monarchist group says more than 1,350 people have pledged to protest during the coronation parade in May.
Graham Smith, the head of Republic, said the demonstration would mark “the largest protest action” in the group’s 50-year history.
Republic activists will wear yellow T-shirts and wave yellow placards to create an “unmissable sea of yellow” along the procession route in central London, he said. When the newly crowned King passes in his gold stage coach, they plan to boo loudly and chant: “Not my King”.
Most of the demonstration will be in Trafalgar Square but smaller groups of anti-monarchists will be dotted along other sections of the route.
Smith, 48, said activists would aim to arrive early in the morning to be as close to the barriers as possible. He stressed, however, that they were not planning any Extinction Rebellion-style stunts, because “it’s not a good look” and “doesn’t help the cause”.
The legal and constitutional inaccuracy of this slogan bothers me; it just isn't right unless you are a foreign citizen.
"We don't want you as King!", Or "Republic Now!", would work, but this is a slogan for the ignorant or uneducated.
It's another stupid American import to our culture, the same fools who kept saying "Not my president" about Trump.
We import all our cultural crap from America*.
It's why so much of it ultimately fails because it doesn't sit well here.
(*it also shows how entirely synthesised and confected a lot of the #FBPE stuff is - they do it because they want to signal their internationalist values but they couldn't really give a toss about Europe and actually take all their cues from the Anglosphere across the pond)
As posted a week or two back, the Palace needs to tell people what is the point of the Coronation. Charles is already king, so that cannot be it. And since dukes are not to dress up in their coronation robes, a public display of finery and flummery is not it either. A day off work and the odd street party here or there seems a bit of a duff exchange for acres of newsprint on whether Harry and Meghan will show up, and a flypast from however few Red Arrows are still airworthy.
What's the point? Why should we care?
Charles risks losing support from both angles: alienating his traditional support base - with things like slavery, achingly right-on environmentalism and being, clearly, so uncomfortable with the role - whilst not winning over any new converts from the political Left, or even grudging respect, because they object on principle.
The core problem is that he hasn't yet won respect for himself in the role, and is too full of self-pity to try.
People don't have confidence in you if you don't have confidence in yourself.
Not sure polling would support your view, .....
I do worry about some of the polling, actually.
KCIII needs to be playing a blinder to prove people wrong about him and cement support for the next generation.
At the moment, I'd say he's too inspid and a bit of a wet lettuce. He clearly hasn't yet grown into the role and he needs to - fast.
Royalist complains that genetic lottery doesn't work. Illogical.
It's fascinating how Republicans think posts like this "prove" their point because they totally fail to understand the basis of monarchism is institutional, not personal.
Why then does he "need to grow into the role". He's in his seventies; he is what he is, and isn't going to change.
There is absolutely no bullshit about food in France.
If ever the Puritans take over here then I simply might have to become French.
Unpopular opinion of the day. French cuisine is the most overrated in the world. Not bad per se, but overrated.
As with the wine, we buy into the self-mythologising and the brand.
Agree on the food and on the French wine exported to the UK, overpriced and overrated. Local French wine found in domestic French restaurants however is great and often exceptional value.
As posted a week or two back, the Palace needs to tell people what is the point of the Coronation. Charles is already king, so that cannot be it. And since dukes are not to dress up in their coronation robes, a public display of finery and flummery is not it either. A day off work and the odd street party here or there seems a bit of a duff exchange for acres of newsprint on whether Harry and Meghan will show up, and a flypast from however few Red Arrows are still airworthy.
What's the point? Why should we care?
Charles risks losing support from both angles: alienating his traditional support base - with things like slavery, achingly right-on environmentalism and being, clearly, so uncomfortable with the role - whilst not winning over any new converts from the political Left, or even grudging respect, because they object on principle.
The core problem is that he hasn't yet won respect for himself in the role, and is too full of self-pity to try.
People don't have confidence in you if you don't have confidence in yourself.
Not sure polling would support your view, .....
I do worry about some of the polling, actually.
KCIII needs to be playing a blinder to prove people wrong about him and cement support for the next generation.
At the moment, I'd say he's too inspid and a bit of a wet lettuce. He clearly hasn't yet grown into the role and he needs to - fast.
Royalist complains that genetic lottery doesn't work. Illogical.
It's fascinating how Republicans think posts like this "prove" their point because they totally fail to understand the basis of monarchism is institutional, not personal.
Which is why I’m far more bothered by e.g. the idea of hereditary lords (and the wider nepotistic protection rackets the posh and rich have in various professions) than I am about poor old KCIII in his golden goldfish bowl.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
Also, given London is usually pretty full of tourists, the gain will be that much more marginal.
Logically giving extra days off (while welcome) seems unlikely to increase GDP - otherwise it would be a very popular way to grow the economy! And discretionary spending on quiche ingredients is probably money that just doesn't get spent on something else.
Even in tourism terms I'd need to see some good evidence that the net effect isn't negative in current account terms at least. Giving British people an extra day off and therefore an extra chance to go abroad on a long weekend, when all non-British people will not be given an extra day off, seems more likely to have negative effect on the balance of payments.
Think if it as the cost of maintaining the image.
Whatever you think of the monarchy, replacing it would likely be as costly, and any of the alternatives so far suggested are pretty dull.
Maybe - I probably think the hassle of replacing it isn't worth it. I just don't like this dishonest 'boost to the economy' nonsense every time there is a royal wedding or whatever.
And the 'image' the royal family gives the UK is definitely double-edged.
There is absolutely no bullshit about food in France.
If ever the Puritans take over here then I simply might have to become French.
Unpopular opinion of the day. French cuisine is the most overrated in the world. Not bad per se, but overrated.
As with the wine, we buy into the self-mythologising and the brand.
Agree on the food and on the French wine exported to the UK, overpriced and overrated. Local French wine found in domestic French restaurants however is great and often exceptional value.
That is a very fair point. And there is a baseline decent standard of cooking in local bistros etc that we generally don’t have. Like I say - not bad, just overrated.
My interest is nostalgia and memento mori, recalling the 1953 coronation and that these events will probably have bookended my consciously autonomous life.
