politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on Queen’s Speech day – and we still don’t if the Tories

Austerity, what austerity....

https://order-order.com/2017/06/21/what-austerity-public-spending-down-just-0-2-since-2009/

Britain isn't good at hot summers.

I'm in such a rage on this day of rage that I'm going to to have a sitting... In the sun, in my garden!

#DayOfRage

It does seem as if Theresa explicitly lied to a great number of voters in marginal seats: She promised that if she lost just 6 seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be negotiating Brexit.
She lost 12 seats.
Why is David Davis negotiating?

If coporation tax is too be devolved to N.Ireland you have to devolve it to Scotland as well.
Or the SNP will make a come back very quickley.

Hope the Duke of Edinburgh is alright.

I've spent the last few days in Northern Ireland, which was sunny and pleasantly warm. I'm currently speeding back to London to a flat on the third floor with huge warehouse windows and a massive skylight.

It's going to be like an oven, isn't it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Austerity, what austerity....

https://order-order.com/2017/06/21/what-austerity-public-spending-down-just-0-2-since-2009/

It's an interesting point and as others have said in countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain public servants have suffered significant pay cuts.

That hasn't happened here - instead the downward pressure on grades within job profiles has accentuated the differences between the public and private sectors. The skill set required for a medium level post in the public sector and the money that now commands are inferior to the equivalent in the private sector so the public sector struggles to recruit specialists - I've seen this in the field of estate management as an example.

There has also been the ludicrous ring-fencing of NHS, education and other budgets so the reductions have fallen disproportionately in local Government and other sectors.

RochdalePioneers said:

Am going to Royal Ascot on Friday for a corporate jolly. Don't have any interest in horses. Do have an interest in people - think it will be fascinating seeing who is there and what they are wearing.

I may nominate a horse as Arlene and another as Theresa. See if Theresa can catch up with that promised C&S deal before passing the Brexit finishing post.

Would have expected a man like yourself to decline a jolly to an elitist event like this on moral grounds!

RochdalePioneers said:

Am going to Royal Ascot on Friday for a corporate jolly. Don't have any interest in horses. Do have an interest in people - think it will be fascinating seeing who is there and what they are wearing.

I may nominate a horse as Arlene and another as Theresa. See if Theresa can catch up with that promised C&S deal before passing the Brexit finishing post.

Capitalist running dog pig.

TGOHF said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It does seem as if Theresa explicitly lied to a great number of voters in marginal seats: She promised that if she lost just 6 seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be negotiating Brexit.
She lost 12 seats.
Why is David Davis negotiating?

the SNP collapse saved her.

Isn't that irrelevant? Can you explain the maths you're using?

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It does seem as if Theresa explicitly lied to a great number of voters in marginal seats: She promised that if she lost just 6 seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be negotiating Brexit.
She lost 12 seats.
Why is David Davis negotiating?

the SNP collapse saved her.

Isn't that irrelevant? Can you explain the maths you're using?

If the Conservatives hadn't gained 12 seats from the SNP then they would only have 306 seats which would mean the QS could be voted down, even with DUP support for Con.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Austerity, what austerity....

https://order-order.com/2017/06/21/what-austerity-public-spending-down-just-0-2-since-2009/

The actual report is more illuminating. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/6967/attachments/original/1497954069/The_end_of_austerity_pdf.pdf?1497954069

In my view the key figures are these:

"In 2016-17 spending on welfare for people of working age and children was 3.9 per cent lower than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)
 In 2016-17 spending on welfare for pensioners was 12.1 per cent higher than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)."

Now I would accept that there are more pensioners in 2017 than there were in 2010 but not that many more. The invidious effect of the triple lock has been to transfer significant quantities of public spending from the working age population (and their children) to the old. It is, frankly, a disgrace and one can only hope that the higher turnout of younger voters in the recent election means that the incentive to indulge in this intergenerational theft is reduced.

Looked at overall to keep government spending flat when the rest of the economy has grown something like 14% over the period has firstly brought public spending more into line with the taxes raised than it was in 2010 and reduced the % of the economy being taken by the public sector. Public spending is still not at a sustainable level but it is closer.

The major problem is that the economy as a whole has not been rebalanced. In particular we continue to have an unsustainable trade deficit which results in ever more of our assets being foreign owned. We have not managed to increase manufacturing either in terms of employment or as a share of the economy. We are still spending far too much on ourselves as a nation, significantly more than we earn.


DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Austerity, what austerity....

https://order-order.com/2017/06/21/what-austerity-public-spending-down-just-0-2-since-2009/

The actual report is more illuminating. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/6967/attachments/original/1497954069/The_end_of_austerity_pdf.pdf?1497954069

In my view the key figures are these:

"In 2016-17 spending on welfare for people of working age and children was 3.9 per cent lower than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)
 In 2016-17 spending on welfare for pensioners was 12.1 per cent higher than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)."

Now I would accept that there are more pensioners in 2017 than there were in 2010 but not that many more. The invidious effect of the triple lock has been to transfer significant quantities of public spending from the working age population (and their children) to the old. It is, frankly, a disgrace and one can only hope that the higher turnout of younger voters in the recent election means that the incentive to indulge in this intergenerational theft is reduced.

Looked at overall to keep government spending flat when the rest of the economy has grown something like 14% over the period has firstly brought public spending more into line with the taxes raised than it was in 2010 and reduced the % of the economy being taken by the public sector. Public spending is still not at a sustainable level but it is closer.

The major problem is that the economy as a whole has not been rebalanced. In particular we continue to have an unsustainable trade deficit which results in ever more of our assets being foreign owned. We have not managed to increase manufacturing either in terms of employment or as a share of the economy. We are still spending far too much on ourselves as a nation, significantly more than we earn.


The failure to do any real rebalancing is a massive issue, along with personal debt having gone up and up as people have continued to splash the cash in the shops.

dyedwoolie said:

Tories have a simple decision to make imo.
Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
Keeping Corbyn out of number 10 only seems to be a goal if by squatting you can get things done.

The risk for the tories in letting him in is even if his programmes did turn out to ruin britain's economy, it wouldn't neccesarily be soon enough to stop him winning re-election. Much like Trump or Brexit, economic damage would probably be delayed (hence why I still think Trump will win in 2020 at the moment, even though he has largely proved shit, the economy is still chugging along).

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Am going to Royal Ascot on Friday for a corporate jolly. Don't have any interest in horses. Do have an interest in people - think it will be fascinating seeing who is there and what they are wearing.

I may nominate a horse as Arlene and another as Theresa. See if Theresa can catch up with that promised C&S deal before passing the Brexit finishing post.

Capitalist running dog pig.

Yup. And very good at being a capitalist. Capitalism is good - we want people to have well paid secure jobs and that means prosperous and thriving businesses.

DecrepitJohnL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Am going to Royal Ascot on Friday for a corporate jolly. Don't have any interest in horses. Do have an interest in people - think it will be fascinating seeing who is there and what they are wearing.

I may nominate a horse as Arlene and another as Theresa. See if Theresa can catch up with that promised C&S deal before passing the Brexit finishing post.

The Royal Ascot you see on telly -- top hats and champagne -- is in the Royal Enclosure. The rest is more normal, or at least, normal for Ascot.

Quite right. I live near Acsot and dread this week. Imagine the worst kind of tw*ts from across the class divide, get them off their faces by midday and then set them loose on a town. That's what Ascot Week is like for us locals. Mercifully I'm off to Scotland tomorrow so will avoid the racegoers' vomit and filth.

dyedwoolie said:

What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are

I enjoy all the traditions.

Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Am going to Royal Ascot on Friday for a corporate jolly. Don't have any interest in horses. Do have an interest in people - think it will be fascinating seeing who is there and what they are wearing.

I may nominate a horse as Arlene and another as Theresa. See if Theresa can catch up with that promised C&S deal before passing the Brexit finishing post.

Capitalist running dog pig.

Yup. And very good at being a capitalist. Capitalism is good - we want people to have well paid secure jobs and that means prosperous and thriving businesses.

Capitalism is dreadful when combined with social democracy as it becomes a parody of itself. If you're not prepared to let the banking system fail, don't have Capitalism because it morphs into global corporatism and damages democracy.

Does seem to be quite high turnover:

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/877467887153426432

Paristonda said:

dyedwoolie said:

Tories have a simple decision to make imo.
Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
Keeping Corbyn out of number 10 only seems to be a goal if by squatting you can get things done.

The risk for the tories in letting him in is even if his programmes did turn out to ruin britain's economy, it wouldn't neccesarily be soon enough to stop him winning re-election. Much like Trump or Brexit, economic damage would probably be delayed (hence why I still think Trump will win in 2020 at the moment, even though he has largely proved shit, the economy is still chugging along).

True. They might find themselves out for 20 years though by clinging on.

