We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The Prime Minister has poorer housekeeping skills than a badger

This may seem a rather strange proposition, but in terms of ‘housekeeping’, there are various aspects to running a ‘household’, and I am comparing the financial discipline and general acumen of the First Lord of the Treasury (aka Mrs May) making the analogy to running the national ‘house’ to the practical but non-monetary skills of a badger, or rather, some badgers local to me.

The other day I found a badgers’ latrine on my morning walk, it was rather obvious, a ‘not-quite steaming’ pile and I immediately thought of the Prime Minister. I was struck by how careful the badger is to look after his household (or rather, his sett) and not to dump in it, instead using a carefully-dug latrine. This one was unusual in that it was very close to the roadside and highly visible.

Whereas it seems that the Prime Minister is quite happy to dump on the country a €20,000,000,000 bill for the privilege of leaving the EU and letting the UK run a trade deficit with them, and also dump a load of regulations on the UK. If you are going to make a payment, at the bloody least make it in Sterling, so the Bank of England can QE the money out of thin air (if this has to be done at all, which it doesn’t) and they can spend their nice pounds rather than HMG buy Euros. The good folk at Lawyers for Britain have debunked the case for any payment to be made for leaving. How about telling the EU that if your income falls, you cut costs, so that there are fewer than 10,000 in the EU earning more than the UK’s Prime Minister (which ought not to be an ‘office of profit’ under the Crown anyway).

The plan to graft into UK law all EU Regulations has at least the attraction of providing certainty, but why not plan a bonfire ‘On Day 1‘ to quote the Donald (yeah, it still hasn’t happened).

So if I have to choose between the two?


Having had to negotiate with a badger at 3 am one winter morning to get him to leave my garden, in my pyjamas and armed with only a garden fork for self-defence (this is England), I can testify that they do not give up a position easily, but my bluff worked.

To be fair to Mrs May, the badger seems to know instinctively not to foul its home, however, this is a skill that some of our politicians have yet to learn, and they are so very busy doing the opposite, it may take some time for them to lose their habits, but why?

Photo credits: Per Wikipedia, The Rt. Hon. T May MP, per Controller of HMSOOwn work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Badgerhero.

27 comments to The Prime Minister has poorer housekeeping skills than a badger

  • Paul Marks

    The only way I can make sense of the British government offer to the European Union is that it is meant to be rejected – then the government can say “look we were ultra nice – and the E.U. flung the offer in our faces, now we must leave the European Union”.

    Of course the danger is that the European Union will ACCEPT the offer.

    Never make an offer if you do not want it accepted.

  • Mr Ecks

    The vile stupid bitch goes from bad to worse. Have already contacted useless Tory scum 5 times to complain about the cow and won’t stop until she is out.

    2 more years of no trade deals?

    It is a Remainiac plot to buy time.

    When she goes she needs to go with no pension–nothing. She deserves a shitload worse than that.

  • Paul Marks

    By the way – the Prime Minister has not limited the “bill” to 20 billion Pounds, her speech gave no figure at all. Just the statement that we would pay our full “obligations” (and guess who will decide what they are).

    Essentially this is a promise of a BLANK CHEQUE – an unlimited amount of money. No demand that the hundreds of billions of Pounds (inflation adjusted) the E.U. has already taken for the “benefits” of looted fishing grounds, and endless regulations destroying small family owned business enterprises, be returned. We are not going to get our money back – we are gong to give the E.U. even more tax money – without even any firm figure limiting it.

    Plus a promise of no deregulation (none at all) and no tax reduction – we must not “compete” with the European Union, we must not “undercut” our “friends” the European Union. And rather than seeking to break up the European Union (for example supporting the independence of Poland – for which we went to war in 1939) the Prime Minister was full of good wishes for a United Europe – the very thing that first English and then British policy has been about PREVENTING since the 16th century, indeed the thing we fought two World Wars to PREVENT.

    It was almost as if the Prime Minister had supported “Remain” in the referendum – which of course……

    Mr Badger for Prime Minister?

    Still let us hope that the whole thing is just a cunning ploy – and that the plan is for the European Union to reject the Prime Ministers proposals. So we can then leave the European Union – have the independence we voted for in the summer of 2016 and which we should now have.

    But it does seem a rather dangerous plan.

    What happens if the European Union ACCEPTS the proposals of the Prime Minister (which would mean that the United Kingdom had independence in name only) – that would be an utter disaster.