On topic, the number of recent additional Bank Holidays we should have an annual national celebration of the monarchy with all the glamour and pageantry of recent years. Monarchists everywhere can have street parties and watch King Charles et al.
I won't watch a second of it, but lots of people would, and I'd get an extra long weekend. Win win.
If we did become a republic, and the result of the first Presidential election was Jeremy Clarkson 52%, Gary Lineker 48%, the republicans would be the first to shout "not my President!".
There is a lot of of truth in that. The prospect of a mere person as President is terrifying.. President Blair anyone?
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
As a strong monarchies I'll just put the coronation on in the background and watch something else at the same time, otherwise it'll probably be pretty boring. Republicans just tend to get a bit over excited at any hint of apathy and immediately start acting like the end of the system is both inevitable and imminent, and make a meal out of every little thing. I'm sure those protestors who do show up will get what they wanted from it, so everyone should be happy enough.
As posted a week or two back, the Palace needs to tell people what is the point of the Coronation. Charles is already king, so that cannot be it. And since dukes are not to dress up in their coronation robes, a public display of finery and flummery is not it either. A day off work and the odd street party here or there seems a bit of a duff exchange for acres of newsprint on whether Harry and Meghan will show up, and a flypast from however few Red Arrows are still airworthy.
What's the point? Why should we care?
Charles risks losing support from both angles: alienating his traditional support base - with things like slavery, achingly right-on environmentalism and being, clearly, so uncomfortable with the role - whilst not winning over any new converts from the political Left, or even grudging respect, because they object on principle.
The core problem is that he hasn't yet won respect for himself in the role, and is too full of self-pity to try.
People don't have confidence in you if you don't have confidence in yourself.
Not sure polling would support your view, .....
I do worry about some of the polling, actually.
KCIII needs to be playing a blinder to prove people wrong about him and cement support for the next generation.
At the moment, I'd say he's too inspid and a bit of a wet lettuce. He clearly hasn't yet grown into the role and he needs to - fast.
Royalist complains that genetic lottery doesn't work. Illogical.
It's fascinating how Republicans think posts like this "prove" their point because they totally fail to understand the basis of monarchism is institutional, not personal.
Why then does he "need to grow into the role". He's in his seventies; he is what he is, and isn't going to change.
Yes, Charles is going to be a not very good king, following on from one of the (maybe the greatest) greatest monarchs the world has seen. The difference will become clearer and clearer as the years pass. The pressure on him to abdicate to William whole they are still favoured by the public will continue to grow as he shows how unsuitable he is for the role.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
That's really not a basis for government policy, though.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
Also, given London is usually pretty full of tourists, the gain will be that much more marginal.
Logically giving extra days off (while welcome) seems unlikely to increase GDP - otherwise it would be a very popular way to grow the economy! And discretionary spending on quiche ingredients is probably money that just doesn't get spent on something else.
Even in tourism terms I'd need to see some good evidence that the net effect isn't negative in current account terms at least. Giving British people an extra day off and therefore an extra chance to go abroad on a long weekend, when all non-British people will not be given an extra day off, seems more likely to have negative effect on the balance of payments.
Think if it as the cost of maintaining the image.
Whatever you think of the monarchy, replacing it would likely be as costly, and any of the alternatives so far suggested are pretty dull.
I just don't like this dishonest 'boost to the economy' nonsense every time there is a royal wedding or whatever.
There is a temporary blip - though whether this is “net extra” or simply “advanced/delayed spending” is another matter;
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
Yes, I've never really followed the logic on that one.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
The difference between 9.9% and 10.1% is surely irrelevant. A slightly differnet basket of goods would be at 9.9% and the media reaction would then be quite different. Weird to me.
Psychologically it makes a big difference. The longer inflation is over 10% the more embedded and “normal” that becomes.
See the psychology of selling things for £9.99 not £10.00.
My wife will certainly be watching it which means I will be watching some of it too. I think the moaning on here is overdone. We do this kind of thing rather well. Whilst I have reservations about the future of the monarchy I think Charles has surprised on the upside so far.
I’m old enough to remember the “who cares about the Silver Jubilee anyway?” line - and how that turned out.
In more recent history:
While half the nation is toasting the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, the other half has little enthusiasm for the celebrations, according to a new poll.
Some 49 per cent say they will be marking the monarch’s 70th anniversary in some way, leaving 51 per cent who are not.
It’s an excuse for a party and a show - and an excuse for a bit of a p*ss up….Like Brits are going to turn that down.,….Bah! Humbug!
I remember the silver jubilee fondly. Took part in a pub crawl pram race which we won. Had a plan that went pear shaped immediately. I was to sprint to the first pub without the pram so I could let my beer go down and take over the pram while the others supped their first pint. They would then sprint to catch me up. Got to the first pub and was breathing so heavily I couldn't drink until all the prams arrived.
Picnic for 2, only £200. Food inflation right there.
"Celebrate the Coronation in style with our bountiful picnic basket brimming with treats for two. Featuring a variety of sweet and savoury treats including our Coronation Chicken Scotch Egg, Mini Beef Wellington, a delectable cheeseboard, Vanilla Panna Cotta and our limited edition Coronation English Sparkling Blanc de Blancs, you’re sure to have a cracking Coronation celebration!"
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
You are lucky that that was an option and that circumstances have not intervened.
I know I am very fortunate in life, I want everyone to have the opportunities I did, I just have worked out how to come up with a policy to do so.
As posted a week or two back, the Palace needs to tell people what is the point of the Coronation. Charles is already king, so that cannot be it. And since dukes are not to dress up in their coronation robes, a public display of finery and flummery is not it either. A day off work and the odd street party here or there seems a bit of a duff exchange for acres of newsprint on whether Harry and Meghan will show up, and a flypast from however few Red Arrows are still airworthy.
What's the point? Why should we care?
Charles risks losing support from both angles: alienating his traditional support base - with things like slavery, achingly right-on environmentalism and being, clearly, so uncomfortable with the role - whilst not winning over any new converts from the political Left, or even grudging respect, because they object on principle.
The core problem is that he hasn't yet won respect for himself in the role, and is too full of self-pity to try.
