politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives must again make the case for private enterpr
Options
Comments
-
I wondered at that too....of course it will have been deliberate....I wonder if its the difference between a family and a State occasion?Cyclefree said:I was just a teensy bit surprised that there was no curtsey/bow to HMQ before they walked back down the aisle..
0 -
Black Lace party album getting an outing in Windsor. One does a wonderful Agado.0
-
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.0 -
I
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=210 -
They curtsey to the Queen when leaving church after a Xmas service so I expected it. But these finer points of protocol are not our concern.CarlottaVance said:
I wondered at that too....of course it will have been deliberate....I wonder if its the difference between a family and a State occasion?Cyclefree said:I was just a teensy bit surprised that there was no curtsey/bow to HMQ before they walked back down the aisle..
Nice to see Philip walking easily. He will be 97 next month.
England looks gorgeous in weather like this. Few places to beat it.0 -
Around 30% is, for sure. The rest, not so much, though to the left of the country generally.Recidivist said:I
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=21
0 -
Well said.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.0 -
The conga in the line of succession is the highpoint of any royal wedding, just to see the look on Prince Andrews face.0
-
Good afternoon, my fellow royalist patriots.0
-
Interesting to see how many lefties on Twitter were praising the royal wedding as a snub to Trump and Brexit.0
-
Surely the lack of an invitation to Guy Verhofstadt shows that it was a pro-Brexit wedding?AndyJS said:Interesting to see how many lefties on Twitter were praising the royal wedding as a snub to Trump and Brexit.
0 -
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Cyclefree said:
Well said.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
+10 -
Yes. But the evidence suggests that a lot of the new members are armchair socialists, who'll vote in a leadership or NEC election, by post or online, but who won't come out to a selection meeting - which is why the left's dominance in national Labour Party elections isn't translating into a slew of left-wing parliamentary candidates.Recidivist said:I
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=210 -
British Tourist Board ... you can rest easy, your job is done.0
-
But - no Farage?SandyRentool said:
Surely the lack of an invitation to Guy Verhofstadt shows that it was a pro-Brexit wedding?AndyJS said:Interesting to see how many lefties on Twitter were praising the royal wedding as a snub to Trump and Brexit.
Or was he in a plane over Windsor trailing a banner?0 -
Anyone know the turnout in Lewisham?0
-
Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
One of the pieces played was Salut d’Amour by Elgar - here beautifully played by Aldo Ciccolino - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcHjmXmEg0. Enjoy!0 -
Miss Cyclefree, when you wear tinted spectacles, the whole world can appear whatever colour you want it to be.0
-
The music was all superbly chosen and delivered. Should have watched it on YouTube - no commentary at all!Cyclefree said:Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
One of the pieces played was Salut d’Amour by Elgar - here beautifully played by Aldo Ciccolino - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcHjmXmEg0. Enjoy!
0 -
Excellent I understand.SandyRentool said:Anyone know the turnout in Lewisham?
58 street parties, 12 Harry and Meghan look-alike events and a ducking stool for Republican whingers and the day is yet young !!0 -
It varies. People join because they want redistribution, socialism, progress, however you put it. They like the general drift of Corbyn's approach, and admire his tenacity and good temper. Very few are dogmatic line-followers either of the leadership or any faction. Very few yearn for vague centrism, but a good local candidate will get a fair hearing and will beat someone whose main recommendation is one faction or another.Recidivist said:I
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=21
Which makes it weird when centrists drift off into apathy. There's plenty of scope for them to win selections if they bother.0 -
I am learning that piece. Like many deceptively simple pieces it is hard to play well.Gardenwalker said:
The music was all superbly chosen and delivered. Should have watched it on YouTube - no commentary at all!Cyclefree said:Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
One of the pieces played was Salut d’Amour by Elgar - here beautifully played by Aldo Ciccolino - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcHjmXmEg0. Enjoy!
Anyway the neighbours are having a barbecue and the smell of frying meat on such a hot day is ghastly. So time for a walk.0 -
Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.RoyalBlue said:Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.0 -
£32m well spent.CD13 said:British Tourist Board ... you can rest easy, your job is done.
0 -
Mr. T, it's a splendid advert for UK tourism today. Castle, royals, marvellous weather. Huzzah!0
-
'We don't care about majesty and pageantry'? Pull the other one! Have you ever seen the US Presidential motorcade compared to the British PM's? Or the Presidential inaugration? Or funerals of former Presidents? Or the President's State of the Union Address to Congress? Or even the Super bowl?MTimT said:
Such comments always embarrass me somewhat and make me more than a little sad for the UK.RoyalBlue said:Our former charges may exceed us in power and might, but they will never exceed us in majesty.
