Sunday 30 October 2011

Thirteen Days to zero! @ No 10

Arturo told me that things should calm down a bit now. No major headaches for Downing Street in the immediate future, he told me. Then I said two words to him: "Dick Whittington!"

"Dick Whittington! What are you on about?" He asked bemused.

"The Lord Mayors Show! That's what! Use your noddle, Arturo!"

And use it he did. "Blimey, O'Reilly! You're right!" He was shocked.

Of course, I was right! Let me explain the situation. 'Boy David' Cameron, soon back from a successful trip to Australia, will be hoping for a few days of peace and quiet. But no such luck, old boy!

You see there is to be quite a big event in London in exactly 13 day's time! Now there's a lucky number for you - and with Halloween coming up tomorrow too! The omens are not looking good!

The big event is The Lord Mayor's Show scheduled for Saturday 12 November. Hence my brilliant reference to Dick Whittington! Get it?

There is a web site devoted to this year's show. On the site is a map. Here is part of that map!



http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/visitors/procession/map

Take a close look at the map. Notice where the procession will be at 12.19 precisely! The Lord Mayor Elect will be receiving a blessing on the steps of St Pauls.

Now do you see why Arturo went 'Blimey, O'Reilly!'?

The Occupy group of protesters, calmly sitting in their tents or listening to the numerous lectures, have staked their claim to the area immediately outside the Cathedral. The Dean of St Paul's will give the blessing to the Lord Mayor! This will be right in the line of sight of Occupy!

No wonder the situation is exercising the little brain of 'Mop-Head' Boris Johnson! He and the Dean have a dilemma. Even 'Boy David' Cameron is having to exercise his 'little grey cells'. What to do? What to do?

* Get rough with the youthful protesters and suffer the wrath of the media and most of the public.
* Turn away and do nothing - risk the fury of the City and the financial institutions!
Ow! Sitting on the horns of a dilemma is painful indeed!

Andrew Rawnsley has written about it in today's Observer. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/30/andrew-rawnsley-occupy-protesters-grown-up?CMP=twt_gu&t=1319955786)

He writes:
My congratulations to the encampment outside St Paul's for sending almost the entire British establishment into a tizzy every bit as confused as some of the protesters themselves. Amazing what you can achieve by occupying a small, albeit famous, patch of the capital with a few nylon tents and some amateurish banners expressing well-mannered rage about capitalism. You have brought a frown to the forehead of the prime minister, hyperbolic froth to the lips of Boris Johnson, attracted the disdain of a pomposity of pontificators and thrown the state church into something approaching a constitutional crisis. It is twisted knickers time among pundits, politicians and prelates. Imagine what might be achieved if this movement can get really serious and starts taking its protest more directly to the avaricious bankers, corporate larcenists and crony capitalists who are the central source of their discontent with how we live now.

So - what would you do? Make your choice:
1. Soak the protesters with water hoses to get them to leave, in good time?
2. Move the procession away from St Paul's - get the Dean to do a blessing on the Embankment?
3. Cancel the Show till next year when Occupy may have moved?
4. Just stand back and say 'Que sera, sera!'

Luckily, it's not a problem for me or for Arturo - but I'll bet that 'Boy David' Cameron, Mop-Head Johnson and Dean Graeme Knowles are having a few sleepless nights over it!

'Bye'


Thursday 27 October 2011

The Commercialisation of Care @ No 10

Arturo told me that 'Boy David' Cameron is flying off to Australia! Now, I know he's got to go to stand by Her Majesty at the Commonwealth Conference - but - you know what happens when leaders are away! Stirrings in the ranks, that's what!

The other problem is that Cameron, who never had his eye on the NHS ball in the first place, will lose sight of it altogether once he's away. Why do I say this? Well, that old silver-haired fox Lansley is jumping up and down in anticipation of the Health and Social Care Bill being passed before the end of this Parliament. It's already limping through the Lords. Now few obstacles seem to lie in its path and Lansley's ultimate triumph.

However, Lansley's seeming triumph could spell disaster for Cameron. If the Bill comes into force and the great British public see its effect and feel its impact - then Cameron will be finished!

So, I would suggest that a well meaning aide should quietly deposit the following two facts on Cameron's knee - as he flies South through the skies.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists have issued a press release. It reads:
Only 1 in 10 psychiatrists believe that the reforms proposed in the government’s Health and Social Care Bill will lead to better patient care, according to a snapshot survey carried out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych).

The survey, which had 1,890 respondents, also found that:
84% believe that the RCPsych should call for the Bill to be withdrawn
93% were not reassured by the Government’s response to the recent Listening Exercise
85% believe that the current reforms will not deliver cost-effective care
78% believe that the current reforms will not improve relationships between GPs and psychiatrists

Professor Sue Bailey, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: "Our findings are extremely worrying. Nine out of 10 of the psychiatrists who responded do not think that the current reforms will lead to better patient care. Our mental health service users are a particularly vulnerable group, who already experience considerable health inequalities. History tells us that in times of economic restraint, when combined with major reform, those with mental health problems fare the worst.

"Perhaps most significantly, 84% of our members have expressed the view that the Bill should be withdrawn. At this stage of the Bill’s passage, and on behalf of our members, I urgently call on the House of Lords to set up a health select committee to interrogate and debate more fully the implications of these reforms for our patients."

Professor Bailey continued: "In the meantime psychiatrists, as doctors, are continuously working with our GP colleagues to ensure we deliver the best care and treatment for patients and their families."
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/members/thepresidentsblog/nhsreformsurveyresults.aspx

That seems pretty clear! The trick-cyclists don't think much of this proposed new-look NHS.

And now for the group of doctors whom, Lansley claimed, were right behind his proposals!! This is what the Royal College of General Practitioners' survey found:

The snapshot poll, conducted via the online tool SurveyMonkey, is the latest in a series of three commissioned by RCGP Chair Dr Clare Gerada to assess the views of the College membership as the Bill passes through the final stages of Parliamentary process. It attracted the largest response to date, with more than 1,900 people taking part.

