Obviously, when everything in the country is running just fine, there’s no debt, no poor, no homelessness, no drugs problem, the transport and health services are just tickety-boo,  pensioners are treated well and the whole place is running as smoothly as, say Norway, you might as well splash out on a royal yacht. It’s something to do with the embarrassment of excess money that years of prudent government has delivered.

So it may come as a surprise that it’s not a Norwegian MP who is proposing to build a new royal yacht… but an English one.

Some blokey called Craig MacKinley (and he has the backing of 50 MPs) has written to Boris Johnson proposing just that.

It seems he favours a special lottery to raise the money for the vessel that (in his words)

“must belong to the state so it has the benefit of diplomatic immunity when it visits international harbours around the globe”


“has to fly the white ensign, because it is crucial that it is (sic) crewed by our Royal Navy.”


MacKinley says in his letter that many MPs (50 out of 650 is probably best described a “some” rather than “many”) and people around the country would favour this. It could, he suggests, be used by both members of the royal family and members of the government. (So, only the nobs… no plebs?) 

He reckons:  “As we leave the European Union, there has never been a better time to consider how Britain projects herself on the world stage” (I’d not disagree with the principle here. I’m just thinking this may not be the way to do it).

“The view of many MPs and people around the country is that the Government should commission a new Royal Yacht Britannia designed and built domestically to showcasing post-Brexit Britain and bringing trade to our shores.

“To be achievable, we need to generate the money to build a new Royal Yacht – an estimated £120m.” (Mind, you’d need to remember that the cost of everything in the Uk seems to double or triple within weeks of an announcement)

“And it has to have a strong connection with our royal family, as that is the unique quality that will make its service to our nation succeed.” (Whatever!)

“Britain remains the third largest maritime power in the world and we have a unique history and connection with the sea.” (Even if most of your ships are in for repair at the moment?)

“Our country needs and deserves a floating Royal Palace that can be used to host meetings and exhibitions to showcase the best of British business and project our humanitarian role across the globe.” (Even better, what about a humanitarian role in the UK?)

a dims

OK, I’ve said enough. You probably need to go mop up the vomit. But some may disagree with Munguin and me, and think that it is right and proper for Mr Fox and his young friend Mr Werrity, in the company of Kate Middleclass, and possibly even Miss Marple, to have a yacht which reflects not only the Greatness of Britain and its iconic blue passport… but their own self-importance.




A must-read for the New Year break.
… or fairies, maybe?
Bless him. So generous.
She’ll rust…
You said it, mate.
There’s probably another mask under there… eh, Hissing Sid…?
Start with the House of Lords.
human rights
Ain’t that the truth…?
I’d be embarrassed to be seen with a person who had such a wooden smile, but I suppose it won’t bother the puppet.
Ah… right.
Certainly looks strong and stable to me. 
a fox ban
Yep, we need to ditch them… 


You’ll remember the last time that old British sword of truth came out? Aye Jonathan Aitken ended up in the pokey.


As we shall shortly find out.


Yes, just step back. It’s probably kinder.


Those on retirement pensions better get used to living on £2000 a year then…


Jingle Bells.


Sounds like a plan.


The what of what? I mean, uhhhhh? If there was ever ANYTHING in the world that less resembled an iron lady, it’s this stuttering stumbling idiot. I’m wracking my brains to think of just one thing she’s got right.  Ever!




a dd

I mean, just how much more of a joke can this government become before something happens?

Today Davis admits lying (which explains all the prevarication when he was told by the queen to produce copies of the analyses for the Commons). How can we believe anything he says now? Did he tell the Prime Minister he was lying about these analyses or absence thereof? If not how can he stay on as SoS for Brexit? If he did, how can she stay on as PM

Yesterday Theresa May made a fool of herself in Brussels by appearing to come to an agreement with Jean-Claude Junker over the Irish border situation, only to be stopped in her tracks by a phone call from an incandescent DUP leader, presumably warning her that she would bring the government down if it went ahead. Why wasn’t Foster, as a de facto coalition partner, kept informed of the steps her partner was taking, at least over a matter of significance to the Irish parties? What was May thinking keeping it secret? And how can we tolerate an effectively unelected person (Foster) undermining the government, in the middle of an international negotiation?


Added to all this Brexit clutterwhatsit, we shouldn’t forget that there is an ongoing investigation into the personal habits of the First Secretary of the Presidium (and others in the party) and the use of workplace computers for personal pleasure of erotic nature. (Sacking offences in many organisations.)

Add to that that several Tory MPs have, in a misguided attempt to save their friend, Mr Green, admitted (seemingly unaware of the security implications) that they allow their staff to know and use their personal logins. (Also a serious offence for which, in some organisations, you can be sacked.)

And all the time Tempus Fugit and that clock on the wall is getting closer to the point at which the wee bell will right and negotiations must stop so that individual governments and parliaments all over Europe can scrutinise the work of the Commission, and say Yae or Nae.

