Are they related?

By | | ,
Comments Off on Are they related?
Quooker in the eye Ad Nauseum Private Eye 1305
Hot on the heals of forcing up the costs of DVD’s and all sorts of gadgets for the rest of us by closing a vat loophole. Private Eye proudly reports that the Quooker is a “quook of shite” thus getting egg on the face of many upmarket newspapers that advertised it (P11 Eye 1305). Sadly for reasons of space it would seem they didn’t have time to report that a certain well known satirical magazine has also been more than happy to take the advertisers shilling for the self same product (Eye passim). As the two scans above show (I can do a scan of open rag if people doubt the validity of the back cover scan). I’m sure this unfortunate oversight will be corrected in the next edition of Private Eye.
0

Massive yacht?

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

As the idea of the replacing the Queens 44 year old yacht as a present for her diamond jubilee seems to continue to be a matter of debate amongst my friends I find myself wondering a few things. The first is does she actually want a new yacht of any sort, or would this be like getting a very expensive knitted sweater from your granny that will never see the light of day? Though of course as the video above observes who wouldn’t want a massive yacht?

The thing I’d be more doubtful about is who’d organize the fund raising, a government quango? If the government was involved I’ll just post her a bit of sailcloth as that would probably be more likely to result in her getting a yacht than anything the government touched. The idea that it could also be used as some sort of “university of the seas” doesn’t make it much of a present either.
“here you go love, brand new boat for you – but you can only use it when we say so ‘cos we want to use it as a trendy university so no nipping off for your holidays on it – think of it as more of a time share”
So no if the Government is invovled that isn’t going to fly, but lets instead assume that the Queen does actually want a yacht, then could not Philip pull a few strings to get some of the more informed great and good to create “Prince Phillips – buy my missus a boat” fund run along charitable lines and open to public subscription? I have seen some people scoffing at the idea that public subscription might actually pay for it, but really it’s not that silly an idea – the mooted price of the erstwhile yacht is 60 million (yachts it seems are expensive), now there are estimated to be over 60 million people living in the UK, so that’s say a quid each. Now of course a lot of people wouldn’t want to chip in, but on the other hand her Maj is quite popular globally so some foreign types might throw in the odd bob or two (preferably not Euro’s we want real money here) and well Charles and Andrew etc. might perhaps throw in a bit extra. So really is buying the yacht via voluntary public subscription that strange an idea?

Finally there is a very practical fiscal upside to all of this. If the government isn’t invovled then the foundation/charity what have you can use who ever they like to build it. No mucking about with EU tendering mandates, they can just go down to bob’s boat emporium (round the back of the Neesden marina and sewage plant) chuck him some dosh and say on you go mate. So that could be 60 million pounds or private capital from around the world being pumped into British industry, as for all the talk of the decline in our industry something that we continue to do well at is luxury. A high tech state of the art luxury boat – that’s right up the street for British industry, and such a yacht would make an excellent show case for the businesses invovled. Finally of course all those businesses and workers involved will be paying tax, so the project will have deftly pilfered the pockets of foreign contributors* to swell the nations ailing coffers. What’s not to like about the plan? Given it could avoid tendering outside of the UK, it sounds a better idea than high speed rail?

* Only foreign contributors they’d have got our money sooner or later anyway so that can hardly count.

Update: First I’d like to point out I wrote this at 15:27 so before the Gaudrian article saying that some of the great and good were setting up a charity and that the Queen wouldn’t mind a yacht etc… But I do wonder why the price has gone up by 20 million between the BBC article and the Gaurdians.

0

Mr Gove And His Amazing Minefield Clog-Dance

By | | ,
Comments Off on Mr Gove And His Amazing Minefield Clog-Dance

“Mr Gove And His Amazing Minefield Clog-Dance

I’d love to be a fly on the wall at Michael Gove’s next performance appraisal. I happen to have met a few of the senior whips at the conservative party and I can imagine one in particular, sitting back, making a steeple of his fingers and asking, with terrifying nonchalance “So Michael, what have we learned about two deeply unpopular ministers exchanging stupid ideas by non-secure memo on a slow news week?”. For a slow news week it is. One capsized cruise liner, a couple of cut and dried murders and the limited schadenfreude to be extracted from the French credit downgrade were never going to be enough to keep Govey off the front pages.