When asked what they thought the result of the reforms would be:

More than 50 per cent (987 respondents) said that the reforms would increase the involvement of the private sector
More than 43 per cent (828 respondents) said that they strongly disagreed that they would reduce bureaucracy in the NHS
Only 4 per cent (75 respondents) agreed that the reforms would result in better care for patients

More than 93 per cent of respondents said that they did not feel reassured by Government’s response, and more than 90 per cent said that their support for the reforms remained either unchanged (63.5 per cent), or that they were less supportive (29.2 per cent).

When asked whether they personally wished to be involved on the board of a clinical commissioning group, almost 70% of respondents said that they did not. However, 16.1 per cent of respondents said they wished to be involved, and nearly half of them said that they were ‘excited about [the] role’ (48 per cent), and that they felt confident in their commissioning skills (44.3 per cent).

The present Chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Dr Clare Gerada commenting on the survey results, said:

“The survey confirms what we have been saying all along; the College has made its support for placing GPs at the heart of the health service clear, but the results of this snapshot survey are impossible to ignore, and the majority of respondents still have concerns about commercialisation, increased bureaucracy and standards of patient care that the Government has not allayed.

“With the Bill making its way through the House of Lords, it is important that peers have as much information as possible so that they can ask the relevant questions, and make informed choices about what happens next. We must make sure that the reforms do not diminish the care we provide to our patients.”
http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/press_releases_and_statements/rcgp_survey_on_health_bill.aspx

Those results are really scary! If 70% of the GPs said that they did not want to be involved in the new clinical commissioning groups - one has to ask: Who will be on them? And - how will it affect patients?

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges - in other words the Biggest of Big medical cheeses - has issued a statement about Lansley's NHS reforms.
Professor Sir Neil Douglas, Chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, said:
“Across the medical profession there are continuing concerns that the Health and Social Care Bill could damage patient care. All the Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties representing the whole medical profession have come together to support this clear statement of our anxieties.

We are calling on the House of Lords to address these concerns when they consider the Bill and for the Government to respond to them.

We are not completely opposed to all aspects of the Bill but have grave concerns that the reforms will undermine the provision of joined up services for patients and lead to a widening of health inequalities which would run counter to the expressly stated wishes of the Government.

We are, therefore, also asking the House of Lords to examine the impact of the Bill to ensure patients get fair access to healthcare whatever their income and background or wherever they live. We support the call to establish a Select Committee to examine the potential effect of the proposals on health inequalities”
http://aomrc.org.uk/component/content/article/38-general-news/277-senior-doctors-to-lobby-lords-on-health-and-social-care-bill.html

Cameron - start thinking! You do enough shouting of abuse during PMQs. Now TRY to use your brain - before it's too late for you and your Coalition partners!

It is time for an aide to whisper in the delicate ear of Cameron that Lansley's proposals are barking mad - if not a ticking time-bomb! Surely, the concerns expressed by these doctors should, as they say, 'give you pause'! If it doesn't, then I despair for your futures when you are ill, as well as for those of doctors and nurses working in the NHS.

So, now humans may have to depend on charities providing them with their health and care needs. Great world - if you don't weaken!

'Bye'


Wednesday 26 October 2011

Whose unproductive @ No 10?

Arturo and I are really worried that there's going to be a lot of coming and going in Downing Street. Why? Well, we think that both Georgy Osborne from No 11 and 'Boy David' Cameron are about to be sacked. And it will all have been their own fault. Let me explain.

'Boy David' commissioned a report from Adrian Beecroft. Mr Beecroft comes from the splendid 'profession' of venture capitalism. He is Chairman of Dawn Capital on whose website there is a potted biography of him. It reads:
Mr Beecroft brings a wealth of investment expertise to Dawn Capital born from a career spanning more than 25 years as a global leader in venture capital and private equity investment.

Adrian Beecroft has a degree in physics from Queen's College, Oxford. Following graduation in 1968, he worked for ICL in the computer industry for five years. In 1974 he went as a Harkness Fellow to the Harvard Business School, graduating in 1976. He then joined the Boston Consulting Group in London. He became a Vice President of BCG Worldwide in 1982.

Mr Beecroft joined Apax in 1984 when it had £10m under management. He helped indentify and evaluate opportunities, and negotiate and close investments in promising early-stage, high tech businesses.

So, he is such an obvious choice to investigate employment law and unproductive employees! And - not to disappoint - Mr Beecroft came up with some sympathetic and empathetic findings - I don't think!

Today's Daily Telegraph has leaked the findings of the report. Under the title : Give firms freedom to sack unproductive workers, leaked Downing Street report advises
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8849420/Give-firms-freedom-to-sack-unproductive-workers-leaked-Downing-Street-report-advises.html

The article is by Christopher Hope and Robert Winnett. They write that the report states:
British workers should be banned from claiming unfair dismissal so that firms and public sector bodies can find more capable replacements.

Under current regulations, workers are allowed to “coast along” and employers are left fearful of expanding because new staff may prove “unknown quantities” who are impossible to sack.

In Hope and Winnett's online article, there is a sample from the actual draft report. In one section of the Executive Summary, there are the following words:
It is important to note that making it easier to remove under performing employees will not raise the overall level of unemployment. Employees for whom there is not a job are made redundant.

... The downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them. While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying for all the benefits that would result from the change.

Hope and Winnett state:
The confidential report has been circulated across Whitehall this week and its findings are understood to have been discussed with business leaders, who are said to support the key recommendation.

Downing Street was not planning to release the analysis but is now expected to publish the report later this year, partly to counter inaccurate reports that suggested the report advocated cutting maternity rights.

I'll just bet that 'Downing Street' wasn't planning to release the analysis just yet! After the trouncing that 'Boy David' Cameron received at the hands of his own backbenchers, earlier this week, he'd have been out of his mind! They consider him rather on the 'unproductive' side, don't they? So, these same backbenchers will relish the possible opportunities the Beecroft Report may afford them. After all, the Tories are pretty ruthless when it comes to getting rid of 'unproductive' leaders! Just ask William Hague!