People don't have confidence in you if you don't have confidence in yourself.
Not sure polling would support your view, .....
I do worry about some of the polling, actually.
KCIII needs to be playing a blinder to prove people wrong about him and cement support for the next generation.
At the moment, I'd say he's too inspid and a bit of a wet lettuce. He clearly hasn't yet grown into the role and he needs to - fast.
Royalist complains that genetic lottery doesn't work. Illogical.
It's fascinating how Republicans think posts like this "prove" their point because they totally fail to understand the basis of monarchism is institutional, not personal.
If it is iinstitutional then it doesn't need the genetic lottery element of the person.
As posted a week or two back, the Palace needs to tell people what is the point of the Coronation. Charles is already king, so that cannot be it. And since dukes are not to dress up in their coronation robes, a public display of finery and flummery is not it either. A day off work and the odd street party here or there seems a bit of a duff exchange for acres of newsprint on whether Harry and Meghan will show up, and a flypast from however few Red Arrows are still airworthy.
What's the point? Why should we care?
Charles risks losing support from both angles: alienating his traditional support base - with things like slavery, achingly right-on environmentalism and being, clearly, so uncomfortable with the role - whilst not winning over any new converts from the political Left, or even grudging respect, because they object on principle.
The core problem is that he hasn't yet won respect for himself in the role, and is too full of self-pity to try.
People don't have confidence in you if you don't have confidence in yourself.
Not sure polling would support your view, .....
I do worry about some of the polling, actually.
KCIII needs to be playing a blinder to prove people wrong about him and cement support for the next generation.
At the moment, I'd say he's too inspid and a bit of a wet lettuce. He clearly hasn't yet grown into the role and he needs to - fast.
Royalist complains that genetic lottery doesn't work. Illogical.
Not really - he already pointed out you get and bad ones but may still support the institution.
Apathy the system can survive but is risky. Antipathy must be countered or it will change eventually.
I'm just surprised various countries have not yet ditched the monarchy- maybe intentionally waiting till after the coronation.
Picnic for 2, only £200. Food inflation right there.
"Celebrate the Coronation in style with our bountiful picnic basket brimming with treats for two. Featuring a variety of sweet and savoury treats including our Coronation Chicken Scotch Egg, Mini Beef Wellington, a delectable cheeseboard, Vanilla Panna Cotta and our limited edition Coronation English Sparkling Blanc de Blancs, you’re sure to have a cracking Coronation celebration!"
I'm barred from taking people on picnics due to a terrible chat up line I have been known to use involving picnics.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
The difference between 9.9% and 10.1% is surely irrelevant. A slightly differnet basket of goods would be at 9.9% and the media reaction would then be quite different. Weird to me.
Psychologically it makes a big difference. The longer inflation is over 10% the more embedded and “normal” that becomes.
See the psychology of selling things for £9.99 not £10.00.
Doesn't make much difference to the rate at which standards of living drop, though.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
I'm highly indifferent to the monarchy, but actually I agree with you. If you do things, you should do them properly.
Indeed. Yes it doesn't mean no limit on extravagance but people weirdly pretend the ceremonial is not part of the point of the system. Not unique to monarchical systems, but they have a particular style, and being half arsed about things in embarrassment would be worse than doing it or not doing it at all.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
The difference between 9.9% and 10.1% is surely irrelevant. A slightly differnet basket of goods would be at 9.9% and the media reaction would then be quite different. Weird to me.
Psychologically it makes a big difference. The longer inflation is over 10% the more embedded and “normal” that becomes.
See the psychology of selling things for £9.99 not £10.00.
Doesn't make much difference to the rate at which standards of living drop, though.
And see Fortnum and Mason hamper referenced below. Very firmly £200.00 not £199.99 or whatever a more reasonable price might be, £192.12 or whatever. Very Veblenian.
As posted a week or two back, the Palace needs to tell people what is the point of the Coronation. Charles is already king, so that cannot be it. And since dukes are not to dress up in their coronation robes, a public display of finery and flummery is not it either. A day off work and the odd street party here or there seems a bit of a duff exchange for acres of newsprint on whether Harry and Meghan will show up, and a flypast from however few Red Arrows are still airworthy.
What's the point? Why should we care?
Charles risks losing support from both angles: alienating his traditional support base - with things like slavery, achingly right-on environmentalism and being, clearly, so uncomfortable with the role - whilst not winning over any new converts from the political Left, or even grudging respect, because they object on principle.
The core problem is that he hasn't yet won respect for himself in the role, and is too full of self-pity to try.
People don't have confidence in you if you don't have confidence in yourself.
Not sure polling would support your view, .....
I do worry about some of the polling, actually.
KCIII needs to be playing a blinder to prove people wrong about him and cement support for the next generation.
At the moment, I'd say he's too inspid and a bit of a wet lettuce. He clearly hasn't yet grown into the role and he needs to - fast.
Royalist complains that genetic lottery doesn't work. Illogical.
Not really - he already pointed out you get and bad ones but may still support the institution.
Apathy the system can survive but is risky. Antipathy must be countered or it will change eventually.
I'm just surprised various countries have not yet ditched the monarchy- maybe intentionally waiting till after the coronation.
In that case one might as well have a stuffed one, like Jeremy Bentham. A lot cheaper and no dangerously woke habits or a quite different kind of skeletons in the cupboard.
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
The 1953 Coronation came at an opportune time, and for a glamorous young woman. The grim war years and the rationing and hardship of the immediate post war years was over. Despite the loss of India and nascent independence movements elsewhere, the Empire was substantially intact, with room for optimism and a bright new future.
Seventy years later, with a man well past retirement age at the centre of events, and with massive squeeze on personal finances, there is less enthusiasm to party. It just isn't the national mood right now, but it doesn't itself mean that the institution is obsolete. Archaic, pompous and bizarrely ritualistic as it is, the Monarchy will plod on for longer.
I actually couldn't disagree more with the last bit - the pomp and pageantry, and rituals, is (Guardian excepted) what everyone enjoys and loves. It's uniquely British and a fantastic ceremony.
