How many times do I have to say this Charles and Diana's wedding was a full state occasion. Charles is the immediate heir to the throne. William and Kate's wedding was a semi-state occasion he is not the immediate heir to the throne.

 

Because this was not a full state occasion the protocol does not require ex-PM's be invited it was therefore left up to to William and Kate. Kate organised a great deal of what happened maybe it was her that decided. I have no doubt that if William was next in line in the order of succession both Blair and brown would have got a invite but he is not

Ever eh?

0 to 3000 = ?% rise

3000 to 9000 = 200% rise

Same criteria; if you can afford to pay it back you do! If not you don't!

What's the problem?

I hate it when you have 3 threads going on in one.

 

Neil, outwith a highly improbable number of mps for each party - an almost equal breakdown of numbers [there are other quotas that work but I can't be arsed working it out] - you do not need 'all three' leaders at the table discussing policy.  You need two.  What's more it can be one extremely senior (in terms of numbers) party and one very minor (in terms of numbers) one.  Does this ring any bells?  The Tories and the Ulster Unionists perhaps?  You can have a party with half a dozen mps holding the balance of power.  In....a.....minority....government.  You do not agreement between all the major players and you do not necessarily get policy passed by merit.  Any more than you do in a formal coalition.

 

 

I vote for 600 cross benchers

btw...I was just arguing against a seemingly misplaced faith in a particular outcome in a particular system.  Tis all...

Though I'm only seeing two

 

Isn't it called conversation? 

we could vote for them in order of preference. i like the royal protocol one the least, but wouldn't be sad if it won.

Not when you're sober it's not

Well at least it might be a lesson for some in how AV actually works

There are 40 million royal wedding threads though

Just saying

xactly, from the realms of theory to humdrum action

 

Meh, I'm stone cold sober.  I don't sit in the pub* and hold my friends to a particular topic until it's decreed we move on.

 

*Bugger, shot myself in the foot there. 

I can't even remember which I voted for

 

 

I remember sending it off though.

(I can't sleep) One remembers Tony Benn a few years ago ..... He said that a party should discuss, and vote for a particular set of policies which could then be put before the electorate. If they didn't like it, so be it. One tried again.

BTW according to Private Eye Prince Charles had a fine record for knocking off married women long before meeting Diana. At the end o the day they are just like us

Nice comment on FB:

 

There has been a majority of voters favouring the centre left but split between its two parties, Labour and the Liberals since at least 1950. So that's how First past the Post has kept the right wing in power for most of that time, despite ...the leanings of the electorate. That's why I will be voting YES this week. The idea of voting to spite one here today and gone tomorrow politico sounds ridiculous.

Anyone who can't master ranking candidates in order of preference is perfectly able to make just one choice like they have done in the past. The rest of us will use the fresh power given to us gratefully.

That worked, PC, until the L Dems (not just Mr Clegg) revealed themselves to be anything but centre left when opportunity knocked.  Am aware that any left qualities can be debated/refuted in Labour in recent decades.

 

Why assume Liberal Democrats would be to the left of centre and for coalitions as such?  When called upon they were not.

The Facebook comment is misleading. The Labour party is a broad church catering for Thatcherites like Tony Blair and people like me. How dare the Lib Dims try to ride on our shirt tales?

I would argue that the Lib Dems were left-of-centre until the Orange Book lot grabbed the reins. Just like the New Labour shower. I do live in hope that the majority of the membership still is much further left than the leadership, as demonstrated in their last conference where they gave the parliamentary members something to think about (NHS reforms, for example).

just like macmillan's one nation tories that turned in to wets in the 80s

Anyway, I'm orf for me supper now. See y'all tomorrow!

Tra!

 
  Speak for yourself!  I've always taken my marriage vows very seriously.

All parties have had wets and dries, so to speak, since time immemorial. 

yeah kinda like informal coalitions.

You can say it till you're blue in the face.  It's utter rubbish. 

 

It's bollocks to keep insisting that protocol only goes so far and not further.  If you can invite some murdering scum from a tinpot dictatorship, you can damn well invite two of our most recent Prime Ministers.  You have a guest list of nearly 2000 and the two most  senior ranked civilians of OUR COUNTRY aren't invited! Come on, why don't you just admit that it's partisan bollocks?