I can think of plenty working in No 11 who don't think that our Georgy Osborne is all that productive either! After all - the UK economy is flat-lining, after all the hype uttered by the oh-so-confident Georgy! Being Chancellor is a dicey thing. More than one Chancellor has scampered out of No 11 with his tail between his legs!

It would indeed be, to use Mr Beecroft's word, 'sad' for the two boys, Cameron and Osborne, to lose their jobs. But hey! Their dismissal would make a positive contribution to the good of the economy, surely? Since Cameron and Osborne obviously think so highly of the skills of Beecroft, the venture capitalist, they will understand that their own sacrifice is as nothing to that of the greater good!

If you believe that you'll believe anything! Cameron and Osborne will have to be dragged kicking and screaming from their respective residences - before either one gives up their job!

The strange thing is that it's always other people's job losses that are just a 'teeny bit' sad! When the job loss comes close to home - then it's a 'tragedy'!

Meanwhile - so as to be 'productive' myself, I'm off on a rat hunt! I don't want to be out on the streets the next time a television crew sees rats scampering across the doorstep of No 10!

'Bye'

Monday 24 October 2011

Another nice mess ... @ No 10

Downing Street has been quiet - Georgy Osborne from No 11 and 'Boy David' Cameron were off to pastures troubled in Belgium! But that's not to say that pastures here are less troubled.

What with restive backbenchers threatening to defy the three-line whip! Nasty editorials in various newspapers! And now, Arturo has pointed out another storm approaching from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) - the second in a millisecond!

He drew my attention to a headline in the Daily Telegraph:
Second Defence Minister faces questions over links with Liam Fox’s best man
A second Conservative minister is facing scrutiny over his involvement with Adam Werritty, Liam Fox’s best man, whose activities cost the Defence Secretary his job. It was written by Jason Lewis, their Investigations Editor.

It's all about that man of mystery 'Pantom' Werrity. If he had been a truly invisible man, then none of the hunting of 'Tally Ho!' Fox would have been necessary in the first place. But like the proverbial bad penny - he just kept turning up! And what turnings up there were - in Sri Lanka several times, the MOD countless times - various Middle Eastern states - not one for the low profile is our 'Phantom' Werrity!

So what, I wondered, can have happened now?

According to Jason Lewis' article:
A Sunday Telegraph investigation has established there are much closer links between Mr Werritty and Lord Astor of Hever, the Under Secretary of State for Defence than had been realised.

Lord Astor was actually a trustee of the charity, Atlantic Bridge, which employed Mr Werritty and paid for him to travel the world alongside Dr Fox.

The peer, it can be revealed, is also closely connected to several of the individuals who funded the charity and with some of those who continued secretly to pay for Mr Werritty’s activities after it was wound up.

Oh No! Not the Under Secretary of State for Defence, this time! We've already had the Secretary of State now it's Lord Astor of Hever!

John Mann, a Labour MP, who was on his toes over the 'Tally Ho' Fox business is now positively jumping up and down with agitation over this next bit of possible juicy scandal. Mr Mann says:
“There is a basic lack of transparency here and the official investigation needs to be broadened to get to the bottom of what was really going on.”

The article states that:
Lord Astor, 65, risked being found in breach of charity law by allowing Atlantic Bridge to operate as a political organisation and failing to keep proper records of how the charity was run.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8843804/Second-Defence-Minister-faces-questions-over-links-with-Liam-Foxs-best-man.html

Earlier this month, there was an article in The First Post (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/85531,news-comment,news-politics,liam-fox-adam-werritty-the-atlantic-bridge-mystery) In this it gave a brief history of Atlantic Bridge. It said:
Atlantic Bridge, a pro-Atlanticist propaganda organisation set up by Fox with Lady Thatcher as its patron, was dissolved as a charity on September 31 in the light of a critical report from the Charities Commission.

Its advisory board has included George Osborne, William Hague and Michael Gove, all members of Cameron's government, while the PM's communications chief, Gabby Bertin, has been a researcher for Fox on the project.

Big names indeed!!

It went on to say that Mrs Thatcher:
called on the Atlantic Bridge to become a bulwark against the Left.

"This Atlantic Bridge must connect the brightest minds, the soundest ideas, and the boldest young leaders of the future," she declared. "It should serve at once as a memorial to our heritage, as an investment in our prospects, and as a bulwark against the good - and not so good - people on the Left, who always turn out to have such very bad ideas."

SO - that's telling 'em!! Typical Mrs Thatcher. However - the questions over Atlantic Bridge still remain. Jason Lewis of the Daily Telegraph is obviously curious about the role that 'Tall Ho' Fox's 'best man' 'Phantom' Werrity played in Atlantic Bridge:
Mr Werritty had been Atlantic Bridge’s only employee and it paid him more than £90,000 in wages and expenses. The chief executive of its American sister organisation, Atlantic Bridge Inc, Amanda Bowman, has claimed it “did nothing” and was a “shell game” – a confidence trick.

In addition, the Lewis' article continues:
Lord Astor, who is the defence department’s spokesman in the House of Lords, was a trustee of the organisation for at least six years and was legally responsible for all its activities, alongside its chairman, Dr Fox, and two others, Prof Patrick Minford, an economist, and Andrew Dunlop, a lobbyist.

Lord Astor and Dr Fox resigned as trustees after the general election in May 2010.

Nothing daunted, 'Phantom' Werrity went on to establish Pargav. It appears that donors to Pargav thought that their identity would remain confidential.

Thereafter - the plot, as they say, thickens! Murky characters come and go. Some are more fleeting than 'Phantom' Werrity; some are mere shadows. However, all of them played a part in the downfall of 'Tally Ho' Fox and would appear to be doing the same thing for Lord Astor. He will have some explaining to do about former associates including Lord Bell of Bell and Pottinger and Stephen Crouch.

