We detect background influence from the infamous black spider hand writer that persistently lobbies government ministers – the Prince of Wales.
Obedient Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has written to other UK Cabinet members suggesting that the Queen is given a new royal yacht for her diamond jubilee.
This is no less than a transparent royal scam by the Prince of Wales.
It’s not as if they can magic a new yacht into being during this jubilee year.
How long would it realistically take for a new yacht to be agreed, specified, designed, costed, tendered, contracted, built, finished, tested and handed over?
How old is the Queen?
How interested will the Queen be in having a new yacht at the time it would be ready?
Who is the royal known to luxuriate in costly special privilege, preferably paid for by what they call OPM – ‘other people’s money’?
Step forward the Prince of Wales – for whom a new royal yacht is in fact, clearly, intended; and who is most probably the source of the plea for a boat for Mummy in her big year.
Would the nation stand for paying to indulge the Prince of Wales in a new royal yacht? Not a chance.
But if he got it by getting one being built supposedly for the Queen – that’s his one chance and he’s going for it.
We say to the UK government, let the hugely wealthy whinger pay for one himself if he wants it – but do not try a blatant scam like this on the taxpayer when jobs are being lost on a daily basis and will be for some time; and when the UK economy will have to withstand massive economic upheaval in Europe – whether the euro survives or not.
I’m intrigued by the Gove connection – as well as the Minister for Education, is he the Minister for Royalty?
Not sure about the role of Prince Charles in justifying a new royal yacht – it would presumably have to be a reproduction antique creation to suit his aesthetic sensibilities, and unless he gets sponsorship the cost to the public purse could be eye-watering. Perhaps Gove is planning to fund it from flogging off a lot more school sports pitches, or by designating it a ‘faith yacht’ with suitable sponsorship; Maybe Tony Blair could claim it as a tax-deductible expense for his burgeoning corporate good deeds empire, if he’s not entirely ‘sheltered’ from paying taxes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gove has said public money but if there’s not enough, then private subscriptions could be sought.
And of course the yacht would in fact be given to the Royal family.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gove is a crawling little toady,promoted way beyond his ability level.
He is just giving the left another PR gift.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Gove: Queen deserves £60m yacht for Queen – The Independent
Pingback: Give Queen a new royal yacht for diamond jubilee, says Michael Gove – The Guardian | World Wide News
Simple answer- yes, I do think you are stupid. What a crass article.
FA has turned into a personal blog (and a particularly unpleasant one at that) rather than a news website. It seems like ‘FA’ news these days anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes – another example of the bigoted reporting so common now on these pages. Please tell me who pays your wages and overheads – Mr Salmond personally perhaps – he earns enough! A simple answer will do – rather than the five paragraph diatribe you normally produce to answer a simple question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not convinced by the POW conspracy connection but this really is a piece of Olympic class toadying by wee Gove!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s true to say that some in uk government have absolutely no idea how stupid they are!!
school defender and Malcolm Kirk–lighten up…this story IS news,or do you think newsroom made it up?
And if you don’t like the site …well you can guess where I’m going????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Will freely admit to a simple scan of the article above, since I saw a report on it on Sky this morning.
Taking the whole Royalist arguments out of it and the fact she could afford one herself out of Buckingham Palace’s petty cash, there are a few things that get my goat about this.
Firstly, the minister who made this suggestion (regardless of who is behind it) is the minister for Education. Yes, you heard right. Instead of saying, “Hey, our schools and colleges are being completely devasted by cuts and we could really do with that money to invest in them and our future workforce” – NO – he wants the Queen to have another dingy.
Is there not supposed to be some sort of ceremonial barge already being built for the jubilee – over a mile long or something ridiculous like that?
Does the Queen even want another yacht? She and Phil being in their twilight years, might not want to go sailing off here and there and everywhere. Jeez, if they are anything like my parents (who are a younger than them) they must have doctor’s and hospital appointments up to their necks. Going off on a wee jaunt might not even be feasible for them.
Time to design, tender, construct and launch said yacht will be a couple of years. Not meaning to be nasty, but will the Queen even still be with us then?
The whole thing reeks worse than an auld corgi’s dog breath.