AlastairMeeks said:

I've spent the last few days in Northern Ireland, which was sunny and pleasantly warm. I'm currently speeding back to London to a flat on the third floor with huge warehouse windows and a massive skylight.

It's going to be like an oven, isn't it?

If you were a Tory politician, you'd probably be sacked for that!

Andy_Cooke said:

not_on_fire said:

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

Andy_Cooke said:

It does seem as if Theresa explicitly lied to a great number of voters in marginal seats: She promised that if she lost just 6 seats, Jeremy Corbyn would be negotiating Brexit.
She lost 12 seats.
Why is David Davis negotiating?

the SNP collapse saved her.

Isn't that irrelevant? Can you explain the maths you're using?

If the Conservatives hadn't gained 12 seats from the SNP then they would only have 306 seats which would mean the QS could be voted down, even with DUP support for Con.

But then she'd have lost 18 seats, not 12.
Her claim (promise?) was that if she lost her majority, Corbyn would be the negotiator.
She lost her majority.
There doesn't seem to have been even a hint of Corbyn being the negotiator. Surely she didn't deliberately lie?

Corbynista logic?

Miss Marf, I'm sure everyone understands

Mr. Woolie, traditions are magnificent, you Bercowian modernist!

dyedwoolie said:

Tories have a simple decision to make imo.
Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
Keeping Corbyn out of number 10 only seems to be a goal if by squatting you can get things done.

Alot can change in 5 years. 5 years of a completely hamstrung Tory government except the Brexit talks is vastly superior to a Corbyn government.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Marf, I'm sure everyone understands

Mr. Woolie, traditions are magnificent, you Bercowian modernist!

I'm a republican Morris! Once HMQ goes, big national mourning for the passing of the past and thanks for a life of service then move on to a new world.

DavidL said:

[snip]
In my view the key figures are these:

"In 2016-17 spending on welfare for people of working age and children was 3.9 per cent lower than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)
 In 2016-17 spending on welfare for pensioners was 12.1 per cent higher than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)."

Now I would accept that there are more pensioners in 2017 than there were in 2010 but not that many more. The invidious effect of the triple lock has been to transfer significant quantities of public spending from the working age population (and their children) to the old. It is, frankly, a disgrace and one can only hope that the higher turnout of younger voters in the recent election means that the incentive to indulge in this intergenerational theft is reduced.
[snip]

It's not a disgrace.

All you are seeing there is something very obvious: pensioners' income is less volatile than working-age people's income. In bad times, it doesn't fall much if at all, because there is no effect from unemployment, the state pension doesn't fall (generally not even in real terms), annuities continue to be paid unchanged, and final-salary pensions continue to be paid unchanged. Conversely, though, in good times none of those sources of income increases much if at all, whereas working-age incomes improve because of lower unemployment, higher salaries, and bonuses. As a result of this effect, in the years of good times leading up to the crash, pensioners' income had hugely fallen behind. In the bad times after the crash, it was working-age people who did worse. This is not at all a disgrace, it's perfectly normal.

Of course, none of this takes place in a policy vacuum, and it is true that policy deliberately protected pensioners in and after the crash, in particular with the triple lock. But the triple lock overwhelmingly benefited the poorest pensioners (those reliant on the state pension only), and they are really quite poor, even now. It was a reasonable policy at the time to build in a bit of catch-up for the poorest pensioners after the boom times left them so far behind.

The policy now has done its job, and should be abandoned now, as Theresa May tried to do. Unfortunately the votes of the just-about-managing youngsters and young families made that politically impossible, and have cemented the triple lock in place. It's a funny old world, but that is what they voted for.

Edit: I should have added that of the course the real danger for pensioners is high inflation. If that returns, they will be the ones who are very badly hit, as they were in the 70s and 80s.

CarlottaVance said:

Does seem to be quite high turnover:

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/877467887153426432

If TM had any sense turnover should have been 100% first thing on Friday morning.

dyedwoolie said:

Paristonda said:

dyedwoolie said:

Tories have a simple decision to make imo.
Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
Keeping Corbyn out of number 10 only seems to be a goal if by squatting you can get things done.

The risk for the tories in letting him in is even if his programmes did turn out to ruin britain's economy, it wouldn't neccesarily be soon enough to stop him winning re-election. Much like Trump or Brexit, economic damage would probably be delayed (hence why I still think Trump will win in 2020 at the moment, even though he has largely proved shit, the economy is still chugging along).

True. They might find themselves out for 20 years though by clinging on.