    The whole plan rests on the European Union REJECTING what the Prime Minister has offered – and why should they reject it?

  • Cal Ford

    You guys at Samizata are on the right side. Your analyses are usually good. Perry is great. Jonathan is good. Natalie is good. Neil’s an excellent new voice. But overall it comes across like a few last minute thoughts of a gentleman or a gentlelady before bed.

    Your opponents, on the other hand, are plotting 24/7. You may be intellecually superior to them, but the work rate involved means we’ll lose.

    (Ecks, get a friggin blog, or a Twatter account. Or stand for Parliament.)

  • Cal Ford

    Paul, I think it’s clear now that May doesn’t have much of a clue about what’s she’s doing. She’s hopeless, and the election fatigue period is over — it’s time for her and Hammond to go.

    Also, you will have noticed, it doesn’t matter how much the left loses, and how much it’s discredited, the left always end up in charge. This applies to any issue, and no matter how extreme the lefists. Even if the right wins, the left of the right ends up in charge.

    The UK is currently run by May and Hammond — who idiot Guardianistas regard as right-wing — plus the unelected Heywood and Robbins, with only Johnson and a cowed Gove offering any backdraft.

  • Phil B

    Agreeing to pay has set a precedent that the EU position is justified. All they are doing now is arguing over the amount.

    It is like going into a shonky used car dealership and saying “I have 10,000 quid in my pocket, how much is that car?” You want to bet that it will be less than 9,995 quid?

    She hasn’t got the brains of slime mould.

  • Mr Ecks

    Never mind blog whinging.

    Get on to the fucking Tory party –020-7222 9000–and tell them all about what May has just cost us and them. Email and write as well. 17.2 million (plus–I reckon–several million more who believe in democracy and have heard Drunkers latest pronouncements) all making their voices heard will be enough to fix May’s wagon.

    I suspect a Bliar/BluLabour stitch up. UKIP is now the only party not supporting a Brexit sell-out thus giving voters a chance to split the vote and the EU sellouts win whoever gets in.

    It is reaching the point where this leftist farce of a society will have to be torn down regardless of the cost or if that cost has to be paid in blood.

  • I’d love to believe that Paul Marks (September 22, 2017 at 4:43 pm) is right (i.e. that the offer is made with the intent it will be rejected) but feel no confidence that May is that clued up about things. That could well be how it turns out, but since I have other reasons for hoping she will be replaced (by someone who hates free speech less – fingers-crossed), I hope for a strong negative reaction.

  • CaptDMO

    Kinda’ long row to hoe for “Don’t shit where you eat.” innit?

  • Mr Ed

    Yes Sir Captain, the Badger knows that, but does our Prime Minister?

    If Mrs May had been Prime Minister in 1938, she wouldn’t only have handed the Czechs over to the fate, she’d have paid the Wehrmacht to march down Whitehall and given the Kriegsmarine Portsmouth as a gesture of goodwill.

  • CaptDMO

    TO be sure. Bear in mind I speak a forign language other than English. I speak ‘murican.
    (Separated, by a common language I suppose, even among ourselves in the US, kinda’ )
    “…she’d have paid the Wehrmacht…”?
    How much is the proposed FEE to wait two years for Brussels to continue to screw things up, THEN just walk in and kick ’em in the Brexits, NOW?
    What’s Grecian, and Catalonian, “share” of that?

  • Mr Ed


    The fee is not specified, but the murmurs are that it would be a starting point of €20,000,000,000 or c. US $23,900,000,000 but with no upper limit, as the promise is that no country remaining in the EU will lhave to pay more into the EU budget when the UK leaves, at least for a couple of years. Quite why a smaller ‘club’ needs the same budget is not clear, even less why you should pay for others’ meals when you have stopped dining in the restaurant.

  • Dr Evil

    There are already muttering from Brussels Eurocrats that it need to be at least 40 billion to cover pensions too. These numbers are just ridiculous. If DD’s guy from the Treasury killed their demands line by line why are we offering them an open cheque? May’s speech was either appeasement pure and simple or a plan they hope will be rejected by the EU. They are greedy bastards so will always want more than the electorate will stand. Then we walk? Or does no-one have a spine in government to do this?