The main reason this is true is that we care about majesty and pageantry and the US - for all their oohing and aahing when seeing others do it - does not. It's easy to win a race when the other party does not care. Its sad to see someone vaunting winning when others are not competing.
To me, to read that the US may have power, but we have pomp does not indicate pride, but diminished sense of self worth. Sure, enjoy the pomp, but find something worthwhile to be proud about. There is much the UK should rightfully boast.
I guess this is why royal weddings bring out the republican in me.
In any case this was not a US v British thing so much as Meghan is herself American.0 -
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practicejustin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.-1 -
I assume you're spoofing.justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Who'd have thought in 2018 we'd still have men attempting to determine what women wear .... perhaps Harry should invest in a chastity belt for his wife when he's away alone from the marital home !!justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Are you for real?justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Some excellent comments today on the private enterprise/free market/capitalism vs state-run/nationalised debate.
I do fear the Conservatives, these days, have a tendency to look as though they are to free market economics as cargo cultists are to aircraft. They recite a few things that they're told work, wherever they align with their prejudices, but without attempting understanding or context.It could equally be argued that Labour tend to be exactly the same but for nationalisation.
In fact, it's not just arguably unfair, but legitimately unfair. David Herdson is a Conservative who's made an eloquent case; Nick Palmer a Corbynite who's shown equally insightful understanding, and many commentators here from all over the spectrum have done likewise. Maybe it's the media trivialising and oversimplifying things? Or maybe those with power tend to the cargo cult side of things?
Market economies haven't been successful because business people have been cleverer than politicians. They've succeeded because disciplined pluralism (the compulsion to try multiple ways of doing things due to competition in an ever-changing climate, coupled by a fast (and ruthless) feedback and winnowing mechanism) is more innovative and responsible to people's needs than centralized decision-making.
Centralized decision-making requires the people making the decisions to better know the needs and desires of the people for whom they're making the decisions better than those people themselves. For all of them. When those needs and desires are changing rapidly and unpredictably. And to ensure that they are properly co-ordinated and do it very quickly.
But the pluralist processes of competition within the market economy reveal information and promote innovation more effectively than any centralized organization - public or private.
But markets (and private enterprise) do have limits and issues:
- Incomplete/imperfect information. Social contexts tend to develop to deal with these differences.
- Much economic activity can't be organized by negotiations between large numbers of potential buyers and potential sellers in impersonal markets; we need to work in organizations and teams and co-operate in small groups. Ethical values, blending of working and social lives are all necessary.
- While co-ordination is more effectively achieved through mechanisms of spontaneous order than central direction, it's not immediate and infallible. Government interventions, social institutions and agreements between firms are often necessary.
- Non-materialist motivations are very important.
- Dealing with externalities and standards and enforcement of the co-operation immediately above are crucial.
[See John Kay and Tim Harford for excellent explanations of these]
Rather than diagnosing a specific ownership model, the key is to do whatever is necessary to ensure fast feedback, rewarding of experimentation, encouraging apolitical investment, and competition.0 -
Having earlier praised the coverage on Sky - and it was better than the BBC - they let themselves down by having Kay Burley anchor the coverage. I was pleased to see that Meghan was looking the other way when they went past the Sky podium. Kay made a right fool of herself shouting out at them whilst live on air.Cyclefree said:Incidentally, I thought the TV coverage was poor. Far too much wittering by commentators and not enough information eg identifying guests and there was little chance to hear any of the gorgeous music beforehand or even the tunes being played by the band in Windsor town centre.
