Should Kate Middleton Sleep on the Streets?

Cuts are necessary. There is no party that would advocate spending more money or even the same level. The labour party were actually going to cut further and deeper for longer than all of the three parties.

I am a victim of these cuts, but I accept that everyone must play their part. The only thing I don't like is that I feel the cuts come down harder on myself and people like me instead of the people that facilitated the causes of the global problem. (Labour had planned to do pretty much the same as the conservatives).

The cuts should "come harder on...the people that facilitated the causes of the global problem": I couldn't agree more.

Sure why not? Its not like she won't be surrounded by security during the 24 hour period.

Royalty is bs. To the streets with them! Off with their heads!

My guess is a number of Scotland Yard undercover men will be posing as homeless within a stone's throw of her at all times.

Shop keepers, home owners, taxi drivers, chip van workers, hostel volunteers... you betcha.

Kate Middleton is one of those people that has grace and class. Not only does she help the less fortunate but she hasn't let the newly found riches and bump in social class go to her head.

I don't anyone wants to harm this amazing woman and if they do then they have problems. I think if she wants to help raise awareness about this then she should totally go for it.

I participated in an event similar to this at a public park, and it was very eye-opening. Anyone who can should try to get involved with something like this.

P.R. FOR THE FUTURE QUEEN. YOU KNOW THERE WOULD BE TONS OF SECURITY AND REPORTERS, ....AND VERY LITTLE SLEEP.

>.> meh, she'll be about 80 before she becomes queen.

Maybe she can teach the rest of the royal family a lesson or two in HUMILITY. Kate definitely has that. While many royals let their royalness go to their heads to where they're bigger than theBuckingham Palace, Kate's is just the opposite. I think more people in royal families need to learn that lesson.

NO! The OWS hate 1%ers (anyone that they perceive to be wealthy). She wouldn't be safe without security within feet of her.

The Royal Family are 1%'s yes, but the majority of the British people (side from certain republicans) love them to bits. They did not cause the banking crisis and we pay for them out of our own pockets...directly. They don't award themselves bonuses and we can see every day how hard they work.

Obviously she still wouldn't be safe...it's Britain, she'd be hard pressed to be safe in an armoured humvee.

so awesome! good for her..I respect her a lot more now

Undecided is really my choice but that's not an option. While I applaud her motivation were she to accept, her presence would likely change the scene. I can't imagine she would be there without security. What about gawkers and paparazzi? Would the whole point of the Sleep Out be overshadowed by Kate's participation?

Apparently William was accompanied only by his private secretary. Wouldn't be surprised if there were people on the surrounding rooftops though. In addition the event's organizer who was sleeping next to William said they were nearly run over by a street sweeper. So safety isn't guaranteed.

If Kate was accompanied by someone from a British special forces unit, or another with similar training, this would likely be sufficient for close-in security. Anything else could be stealth. Her presence would certainly create a lot of publicity. If Kate believes her participation would be beneficial to the Sleep Out then Britain can have a "homeless duchess" for a night. Risky though.

Just let her.
I, myself, am a stubborn activist and something tells me Kate may be one too.

Kate can do better then that and start a foundation for the homeless and all proceedings go to help them find housing and employment. Kate and William are two beautiful soul!

Why won't change a thing. Cost more in security details than the point being made

She'll have more secruity than a real homeless person could imagine. However, it might give her a dose of reality to understand the negative impact of spending so much money to support a royal family.

Negative impact? There is no negative impact. The royal family bring in billions of pounds in tourism - they make London the most visited city in the world. And we only spend about £8,000,000 on them, most of their wealth is from their private companies.

So, it's worse than I thought; not only do you have a bloated monarchy but they're tied to private corporations.

They have a mining business, and they own various properties. That's about it. And the monarchy isn't bloated, they have little to no power, and they're not like ordinary rich people, as you can see by Kate Middleton's charitable exploits. The royals are very good people, they love their people and their country, much more than any politician - you wouldn't catch the firstfamily doing anything like that, would you?

How much of the wealth are they distributing? I suspect it's very little of their personal wealth. If they royal family loved their country, they'd end the monarchy.

Not at all. They're a welcome change from all the stuffy politicians, they're all very down to earth, and the Queen's a very strong woman. They're a symbol of our culture, and if you look at the video below, you'll see that they bring in hundreds of millions in tourism, land and everything else. The British definitely don't want them to be ended, we love the Royals.

Monarchy is so outdated.