  • Slartibartfarst

    I do not see that the thesis that “the PM craps in her own nest” has necessarily been substantiated in this post.
    Furthermore, the use of scatology would seem to be unhelpful in that it clouds the issue regarding what essentially seems to be a debate point about the advisability (or otherwise) of the PM’s Brexit escape/exit strategy/costs, as perceived by the author of the post.

    The badger presumably relieves itself as it does driven by instinct and a natural need to defecate, with no strategy per se in mind.
    The PM is presumably working according to a strategy that will enable the UK to feasibly exit at minimal cost and with all due/optimum speed.

    In fact, I would be surprised if she were not working to such a strategy. If she were not, then that could seem to be traitorous.
    Mind you, we cannot necessarily rule that possibility out. For example, it could be argued similarly that it was traitorous of the clever PM Ted Heath to push for Britain’s entry to the innocuously-named “European Common Market” without explicitly mentioning that the thing was a one-way ticket and would inexorably lead to a legacy of federalism – Communitarianism/Cosmopolitanism (New World Order) – and the associated consequential loss of British autonomy, sovereignty and democracy. Of course, PM Ted Heath – perhaps arrogantly – may have thought that he knew better than most what was best for the greater good of the people of Britain, at that time.

    Maybe PM Theresa May might be deserving of our sympathies?
    For example, some people (not me, you understand) might say, in scatological terms, that it is that legacy that is the excrement, and the People have said they don’t want it, and thus PM Theresa May is merely trying to delicately scoop it up and dump it offshore of Britain, where it can lay under a more suitable covering of Franco-German soil – where it belongs – sort of shoving the turd back up the deserving rectum from whence it came, so to speak – but I couldn’t possibly comment, not knowing what might be in her mind at what might even be, for her, a difficult, politically constipated juncture.

  • Mr Ecks

    Are you on something Slarti?

    Cos if you are let me know what it is. It sounds like it beats the Hell out of rose-coloured glasses.

    Also perhaps stick to fjords rather than rectums–your analysis of politics is like to give naivete a bad name.

  • I am a huge fan of cosmopolitanism, Slarti

    Maybe PM Theresa May might be deserving of our sympathies?

    Not fucking likely 😉 She is essentially a Blairite.

  • Laird

    “The PM is presumably working according to a strategy that will enable the UK to feasibly exit at minimal cost and with all due/optimum speed.”

    What possible reason is there for you to begin with that presumption, Slarti? Have you any evidence for it? Indeed, from everything I have seen it would appear that the precise opposite is true: maximum cost and as much delay as possible. Driven by a desire to inflict as much pain as possible on an electorate stupid enough to vote for a plan she opposed.

  • Julie near Chicago

    I dunno, Slarti. It seems to me that some people might read your comment as being a bit of tongue-in-cheek irony. (Not me, of course.)

  • Phil B

    Essentially, the EU legally do not have a leg to stand on. Lawyers (for once acting in the interests of others) have produced this:


    Clicking on the highlighted links on the web page will download a 30 page PDF document which goes through, point by point, the EU’s claims and dismisses them based on the EU’s own rules and treaties. It is not too arduous to read as each chapter starts on a separate page and worth reading. In short, they are bluffing, we don’t owe them a penny and they owe us.

    I DO wish the idiots negotiating would actually take advice and/or study the subject before offering shed loads of money to show that we are the good guys.

    A pox on all their houses (particularly parliament).

  • Watchman

    Whilst I would obviously prefer the badger as prime minister to Ms May (my objections arising mainly from her authoritarian tendencies, and being long standing), on this issue I think Slartibartfast might have a point. As Paul pointed out, no figure was cited, and the EU will not be able to just impose a figure in negotiations in that due to a slight oversight in the treaty they depend on, there is nothing in there about carrying costs on leaving the EU. As a proponent of the rule of law, I am actually happy for the UK to pay fair costs – pension contributions etc (how these are determined would be the question) so long as we are compensated for ongoing capital benefits from our spending (so the nice new EU buildings should not be counted simply as buried costs, as our contribution to these will continue to have value (I assume – value is in the eye of the beholder after all) for the EU and its remaining members after we leave. Just because we don’t have to do something by the exact wording of an EU document is hardly a great reason not to meet our normal moral obligations.

    And it will be a one-off payment to clear us of those obligations – we seem to have ruled out any on-going payments (unless your are called Kier Starmer anyway). I am happy enough with this, so long as the figure is fair. And I can’t see £20 billion being accepted, since the figure seems to be based partially on the totally inadmissible (and politically toxic) idea of the UK paying to help cover the budget deficit it will leave, which no-one in any party has publically supported that I have seen.