0 -
There are members of the clergy who would decline to marry cohabiting couples - or non-cohabiting couples who have clearly consummated their relationship. I applaud such people who make a stand on principle - at least they show that not all vicars etc are merely concerned with protecting their incomes.Meghan did not have to wear a white dress - symbolic of a purity she has long lost probably in relationships pre-dating Harry. A Civil Ceremony would have been far better - whether at a Registry Office or a Stately home. The wedding of the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson in 1937 comes to mind.HYUFD said:
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practicejustin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
I most certainly am not.david_herdson said:
I assume you're spoofing.justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.The_Apocalypse said:
Are you for real?justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Certainly I would think that if the main gripe about opponents is that through their passion and determination they keep winning the internal battles, then the problem is not really the opponents. I feel the same about the bemoaning of loss of religious identity - it has had to fight off sterner challenges than modern apathy.NickPalmer said:
Which makes it weird when centrists drift off into apathy. There's plenty of scope for them to win selections if they bother.Recidivist said:I
Is the Labour membership as left wing as it is often portrayed? (Genuine question. I don't know.)SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=21
Glorious day for a cycle ride - not many people out and about along the local canal for a change, all watching the royal coverage I guess!0 -
Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).0
-
With Trump there was at least the initial thought about if world leaders would be invited (apparently not necessary for 6th in line to the throne) but is a stretch, and the latter surely nothing at all.Cyclefree said:
Why? What on earth has it got to do with either?AndyJS said:Interesting to see how many lefties on Twitter were praising the royal wedding as a snub to Trump and Brexit.
0 -
Just how bad a candidate would there have had to have been to have a chance?!Foxy said:
Sounds a good candidate. It doesn't sound like LDs will be in with a chance:SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomcopley/status/997752729018740736?s=190 -
SandyRentool said:
If the Church of England wants to boost their attendances - learn from that American Bishop!
Passion, humour, dynamism. That's how to preach.
/blockquote>
I'm not religious, so my insight into the subject is questionable to say the least, but while I can see such delivery is surely not for everyone, I'd have thought part of being a preacher is making sure the audience is engaged, not just reciting the proper words in formulaic ways. I'm given to understands many vicars can be quite creative in delivering their message.0 -
Has Paddy Power paid out on The Queen will attend as a Minion yet
0 -
Mr. 86, she is not. As far as I understand it, she converted to Church of England.0
-
Yes, I'm sure he will be annoyed by another MP who will probably vote with him 95% of the time and campaign for him to become PM.SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=210 -
And who voted for him in both leadership elections, apparentlykle4 said:
Yes, I'm sure he will be annoyed by another MP who will probably vote with him 95% of the time and campaign for him to become PM.SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=210 -
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
Ha. I have no knowledge of that internal race, but it seems like a good approach for Corbynistas in general would be to put up several candidates, 1 of whom to be ghost of Karl Marx, at every selection, that way no matter how far left or corbyn loving the winner looks 'moderate' by comparison.William_H said:
And who voted for him in both leadership elections, apparentlykle4 said:
Yes, I'm sure he will be annoyed by another MP who will probably vote with him 95% of the time and campaign for him to become PM.SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=210 -
kle4 said:
Being a good vicar is rather like being a good teacher, you have to inspire your congregation every week in your sermons or the classroom.SandyRentool said:If the Church of England wants to boost their attendances - learn from that American Bishop!
Passion, humour, dynamism. That's how to preach.
/blockquote>
I'm not religious, so my insight into the subject is questionable to say the least, but while I can see such delivery is surely not for everyone, I'd have thought part of being a preacher is making sure the audience is engaged, not just reciting the proper words in formulaic ways. I'm given to understands many vicars can be quite creative in delivering their message.
Being a teacher or a priest is a different skill set from being an academic in an ivory tower university0 -
There are still a few just as there are clergy who do not accept women priests or will not marry divorcees or oppose gay marriage but they are increasingly a minority.justin124 said:
There are members of the clergy who would decline to marry cohabiting couples - or non-cohabiting couples who have clearly consummated their relationship. I applaud such people who make a stand on principle - at least they show that not all vicars etc are merely concerned with protecting their incomes.Meghan did not have to wear a white dress - symbolic of a purity she has long lost probably in relationships pre-dating Harry. A Civil Ceremony would have been far better - whether at a Registry Office or a Stately home. The wedding of the Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson in 1937 comes to mind.HYUFD said:
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practicejustin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Ah, I see. But I don't think she had to do that to keep Harry's place in line to the thrown (unlike Autumn Kelly).Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 86, she is not. As far as I understand it, she converted to Church of England.
By the way, I see that Michael Buffer was at Hampden Park for the Scottish Cup Final. Why couldn't they have had him at the wedding?
The guests are ready.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is ready.
The bride and groom are at the altar and they are ready.
Wedding fans, are you ready?
For the thousands in attendence and the millions watching around the world.
