Day off for Royal Wedding / strike, what's the difference to economy?

[BridgetJonesPants]

When the ruling classes decided we can have a day off for a royal wedding it didn't damage the economy, but when the workers decide to strike it costs millions!

HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARDS!

Apologies, just realised I missed the economic aspect of the question.

Before the wedding we heard lots of good tidings about the economic benefits. But hidden on the business pages were varying forecasts, some more favourable than others.

After the wedding, we were told a different story.
It's politics, it's spin. Someone gains, the people lose.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/24/george-osborne-blames-royal-wedding-for-economic-woes-115875-23292184/

Remember Labour's forecasts about the cost of the Olympics and the Millenium Dome, and then successive revisings of the figures ever upwards. It's spin. They're all the same and on teh Royal Wedding, Labour would have done exactly the same.

85% of schools closed (R4 news 10.am)
Well done strikers!
Bit higher than the vote for your party, Cameron!

Yes well we are all meant to bow down to our masters and grovel in the dirt like the scum we are, expected to wave flags at our masters and clap like trained seals.

We are not allowed to stand up and say no, serfs must live on their knees and not get ideas above their station, such things look bad in the eyes of the world.

The seals are now untrained - the seal-trainers got made redundant in the last efficiency drive. Country can't afford it.

What are you talking about, the contract got sold to a French company years ago.

ATOS? Another Trainer Of Seals