All this is a 'tangled web' to the cognoscenti. However as Oliver Hardy might have said this is: "another nice mess"!

Glad, I'm only a cat for whom another nice mess just means grub!

'Bye'

Friday 21 October 2011

'Go Compare' @ No 10

It's too cold for a cat to slink about the frost-laden grass! Downing Street is full of draughts too. So, Arturo and I were delighted when we learned that Caroline Flint, MP for Don Valley and shadow energy secretary, raised an issue yesterday in the Commons. Quintin Letts once said of Ms Flint that:
Miss Flint herself possesses teeth, in both senses. She has a frisky manner, a voice that could split wet wood and a fine pair of gnashers ..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2043577/Labour-Party-Conference-2011-Caroline-Flint-fine-pair-gnashers.html#ixzz1bLHy7jzb

So, not to disappoint us Ms 'Gnasher' Flint said:
I beg to move, that this House believes that the energy market does not serve the public interest and is in need of urgent reform; notes with concern research by OFGEM showing that average household energy bills have risen, while energy companies’ profit margins have soared;

"So that's why we're shivering," Arturo said. "The energy companies are soaking up the dosh!"

"Don't worry," I replied, "we have Chris 'No Show' Huhne as the Energy Secretary. He'll sort it out!"

Arturo snorted and slunk off to sit in front of the radiator. Not much faith in our 'No Show' Huhne then, I thought! Why exactly is Mr Huhne a 'No Show' kind of guy. Well, according to 'Gnasher' Flint:
... it is good to see the Secretary of State in his place this afternoon; we were all concerned for his well-being after his no-show on “Newsnight” on Monday. It was the day of that amazing energy summit, yet he was nowhere to be seen. That tells us just how well the summit went. As today’s report on fuel poverty highlights, the stakes could not have been higher.

She went on to make some memorable statements including:

We were given two words that will strike terror into the hearts of the big six energy firms, two words that will give reassurance to millions of families worried about how they are going to heat their homes this winter: “Go compare”. I honestly thought that the Prime Minister was going to come dressed as the opera singer Gio Compario and force the summit’s reluctant audience to endure a chorus. He might as well have done, for all the good that came out of it. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State could only look on — as the Prime Minister spoke and the public relations shots were taken — reduced to the role of the Prime Minister’s meerkat.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-10-19a.929.1&s=carbon

Now - there's an image to conjure with! Huhne as the latest to join the menagerie of meerkats! 'Simples'.

But this no laughing matter, as yesterday's Daily Telegraph pointed out in an article written by James Hall, Consumer Affairs Editor. Under the title: At least 2,700 a year die in freezing homes: More people die each year because they are unable to afford their household fuel bills than are killed in crashes on Britain's roads, a Government-commissioned report has found.

James Hall continued:
At least 2,700 people are dying in Britain every year because they are unable to adequately heat their houses, according to the interim findings of a report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

The number of deaths outstrips the 1,857 people killed in road traffic accidents last year, said Professor John Hills, the academic at London School of Economics who wrote the report on fuel poverty and described it as a 'very serious problem.'

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has two main policies for its green agenda. According to James Hall:
Its Renewables Obligation (RO) requires that a certain proportion of electricity in the UK is generated from renewable sources, while its Carbon Emission Reduction Target (CERT) requires energy suppliers reduce carbon emissions from households. Yesterday’s report said that household energy companies “generally recoup the costs of these through higher energy prices”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8837091/At-least-2700-a-year-die-in-freezing-homes.html

Of course, the green agenda needs to be followed. Climate change is a reality and the energy companies need to do their bit. However, do they need to pass on such a high level of their costs to the customers?

"Bring back nationalisation!" Arturo muttered from the corner of the room.

But that's never going to happen, is it? For starters - where would the money come from to buy out the energy companies AND compensate the shareholders? There'd be even more benefit cuts!

A couple of weeks ago, This is Money ran an article about OFGEM's findings. It was on the website: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1607475/Ofgem-reports-energy-suppliers-making-125-profit-customers-How-cheapest-gas-electricity.html

The item written by Ed Monk and Tara Evans read as follows:
Price rises on gas and electricity bills this summer mean that suppliers are making £125 of profit from the typical standard tariff, duel fuel customer each year - up from £15 in June, according to figures from regulator Ofgem.

Energy suppliers say that wholesale gas and electricity price rises have forced them to raise bills, and that continued high wholesale costs will bring profit margins lower again through next year.

However, figures from Ofgem suggest bills have risen by far more than wholesale prices. The regulator said wholesale costs will on average £605 a year per customer from October, compared to £570 in June.

However, instead of advising consumers (that means you) to 'Go Compare', why doesn't 'Boy David' Cameron insist that Ofgem ensures fair play for all? In other words, allow some profit but not at the expense of 2700 people dying of the cold in the winter!

As the meerkat would say "Simples!"

'Bye' from Arturo and me!



Wednesday 19 October 2011

Stop the whipping ...@ No 10

Arturo and I have no idea whether 'Boy David' Cameron likes a flutter on the gee-gees. He once appeared on BBC Radio 4`s "Today" programme and said:
If you're a fan of the coalition you could go for Daring Dream in the 3.50 at Ayr and if you're slightly more sceptical about how our arrangements are going to work out you could try Midnight Fantasy in the 3pm at Wolverhampton.
Neither horse won! According to the article in the Guardian:
Graham Sharpe, a spokesman for William Hill, said its odds on Daring Dream were 4-1. "We can only hope that the PM is a better politician than tipster or this could cost us hundreds of thousands," he added.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/27/david-cameron-turns-racing-tipster)

Now we know that his 'picks' for the Cabinet are almost as dicey as his racing tips! 'Tally Ho' Fox may have withdrawn from the chase having fallen at the water jump but others are also about to flounder in the mire.

The Health and Social Care Bill is now an old nag that is badly winded. Its jockey, Lansley is sweating. The saddle has slipped and it doesn't look as though he will make it intact passed the post. However, Lansley took a swipe, with his whip, at the jockey riding the highly favoured NHS, as they came over the last hurdle. This has devastated the chances of NHS even surviving the next fence!