Your Majesty, my lords, ladies and gentleman. From St George's Chapel, Windsor. Let's get ready to rumble!0 -
The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
0 -
It seems so. Really odd....kle4 said:
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.The_Apocalypse said:
Are you for real?justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress. Many vicars would be unhappy at marrying a divorcee. I recall too that the Queen declined to attend the wedding of Charles to Camilla because of the conflict it implied with her role as Head of the Church of England. That raises the question as to why she attended this service!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
With respect, in the 1960s - perhaps later - such views would have been seen as entirely mainstream.The_Apocalypse said:
It seems so. Really odd....kle4 said:
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.The_Apocalypse said:
Are you for real?justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
-
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)Foxy said:
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.0 -
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
Charles and Camilla got married at the registry office. I remember the royal guests arriving in a bus and the late James Whitaker said it was like the away team arriving at a football match!justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress. Many vicars would be unhappy at marrying a divorcee. I recall too that the Queen declined to attend the wedding of Charles to Camilla because of the conflict it implied with her role as Head of the Church of England. That raises the question as to why she attended this service!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
It's a good thing there were no bastards in the mix too!The_Apocalypse said:
It seems so. Really odd....kle4 said:
Justin has some very strong views on such matters.The_Apocalypse said:
Are you for real?justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.
When will we get the first royal bastard of the modern age I wonder.0 -
What's the difference between Tsarism and Communism?Sunil_Prasannan said:Monarchism is essentially a form of Socialism! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry!
Well, consider:
1) Monarchs have a job for life, which is quintessentially Socialist!
2) The hereditary principle, a feature of Socialist dynasties around the world, such as the Kennedys in the USA, Nehru-Gandhis in India, and the Kims in North Korea!
3) Pomp and circumstance - Trooping the Colour is after all merely a toned down version of all those North Korean and (former) Soviet military parades!
So, my fellow PBers, I put it to you that Monarchism = Socialism!
Under Tsarism the throne goes from father to son. Under Communism it goes from grandfather to grandfather.
(Popular in c.1984-85 as Brezhnev was succeeded by Andropov then Chernenko.)0 -
FA Cup ... could there be 2 less liked teams playing each other?0
-
Meghan is considered small-l liberal because of causes she's supported in the past which are unlikely to gain Trump's favour. No idea how Brexit comes in!Cyclefree said:
Why? What on eath has it got to do with either?AndyJS said:Interesting to see how many lefties on Twitter were praising the royal wedding as a snub to Trump and Brexit.
0 -
You're last paragraph is spot on. When Eugenie gets married later this year, that will be five of the Queen's eight grandchildren to have married. All of them have married commoners. Okay, they're not proper plebs like us, but this generation of royals are very much making their own choices.Cyclefree said:
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)Foxy said:
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.0 -
It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.0
-
It would be nice if they could both lose. A big punch up with the managers getting involved would be good.Scrapheap_as_was said:FA Cup ... could there be 2 less liked teams playing each other?
0 -
Emma Dent Coad also as I recall made false and defamatory remarks about Harry's qualifications and experience. She then blamed a media smear campaign for the backlash only a few days ago.Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
She really is a nasty piece of work and clearly not very bright either. I have to say I think the people of Kensington made a pretty poor exchange ditching Victoria Borwick for her.0 -
There speaks a man who has never gone to church (or at least only for weddings and funerals).AndyJS said:
Rolling your eyes - and more - during a sermon is expected. How else to indicate to the priest when he's being a bore or going on too long or being tactless? Or, in the case of a funeral I once went to, getting the deceased's name wrong?
My father - good Catholic though he was - would very ostentatiously tap his watch if he felt the priest's sermon was taking away valuable post-Mass walk-then-pub time. On occasion he would pretend to fall asleep, visibly wake and then say in the sort of loud stage whisper which could have been heard miles away "Has he finished yet?". Sometimes he would substitute this with "Is he asking for money again?"
Nothing wrong with the substance of the sermon: just a bit impersonal and a bit too long.0 -
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.kle4 said:
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
Would this be the Emma Dent-Coad who, according to her Wikipedia page was:-Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
- Leader of the opposition Labour Group on the council from 2014-15
- Served as a council-appointed board member of Kensington and Chelsea TMO, the tenant management organisation which manages the council's housing stock, from 27 June 2008 to 31 October 2012; and
- between 2013/4 was a member of the council's Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee.
Did she take any action during this time to ensure that spider infestation, say, was a reason for being allocated housing? Have the rules changed since she stopped being concerned with housing as a councillor? If not, and the council is applying the same rules, then what is her complaint exactly?
