OH, THE things they say – an occasional series. This could run alongside “the things I say” and, should a reply be felt necessary, “the things you say”. Here goes… Royal weddings are good for tourism… to which one good response is a heartily sceptical “or are they?”

There has naturally been much flummery about the forthcoming elevated nuptials, and while most of this stuff and sugary nonsense passes me by, I did like the feature in one newspaper, headlined: “Why royal weddings are bad for UK tourism.

A smart bit of investigation looked behind a statement from the chief executive of Visit Britain, Sandie Dawe, that the wedding of that prince to that prince’s girlfriend would deliver “a welcome boost not just to the tourism industry in London, but across Britain” – a stance echoed by the Prime Minister, no less.

Yet in an internal email, uncovered by the newspaper, Visit Britain’s head of research and forecasting, David Edwards, offered what he called “more actual evidence”. His figures suggested that the marriage of Andrew and Sarah in 1986 saw a drop in visitor numbers of eight per cent in the month of the wedding.

So royal weddings might be bad for tourism. Still, they are probably good for the sort of tourism that involves leaving the country as rapidly as possible with your hands clapped over your ears.

“The Big Society is on its way” – David Cameron, in a newspaper article at the weekend. Here’s a funny thing: if the Big Society is so wonderful, and such a complete answer to our problems, why does Mr Cameron have to keep going on about it so much? Maybe because people still don’t understand what he is saying.

Never mind that the idea refuses to set alight the public imagination, Mr Cameron still bangs away. His persistence is admirable in a sense; less admirable is his pretence that everything in society is broken, and hence in need of his ready fix.

The newspaper article, incidentally, was the usual condescending claptrap – and feel free to insert your own retaliatory insult here. Mr Cameron can come across like a teacher whose mannered patience hides a temper. It was a wonder the article didn’t end with a warning that we would all stay behind and write “the seeds of the Big Society have been sown” a hundred times until we learned our lesson.

Oh, and isn’t the Big Society and localism just another idea from a politician of the moment. It might sound friendly, but if it’s being forced on us, what is the difference with any other political ideology imposed from above?

Here’s another: the BBC Trust says Radio 4 needs to reach “audiences from different parts of the country and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds”, and also to woo a “replenisher” audience. And should you be wondering what the hell that might be, it is young people.

BBC Radio 4 is the sort of thing we do very well in this country. The station goes its own quiet, intelligent way without fuss or gimmick (apart, perhaps, from the occasional roof-related mishap in The Archers); it pleases those who listen and is ignored by those who do not, so there is no need to change it for them.

As for appealing to younger listeners, I shall call to the witness stand the radio in our kitchen, the one that sometimes suffers collateral cooking damage. Mostly, this is tuned steadfastly to Radio 4, unless my 17-year-old daughter has been in the room, in which case it is yanked over to Radio 1. She would no more consider listening to Radio 4 than I would to Radio 1. But in time she may well grow into it, because that is what happens.

So the trust should stop trying to fix what is not broken. Content is king on Radio 4, and that is something to cherish, is it not?

Footnote: that kitchen radio mysteriously fell silent yesterday after the treacle tones of Eric Pickles began to ooze out.