'Bagpuss' Pickles is mounted on NP. Next up is 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps on the plain filly P. Bringing up the rear of the parade is 'Disgusting' Clark riding F. As the more astute will have already noted the letters put together are: NPPF . This is short for the National Planning Policy Framework . Whichever way you look at it NP or P and F are a bunch of flea bitten nags. They've been starved of nutrition. But Pickles continues to whip his horse. If he gets the chance, he'll also whip the other two - jockeys included!

So, Mr Cameron - who would you tip to win the race to get through this Parliament unscathed? Will it be the winded Health and Social Care Bill that has already kicked NHS in the teeth? Will it be the flea-bitten National Planning Policy Framework that has caused all right-minded race goers to wince at the prospect of a ruined countryside?

Arturo and I reckon you have a few more 'picks' of the day, up your sleeve!

Why all this horse racing obsession, do I hear you ask? As well you might! It's because Arturo and I were totally incensed by what we read in the Daily Telegraph yesterday. This was the title: Stop horsing around with the sport of kings. Cack-handed attempts to solve the whipping row have left the horse-racing world in disarray. It was written by Jim White.

I am not quite sure what Jim White really thinks! He seems as anxious as the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) not to stir up the rage of those who faint at the sight of a horse being whipped. He writes:
The BHA’s whip issue began at the Grand National. Every year millions tune in to the scramble round Aintree, including some who find racing abhorrent. And this year the likes of the charity Animal Aid, which has long had a beef about the race, were gifted a publicity godsend.

The 'godsend' in question was the vision of the winner of the Grand National, Ballabriggs on the point of collapse. He had been whipped many times in the final furlong by his jockey, Jason Maguire.

The furore that broke out, after the race, resulted in the BHA investigating the use of the whip by jockeys in all races. A solution was reached. Jim White wrote:
Laws were introduced on how many times a horse could be struck, restricting jockeys to seven uses of the whip in a race, including a maximum of five in the last furlong.

Jockeys went up the pole about this! They stated that in the rush to the finishing post, it was impossible to count the number of times the whip was used. Jim White claimed that it was:
A compromise so weak-kneed as to be counter-productive, all it did was add confusion – as was proved when the French jockey Christoph Soumillon had his £50,000 winning cheque withheld on Saturday after stewards claimed he hit his horse six times in the final furlong rather than the statutory five.

One jockey, Richard Hughes, has declared that he no longer wishes to ride under these conditions. He has left the 'sport'.

There have been many debates about whether it is cruel to whip a horse! Those involved in the 'sport' claim that it is not cruel! However, the horses have not been asked!

All Arturo and I can say is that we know many who would be only too happy to take the place of Richard Hughes and ride without using a whip at all!

Possibly, if you asked the horses themselves, they'd say that they would be only too pleased to give up the 'sport' all together. They would prefer to roll around the paddock! But who's interested in what an animal thinks?

I've come a long way from 'Boy David' Cameron's racing tips! But the one lesson that Cameron can learn from the 'whipping' row is 'Don't fudge the issue'. If something or someone is blatantly in the wrong - say so and act accordingly.

'Bye'


Monday 17 October 2011

'Wise Up', Mr Cameron @ No 10

All is not quiet on the Downing Street front! Despite 'Tally Ho' Fox being run to ground and the hounding reporters giving a loud 'holloa', this particularFox was not the only creature inveigling its way into headlines!

Arturo spent some time scanning the TV, radio and newspaper news items to find juicy bits for me. He came up with several - the choicest of which I now offer you.

'Boy David' Cameron is nothing if not a 'gentleman'; one can say that without much hesitation. His manners are seemingly impeccable. He nods and smiles at all the right people and in all the right places. However, he has the most extraordinary taste in house guests! The sort of taste that most 'gentlemen' would eschew!

Remember the Red-haired Vamp - one Rebekah Brooks? She was a pretty regular dinner guest and 'Boy David' frequented her parties. Not a good move!

Remember James Murdoch, the deputy chief operating officer of News Corporation? 'Boy David' Cameron invited him and his wife for a 'family dinner'. Another foolish move!
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8646485/Phone-hacking-David-Cameron-dinner-with-James-Murdoch-broke-the-ministers-code.html)

As more recent events have shown, these 'guests' were a very unwise choice. Has Cameron learned anything from his previous guest gaffs? Well, the short answer is 'No'.

On 15 October, The Daily Telegraph carried the following headline: Porn baron Richard Desmond is David Cameron’s guest at Chequers: Richard Desmond, who made his fortune through pornography, attends a dinner party hosted by David Cameron at his country retreat. The article was written by Tim Walker and edited by Richard Eden.

The article commented:
Mandrake hears that the Prime Minister is entertaining Richard Desmond, the porn baron, at Chequers this weekend.

As well as making his fortune from pornography, Desmond delivered a damaging blow to the self-regulation of Fleet Street by withdrawing his four national newspapers from the press watchdog, the PCC.

It went on to comment:
It is not known whether Desmond, who still owns pornographic television channels, will feature the dinner at the PM’s grace-and-favour country residence in his OK! magazine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8827987/Porn-baron-Richard-Desmond-is-David-Camerons-guest-at-Chequers.html

This Richard Desmond chap is a chimera. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the definitions of a chimera is a 'mythical animal formed from parts of various animals.' Desmond is certainly formed from parts of various 'animals'.

** One part is: charitable giver. He raises money for various charitable causes.

** One part is: press baron. He founded Northern and Shell which publishes the Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday, and the magazines OK!, New!, and Star. Quite a clutch of the publishing world there! Not quite on a par with Murdoch - but not bad!

** Another part is: TV baron - he owns television channels: Channel 5, 5* and 5USA. The company also owns Portland TV which has a number of adult TV channels.