Or perhaps he’s getting a pat on the back for a PR masterstroke. “Well done” they’re saying. “Rather than draw attention to the fact that the majority of the front benches of parliament are made up of lawyers and bankers with massive stocks in the UK’s besmirched financial institutions, you’ve diverted attention to a pointless side argument about whether we need a royal family or not. You’re a genius. Have a promotion”. Alright maybe not.

Whatever the Tory grandees’ response, the really special thing about the story is not that everyone thinks Michael Gove is a bit of a loose lipped pillock. That story wouldn’t make an even page nib. No, the real treat is that somewhere deep in Buckingham Palace, a certain elderly woman is reading facebook and considering a status update along the lines of “If one still had the power, one would have a certain chap’s head in basket. LOFAO (NOT)”.

I was on Facebook too and thinking “Her madge is going to get the rap for this. The weasel turncoat of fleet street is going to get away with it again!”. (Many journalists have a problem with Govey. Standing on a picket line to demand fairer conditions for hacks then becoming a Tory MP is a bit like Spartacus giving up the revolutionary life and opening a crucifixion consultancy).

This morning’s trawl of the blogosphere, Twitter and Facebook confirmed my suspicions. I was half expecting to see questions like “Why is the man who said local authorities can’t have cash to plug the holes in school roofs suggesting spending outside his department?”. Or “Why do you think the Guardian’s got it in for a former leader writer and news editor of The Times?”. But no. What I got from my generally respected list of left leaning contacts was a wall of flippant, sarcastic and entirely predictable nonsense about someone they erroneously name “One of the richest people in Britain”.

I’m not suggesting her madge is struggling but the Queen doesn’t even make the top 20 of The Times’ loaded list. Messrs Abramovich and Branson peer down at The Queen from their lofty positions. At least one of them is a hot tip for president should the republicans get their way.

But the likelihood is they never will, and here’s why;

According to a recent Ipsos MORI poll 68 percent of the population are happy to keep the monarchy. The republicans only make up 22 percent of the remainder,(the shortfall presumably being made up by those who couldn’t care less). So the dear old roundheads are in a minority to start with.

The campaign for a glorious republic has gained exactly one percent on the royalists since 1969. If I were running a campaign with a success rate like that I’d be re-thinking my strategy. The problem is my liberal chums are quite happy to engage in complex and entirely rational discussions about the relative merits of the socialist agenda versus the callous cockpit of market driven capitalism. But when it comes to getting sidelined in the monarchy debate something snaps and they regress straight back to the school yard. It’s deeply depressing.

I’ll be honest, the moniker I write under is no coincidence. Other than an obsession with a certain nineties GM coupe, ‘The Wounded Cavalier’ refers to the fact that given the choice in the civil war, I’d have been wearing a nice big hat and staring at old warty face from the posh side of the lines. But even though I’m a royalist, I do like a good argument. Sadly I so very rarely see one these days. The last time was some years back. I was driving at the time and it’s hard to concentrate when you’re negotiating York’s one-way system.

So here’s a suggestion for the republicans; Instead of spouting ad hominem witticisms, and tackling the man, not the ball, come up with an argument. Actually tell me why this issue, not the economy being run by the banks’ major shareholders, not the preponderance of corporate lawyers in our house of representatives is the real thorny question to kick the week off with. Why when we’ve propped up failing institutions to the tune of hundreds of billions and then watched them pocket the profits do you quail at the thought of lending liquidity to a profit making family firm? In short, why can’t you talk like grown ups?

Incidentally I wonder if her majesty writes IOHO for “In one’s humble opinion”?”

0