I’m not saying that the Queen shouldn’t receive a wee something from her people – a card with a fiver in it maybe? But I am sure that there are many in the Tory bunker this morning ready to give Gove a good kicking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Certain newspapers put this idea up months before Gove supported it. Not everyone in Scotland is anti – royal or a Salmond fan!!!
The royal yacht should have been replaced a long time ago. Bad mistake by Tony Blair – which he has since admitted.
If cuts and cash come into it, as someone who has worked
hard in various jobs for 45 years and had a father who did same and fought in the war – never claimed benefits and got off his backside to provide for his family, I would a hundred times prefer, business people, the youth of the uk and others including the royal family had the use of a new royal yacht than to continue to support the work shy in our society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Brief discussion on Radio4 Today this morning – no mention of the Prince Charles connection, and the emphasis seems to be on corporate (and commonwealth, not just uk) funding of a multi-use boat that could be used for educational and scientific expeditions as well as ferrying royalty around. This casts rather a different light on the proposal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your comment brought back to my mind the fact that the cost of Britannia was justified by the plans to use the yacht as a floating hospital ship in future wars. Come the Falklands and the educational cruise ship SS Uganda was pressed into service as a hospital ship but no sign of the Britannia. Turned out she was too small to be of any use.
I am therefore sceptical about a multi-use yacht actually being used for anything other than swanning Royals around. I certainly strain to think how the roles of floating embassy and research vessel can be combined. I have been on a fair few research vessels and none of them looked anything like the Britannia.
One last thought, if the Britannia was so successful in bringing lots of trade to the UK why is it that I cannot think of a single other nation which has invested into an ambassadorial yacht?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I recall, Britannia wasn’t sent to the Falklands because, being steam turbine powered she ran on heavy bunnkering oil. The rest of the ships were diesel or gas turbine powered so Britannia would have required an exclusive refuelling facility which was clearly a non starter. I don’t think size ever came into it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
JimB – I bow to your superior knowledge of Britannia’s propulsion system. Point being though that she wasn’t actually suitable to be used in her supposed dual role at the only time she might have been of use in this role.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
She was launched in 1954 when much of the navy probably used heavy bunker oil, so it was sensible at the time. Turbines were chosen because they are vibration free unlike diesels for instance.
The world had moved on by the time of the Falklands war but that is life. Many ships, if not most, have a lifespan of less than 30 years so her lack of participation in the Falklands was to be expected. It was the lack of availability of fuel that led to her retirement to Edinbugh as far as I remember.
Will the English want her back if independence should come about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah! The politics of envy – or is it jealousy – returns.
Come on FA, you’re beginning to sound like the press of Rupert Murdoch who, true to his word many years ago, has spent a lifetime trying to belittle and demolish the institutions and morality of the UK. Personally, I’d chuck the little b****r back to the colonies.
Though we’re unlikely ever to see the like again, RY Britannia brought huge benefits to the UK on her trade and diplomatic voyages throughout the world. Much greater benefit and at much less cost than all the stupid foreign wars we’ve been involved in since she was retired because of old age.
The ‘Royal Barge being built’ is actually an existing Thames trip boat used for functions etc., that is being transformed (a bit like a theatre set) into a vessel fit for a queen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t envy the Royal Family.Why should not forargyll comment upon what is a story firmly in the public domain?
Unlike some others I know my place!
I will send in a £1 if the plate is going the rounds.
Patronising the Dirty Digger is not going to have any effect. He abandoned the colonies some time ago and is now a citizen of the USofA.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How about “Newsie” commenting on Alex Salmonds contacts with News International. According to Private Eye, Salmond has met Murdoch and his executives 25 times since he became First Minister. No surprise then the Times voted him Briton of the year and the Scottish editions of Murdochs papers backed Salmond in last years Holyrood elections. Now News International are paying out a fortune in damages for phone hacking.Nice company the First Minister keeps! A story every bit as interesting as the Royal Yacht.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, Campbell, was Alex Salmond the only politician to schmooze with the Murdoch gang? If politicians don’t make it their business to try and get the press on their side, surely they’re falling down on the job? (disclaimer: I don’t like Murdoch any more than you do)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sounds like the whole story is now dead in the water, as the BBC is reporting that Downing Street has effectively squashed Michael Gove’s initiative.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yup i agree with some of the articles, Gove is in Education so he should keep hie BIG GOB shut
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s two barges involved!