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
0 -
How the hell would you know? Are you some sort of couturier or wedding dress salesman? Or vicar, even?justin124 said:
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.kle4 said:
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
Not quite right. A vicar can decline but the obligation to marry might then fall on the Bishop!ydoethur said:It is worth pointing out that there is no legal way for a Church of England vicar to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple - cohabiting or not - who have a qualifying connection with the parish. The only grounds that can be put forward are if one party is a divorcee, but in my quite wide experience of attending church weddings I haven't come across it being a major problem.
0 -
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though0 -
I have some knowledge of custom and practice in this area.Cyclefree said:
How the hell would you know? Are you some sort of couturier or wedding dress salesman? Or vicar, even?justin124 said:
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.kle4 said:
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
And the sound of church bells on a Sunday morning. Can't get better than that... unless you live right next to the churchAndrew said:
A logical point.dixiedean said:I'm no Christian, but if I had to, I'd much rather listen to the American guy than the usual bland platitudes. Some genuine passion and enthusiasm for his faith. Whatever next?
Of course, what most Brits really want is the pretty church buildings and ceremonies, without any of the religious guff.
0 -
If you'd told me her dress was Ivory I would have believed you, so even were you larger concerns in this arena more widely shared, I don't think it would be that big a deal.justin124 said:
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.kle4 said:
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
Agreed. It's a bit like cricket whites. I didn't realise when I was young, but what I thought were whites were actually creams, which are considered posher than whites. I only realised this when the England team went back to wearing whites and I remember thinking it looked weird.kle4 said:
If you'd told me her dress was Ivory I would have believed you, so even were you larger concerns in this arena more widely shared, I don't think it would be that big a deal.justin124 said:
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.kle4 said:
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
David Milliband?kle4 said:
Just how bad a candidate would there have had to have been to have a chance?!Foxy said:
Sounds a good candidate. It doesn't sound like LDs will be in with a chance:SouthamObserver said:Lewisham East CLP have kicked Corbyn royally in the goolies. The far left roundly beaten.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/997821099533627392?s=21
https://twitter.com/tomcopley/status/997752729018740736?s=190 -
I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.HYUFD said:
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practicejustin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Since when does serving as an Opposition member require you take responsibility for the mistakes of the (in this case Conservative) group which has controlled the decisions of that Council and exercised effective control of the decisions of its appointed bodies since time immemorial?Cyclefree said:
Did she take any action during this time to ensure that spider infestation, say, was a reason for being allocated housing?
And why on earth do you assume that in that role she was not previously critical of the failure of both K&C Council and the Conservative UK Government to take action to increase the supply of decent affordable housing in that borough (and elsewhere)?0 -
We weren't the only ones to spot it:Cyclefree said:
They curtsey to the Queen when leaving church after a Xmas service so I expected it. But these finer points of protocol are not our concern.CarlottaVance said:
I wondered at that too....of course it will have been deliberate....I wonder if its the difference between a family and a State occasion?Cyclefree said:I was just a teensy bit surprised that there was no curtsey/bow to HMQ before they walked back down the aisle..
Nice to see Philip walking easily. He will be 97 next month.
England looks gorgeous in weather like this. Few places to beat it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6328552/meghan-curtsy-queen-twitter-royal-wedding/0 -
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though0 -
They should have auctioned the overseas TV rights like the Premier League!NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though0 -
A reasonable number of the devout regular church attendees have engaged in pre martial sex. (And don't forget that you need *both* partners to be virgins. Not every virginal devout regular church attendee will marry another virginal, etc.justin124 said:
I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.HYUFD said:
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practicejustin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though0 -
Yes there are all manner of problems that are going unaddressed, or not addressed well enough. But let us be serious for a moment, we can probably find billions unconnected to the royals which could be spent on better things. Indeed, there are some things you or I would think important that others might think a complete waste.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
So the complaint is actually pretty bloody pointless. She's not happy about the public cost of the wedding? I'm sure plenty are not, and it probably runs to 15-40 million I'd guess. But any one of us can probably find 10 times that with only a cursory look at the budget that we don't agree with. Buy 10 fewer jet planes and the wedding cost is immaterial.