It's the magic that surrounds it that's the problem. And Charles just doesn't seem to believe in himself or it very much.
Only the most bonkers believe in Divine Right nowadays, and all that archaic obscurantism is lost on me. I like my Church stuff simple and puritanical. This high church vulgarity is anathema to me.
I am not anti Monarchist, just not my cup of tea. My mum will watch, I suppose.
Also -
PBRoyalists one day - "uniquely British"
PBRoyalists another day - "what do you mean? The French, Americans, etc. do it too ..."
Shockingly, people may support the same position but have different reasons for doing so.
Picnic for 2, only £200. Food inflation right there.
"Celebrate the Coronation in style with our bountiful picnic basket brimming with treats for two. Featuring a variety of sweet and savoury treats including our Coronation Chicken Scotch Egg, Mini Beef Wellington, a delectable cheeseboard, Vanilla Panna Cotta and our limited edition Coronation English Sparkling Blanc de Blancs, you’re sure to have a cracking Coronation celebration!"
I'm barred from taking people on picnics due to a terrible chat up line I have been known to use involving picnics.
Is this a cocktail sausage, or am I just pleased to see you?
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
The 1953 Coronation came at an opportune time, and for a glamorous young woman. The grim war years and the rationing and hardship of the immediate post war years was over. Despite the loss of India and nascent independence movements elsewhere, the Empire was substantially intact, with room for optimism and a bright new future.
Seventy years later, with a man well past retirement age at the centre of events, and with massive squeeze on personal finances, there is less enthusiasm to party. It just isn't the national mood right now, but it doesn't itself mean that the institution is obsolete. Archaic, pompous and bizarrely ritualistic as it is, the Monarchy will plod on for longer.
I actually couldn't disagree more with the last bit - the pomp and pageantry, and rituals, is (Guardian excepted) what everyone enjoys and loves. It's uniquely British and a fantastic ceremony.
It's the magic that surrounds it that's the problem. And Charles just doesn't seem to believe in himself or it very much.
Only the most bonkers believe in Divine Right nowadays, and all that archaic obscurantism is lost on me. I like my Church stuff simple and puritanical. This high church vulgarity is anathema to me.
I am not anti Monarchist, just not my cup of tea. My mum will watch, I suppose.
Also -
PBRoyalists one day - "uniquely British"
PBRoyalists another day - "what do you mean? The French, Americans, etc. do it too ..."
Shockingly, people may support the same position but have different reasons for doing so.
Sure, but to claim that the pageantry etc is uniquely British is nonsense, unless one is claiming that it is the only coronation of a so-called sovereign of the UK (which is correct in strict logic, but not useful in reality). Edit: it's a common defence of PBRoyalists to comments about the cost of the royal guards, horseflesh etc. to say that Monsieur le President over in Paris is just the same with the Garde Nationale etc.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
Personal responsibility? You contemptible swine. Heaven forbid we start expecting that sort of fascist nonsense!
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
As a strong monarchies I'll just put the coronation on in the background and watch something else at the same time, otherwise it'll probably be pretty boring. Republicans just tend to get a bit over excited at any hint of apathy and immediately start acting like the end of the system is both inevitable and imminent, and make a meal out of every little thing. I'm sure those protestors who do show up will get what they wanted from it, so everyone should be happy enough.
Obviously most places manage it, even ceremonial presidencies, but context matters. We're not used to that, and its not necessary to bugger about with that element.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
The way Royalists can move seamlessly from hushed fawning over the holy mystery of kingship to transactional counting of tourists' lsd is one of the wonders of nature.
If we did become a republic, and the result of the first Presidential election was Jeremy Clarkson 52%, Gary Lineker 48%, the republicans would be the first to shout "not my President!".
There is a lot of of truth in that. The prospect of a mere person as President is terrifying.. President Blair anyone?
"Voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the decision to grant Tony Blair a knighthood, a poll has found.
Just 14 per cent of the public agreed with the decision announced in the New Year honours – only three per cent strongly.
By contrast 63 per cent were against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony, 41 per cent of whom said they were strongly against the move."
Also, in comparable parliamentary democracies the president is a ceremonial figure, often not directly elected. I don't get why people think the only alternative to a monarchy is a president elected in a national popular vote as this seems to be fairly uncommon for non-executive presidents. Even in parliamentary democracies where they are directly elected (eg Ireland) it doesn't seem to lead to equivalents of President Blair.
Of course it depends on the role of the president - in Italy, for example, the president is a much more important figure. But I would expect a UK president to fulfil similar constitutional role to the current monarchy ie largely ceremonial.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
You had money, no biological timebomb kicking off and decent prospects.
...In recent months, Fox had insisted that a victory for Dominion would pose a broader threat to media protections in this country, but it is not clear whether or to what extent this is correct. The reason is that, despite hundreds of pages of pretrial filings, Fox never managed to identify a single instance of legitimate newsgathering that would have been credibly endangered in the future if Dominion prevailed, as the company has now done. And, of course, the backdrop here is that Fox’s business model has for years drawn intense criticism from media analysts who have argued that the network routinely crosses the boundaries of responsible reporting by pandering to its mostly conservative audience and elevating dubious but politically convenient claims...
('Dubious claims' = blatant lies.)
Now they've accepted the likelihood of failing in court with their defence against 'actual malice', they will likely settle the other outstanding lawsuit with a fat payout.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
I agree about the failures and having kids being awesome but I may well be an outlier but before having kids I made sure I could give them a decent quality of life.
You are lucky that that was an option and that circumstances have not intervened.
I know I am very fortunate in life, I want everyone to have the opportunities I did, I just have worked out how to come up with a policy to do so.
It's not possible for everyone to win. What you need are policies that ensure that people who don't have your opportunities don't have an unbearably shit life either. That's why, despite bring a big believer in working hard and taking responsibility and all that jazz, I am not a Tory.
More than 310,000 children in England share a bed with parents or siblings because of overcrowded homes, research suggests.
Almost two million children — one in six — live in overcrowded homes because their family cannot access a suitable affordable home, according to the National Housing Federation, the umbrella body for almost 600 housing associations.
