Already in the lower reaches of the chart, I believe.

I wonder if the BBC will find an excuse not to play it.

You can buy it here, or here or here.

PS: I know that probably all of you look at Wings’ posts. Please, though, if you haven’t seen this one, go and look at it now and share it on social media. Everyone should see this. It is heartbreaking.


According to this, the recording is at number 2 in the iTunes download charts. Brilliant news, particularly as the money raised is being given to charity. Brilliant.


AIIn her manifesto, Theresa May announced plans to replace free universal lunchtime meals for infants in England with free breakfasts for every pupil up to the age of 11.

(Well, Mrs Thatcher took their milk, and now Mrs May is taking their lunch!)

The Tories told the public that it would save vast amounts of money. It would cost, for the whole of England, only £60 million per year

But when calculations were done it was discovered that the money they had set aside for this meant that just under 7p spent would be available to spend on each breakfast.

At this point, it is worth remembering that when Iain Duncan Smith was a government minister he spent £39 on a breakfast for himself.

Of course, we at Munguin’s Republic realise that Mr Duncan Smith is far larger than the average under-11-year-old, and surely needs considerably more food to keep him going, but seriously …557 times larger?? Surely that would make him a giant of a man… No surely, surely not.

So, hoping no one would notice, the Theresa May Strong and Stable Party have quietly said that they will have to look again at the figure. Damned right they will! This time with a calculator in their hands.

And these are the people that we didn’t vote for, who will be negotiating the biggest change in the UK in 45 years?

Jings, crivvens, help ma boab. Heaven help us.



I heard on the news this afternoon that Amber Rudd (she’s the Home Secretary in the Theresa May Strong and Stable government, in case you didn’t know) has warned the United States of America NOT to leak more information about the Manchester terrorist. They had apparently released his name to the press without permission from the Brits and Rudd had wanted to “keep the element of surprise”.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme she had been very clear with Washington “that it should not happen again”.


The US authorities must have been quaking with fear after being thus warned by as august a figure as whatever her name is, I forget. So much so that they pretty much immediately leaked some more information.

Oh, for that special relationship, eh?


And on a more cheerful note, I was in the garden this evening:




So again, Niko, before you have a go. I have no problem with there being some sort of death duties. I just don’t think it should be exclusively for those who get sick as they get older. It should be for everyone who is rich.

It should be run by the government. It must not involve private companies making vast amounts of money, and it shouldn’t ever mean that people who are starting to get sick will wish themselves dead before they have had time to spend the legacy that they thought they were leaving to their kids.

My concern is all about the universality of social security and the welfare state.

Anyway, it’s been fun watching “strong and stable” become “weak and wobbly”.




There are those who ask, and I can see their point, why should we pay for rich people’s care in their old age. Aren’t the Tories right to make people sell up and take care of themselves?

Why should the taxpayer foot a bill for people’s old age care so that their offspring can profit from the sale of their house when they die? Isn’t it reasonable that assets be sold so that the owners can be looked after as they age?



But there are some pretty obvious questions and points that, unless they are made very clear, may blur the distinction between elderly care and NHS care:


At what point does one become elderly? If you need care when you are 70, is that elderly, even though today you’re likely to have at least another 20 years ahead of you?  Is it elderly care when you are 60? What if, for some reason, you need that care at 45? Or 35? After all, you might have been left a house of good value. You can be a homeowner at any age.

And what if the care were for a relatively short but undefined term, say after an operation or some hospital treatment, or whatever? Maybe for 3 months, 6 months, a year?

Or what if it were a relatively young person with some disablement who had been cared for at home by parents all his or her lives, and these parents had now died leaving a substantial property? Long term care required for maybe 50 years?

Once you introduce a commercial insurance aspect into the deal you are putting the profitability of the company, salespeople’s bonuses and shareholders’ dividends above the interests of the clients.


Who will be the winner in any game like that?

And once again, if it depends on the value of the property, and there is a cut-off point, how will that value be adjudged? Who will do the valuing? Will people, as they age, stop making improvements to their homes in order to reduce their property’s value?

And for at least some people, what will be the point of buying a house and looking after it and its gardens? Why would they bother? People without their own property who have spent their money on holidays, parties, clothes, cars and high living instead will get their care free.

And will there be different classes of care dependent on house value?

Is this the thin end of the wedge? Once we have become accustomed to selling a property to pay for care needs, will people who have acquired wealth in any form have to pay for other kinds of care?  A short stay in hospital? A new hip; radiotherapy? Where will it end? And what kind of treatment will be available to people who have nothing to sell, and no cash in the bank?


And does anyone trust insurance companies in the City of London? As the writer above says, it is a financial scandal waiting to happen but after Mrs May has given up kitten heels for slippers.

There will be, I’m sure, many questions that I’ve failed to ask. I’m sure you will prompt me.


One thing’s for sure though. There will be some people who won’t ever have to sell anything to be looked after in their old age. So that’s alright then.



And, of course, this.

Now surely, all of these people aren’t really in need of a free dinner, or in IDS’s case, breakfast. If we are going to bring in austerity means testing, because we are such a broke little country, and about to be even more broke, probably people like Cameron and May should be means tested to see if they earn above the threshold for a free dinner at the expense of taxpayers.

Whit’s guid tae gie’s no ill tae tak, eh Tess?

Grateful thanks to Cllr John Edwards for the idea and some of the pics.