And really, problems like that would be addressed everywhere if we didn't have 15-40million spent on a wedding? Pull the other one.0 -
Who gives a monkeys chuff what they are doingCyclefree said:
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)Foxy said:
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.0 -
More than admit it, given such a fuss would not be made if there was not sufficient market to cater for it. Polls can say x% aren't very interested, and no doubt that is true, but clearly enough are interested enough to ensure there is not a backlash to the over emphasis on such events. If there were, there wouldn't have been this fuss.malcolmg said:
Who gives a monkeys chuff what they are doingCyclefree said:
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)Foxy said:
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.0 -
Are you wealthy enough to make that guarantee?RobD said:
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though0 -
You'd have her wear - oh, I don't know - scarlet?justin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
Especially when said public pay for it all and the humungous bank books these chancers have amassed over the years. Most other despots at least camouflage it and put it in Swiss bank accounts.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though0 -
I doubt it comes to anywhere near £15m, and there will also be offsets not just from tourism, but also from selling TV coverage abroad.kle4 said:
Yes there are all manner of problems that are going unaddressed, or not addressed well enough. But let us be serious for a moment, we can probably find billions unconnected to the royals which could be spent on better things. Indeed, there are some things you or I would think important that others might think a complete waste.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
So the complaint is actually pretty bloody pointless. She's not happy about the public cost of the wedding? I'm sure plenty are not, and it probably runs to 15-40 million I'd guess. But any one of us can probably find 10 times that with only a cursory look at the budget that we don't agree with. Buy 10 fewer jet planes and the wedding cost is immaterial.
And really, problems like that would be addressed everywhere if we didn't have 15-40million spent on a wedding? Pull the other one.0 -
But seemingly not understanding or compassion.justin124 said:
I have some knowledge of custom and practice in this area.Cyclefree said:
How the hell would you know? Are you some sort of couturier or wedding dress salesman? Or vicar, even?justin124 said:
Many such brides would wear cream or ivory. A pure white dress is really a bit unusual for a second marriage.kle4 said:
I must confess that growing up I had no idea white was supposed to represent purity in weddings. I assumed, and still assume, that everyone wears white at weddings as that is what you do.justin124 said:
I must say that I had rather forgotten that this was Meghan's second marriage. That very much reinforces my earlier point that it was ridiculous for her to wear the pure white dress.tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
0 -
I’m most definitely on the pauper end of the spectrum. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong though.rcs1000 said:
Are you wealthy enough to make that guarantee?RobD said:
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though 0 -
that's one argument, another is it's an excuse to promote your hobby horse campaign.....RobD said:
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997762381806698496
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997766833078972417
https://twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/997771715353763841
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/9978340642363432960 -
For sure there are plenty loonies in this country who like them for some bizarre reason. Amazes me that some of them get let out on their own.kle4 said:
More than admit it, given such a fuss would not be made if there was not sufficient market to cater for it. Polls can say x% aren't very interested, and no doubt that is true, but clearly enough are interested enough to ensure there is not a backlash to the over emphasis on such events. If there were, there wouldn't have been this fuss.malcolmg said:
Who gives a monkeys chuff what they are doingCyclefree said:
It's certainly nice that the fact that she is mixed race is not a bar to marriage. Nor her divorced status or (relatively) unconventional background. But let's not exaggerate. Harry and Meghan will pretty soon be minor royals unless something terrible happens to William and his brood. Their children will be miles away from the throne and about as significant to the Windsors as say the grandchildren of the Duke of Kent are now. (Can anyone even name them?)Foxy said:
Skin colour is very significant. There have been divorced Royals before, even ex-Catholic ones, but a member who is not of Anglo-Saxon or German ethnicity has been a long time coming. Certainly the Afro-caribean HCAs that I watched the highlights with at lunch were impressed. Royalty is about bloodline and breeding more than anything else, so very momentous. I think Meghan is a worthy bit of hybridisation!tlg86 said:Whilst I very much don't endorse what @justin124 is saying (I really couldn't care less), it was interesting that the BBC seemed more concerned with the colour of Meghan's skin rather than the fact that she has been married before. It was a far more significant wedding in that respect - and also that she might be a Catholic (though I'm not sure on that one).
The people who go on and on about her African heritage forget that on the same basis she has, through her father, about the same amount of English heritage. This endless focus on - and minute dissection of - people's racial background is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a genuinely tolerant society where the colour of someone's skin is irrelevant.