“I sleep on the sofa,” Dionne Barnes, 61, who lives with three children in a two-bedroom, tenth-floor flat in Bristol, said. “The only time I have space to myself is in the bathroom.” Her daughter, Chané, 31, who is eight months pregnant, shares a bedroom with her younger sister, Mihema-Ré, 8, who struggles to do homework in the cramped space.
Their autistic brother, Touré, 14, has the second bedroom. “My son loves the outdoors but he just stays in his room,” said Barnes, who runs a catering business and rents the flat from the council. She is waiting to be rehoused but was told it would take at least 18 months.
Researchers, who combined a survey of 207 households by the market research company Savanta with analysis of the government’s English Housing Survey, said the findings were “indicative”. The study uses the government definition of overcrowded homes, where a room is shared by more than two children under ten, two teenagers of different sexes or two adults who are not in a relationship.
Parents in 180,000 families regularly sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen, the study suggests. Half a million children, including 142,000 teenagers, share a bedroom with their parents. Up to 900,000 children struggle to do their homework.
Parents in more than half (53 per cent) of England’s 746,000 overcrowded homes worry that their children are too embarrassed to bring friends home. Three quarters of overcrowded families said it harmed their health and mental health.
That's a pretty ignorant comment, and is beneath you. Plenty of families are in overcrowded accommodation because of a change in circumstances such as death or illness of a breadwinner, being evicted from a more suitable property or family breakup. Also, children are probably the greatest source of joy in people's life - maybe the only true thing that gives life meaning - and I certainly understand why people don't necessarily wait until all their financial ducks are in a row before becoming parents - especially since for many that would mean never having children. The real problem is the failure of successive governments to overcome the vested interests that hold back homebuilding. We should be embarking on a social housing construction boom, not victim blaming families in overcrowded homes.
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
The 1953 Coronation came at an opportune time, and for a glamorous young woman. The grim war years and the rationing and hardship of the immediate post war years was over. Despite the loss of India and nascent independence movements elsewhere, the Empire was substantially intact, with room for optimism and a bright new future.
Seventy years later, with a man well past retirement age at the centre of events, and with massive squeeze on personal finances, there is less enthusiasm to party. It just isn't the national mood right now, but it doesn't itself mean that the institution is obsolete. Archaic, pompous and bizarrely ritualistic as it is, the Monarchy will plod on for longer.
I actually couldn't disagree more with the last bit - the pomp and pageantry, and rituals, is (Guardian excepted) what everyone enjoys and loves. It's uniquely British and a fantastic ceremony.
It's the magic that surrounds it that's the problem. And Charles just doesn't seem to believe in himself or it very much.
Only the most bonkers believe in Divine Right nowadays, and all that archaic obscurantism is lost on me. I like my Church stuff simple and puritanical. This high church vulgarity is anathema to me.
I am not anti Monarchist, just not my cup of tea. My mum will watch, I suppose.
Picnic for 2, only £200. Food inflation right there.
"Celebrate the Coronation in style with our bountiful picnic basket brimming with treats for two. Featuring a variety of sweet and savoury treats including our Coronation Chicken Scotch Egg, Mini Beef Wellington, a delectable cheeseboard, Vanilla Panna Cotta and our limited edition Coronation English Sparkling Blanc de Blancs, you’re sure to have a cracking Coronation celebration!"
I'm barred from taking people on picnics due to a terrible chat up line I have been known to use involving picnics.
Is this a cocktail sausage, or am I just pleased to see you?
It was always likely the popularity of the monarchy would decline after the death of the queen and these polls confirm the general disinterest
The late queen's coronation is very much in my memory, and if this one is anything like hers I fear the decline in support will continue as times have changed so much since 1953
However, until there is a viable alternative I expect the monarchy to continue in a much reduced role
The 1953 Coronation came at an opportune time, and for a glamorous young woman. The grim war years and the rationing and hardship of the immediate post war years was over. Despite the loss of India and nascent independence movements elsewhere, the Empire was substantially intact, with room for optimism and a bright new future.
Seventy years later, with a man well past retirement age at the centre of events, and with massive squeeze on personal finances, there is less enthusiasm to party. It just isn't the national mood right now, but it doesn't itself mean that the institution is obsolete. Archaic, pompous and bizarrely ritualistic as it is, the Monarchy will plod on for longer.
I actually couldn't disagree more with the last bit - the pomp and pageantry, and rituals, is (Guardian excepted) what everyone enjoys and loves. It's uniquely British and a fantastic ceremony.
It's the magic that surrounds it that's the problem. And Charles just doesn't seem to believe in himself or it very much.
Only the most bonkers believe in Divine Right nowadays, and all that archaic obscurantism is lost on me. I like my Church stuff simple and puritanical. This high church vulgarity is anathema to me.
I am not anti Monarchist, just not my cup of tea. My mum will watch, I suppose.
Also -
PBRoyalists one day - "uniquely British"
PBRoyalists another day - "what do you mean? The French, Americans, etc. do it too ..."
Shockingly, people may support the same position but have different reasons for doing so.
Sure, but to claim that the pageantry etc is uniquely British is nonsense, unless one is claiming that it is the only coronation of a so-called sovereign of the UK (which is correct in strict logic, but not useful in reality). Edit: it's a common defence of PBRoyalists to comments about the cost of the royal guards, horseflesh etc. to say that Monsieur le President over in Paris is just the same with the Garde Nationale etc.
It's not an argument i would emphasise. I would be one of those instead as you note pointing out Heads of State do cost things in other places. I think the abstract equality argument is a stronger Republican point over the transactional one.
Picnic for 2, only £200. Food inflation right there.
"Celebrate the Coronation in style with our bountiful picnic basket brimming with treats for two. Featuring a variety of sweet and savoury treats including our Coronation Chicken Scotch Egg, Mini Beef Wellington, a delectable cheeseboard, Vanilla Panna Cotta and our limited edition Coronation English Sparkling Blanc de Blancs, you’re sure to have a cracking Coronation celebration!"
Though they've avoided mucky foreign flans, Panna Cotta suspiciously continental. What's wrong with a fine British flummery to go with all the other flummery?