Isn’t it time that we got rid of the whole rotten bunch of incompetents? After all, what’s another two months taken out of negotiations now? We’re never going to get there on time anyway.

But then, what would replace them? Has anyone any idea what Labour’s position on Brexit would be? It changes by the day depending on who you ask.


Not that that’s exclusive to the Labour Party!!!

Judicial Review on legality of UK Government witholding Sectoral and Regional Reports on Consequence of Brexit: Jolyon Maugham


There has been some discussion today about the government’s intention to withhold the results of analyses that it has carried out into the effects of Brexit on “sectors” or “regions” within the UK. By now most of us will have read somewhere that Scotland and England’s North East are likely to suffer the most.


Jo Maugham, QC is “on it”. When it comes to law, Jo is a good guy to have on your side. Here, on a Twitter threat, he explains his arguments, and (we should not be surprised about this now) the fact that the government doesn’t actually know what it is doing or why it is doing it. Hammond and Davies don’t talk, or something?

Anyway, it is fair to tell you that Jo wrote all of this, not Munguin, and that we copied it wholesale from here.

We did so because we think as many people as possible should see it… and not everyone is on Twitter or follows Jo Maugham.


Our judicial review tries to force Govt to make public its secret reports showing how Brexit will affect eg agriculture or car making.

We think democracy can’t function without truth and transparency. That’s what went wrong in June 2016. It can’t happen again.

Govt says ‘it will hurt our negotiating hand if the EU knows how badly Brexit will hit the UK.’ Like, somehow, the EU can’t do modelling.

And Govt released an impact assessment on Brexit before the Referendum. If it was the right thing to do then, how can it be wrong now?

And there’s a stream of ‘good news stories’ from Liam Fox. It makes you wonder: Good Brexit stories good, bad Brexit stories bad?

Anyway, the truth is, there’s nothing in these reports the EU can’t work out for itself. So why won’t the Government release them?

What’s unique about these reports is that they come from the Government’s hand. So Government can’t say: “We don’t accept this analysis.”

Is the fact that they possess a unique ability to embarrass Government a good *political* reason to keep them secret? Why, of course!

Is the fact that they possess a unique ability to embarrass Government a good *legal* reason to keep them secret? Umm, no. Hence our JR.

There’s also a rather good subplot. Alongside the *sectorial* analyses, there are also *regional* analyses.

We know there are regional analyses because Hammond said there were.

But if you ask DExEU for the regional analyses, they claim that even to tell you whether they *exist* would harm the national interest.

Which is kind of funny for a number of reasons. First off, it’s just ludicrous. How can knowing whether they exist be harmful?

Second, how can it be fine for us to know there are sectorial analyses but not regional analyses?

Third, Hammond has told us they exist. How can it harm the national interest for a civil servant to confirm the Chancellor wasn’t lying? /15

The reality is, they’ve worked out the sectoral analyses are a hot potato and don’t want another one – regional analyses – to juggle.

Is this a good *political* reason to deny they exist? Not really, as Hammond has admitted they exist. And it’s no *legal* reason at all.

If this all feels to you like a right bloody shambles, then so far so good: you’re following my thread. But there’s more.

We know the EU knows what Brexit means, including for the UK, because they’ve *published a study*.

And, richest of all ironies? The man refusing to confirm the sun will rise tomorrow for fear of political embarrassment is David Davis.

Would that be the same David Davis who wrote this paragraph? Before being a Minister? Reader, it would.


We also found this. We’ve no idea who the minister is or to whom he said it, but it’s more or less what we have been thinking:




A “no deal” Brexit will mean less money for the struggling NHS and for cash-starved social care, the Chancellor has admitted.

But wait, what happened to the £350 million a week?

Philip Hammond is the first Cabinet minister to say it was “theoretically possible” that crashing out of the EU without an agreement would ground all flights.

And unless they come to agreements over Open Skies, that’s what will happen.

Mr Hammond appeared to be at odds with Mrs May when he noted that there was a  prospect of terrorists targeting new infrastructure at or near the border – despite the Prime Minister ruling out a hard border. An Taosiseach Leo Varadkar said last month that solutions were unlikely to be found and insisted that it was down to the UK to resolve the issue, adding that Ireland would not help design a “border for the Brexiteers.”


Over 100 MPs have written to David Davis asking him to publish the impact assessments they say that the government has done, but refused to make public. Refusing to let us know how bad it would be is surely a dereliction of duty and impeding the work of parliament in scrutinising the work of the executive.

What a mess!

Looking at snippets of Prime Minister’s Questions today, I was thinking that, if ever there was a time to have a strong and stable prime minister with a bunch of dedicated, intelligent, hardworking, visionary ministers, it was now.

Then I listened to her stammering and spluttering her way through non-answers to the perfectly reasonable questions that Jeremy Corbyn was putting to her on the utter chaos surrounding their Universal Credit scheme, and I began to wonder if I was living in some sort of Grimms Fairy Tale.

Shortly afterwards I caught a bit of Liz Truss’s car crash interview with Andrew Neil, and then I knew that I was.