Queen's Speech

Think GNHQ have got this seriously wrong. Notice that their explanation doesn't include an apology- which they certainly owe durhamjen. No objection to Lucinda and Jo giving lessons in elementary government and citizenship, but I do wonder who is funding them. Us?

Whoops I'm told she is 'Ping' because by coincidence that is her own family name while her husband is called 'Xi'

And I prefer Richard Murphy's alternative queen's speech.

I've been out most of the day and am a bit confused as to what happened. If I've understood correctly, it seems odd that a thread should be deleted and then another one on a similar topic "de-railed" by people from the HoC who were apparently not at liberty to discuss the content of the queen's speech.

Flip me! Fancy that.

Madam Ping

And unfortunately, it turns out Jo and Lucinda may be the standard of HoC to come. HM referred to one, Madam uPing. No idea who she is but I expect the highly educated Queen's speech writers think Xi Jinping is Mr Ping. He's Mr Xi so his wife would be Madam Xi if, in fact, she uses Western custom in naming herself.

I've only just come to this thread as we've been out most of the day, home very late. But goodness, what a mess! If I was durhamjen I'd be pretty miffed at having my thread hijacked in this way. I imagine she was looking forward to some energetic and lively debate, but instead she got a couple of patronising HoC guides, and not a single comment on the link she provided.
Sorry GNHQ, but you got this one seriously wrong.

I can't see the problem. We can surely have both debate and information.

As far as I can see Lucinda and Jo will join in any relevant discussion answering factual points where they can. I really don't see a problem with that. They have answered questions because they were asked and given us detail about new ways of informing ourselves. That doesn't stop a debate on the items in the Queen's Speech on this thread; no need to start another one. Perhaps those wanting that debate should try it.

(where do people dig this stuff up from? )

Anyway... we could get back to the original post and Red Rich if anyone really wants to.

It was a very lazy way of doing it.

The thread was not 'already going', unless you count just the OP as an ongoing thread...

Not really the best place to introduce Lucinda and Jo, though.

This is a Politics thread and they have said that they can't comment on the politics.

Apples and pears.

I don't understand why durhamjen's thread was hijacked by thus "House of Commons" lot.

And I think it's bloody patronising to stick them on Gransnet. We are not schoolchildren. We can already get all the information we might require, from the Internet.

Push off Lucinda and what's-er-features!

Yes, Ana, particularly as the OP who started the thread, ON THE POLITICS FORUM (sorry for shouting) is a member, and it's her thread that was hijacked by the HoC staff, not the other way around!

Exactly. As some of you will be aware, I'm not a natural ally of GT or her politics, but on this subject I was and am totally in agreement with her exasperation at GNHQ's refusal to allow another thread on the subject of the Queen's Speech.

We have two or three threads about the EU at the moment, and in the run-up to the election there were numerous threads discussing different parties' policies and proposals. What's so precious about the Queen's Speech? It's not as though she herself is putting the policies forward...

I might be losing the plot here but must say am very confused

Have been out all afternoon with DGD(6) as it's half-term so missed the deleted thread.

So, DJ started a thread on the Queen's speech, on the Politics Forum, and the second post was from the staff at the HoC who invited questions on the speech but they couldn't talk politics. I was put in my place when I questioned this non-political aspect as some of us wanted to discuss the contents of the speech.

Then it seems that GT started a new Queen's speech thread so that the politics could be discussed, as per DJ's OP, but this was deleted!!

Why didn't GNHQ just start a special thread for the HoC?

It's all very nice to see how Parliament works, have been around the place a couple of times myself, but why can't members discuss the nitty gritty of the speech?

In a new guise?

I'm sure GrannyTwice will be back at some future date!

Well GT did keep telling them on this thread what she was going to do Ana so hardly surprising IMO!

I presume interested GNs could debate on here and bypass the HoC responses. Or maybe there's been too much Tory-bashing going on within the Politics forum in general?

Not all of us are vociferous in our views and HoC provided a neutral response.

Incidentally I take a pretty dim view of any GN being called lily-livered just because GT feels she didn't get instant support.

Good luck to MN!

I have come late to this thread and having read the HoC posts I am wondering whether they have mistaken us for early years at senior school, all a bit patronising and dumbing down. They actually sound as if they are learning themselves, and trying just a bit too hard.