Now, we know that 'Boy David' Cameron has recently announced he wants to block access to pornography on the Internet. So what does he think he is doing inviting Richard Desmond to Chequers? It was only two years ago that Desmond's company was fined for showing pornography on his TV channels that was too hardcore. In addition, on certain of his channels, there was no age verification measure in place - so anyone, including young children, could view it.

The charitable cause that was being supported by this event is a worthy one. Why was Richard Desmond chosen to be one of the guests?

It was also unfortunate because of the recent hoo-ha over Desmond's new Health Lottery. There have been complaints that his new lottery will not give as much of its proceeds to health as more established lotteries.

The Daily Mail in an article by Sean Poulter entitled : Hospices fear losing funds to new £100,000 lottery game that gives just 20 per cent of winnings to charities. Poulter writes:
Local hospice lotteries generally give 50p-60p in the pound to the homes and services they support.

The figure for Camelot’s Lotto games is 28p in the pound, while the Health Lottery will hand out just over 20p.

Camelotand The Hospice Lotteries Association are also complaining that this new lottery cuts across the ‘spirit and the letter of both statute and regulation’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049928/Hospices-fear-losing-funds-new-100-000-lottery-game-gives-just-20-cent-winnings-charities.html#ixzz1b3Isol8i

Mr Cameron, surely your guests must be like Caesar's wife - 'above suspicion'.

As the superlative PR man that you are - I hesitate to give you advice. However, being a cat who has nine lives, I will venture to do so! Before drawing up the guest list for future events 'Wise Up', Mr Cameron.

I'm off for a recuperative snooze.

'Bye'

Friday 14 October 2011

A right bunch of geezers @ No 10

"I don't believe this!" Arturo exclaimed to me.

"What?" I asked

"Fox, Lansley and now Letwin! What a bunch of geezers!" He grinned - as only a cat from No 11 can grin.

You have to agree, don't you? They are a right bunch of geezers. 'Tally Ho!' Fox is still running and almost being caught by the pursuing hue and cry of reporting hounds. Lansley still ploughs ahead, looking neither left nor right, in his haste to bring the NHS finally to its knees.

And now - we have the unedifying vision of the paunch of 'No More Please' Ollie Letwin bending over a bin in a London park looking for all the world like a regular bin dipper! The photos are displayed in the Mirror.

The article is entitled: Oliver Letwin caught throwing away secret papers in public bins. It is written by Andrew Gregory.
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/10/14/oliver-letwin-caught-throwing-away-secret-papers-in-public-bins-115875-23487379/)

The article states:
The PM's blundering policy adviser was seen on five separate days throwing away sensitive correspondence on terrorism, national security and constituents' private details.

The Cabinet Office minister disposed of more than 100 papers in the security breach in a park near No 10.

One revealed how intelligence chiefs "failed to get the truth" on UK involvement in controversial terrorist interrogations.

The scandal will be a blow to his pal Mr Cameron.

It continues:
The papers he is dumping in waste bins around a park are highly-sensitive dealing with national ­security and terrorism and containing the private details of constituents.

The millionaire buffoon appears to show little concern for data ­protection – a subject he has previously warned others to be vigilant about – as he casually disposes of memos, briefing notes, emails and letters.

Andrew Gregory continues:
Bungling Mr Letwin appears to have broken the Government’s own policy for disposing of secret papers. Its official data security advice website warns: “Don’t casually throw away documents. Destroy them, preferably by using a shredder.”

Organisations identified in the dumped papers include the European Commission, MoD, Home Office, NHS, Treasury and the Met Police. And among the politicians named are Mr Cameron, Deputy PM Nick Clegg, and Chancellor George Osborne.

It seems to me that our 'No More Please' Letwin has some sort of compulsive disorder akin to constant hand washing - the Pontius Pilate act of trying to wash his hands clean of guilt. Well, our Ollie must have been a very naughty boy in his past life. He seems to have this urge - to get rid of papers - any papers - but especially papers and letters from work! Never mind the content - never mind the names - get rid of them!

Years ago - on what was the BBC Home Service - there was a regular comedy show in which a character regularly used to say: "What's it matter, ma dear, so long as you tear 'em up." One can only assume 'No More Please' Letwin didn't think you needed to 'tear 'em up' - just dump 'em!

What guilty secret has caused this urge to be rid of documents - never mind their source or value. The mind surely boggles as undoubtedly his is doing all the time!

Maybe 'No More Please' Letwin is a frustrated cleaner. Once before arriving in Downing Street, I lived next door to a man who regularly held a bonfire on Christmas morning. Why? To burn the envelopes from his Christmas cards and the papers wrapped around any presents! One wonders what he did for kicks after Christmas Dinner!

But levity aside - this is no laughing matter for 'Boy David' Cameron. First one then another of his old pals is causing huge embarrassment. Who can possibly be next?

I'm going off to St James's Park with Arturo. You never know who - or what - we'll find!

'Bye' from Arturo

'Bye' from me

Thursday 13 October 2011

Oh dear, what can the matter be @ No 10

So much happening - and so much of it that 'Boy David' Cameron would not want to be 'happening'! There is so much, in fact, that it has left my head spinning!

I'll try to keep it simple, if that's possible. For starters there's our old friend 'Disgusting' Clark of Tunbridge Wells, the great champion of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He has boasted about the tremendous work he did to protect Tunbridge Wells from the grasping hands of the Labour inspired development plans for the environs of that pretty town. No doubt those who voted him in as their MP were duly thankful.

But now!! Now, there are problems brewing for 'Disgusting' Clark in his own pretty little constituency!

In today's Daily Telegraph, there is an article entitled: 'Hands Off Our Land: now planning minister Greg Clark faces opposition from his own council in Tunbridge Wells' It goes on: 'As if life was not hard enough for Government minister Greg Clark trying to defend the Coalition’s controversial planning reforms, now his own council has turned against him'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8824964/Hands-Off-Our-Land-now-planning-minister-Greg-Clark-faces-opposition-from-his-own-council-in-Tunbridge-Wells.html

The article was written by Christopher Hope. He has discovered that :
Conservative-controlled Tunbridge Wells Borough Council this morning voted to accept a report from its own planning officials calling for reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Now - there's a turn-up for the books! From his own backyard comes a set of teeth to bite the very hand that 'Disgusting' Clark considered above suspicion! In fact, the very hand before which all Old Tunbridgwellians should sink to their knees and kiss - in gratitude! How 'Disgusting' Clark must have shivered at the sign of such ingratitude!