    And the good thing is, if there is no attempt to negotiate a fair cost, then the UK can happily pay nothing instead – an excellent bargaining position.

  • Paul Marks

    I have been working in practical (door knocking) politics since 1979 – and whatever the opinion poll people tell you I KNOW who cares about the United Kingdom regaining its independence.

    Conservative voters care – that is who cares. That is why following the opinion pollsters and market research types is a mistake – they do not seem to know who cares about British independence. There are indeed socialists who care – but mostly it is natural Conservative voters who care about British independence.

    If Mrs May (and her allies) continue on their present course, people will not vote Conservative because the sort of people who might vote Conservative really care about this. I knock or doors, I listen to what ordinary voters say – I KNOW what I am talking about.

    This is what Mr Ed means about “do not shit where you eat”.

    There will not be a Conservative Party if Mrs May carries on cheating the British people of their independence – the party will die, totally and absolutely.

    But in her “bubble” of Civil Service and other advisers, Mrs May does not understand this (does not understand that if she carries on like this she will KILL the Conservative Party) and carries on waffling about “lock”, “double lock”, “triple lock” and other rubbish. People do not want words – they want the independence of their country and they want it NOW. Everyone knows that “you will have your independence – in 2021” means “you are slaves, get used to it, you are NEVER going to be free”.

    The lies must stop – or the Conservative Party will die. The membership will go away (work in their gardens rather than go to coffee mornings) and no one will VOTE Conservative. Mrs May must be made to understand this and to change her policy – or Mrs May must go.

    What would be a sign of a sincere change of policy? An end to the BBC tax (the “license fee”) and the allowing of pro independence television and radio station. A government whose “broadcasting standards” do not ALLOW conservative television and radio stations, is not kidding anyone when it claims to be “Conservative”. There should be no “licensing” or “broadcasting standards” to be enforced by Guardian reading officials – who should not exist.

    Another sign would be an end to the “Overseas Aid” Department – which Conservative voters detest. And an end to the Department of “Culture, Media and Sport” (ditto).

    But, above all, the country must have its independence – no more paying the European Union money and no more obeying European Union regulations. Not “in 2021” – NOW.

    Otherwise there is no point in voting. And people who vote Conservative will no longer do so.

    For many years people “held their noses and voted Conservative” even though the party was NOT delivering what its voters wanted (on the BBC or on anything). But notice that the MEMBERSHIP of the Party kept dropping – because what was the point of being a member of a Conservative Party that was not Conservative?

    Now the patience of the ordinary Conservative VOTERS is at end – it really is at an end.

    If the government carries on like this we, the Conservative Party, will be utterly destroyed. That is what Mr Ed means by “do not shit where you eat” – or rather do not shit upon the voters on whom you depend.

  • Mr Ed


    Do we ask Australia, Belize, New Zealand and Singapore to pay pension costs for our civil servants or vice versa? Afaik we don’t. EU pensions are a matter for the EU, and they come in some cases at least with s proviso of public loyalty to the EU. The EU should not discriminate on the basis of nationality, that is a core principle of it. That a functionary’s state may leave is immaterial, have they not worked for the EU like any other? Besides a smaller EU should mean fewer costs, so the EU should be planning cuts, yes real cuts in the EU’s budget. NTDW us from March 2019.

  • Slartibartfarst

    @Mr Ecks wrote, September 24, 2017 at 1:27 pm:

    Are you on something Slarti?
    Cos if you are let me know what it is. It sounds like it beats the Hell out of rose-coloured glasses.
    Also perhaps stick to fjords rather than rectums–your analysis of politics is like to give naivete a bad name.

    Most of the time, I seem to be on a high called “Life”, which I generally experience directly (e.g., by events that directly affect me) and vicariously (e.g., through the lives of my children) – and, by and large, I greatly enjoy the experience, though I may occasionally suffer from bouts of acute depression relating to what seems to me to be the abysmal, oft self-imposed human condition.

    However, throughout, I tend to remain optimistic that, despite our seemingly instinctive and self-crippling cretinous human behaviours, and “despite Brexit” – as the BBC habitually seems to put it – we just might make the experience of being human a little better for ourselves and/or future generations (as history shows that we sometimes can indeed do, incrementally, when we put our minds and hearts to it, and sometimes it seems to happen by accident).