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
We're also going away with flights massively cheaper on the Coronation day than the day before or after. So maybe everyone else is watching it
Except the Red Arrows, of course. An expensive and increasingly disprop[ortionate element of the shrinking RAF. And I was reading that the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight have had to rejig their normally carefully calculated and rationed maintenance and flying programme because of the coronation.
BBMF have no cause for complaint. They are one part of the RAF that is indulged with budget largesse and no questions asked. Their funding has quadrupled since 2010 to about 12m quid/year with 10 pilots and 40 odd ground crew. Operating 10 x WW2 aircraft is getting very expensive as the aircraft age and the sources of parts are drying up.
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
This is my plans for that weekend.
The leader of Britain’s largest anti-monarchist group says more than 1,350 people have pledged to protest during the coronation parade in May.
Graham Smith, the head of Republic, said the demonstration would mark “the largest protest action” in the group’s 50-year history.
Republic activists will wear yellow T-shirts and wave yellow placards to create an “unmissable sea of yellow” along the procession route in central London, he said. When the newly crowned King passes in his gold stage coach, they plan to boo loudly and chant: “Not my King”.
Most of the demonstration will be in Trafalgar Square but smaller groups of anti-monarchists will be dotted along other sections of the route.
Smith, 48, said activists would aim to arrive early in the morning to be as close to the barriers as possible. He stressed, however, that they were not planning any Extinction Rebellion-style stunts, because “it’s not a good look” and “doesn’t help the cause”.
Picnic for 2, only £200. Food inflation right there.
"Celebrate the Coronation in style with our bountiful picnic basket brimming with treats for two. Featuring a variety of sweet and savoury treats including our Coronation Chicken Scotch Egg, Mini Beef Wellington, a delectable cheeseboard, Vanilla Panna Cotta and our limited edition Coronation English Sparkling Blanc de Blancs, you’re sure to have a cracking Coronation celebration!"
Though they've avoided mucky foreign flans, Panna Cotta suspiciously continental. What's wrong with a fine British flummery to go with all the other flummery?
If we did become a republic, and the result of the first Presidential election was Jeremy Clarkson 52%, Gary Lineker 48%, the republicans would be the first to shout "not my President!".
There is a lot of of truth in that. The prospect of a mere person as President is terrifying.. President Blair anyone?
"Voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the decision to grant Tony Blair a knighthood, a poll has found.
Just 14 per cent of the public agreed with the decision announced in the New Year honours – only three per cent strongly.
By contrast 63 per cent were against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony, 41 per cent of whom said they were strongly against the move."
Also, in comparable parliamentary democracies the president is a ceremonial figure, often not directly elected. I don't get why people think the only alternative to a monarchy is a president elected in a national popular vote as this seems to be fairly uncommon for non-executive presidents. Even in parliamentary democracies where they are directly elected (eg Ireland) it doesn't seem to lead to equivalents of President Blair...
The idea upthread of having a Benthamite stuffed mascot is excellent.
Of course it would mean that Lenin could again be Russian head of state, and Tutenkamun ascend to the throne in Egypt.
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
We're also going away with flights massively cheaper on the Coronation day than the day before or after. So maybe everyone else is watching it
Except the Red Arrows, of course. An expensive and increasingly disprop[ortionate element of the shrinking RAF. And I was reading that the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight have had to rejig their normally carefully calculated and rationed maintenance and flying programme because of the coronation.
BBMF have no cause for complaint. They are one part of the RAF that is indulged with budget largesse and no questions asked. Their funding has quadrupled since 2010 to about 12m quid/year with 10 pilots and 40 odd ground crew. Operating 10 x WW2 aircraft is getting very expensive as the aircraft age and the sources of parts are drying up.
Interesting. Especially when IIRC the FAA has basically handed over its equivalent to a charity and crossed fingers, I believe?
If we did become a republic, and the result of the first Presidential election was Jeremy Clarkson 52%, Gary Lineker 48%, the republicans would be the first to shout "not my President!".
There is a lot of of truth in that. The prospect of a mere person as President is terrifying.. President Blair anyone?
"Voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the decision to grant Tony Blair a knighthood, a poll has found.
Just 14 per cent of the public agreed with the decision announced in the New Year honours – only three per cent strongly.
By contrast 63 per cent were against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony, 41 per cent of whom said they were strongly against the move."
Also, in comparable parliamentary democracies the president is a ceremonial figure, often not directly elected. I don't get why people think the only alternative to a monarchy is a president elected in a national popular vote as this seems to be fairly uncommon for non-executive presidents. Even in parliamentary democracies where they are directly elected (eg Ireland) it doesn't seem to lead to equivalents of President Blair...
The idea upthread of having a Benthamite stuffed mascot is excellent.
Of course it would mean that Lenin could again be Russian head of state, and Tutenkamun ascend to the throne in Egypt.
It certainly works for U of L. One of the better educational institutions, I believe.
Really did expect inflation to be in the 9s today. This will not make the various public sector strikes easier to settle. Very disappointing news.
I didn't. Inflation is always higher than you think (in the stats) but always lower in reality, strangely.
It's a lagging indicator the calculations for which are rather contrived.
I'm not worried.
The reporting of inflation figures really pisses me off
They say that, because inflation is still over 10%, prices are still going up
Ignoring the fact that ever since prices shot up by 10% over a couple of months, inflation is then baked in at around 10% for the following year, unless prices actually fall again during that year
Prices are still going up, though. Up 0.7% in March over February or 0.6% taking into account seasonal variation. On a seasonally adjusted basis prices have gone up every month since February 2021.
Is it treasonous of Fortnums to refer so often to the Queen Consort now she is rebranded simply as Queen? Anyway, that's my excuse for not lashing out £200 on a hamper.
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
We're also going away with flights massively cheaper on the Coronation day than the day before or after. So maybe everyone else is watching it
Except the Red Arrows, of course. An expensive and increasingly disprop[ortionate element of the shrinking RAF. And I was reading that the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight have had to rejig their normally carefully calculated and rationed maintenance and flying programme because of the coronation.