 

Why call a bank holiday?  They didn't call a bank holiday for Edward's marriage!

 

You don't know what the protocol is.  To you, protocol is exactly what you've been told it is.  They could tell you that the protocol was that only purple unicorns and mermaids are invited if the wedding was held on midsummers day and you'd take it as official protocol.

 

Whoever heard of inviting Posh and bloody Becks and Josh Stone and not the PM of this country who was in office this time last year!  It's a disgrace. 

The FB comment is on about the voters (us) not the power grabbing self-serving b*astards that we call politicians so it isn't misleading at all

 

 

 

tbf, I'd have got up and watched it with that guest list. 

I would argue the same.  Charles Kennedy supposedly said to Clegg "You needn't think I'm going to *****g help you" when Clegg announced a deal with the Tories.  The author list for the Orange Book is like a Who's Who of Lib Dem cabinet ministers.  The Tories just put a load of neo-Tory Lib Dems into cabinet jobs.  Tories worried themselves unnecessarily about the number of Lib Dems in the cabinet, since all those Lib Dems are on the right of the party.

 

I was hoping that Ed would take the party to the left but I'm not so sure now.  The Daily Mail calls him 'Red Ed' but I've seen little evidence recently that Ed is anything more than a wannabe Tony Blair.

Whether the Facebook comment is misleading or not depends on whether you are inside or outside the cupboard. I'm interested in the financing and survival of the Labour Party. Like many members I packed in when Blair started trying to do a better job than Thatcher. A lot of us only returned after the recent defeat hoping for a new Dawn, as it were (I'm not mentioning her crack in this post) Should the leaders decide to link up with the hopeless Lib Dims you will see members slinging their hooks left, right n centre. Without us, signing forms, meeting people, leafletting, administering and ting, the party will cease to exist north of Watford. There are plenty of robotic suits in the party south of there.

 

Since when did civilians have ranks tony Blair is a civilian just like the rest of us as is Gordon brown not anyone special. In Browns case he was not elected PM and thrown out at the first chance we got. But I am glad you brought up Edwards marriage. Edward is seventh in line to the throne (despite being third when he was born) As such the wedding didn't get a bank holiday and was not even a semi state occasion. Tony Blair was PM at the time and didn't get a invite nor did any ex PM or politician. Nor was there any ambassadors from other counties. The protocol depends on how close they are to the throne. 

Is protocol ad hoc then? 

How many times!  WE DON'T HAVE A PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM!  Only Gordon Brown's constituents were able to vote for Gordon Brown.  We vote for parties not presidents.  Gordon Brown was PM by virtue of being the leader of the Labour Party, who were in government at the time.

 

We might have got rid of Brown at the first opportunity, but we also didn't give Cameron the majority to become PM. What a shame that a man who didn't get enough votes to form a government behaves with the arrogance of someone who was elected with a landslide majority!

 

Making a royal wedding a STATE bank holiday makes it a STATE occasion, the snub to Blair and Brown is indefensible under those circumstances.  An event that can invite murdering scum from the middle east and Joss bloody Stone has room for the former PMs. 

 

The Tory Royals are an utter partisan disgrace. 

 

Just as a matter of interest, do we actually know whether these people were snubbed? Rather like being offered British empire gongs and stuff which can be turned down? Just asking? ION Bugger! I'm getting up to make a brew.

A guest list of 2000, Joss bloody Stone, Elton John, Posh Spice, representatives of an island with a population of 4000 (the size of a large rural village), various VIPs of murderous and kleptocratic regimes and still no room for the man who was PM of this country this time last year!

 

Political Correctness of the Right Wing establishment gone mad.

Even Boris Johnson was there

No we don't have a presidential system but the fact remains he wasn't even elected as leader of the labour party, he inherited the position. Also despite the fact we vote for our local MP not the PM people DO take the party leader into account when deciding who or rather what party to vote for. This is well known we even had presidential style televised debates for the last election

It's a proper fairytale .All little girls can become a Princess,unless she is Catholic!

As for Labour past Prime Ministers being there,hell, that would have tarnished the whole occassion.