By that measure then the incoming labour government would have proved to be a success for which people kept voting

dyedwoolie said:

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are

I enjoy all the traditions.

Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.

It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?

What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?

dyedwoolie said:

Paristonda said:

dyedwoolie said:

Tories have a simple decision to make imo.
Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
Keeping Corbyn out of number 10 only seems to be a goal if by squatting you can get things done.

The risk for the tories in letting him in is even if his programmes did turn out to ruin britain's economy, it wouldn't neccesarily be soon enough to stop him winning re-election. Much like Trump or Brexit, economic damage would probably be delayed (hence why I still think Trump will win in 2020 at the moment, even though he has largely proved shit, the economy is still chugging along).

True. They might find themselves out for 20 years though by clinging on.

I thought we'd had enough of daft long term predicitons like this. Everyone said just two months ago that Labour would be out of power until the 2030s.

DavidL said:

ReggieCide said:

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Austerity, what austerity....

https://order-order.com/2017/06/21/what-austerity-public-spending-down-just-0-2-since-2009/

The actual report is more illuminating. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/6967/attachments/original/1497954069/The_end_of_austerity_pdf.pdf?1497954069

In my view the key figures are these:

"In 2016-17 spending on welfare for people of working age and children was 3.9 per cent lower than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)
 In 2016-17 spending on welfare for pensioners was 12.1 per cent higher than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)."

Now I would accept that there are more pensioners in 2017 than there were in 2010 but not that many more. The invidious effect of the triple lock has been to transfer significant quantities of public spending from the working age population (and their children) to the old. It is, frankly, a disgrace and one can only hope that the higher turnout of younger voters in the recent election means that the incentive to indulge in this intergenerational theft is reduced.

Looked at overall to keep government spending flat when the rest of the economy has grown something like 14% over the period has firstly brought public spending more into line with the taxes raised than it was in 2010 and reduced the % of the economy being taken by the public sector. Public spending is still not at a sustainable level but it is closer.

The major problem is that the economy as a whole has not been rebalanced. In particular we continue to have an unsustainable trade deficit which results in ever more of our assets being foreign owned. We have not managed to increase manufacturing either in terms of employment or as a share of the economy. We are still spending far too much on ourselves as a nation, significantly more than we earn.


Didn't younger voters vote FOR inter-generational theft without realising that they were doing so?

Well it depends how many of Corbyn's fantasy sweeties you want to eat before you are sick. Cancelling student loans, for example, would have made a significant difference to the young and removing the caps on public sector wages would have helped many in work.

I did say that they hadn't realised. You can ascribe your own reasons for that, mine are best unsaid.

Mr. Eagles, the opinions of traitor weasels rest light in the scales

[I'm an atheist, and have no problem with the anthem].

https://order-order.com/2017/06/21/mcdonnell-repeatedly-backed-far-left-group-behind-day-of-rage/

While Jezza isn't the sharpest tool in the box and wed to his failed policies from the 70s, I have always said McMao is far far more dangerous.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, the opinions of traitor weasels rest light in the scales

[I'm an atheist, and have no problem with the anthem].

Did you get my response to your query?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, you silly sausage.

Huzzah for monarchy!

Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?

When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.

Objectively, our national anthem is truly dire. It is incredibly dull. We should replace it with almost anything else. There's a bunch of possible alternatives to God Save the Queen that are often suggested. The American and the French ones are far better than ours.

Just realised, I think this is the first time I've ever actually watched the Queen's Speech.

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

[snip]
In my view the key figures are these:

"In 2016-17 spending on welfare for people of working age and children was 3.9 per cent lower than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)
 In 2016-17 spending on welfare for pensioners was 12.1 per cent higher than it was in 2009-10 (real terms)."

Now I would accept that there are more pensioners in 2017 than there were in 2010 but not that many more. The invidious effect of the triple lock has been to transfer significant quantities of public spending from the working age population (and their children) to the old. It is, frankly, a disgrace and one can only hope that the higher turnout of younger voters in the recent election means that the incentive to indulge in this intergenerational theft is reduced.
[snip]

It's not a disgrace.

All you are seeing there is something very obvious: pensioners' income is less volatile than working-age people's income. In bad times, it doesn't fall much if at all, because there is no effect from unemployment, the state pension doesn't fall (generally not even in real terms), annuities continue to be paid unchanged, and final-salary pensions continue to be paid unchanged. Conversely, though, in good times none of those sources of income increases much if at all, whereas working-age incomes improve because of lower unemployment, higher salaries, and bonuses. As a result of this effect, in the years of good times leading up to the crash, pensioners' income had hugely fallen behind. In the bad times after the crash, it was working-age people who did worse. This is not at all a disgrace, it's perfectly normal.