BBMF have no cause for complaint. They are one part of the RAF that is indulged with budget largesse and no questions asked. Their funding has quadrupled since 2010 to about 12m quid/year with 10 pilots and 40 odd ground crew. Operating 10 x WW2 aircraft is getting very expensive as the aircraft age and the sources of parts are drying up.
The Yanks seem to have no shortage of rich private individuals willing to throw millions, probably billions, at preserving their aeronautical heritage. Are our plutocrats just not patriotic enough (rhetorical question after looking at where many of them reside for tax purposes)?
This is Fake News. Rishi said he was halving inflation this year. Indeed he, other ministers and indeed PB Tories have all proclaimed that inflation is indeed falling and falling fast.
So this so-called data must be wrong. @felix flew in for the weekend, saw people having a whizzo jolly time, and then flew away again. That evidence is far more convincing that woke remoaner lies such as this "data".
If we did become a republic, and the result of the first Presidential election was Jeremy Clarkson 52%, Gary Lineker 48%, the republicans would be the first to shout "not my President!".
There is a lot of of truth in that. The prospect of a mere person as President is terrifying.. President Blair anyone?
"Voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the decision to grant Tony Blair a knighthood, a poll has found.
Just 14 per cent of the public agreed with the decision announced in the New Year honours – only three per cent strongly.
By contrast 63 per cent were against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony, 41 per cent of whom said they were strongly against the move."
Also, in comparable parliamentary democracies the president is a ceremonial figure, often not directly elected. I don't get why people think the only alternative to a monarchy is a president elected in a national popular vote as this seems to be fairly uncommon for non-executive presidents. Even in parliamentary democracies where they are directly elected (eg Ireland) it doesn't seem to lead to equivalents of President Blair...
The idea upthread of having a Benthamite stuffed mascot is excellent.
Of course it would mean that Lenin could again be Russian head of state, and Tutenkamun ascend to the throne in Egypt.
It certainly works for U of L. One of the better educational institutions, I believe.
We'd need to put up with the return of Mao, too. Though apparently he was so badly embalmed as to be almost unrecognisable.
On topic - people who think there should be a monarchy but also think the public shouldn't fund the Coronation ceremony are idiots. I will probably watch it. God save the King!
The cost to the Exchequer is said to be around £100m, of which a reasonable amount will cycle back to the Treasury in taxes. There will be tens of thousands of foreign tourists turning up, which will boost the economy, and the worldwide TV coverage will likely lead to increased UK inbound tourism over the summer.
It’s like a bigger-scale version of Singapore paying $20m for each F1 race, and making it back from tourism.
I'm pretty sure we have this 'boost to the economy' claim every time there is a royalty-related bank holiday. It is of course nonsense.
Also, given London is usually pretty full of tourists, the gain will be that much more marginal.
Logically giving extra days off (while welcome) seems unlikely to increase GDP - otherwise it would be a very popular way to grow the economy! And discretionary spending on quiche ingredients is probably money that just doesn't get spent on something else.
Even in tourism terms I'd need to see some good evidence that the net effect isn't negative in current account terms at least. Giving British people an extra day off and therefore an extra chance to go abroad on a long weekend, when all non-British people will not be given an extra day off, seems more likely to have negative effect on the balance of payments.
Think if it as the cost of maintaining the image.
Whatever you think of the monarchy, replacing it would likely be as costly, and any of the alternatives so far suggested are pretty dull.
I just don't like this dishonest 'boost to the economy' nonsense every time there is a royal wedding or whatever.
There is a temporary blip - though whether this is “net extra” or simply “advanced/delayed spending” is another matter;
Thanks. Although that is just hospitality and retail. And you'd have to factor in other things - the pandemic would affect those year-on-year comparisons, for example. Also maybe those sectors benefit from any bank holiday weekend etc. But presumably sectors that depend on people turning up to work had big declines that week because of the extra bank holiday.
Why do we need a coronation? Charles is King. Charles is Head of State. Charles is already in role doing all of the constitutional things demanded of him. Bussing him up the Mall to have a crown plonked on his head does what? Specifically please.
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
We're also going away with flights massively cheaper on the Coronation day than the day before or after. So maybe everyone else is watching it
Except the Red Arrows, of course. An expensive and increasingly disprop[ortionate element of the shrinking RAF. And I was reading that the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight have had to rejig their normally carefully calculated and rationed maintenance and flying programme because of the coronation.
BBMF have no cause for complaint. They are one part of the RAF that is indulged with budget largesse and no questions asked. Their funding has quadrupled since 2010 to about 12m quid/year with 10 pilots and 40 odd ground crew. Operating 10 x WW2 aircraft is getting very expensive as the aircraft age and the sources of parts are drying up.
The Yanks seem to have no shortage of rich private individuals willing to throw millions, probably billions, at preserving their aeronautical heritage. Are our plutocrats just not patriotic enough (rhetorical question after looking at where many of them reside for tax purposes)?
Mrs Thatcher was said to be surprised and disappointed that shovelling millions of pounds to yuppies did not increase charitable donations to American levels. Did they not understand her invoking the Good Samaritan? Did she not understand US tax write-offs?
THanks for that - very interesting. Food I had expected but not housing, not to that degree.
Reportedly BTL landlords have increased rents to cover mortgage repayments as interest rates were raised in order to combat inflation, or something.
Mrs C came back from a visit to Sainsbury’s yesterday remarking on how prices there seem to have increased. She normally shops at the co-op, where prices haven’t increased so much, or at the local farm shop where comparisons are difficult.
Comments
They say that, because inflation is still over 10%, prices are still going up
Ignoring the fact that ever since prices shot up by 10% over a couple of months, inflation is then baked in at around 10% for the following year, unless prices actually fall again during that year
Should...
EU Sinecure. BREXIT
UN Role “That woman from the UN”
Some other international role Criminal investigation (at best) into Party her husband managed (sound like a good fit for the EU - ed.)
And we could modernise the legal system instead. Rather than have the final proclamation of laws made in feudal French and signed as such, replace it with "Whatever" when a bored co-regent Queen Meghan scrawls a big MR on documents handed to her by flunkies in her dressing room in Hollywood.