What I think is more momentous is that this generation of Royals are marrying for love and contentment rather than for more superficial characteristics (status, aristocracy, virginity, etc) and, therefore, there is much more reason to hope that, despite their odd status and the scrutiny it brings, they will be more likely to have the happiness that everyone wants and not feel forced into arranged and unhappy unions.0 -
Perhaps if they held the conference on a date other than the wedding they would get more coverage from the less sympathetic parts of the media.Scrapheap_as_was said:
that's one argument, another is it's an excuse to promote your hobby horse campaign.....RobD said:
I can guarantee that the same kind of things would still happen if there wasn’t a royal family.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997762381806698496
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997766833078972417
https://twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/997771715353763841
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/9978340642363432960 -
I would expect only a relatively small minority of committed churchgoers to have behaved in that way.Allowance also has to be made for those who have been widowed. Others may have seen an earlier marriage break down but still remained chaste in terms of the new relationship.rcs1000 said:
A reasonable number of the devout regular church attendees have engaged in pre martial sex. (And don't forget that you need *both* partners to be virgins. Not every virginal devout regular church attendee will marry another virginal, etc.justin124 said:
I would have thought that devout regular church attenders account for a fair bit more than 1% - somewhere in the 5% to 10% range strikes me as more likely.HYUFD said:
If clergy refused to marry anybody who lived together and were not virgins before marriage the number of church weddings would fall to about 1%. Fine in theory not in practicejustin124 said:
I thought it rather tasteless - even hypocritical - for Meghan to turn up in a pure white wedding dress given that they were a cohabiting couple. I would not have wished to have been a member of the clergy officiating at this service.Foxy said:
Yes, he has turned into a fine young man, when it could have turned out very badly indeed.JackW said:
Yellow card Roger .... don't be such a grinch !! ....Roger said:This wedding seems to have brought out PBers inner Nabavi.
I though 'Osborne the near perfect chancellor' would take some beating but that's gone.
Much of the goodwill to Harry dates (something you as a professional media slut should understand) to those images and the reality of a small 12 year old boy marching behind his mothers coffin with the world watching on.
Most of the UK public having been willing Prince Harry to succeed since then and despite his teenage indiscretions and propensity to appear in the media for all the wrong reasons there was a mood that Harry would make it through if he found some conduit for the better man that was there.
Like many young wayward men before him Prince Harry found himself through military service and by common consent was an outstanding front line combat officer. He has grown as a person and man and found a wife to share his life. What's not to like?
Sometimes a sense of "inner Nabavi" may pervade PB. Today is one of those days and today it is entirely correct.
They make a lovely couple, from what we have seen of them.0 -
I assume that most of the cost is in the form of security, and maybe it is less than my ballpark estimate, but the point is the same nevertheless - I certainly have no intention of dismissing the shitty situation too many people are living in, and I think local government in particular has been cut enough (and the government sort of agrees, given it has given more leeway for them to raise council tax without needing to go to referendum), but the idea the amount of the wedding means anything significant vs the cost of concerns re poverty is for the birds I think. Not even 10 fewer jets, but 1, would pay for it.rcs1000 said:
I doubt it comes to anywhere near £15m, and there will also be offsets not just from tourism, but also from selling TV coverage abroad.kle4 said:
Yes there are all manner of problems that are going unaddressed, or not addressed well enough. But let us be serious for a moment, we can probably find billions unconnected to the royals which could be spent on better things. Indeed, there are some things you or I would think important that others might think a complete waste.NickPalmer said:
A celebration partly at public expense, I think. One can argue that it's justified because of the tourist impact, or because a lot of people enjoy it, but there are quite a lot of people (cf. yesterday's poll) who feel that the royals should be able to afford their own show when there are the sort of problems Emma refers to going unaddressed.kle4 said:
Poverty exists, therefore it is unfair for rich people to hold a celebration.Cyclefree said:Scrapheap_as_was said:The Wing-nut in chief has been bested... he won't like that.
There's some choice comments after her tweet....
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/997836882389143554
https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/997836460270211072
And what does it have to do with the wedding?
I was somewhat surprised Labour didn't gain more seats in Kensington in the locals though
So the complaint is actually pretty bloody pointless. She's not happy about the public cost of the wedding? I'm sure plenty are not, and it probably runs to 15-40 million I'd guess. But any one of us can probably find 10 times that with only a cursory look at the budget that we don't agree with. Buy 10 fewer jet planes and the wedding cost is immaterial.
And really, problems like that would be addressed everywhere if we didn't have 15-40million spent on a wedding? Pull the other one.
But it is time to head back out into the sun anyway.0
This discussion has been closed.