One is a row barge, to be rowed by Sir Redgrave.
HMQ is rowing bow.
POW would like to be cox.
Costings? Don’t know, but from the picture in the London Evening Standard looks a proper job, perhaps POW might like it.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24027258-fit-for-a-queen-first-sight-of-barge-to-lead-diamond-jubilee-river-pageant.do
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting that this glorious boat is the brainchild of the same Baron Sterling of Plaistow (and P&O) who organised the Queen’s silver & golden jubilees, and who believed in truly ticketless first class commuting between his pile in Haslemere and his office in the City. Puts Worral-Thompson to shame any day. I digress; the main point of this gilded royal barge is surely to afford the POW the status of cox, as you say – preferably in monogrammed dressing gown (as first revealed to his subjects on that tv visit to Highgrove) and with megaphone to provide divine guidance to the faithful oarsmen on the true path to a better future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I must be getting soft in my old age, as this is quite a spiteful article and way betond communicating an opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reports from the Daily Mail today suggest that “call me Dave” Cameron has endorsed the call from Michael Gove to raise cash for this “folie de grandeur” l feel sure that in those straightened times the great British public, or at least the Hedge Fund managers, will dig deep and bring this project to fruition. As promised before , I am good for a £1 and if all fellow citizens respond with similar enthusiasm we will have no problems in raising the necessary £60m.
Don’t place too much credence on what appears in the London Evening Standard, though. I saw a copy while passing through the capital recently-brings to mind an old Chick Murray joke – and it is an appaling freesheet that cannot be taken seriously by anyone other than bored commuters facing a boring journey home.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps, if the notion that it should be a ‘multi-purpose’ Royal ship – to make it more attractive in the eyes of the commonors – wins the day, it could eventually find use for transporting emigrants away from impoverished English shores, if those selfish Scots persist in their stubborn insistence that the remaining offshore hydrocarbon loot is theirs by right, together with the looming windfarms relentlessly spraying cash windfalls to their oh-so green and ecologically minded absentee owners. Perhaps the multi-purpose notion could spread – Balmoral would make a great adventure holiday centre (when not occupied by the royals) to give deprived kids from Kensington & Chelsea a break from their desperate living conditions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
careful, Robert! You can overstate your case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dear, Health and Safety have kiboshed Charlie’s ambition to be cox on HM’s barge.
Which he requested to be built.
It appears the boat will be too vulnerable to torpedos and other missiles that will be around at the jubilee.
But it will still be in the parade, but sans majesty. And given to HMQ afterwards.
Presumably Steve Redgrave is disposable.
But its a Daily Mail report, so who knows whether the whole thing is a right wing plot?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086827/Queens-Diamond-Jubilee-2012-Plans-500k-vessel-scrapped-health-safety.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: New Royal Yacht for – the Queen? Do they think we're stupid? | Funny stupid videos 2012-Stupid Videos 2012, Funny Videos
Regardless of the purchase cost of a new royal yacht being privately funded, running costs will be funded by the tax payer (Brittania was around £30 million P.A.).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Today’s “Metro”, London Edition says that the Queen will be aboard…
A job for POW after all?
Picture (Arist’s impression)
Who is that standing in the bow????
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/pictures/photos-11819/pictures-thames-diamond-jubilee-pageant/1
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since this story is in the realms of whacky!
I’ve had a crazy idea……Why don’t the voters of A&BC fund a fancy barge…making sure there are enough oars for all council admin members and a few other chums!
Then we could all wave them off “doon the watter”.
I’m sure that there could be better ways to spend taxpayers money…….but you never know,they may decide they like it doon there and want to stay!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve had a better idea! Why don’t we gift them the Ali Cat and the Argyll Flyer from Argyll Ferries on the Clyde, and then the Scottish Government could provide the two ferries it promised for the Dunoon – Gourock route. Simple!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Gus Mackay: Like it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0