Christopher Hope quoted the council as questioning:
“Government’s apparent assumption that neighbourhoods are desperate for development”, adding that “this council’s recent experience of public consultation is that most neighbourhoods want very little development”.

It seems that the council does not think that the so-called protection for the 'green-belt' will stand up. The council thought that the new NPPF's objectives to “increase significantly the delivery of new homes” would "prevail over everything else".

Now - why on earth should they think that? Maybe, just maybe, they have seen the objections to the NPPF made by National Trust, The Campaign to preserve Rural England and many, many others. They may also have seen 'Disgusting' Clarks's dismissive comments about opponents to the new planning reforms!

So - you ask, what else is going on?

'Tally Ho' Fox is still going on, that's what! He's broken cover and, though running, has not left enough stink to get right up the noses of the hounds. All they have is a whiff! A strong whiff, I grant you - but not yet the full stench. The 'whippers-in' and the master of hounds are still gathering the scent.

As Andrew Gimson, parliamentary sketchwriter for the Daily Telegraph, writes: Despite all his indiscretions, Liam Fox is still alive:
Liam Fox sat with the self-conscious demeanour of the chief mourner at a funeral, possibly his own. The Defence Secretary wore a dark suit, a white shirt and a purple tie.

In a brilliantly satirical article, Gimson shows that 'Tally Ho' Fox is still alive and kicking. Towards the end of the article, he wries:
Angela Eagle, making her debut as Sir George’s opposite number, wanted to know when the full list will be published “of all the meetings of ministers and officials with the Defence Secretary’s self-styled adviser Adam Werritty”
Gimson continues:
Sir George said the Cabinet Secretary was looking into the whole affair and would deal with “all outstanding issues and unanswered questions” – which if true will be a prodigious achievement.

Meanwhile 'Tally Ho' Fox donned his smart suit and tie, walked up then down the steps of the Ministry of Defence and told the waiting gang of hounds - whoops sorry! - that should have been 'reporters'!! Anyway, he told them that he was:
"back to complete normal working mode"

Meanwhile new allegations are issuing at such a rate it is impossible to keep up with them. Despite this, Fox grins and nods and pretends nothing is happening! Amazing really!

Here at No 10, 'Boy David' Cameron mouths his usual supportive platitudes like the well trained PR man he is.

Of course - there is also the tiny little 'happening' resulting in the butchery of the NHS!! So - nothing too much to worry about there then!

I'm exhausted - going for a nap in the rose garden! Hope that, at least, will smell sweet!

'Bye'


Tuesday 11 October 2011

GOD to step down @ No 10

To my total amazement, yesterday as I slept the sleep of the good and wise, I heard someone whistling 'Do ye ken John Peel?' Ah Ha! I thought - the hunt's on for Dr 'Tally Ho' Fox, no doubt about it!

Sure enough, if you read the papers and listened to the News, you would indeed have thought the pack of hounds was on the loose and sniffing their inexorable way towards 'Tally Ho' Fox.

Had he broken cover, I wondered? Would the hounds start to 'give tongue'? So, I turned to my old stalwart, The Daily Telegraph. I was not disappointed - there were stories aplenty about the 'hunt'!

For a start, there was 'The case for Liam Fox's resignation' written by John McTernan. In his blog, he criticised 'Tally Ho' Fox for giving so much of his valuable time to a 'friend'. McTernan maintains that a Cabinet Minister's time is precious and carefully guarded by his civil servants. This is particularly the case for the Secretary of State for Defence, at a time when the UK's armed forces are deployed in several theatres of combat.

McTernan wrote:
We now know that Liam Fox prioritised one thing above all others. Not the safety of our forces or the security of the nation, but whatever his mate wanted to talk about or whoever he wanted him to meet. And it wasn't a one-off, it's a sustained course of behaviour.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/johnmcternan1/100109739/the-case-for-liam-foxs-resignation/

However - there were more articles - take this one:
Defence Secretary Liam Fox used expenses to pay his best man Adam Werritty
Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, put a close friend with “defence-related business interests” on the public payroll, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
It was written by James Kirkup, Holly Watt and Dean Nelson
Adam Werritty, whose relationship with Dr Fox threatens the minister's career, was paid with taxpayers' money as a parliamentary researcher.
This newspaper has also learnt that Mr Werritty, who holds no official government role, acted as Dr Fox's personal envoy to Sri Lanka, arranging his meetings with senior ministers.

The article also included the following:
Yet financial records seen by The Daily Telegraph show an economic relationship between the two friends.

The papers disclose that in 2005/06, Dr Fox's Commons office budgeted for a £690 National Insurance payment relating to Mr Werritty's employment.

The payment suggests that he had been employed by Dr Fox in the previous year. At the time, Mr Werritty was the director of a company called UK Health. Since Mr Werritty has never been issued with a House of Commons security pass, the payment will raise questions about what work he was doing for the MP's office

The article gave details of meetings arranged by Mr Werritty and various people's responses to the revelations. It concluded in the following way:
John Mann, the Labour backbencher who referred Dr Fox's expenses claims to the Commons commissioner, repeated calls for the minister to quit.

But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the backbench Conservative 1922 Committee, said: "From the backbenchers I have spoken with, on both the Left and Right of the party, the Defence Secretary still has a huge amount of support."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/8817286/Defence-Secretary-Liam-Fox-used-expenses-to-pay-his-best-man-Adam-Werritty.html

In the same paper online, there was a live blog detailing how the day panned out for 'Tally Ho' Fox. It was written and updated by Josie Ensor. It was informative and well worth reading - and watching the videos.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8817597/Liam-Fiox-and-Adam-Werritty-live-blog.html

So - at the end of that eventful day - how did the hunted Fox do?
There was an analysis in yesterday's Guardian in an article entitled, Liam Fox battles to save career as PM gives only conditional support: Sir Gus O' Donnell steps up inquiry as Fox admits 'mistakes' and more detail is revealed about relationship with Adam Werritty by Patrick Wintour and Rupert Neate.