It works better than a republic, stupid people make stupid decisions, we need properly educated people and specialists running the country... And the public always picks the thickos, i.e. Obama... And why do you hate the monarchy so much? Do you just hate anyone with more money or power than you? Or are you just another hippie who goes against the grain...

Oh, wow, you just gave an excellent reason as to why American liberals declared independence and your attack on Obama indicates you might another conservative racist. It's funny conservatives always attempt to use the lame "envious" argument. I don't, in any way, envy the British royal family; I do have pity because it's such a dysfunctional family.

Why else would you hate such a great and honourable family? Is it because they're better than you? And they weren't liberals in today's sense, they were classical liberals, wanting small government, small business and big freedom and growth. Social Liberalism is counter-productive.

I disagree with your Social Liberalism is Counter-productive... provided it doesn't turn into China (authoritarian) it should work just fine but unfortunately, people are greedy.

That said I actually think that the Royal Family is quite conservative.

Social Liberalism is most definitely counter-productive, especially seeing as there is little manufacturing going on now, High, convoluted taxes, lots of convoluted regulation, strict job security laws, health and safety and the minimum wage reduce productivity, raise prices, and lower the amount of jobs dramatically. People can't open businesses because they have to wade through red tape and taxes, they can't employ people for the same reasons. Big companies have teams of lawyers and accountants to work through taxes and regulations, they can actively flout the rules and evade taxes whilst small businesses suffer, and this allows them to grow rapidly and enforce monopolies. Look at the 1920's - there weren't many super rich people, because society was so much more competitive. Now, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer because of all the taxes and regulations and laws.

Social Liberalism doesn't have taxes. That's Social Authoritarianism.

Liberalism is deregulation
Authoritarianism is regulation
Socialism or Capitalism... note: When big banks are failing, should the CEO get multi million dollar bonuses? (Since you're in the UK...Bob Diamond should get a bonus? >=D)

In the 1920's...you had a huge drop in population as I recall. But I do understand you and I do agree with you for the majority.

I'm not talking about Classical Liberalism, social liberalism has lots of economic control and not very much social control. And no, on the economic spectrum conservatism is less control. All corporations, especially the Big Banks, should be closely monitored and should have to keep logs of who decided what so if we catch them breaking the law, if they've filled in the log we know who to punish, if they didn't they've broken the law and we can arrest all of the senior management. Also, fines should be draconian and they shouldn't be allowed to pass on the costs to the customers or employees. And I was talking about 1920's America.

Social Liberalism would be bottom left. Conservatism in the traditional sense is right wing meaning, Capitalist yet Authoritarian.

I am aware of that. And Classical Liberalism, i.e. Libertarianism, is bottom right, which is the founding fathers and follows my beliefs.

Actually, social liberalism is very productive and helps create a more equitable society unlike the current America which has a huge disparity between rich and poor as well as CEO and worker. Your rationale for the reason there's a huge disparity is just plain wrong.

Take a look at Sweden. A few decades ago, it was a right wing country, with a small welfare state and a free Market economy. It had grown rapidly for a century when the free Market was instated and was now a world leader. Then the liberals got into power, constricted the companies with regulation, doubled taxes and set up a monstrously huge welfare state. For thirty years their economy stagnated, they had to devalue the Swedish Kroner several times to maintain their competitiveness, but by 2008, they were lagging behind the countries it had dominated thirty years previously. Now, luckily for them, they had a new government. They understood the need for the free Market, so they loosened all their controls, started to dismantle their welfare state, downsized the government drastically, and reduced the punitive taxes on the rich. And it worked. They had an influx of rich Swedish millionaires that had left when the socialist government took control, and tax revenues were much higher than before the tax cuts. They then cut everyone's taxes further, which increased productivity and increased tax revenues. They then put that revenue to good use by paying down their debt. They are now debt free and are one of the European countries that are prospering, whilst the socialist countries still lag behind, including Britain. Socialism does not, never has, and never will work, it is the free Market that is productive, this is why Karl Marx was a fool.

Yes, people are greedy; just look at America's current crop of corporate elites like the Koch Brothers.

>.> I'll go get my rifle.
(And then give them an imaginary headshot because my rifle is also imaginary >.<)

I don't support violence of any kind including your lame response.

What's great and honorable about the British royal family? At least one of them had strong sympathy for the Nazis.

Yes, our founding fathers were liberals. You don't know much about American history. Yes, they were liberals; thank you.