IMAGINE being the Queen and having to read out whatever Boris Johnson just scribbled on the back of a fag packet.

Her Very Patient Majesty had to recite some tatty words yesterday. Her ventriloquism act reminds us that we are governed by right-wing columnists who heard something from a friend who heard it from a pal who likes a drink.

Two important bills might almost be based on gin or Bordeaux-fuelled urban myths.

One is the proposal for voters to have photo IDs. Here is a view from a perhaps surprising source (Tory MP speaks sense alert!) –

‘It’s illiberal. It’s an illiberal solution in pursuit of a non-existent problem. If you’ve got an ID card, you’re putting a barrier in the way of people to exercise their own democratic rights, which is not necessary and shouldn’t be there’.

It’s unsettling to find yourself nodding along to David Davis, but he has a point.

There is no noticeable problem with voting fraud and no honest reason for such a plan. But there is a dishonest one and it comes from the Trumpian playbook.

This plan could, according to this morning’s Guardian and others, risk freezing out two million voters – many at society’s margins who are unlikely to vote Tory. This is self-serving and a nasty piece of work; and should you wish to borrow those words to describe a prominent political personage, feel free.

Incidentally, in a TV encounter Health Secretary Matt Hancock was told by a reporter that there had been only six cases of voter fraud. Gathering up his full pomp, he replied that was “six too many” – much in the way that one Matt Hancock is one too many.

Later on Channel 4 News, Hancock bristled at being asked about the lack of social care plans in the speech. As Gary Gibbon pushed on this, Hancock tried to remain his usual smarmy self while the muscles in his neck tightened at the indignity of having to answer such questions.

Favourite Tory urban myth number two… our universities are rammed full of intolerant students who silence anyone remotely right wing – hence today’s headline in The Times, “New laws to protect university free speech.”

Thanks to Phil Batty from Times Higher Education for pointing out on Twitter that the latest Office for Students figures “for the university sector in England show that of 59,574 events organised with an external speaker, 53 were not approved. Yes, that’s 0.09% of events”.

A big hammer for a pimple-sized problem.

Still, this protecting free speech lark isn’t half complicated. As Education Secretary Gavin Williamson hauls his proposal up by the scruff of its pinstriped neck, Culture Wars Secretary Oliver Dowden continues his attempt to purge museums of anyone who disagrees with the government (see past Ledges).

The latest distinguished exile is the science author Sarah Dry, who withdrew her application to be reappointed as a trustee of the Science Museum Group after, according to the Observer, being told “to back the government’s policy against the removal of contentious historical objects”.

She declined, saying that “only by remaining free of government interference can our museums continue to earn the trust of the public”.

So to recap: free speech is the freedom of right-wing people to speak at universities without being interrupted (which generally they can do anyway); while free speech isn’t the freedom of people who run museums to say that they might disagree with the government.

Telling footnote: Gavin Williamson wants to ‘protect freedom of speech’ at universities at the same time that he wants to slash the freedom to study on arts courses. Spending on non-science subjects is due to be slashed from £36m to £19m, with more cuts promised.

This proposal wears culture war armour. The tinpot explanation is that this will “target taxpayers’ money towards the subjects which support the skills this country needs to build back better”.

In case the former fireplace salesman of the year has forgotten, the creative industries earn a fortune for this country, adding £115bn to the UK economy in 2019.

And why do we have to back one side rather than the other? A country without culture would be poorer in so many ways.

Anyway, how about all that taxpayers’ money that was targeted at Tory-supporting business people who suddenly became interested in supplying PPE to build back better their bank accounts?