    I consider that the Stanford Research Institute’s report,“The Changing Images of Man” captured this rather well, where they postulated (refer pp 4 – 6) the cyclical upwards trend in improvement in the lot of Man, over time.

    Mind you, several of the authors of that report were reputedly on acid (LSD), according to this: Scientists on Acid: The Story Behind “Changing Images of Man”, so that might dampen one’s enthusiasm somewhat, regarding the quality and the likely potential credibility/authority of the report.

    Far out, man.

  • Slartibartfarst

    @Perry de Havilland (London) wrote, September 24, 2017 at 2:03 pm:

    I am a huge fan of cosmopolitanism, Slarti
    Maybe PM Theresa May might be deserving of our sympathies?
    Not fucking likely 😉 She is essentially a Blairite.

    I’m not trying to be disagreeable, but I’m not sure that your being a huge fan of Cosmopolitanism necessarily establishes that it can’t be a pile of steaming dung – if that is what you intended to imply.
    The thing is, the proponents of Cosmopolitanism seem to have it being inclusive of just about every “good” theory there is, including the “good” bits of Marxism, or “The Religion of Peace”™, etc. – if they are to be believed.

    However, saying that about any of the life-hating -isms would seem to be a bit like the A&M definition for “political correctness”:

    “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.”

    (From the Texas A&M website – apparently the winning entry in a 2007 A&M competition to come up with the best definitions of things.)

    As for PM Theresa May, my comments were “a bit of tongue-in-cheek” as @Julie near Chicago put it (above). However, given the scatalogical theme of my comments, I felt that the use of the potentially ambiguous word “cheek” could have been made intentionally in bad taste, but one can never be sure.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Oh, Slarti, you evil, EVIIIILLL man! 😈 😆

  • Slartibartfarst

    @Laird wrote, September 24, 2017 at 4:03 pm:

    “The PM is presumably working according to a strategy that will enable the UK to feasibly exit at minimal cost and with all due/optimum speed.”

    What possible reason is there for you to begin with that presumption, Slarti? Have you any evidence for it? Indeed, from everything I have seen it would appear that the precise opposite is true: maximum cost and as much delay as possible. Driven by a desire to inflict as much pain as possible on an electorate stupid enough to vote for a plan she opposed.

    If we say that “Any new PM could reasonably be expected to work dutifully on a best efforts basis to execute the mandate of the voters that elected them in the first place”, then I would give PM Theresa May the benefit of the doubt, though I have to admit that when she said “Brexit means Brexit”, I did momentarily wonder whether she had become confused as to which side she was batting for (i.e., the Remainers). Still, the plebiscite looked as though the voters apparently took her at her word, so good luck to her and I hope she does get the job done without further ado.

    If she doesn’t, then I suspect that that could indeed lead to the demise of the Conservative party, as @Paul Marks points out so emphatically (above) – and he could well be right, of course, given his stated knowledge of the “grass roots”.

    If she did turn out to be a 5th column, intent on wrecking the Conservative party, then she would seem to be little different to David Cameron, who had arguably already made great inroads in that regard and may have just passed the baton on to her as he departed, with a “Keep up the good work, Theresa”.

    Of course, whether any damage to the Conservative party was done deliberately (as a strategy) or out of stupidity/incompetence, would seem to make no difference. It is all damage, regardless.

    We shall see. One thing for sure is that, whereas the voters clearly went for Brexit in the referendum, it would seem highly unlikely that they will be given any say whatsoever in the matter of progressing the execution of the Brexit mandate (Article 50, etc.), and are apparently effectively made impotent on this matter, which now rests firmly in the capable hands (ha-ha) of the executors – who include an assortment of apparently Alt-Left fascists and anti-democratic and bigoted bureaucrats and civil servants.

    We will see whether “Brexit” does indeed mean “Brexit”, or whether its meaning has been none-too-subtly mutated into “We are France/Germany”, or whatever, complete with the now obligatory feeble candlelit gatherings of the ineffectual.
    Maybe it is time for all good Anglo-Saxons to smear their faces with woad and walk on Parliament like that? Let’s see if she dare ban that as racism, “hate”, or “terror”, or something, and demonstrating whether she has a “clean” end to pick her up by.
    Personally, I don’t think the Brits have got the bottle for it anymore anyway, and I’d be none to sanguine about the outcome.