And then there is the hit to GDP, which is the weirdest criticism. They'll be banning weekends next.
The problem goes back at least a couple of decades before that, though.
The social and economic cost of inadequate housing is huge. No government has really addressed it in decades.
When he said 'halve inflation'...
@TorstenBell
Inflation remains in double digits at 10.1% in March:
- twice the 5% in the US (Europe is the wrong continent to be on energy prices wise)
- partly reflecting dreadful food price rises (forgot double digits - we’re talking 20%)
Even in tourism terms I'd need to see some good evidence that the net effect isn't negative in current account terms at least. Giving British people an extra day off and therefore an extra chance to go abroad on a long weekend, when all non-British people will not be given an extra day off, seems more likely to have negative effect on the balance of payments.
It is quite heartening to see that most young people won’t be interested, as it implies they have something better to do, which is nice for them. I’m also not going to begrudge the people who enjoy this stuff; as the funeral showed we do this pomp and nonsense very well.
I do wonder how much of the opposition and protest is really just a channelling of unhappiness with the wider establishment and status quo (not the band), rather than genuine republican sentiment.
I am not anti Monarchist, just not my cup of tea. My mum will watch, I suppose.
Prices are continuing to go up, it's not just reporting of previous increases still in the 12 month numbers.
PBRoyalists one day - "uniquely British"
PBRoyalists another day - "what do you mean? The French, Americans, etc. do it too ..."
Whatever you think of the monarchy, replacing it would likely be as costly, and any of the alternatives so far suggested are pretty dull.
As with the wine, we buy into the self-mythologising and the brand.
"China has furiously dismissed a call by the G7 for Beijing to “act as a responsible member of the international community” and “work together” with the West."
I see Macron's China appeasement is going well.
It's why so much of it ultimately fails because it doesn't sit well here.
(*it also shows how entirely synthesised and confected a lot of the #FBPE stuff is - they do it because they want to signal their internationalist values but they couldn't really give a toss about Europe and actually take all their cues from the Anglosphere across the pond)
He's in his seventies; he is what he is, and isn't going to change.
And the 'image' the royal family gives the UK is definitely double-edged.
https://www.fortnumandmason.com/seasonal-events/kings-coronation-collection
Ours might be ultimately destroyed here by Puritans, so all it's acceptable to eat in 20 years time is kale, bugs, algae and lettuce.
I won't watch a second of it, but lots of people would, and I'd get an extra long weekend. Win win.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/thank-you-maam-uk-retail-hospitality-get-jubilee-fillip-2022-06-06/
"Celebrate the Coronation in style with our bountiful picnic basket brimming with treats for two. Featuring a variety of sweet and savoury treats including our Coronation Chicken Scotch Egg, Mini Beef Wellington, a delectable cheeseboard, Vanilla Panna Cotta and our limited edition Coronation English Sparkling Blanc de Blancs, you’re sure to have a cracking Coronation celebration!"
Apathy the system can survive but is risky. Antipathy must be countered or it will change eventually.
I'm just surprised various countries have not yet ditched the monarchy- maybe intentionally waiting till after the coronation.
It won’t stop me from enjoying the coronation, though.
Nor will it alter my view that British Republicanism is like US socialism - silly cosplay that will never gain traction among the population.
The first is the price of putting a roof over your head - up 26.1% over the last 12 months
The second is spiralling food price inflation - which at 19.1% during the year to March is at a 45-year high.
Driven by food and housing costs, this inflation data remains politically explosive.
This cost-of-living crisis is still very much with us - and will continue to dominate politics, as it has for the past 18 months.
https://twitter.com/LiamHalligan/status/1648577148003680256?s=20
This includes PPI inflation in the #food sector, which means the CPI rate here should start to plummet soon... 👇🤞
https://ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/producerpriceinflation/latest
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1648586044202262530?s=20
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-knighthood-poll-petition-starmer-b1986814.html
"Voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the decision to grant Tony Blair a knighthood, a poll has found.
Just 14 per cent of the public agreed with the decision announced in the New Year honours – only three per cent strongly.
By contrast 63 per cent were against the move to turn Mr Blair into Sir Tony, 41 per cent of whom said they were strongly against the move."
Also, in comparable parliamentary democracies the president is a ceremonial figure, often not directly elected. I don't get why people think the only alternative to a monarchy is a president elected in a national popular vote as this seems to be fairly uncommon for non-executive presidents. Even in parliamentary democracies where they are directly elected (eg Ireland) it doesn't seem to lead to equivalents of President Blair.
Of course it depends on the role of the president - in Italy, for example, the president is a much more important figure. But I would expect a UK president to fulfil similar constitutional role to the current monarchy ie largely ceremonial.
Many people don't have that luxury.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/18/why-fox-news-had-to-settle-the-dominion-suit-00092708
...In recent months, Fox had insisted that a victory for Dominion would pose a broader threat to media protections in this country, but it is not clear whether or to what extent this is correct. The reason is that, despite hundreds of pages of pretrial filings, Fox never managed to identify a single instance of legitimate newsgathering that would have been credibly endangered in the future if Dominion prevailed, as the company has now done. And, of course, the backdrop here is that Fox’s business model has for years drawn intense criticism from media analysts who have argued that the network routinely crosses the boundaries of responsible reporting by pandering to its mostly conservative audience and elevating dubious but politically convenient claims...
('Dubious claims' = blatant lies.)
Now they've accepted the likelihood of failing in court with their defence against 'actual malice', they will likely settle the other outstanding lawsuit with a fat payout.
Of course it would mean that Lenin could again be Russian head of state, and Tutenkamun ascend to the throne in Egypt.
So this so-called data must be wrong. @felix flew in for the weekend, saw people having a whizzo jolly time, and then flew away again. That evidence is far more convincing that woke remoaner lies such as this "data".
Though apparently he was so badly embalmed as to be almost unrecognisable.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nicola-sturgeon-snp-news-husband-yousaf-b2322368.html
Here’s a taster of the comedy mentioned:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NBGOryiqZZI
She normally shops at the co-op, where prices haven’t increased so much, or at the local farm shop where comparisons are difficult.