Of course, none of this takes place in a policy vacuum, and it is true that policy deliberately protected pensioners in and after the crash, in particular with the triple lock. But the triple lock overwhelmingly benefited the poorest pensioners (those reliant on the state pension only), and they are really quite poor, even now. It was a reasonable policy at the time to build in a bit of catch-up for the poorest pensioners after the boom times left them so far behind.

The policy now has done its job, and should be abandoned now, as Theresa May tried to do. Unfortunately the votes of the just-about-managing youngsters and young families made that politically impossible, and have cemented the triple lock in place. It's a funny old world, but that is what they voted for.

Edit: I should have added that of the course the real danger for pensioners is high inflation. If that returns, they will be the ones who are very badly hit, as they were in the 70s and 80s.

Quite

Stark_Dawning said:

Quite right. I live near Acsot and dread this week. Imagine the worst kind of tw*ts from across the class divide, get them off their faces by midday and then set them loose on a town. That's what Ascot Week is like for us locals. Mercifully I'm off to Scotland tomorrow so will avoid the racegoers' vomit and filth.

Indeed and the ITV coverage yesterday was a superb PR job for Ascot - top hats, nice dresses (the ladies were well dressed too), bandstands, champagne, cucumber sandwiches, afternoon tea etc, etc. Reminded me of John Major's "Back to Berkshire" speech in 1993 (or something similar).

The interior Grandstand shots were at the Royal Enclosure/Queen Anne stand end as well. We saw only distant views of the tens of thousands camped out on the infield as well as down past the two furlong pole though I did note young men adorned with supplies of Stella moving through the crowd.

It's the "dark underside" of the Royal meeting and why I don't know. Oddly enough, it's the corporate boxes where the drinking is greatest (free) and the behaviour the worst for obvious reasons but we're the same as the Melbourne Cup and I expect the Mail will have some appropriate pictures in the week ahead.

Liz on shortly:

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2a04b7b1-8794-452e-8896-300d4ebc7902

Edit - one of the R4 satirical shows used to have a great sketch of the queen reading her speech progressively struggling with fits of the giggles......

DUP asking for one billion extra for NHS and one billion extra for infrastructure report colleagues at @BBCnireland

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, you silly sausage.

Huzzah for monarchy!

Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?

When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.

Don't involve the Queen. The PM should read out the government programme in the house of commons. Simple.and better.

Mr. Smithson, I'm afraid it hasn't come through yet (assuming it was via Vanilla).

TOPPING said:

dyedwoolie said:

TOPPING said:

dyedwoolie said:

GIN1138 said:

dyedwoolie said:

What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are

I enjoy all the traditions.

Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.

It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?

What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?

That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap.
Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.

And now you see why it caused Socrates such problems.

I do indeed. I do not like green eggs and ham, but I'm not entirely sure what I do fancy.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DUP asking for one billion extra for NHS and one billion extra for infrastructure report colleagues at @BBCnireland

One billion total for the NHS budget, or just for NI?

Just for Northern Ireland

As stated below, if she had any sense she would make £200 a week extra by 2022 a similar policy to the coalition's £10k IC threshold by 2015.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DUP asking for one billion extra for NHS and one billion extra for infrastructure report colleagues at @BBCnireland

One billion total for the NHS budget, or just for NI?

Just for Northern Ireland

One third the cost of a national care service!

TheScreamingEagles said:

DUP asking for one billion extra for NHS and one billion extra for infrastructure report colleagues at @BBCnireland

Just in NI? I think it is the consequences of that for the other devolved administrations that had the Treasury up in arms.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, you silly sausage.

Huzzah for monarchy!

Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?

When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.

A directly elected Monarch is what we need.

The national anthem is an outrage to those of us who are agnostic Republicans.

Maybe the next monarch will change it. Replace King/Queen with country and replace God with faith?

DavidL said:

The answer to these questions and more, sadly, has been that oldies vote. I am disappointed by the outcome of the election (to put it mildly) but I very much hope the higher turnout shows younger generations have got the message.

Depends what they vote for. In the general election that has just happened, they voted for economic collapse, huge unemployment, humongous increases in the national debt they'll be burdened with, and continued protection of wealthy pensioners.