In this they quoted from a statement issued by No 10:

"It is clear, as Liam Fox himself said , that serious mistakes were made in allowing the distinction between professional responsibilities and personal loyalties to be blurred – and this has clearly raised concerns about impropriety and potential conflicts of interest."

Now Sir Gus O'Donnell, according to the Guardian :
launched a full inquiry into Fox's intricate links with his friend Adam Werritty, including whether he was profiting from the privileged access Fox gave him to his thinking and his ministerial diary.

Now - today - I was told by Arturo that GOD is to step down! I blinked hard and whispered: "If GOD is to step down, then it's the end of the world!"

Arturo looked at me as if I had crawled out of the gutter: "Not GOD as in God! Don't you know anything?" He shook his head. "It's GOD as in Sir Gus O'Donnell. Don't you know anything?"

I went away to ponder this news. Why was he doing this? Sir Gus O'Donnell has only just been asked to look into the 'Tally Ho' Fox business. He knows all the whys and wherefores of everything that goes on at No 10.

That's it! I thought to myself - maybe he doesn't want to know anymore! There's been too much to know!

Read the Westminster Blog to get the full facts about what is going on: http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/10/sir-guss-job-is-split-into-three-as-he-announces-retirement/#ixzz1aU6TgQnH

There are to be three new posts once Sir Gus has gone:
** Jeremy Heywood, who is now Permanent Secretary at No. 10, will become Cabinet Secretary.

** Ian Watmore will become the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office.

** ??? Head of the Civil Service ??? No one has yet been appointed.

So it seems, the position of Head of the Civil Service will be separated out from the Cabinet Secretary role. GOD did both jobs, as only GOD could!

Being a mere cat - and an under stairs cat, at that - I've given up on all the machinations that are going on here! They are coming hot and fast too! That reminds me - time for dinner!

'Bye'

Sunday 9 October 2011

Well in schtuck @ No 10

I didn't need Arturo to brief me about the mayhem that is Downing Street, at the moment!

Everyone is rushing about - all to no real purpose. The events that will ultimately decide the fate of the Coalition are taking place outside here.

Certain Cabinet members are either stupid - unscrupulous - or so wrapped up in themselves that they are unable to see the folly of their own behaviour and its impact on government.

'Boy David' Cameron - the PR man par excellence - is in a dreadful dilemma:
to reprimand or not to reprimand;
to sack or to retain;
to appear calm or to have a fit of the screaming ab-dabs.

The last time he found himself on the horns of such a dilemma was over his communications director, one Andy Coulson! Remember him? 'Boy David' gave him a second chance - foolish - very foolish. The stink that rose up and surrounded Cameron himself was the result of Cameron not being firm and getting rid of him as soon as the whiff of wrong-doing appeared.

Then, there was the problem of Vince Cable being entrapped into making unwise statements to two 'planted' constituents. To preserve the Coalition, only limited action was taken against him. Time will tell if that was a wise decision.

Next, there was the problem of the 'speeding' charges against Chris Huhne and all the associated whispers. This culminated in the recent tweet-gate story. So far, 'Machiavelli' Huhne has kept his place. Watch this space!

Now the sh** has hit the fan for one of the most senior of ministers, Dr Liam Fox, Defence Secretary. Over the last couple of days, dribbles of information have emerged about a certain Mr Werrity and his friendship with Dr Fox.

In today's Telegraph, under the title:
'Liam Fox let controversial 'adviser' stay in spare room at expenses-funded flat'
Holly Watt, and James Kirkup write:
Adam Werritty also used the Defence Secretary’s London residence when setting up a defence consultancy firm. Until he moved out earlier this year, Dr Fox claimed House of Commons expenses for the flat, of around £1,400 a month for mortgage interest under the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA).

Dr Fox confirmed that Mr Werritty “used the spare room” in the flat in 2002-03. He confirmed that his friend had not paid for the room.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8814595/Liam-Fox-let-controversial-adviser-stay-in-spare-room-at-expenses-funded-flat.html

Oh Dear!

It seems that this Mr Werritty used regularly to visit Dr Fox at the Ministry of Defence: 14 times in 16 months. This is now under scrutiny. In addition, Mr Werritty accompanied Dr Fox on overseas trips and claimed to be an 'Adviser' to Dr Fox which, of course, gave him special privileges.

Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, has drawn attention to the anomalous situation of Mr Werritty and his dealings with Dr Fox. Today, he wrote to the Prime Minister. The full text was reproduced in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/09/liam-fox-jim-murphy-letter)

Mr Murphy writes:

I am writing to you regarding the serious accusations surrounding Liam Fox, your defence secretary.

There appear to be very significant shortcomings in the scope of the inquiry announced by the MoD.

I am concerned that your judgement of Dr Fox will rest on the initial findings of the MoD-led inquiry announced on Friday. While any revelations from the inquiry will of course be relevant, there are important questions which I do not believe will be sufficiently addressed by this process. The terms of reference are narrow and simply inadequate in light of the evidence that has come to light.

Mr Murphy's concern is that there might have been a "breach of national security or the ministerial code". This would be a very serious matter. Too serious, in fact, for an MOD-led inquiry - which had been announced on Friday.

Mr Murphy concludes his letter by writing:
It is essential that we understand why a non-employee of the MoD enjoys the access he does and we need to be certain no commercial gain has arisen from such access. It is important that the breadth of this inquiry matches the severity of the accusations.

I agree with you when you said that the British people "expect the highest standards of conduct" from politicians. This is an opportunity for you to enforce that sentiment.

In light of the seriousness of these issues and their being in the public interest I am releasing this letter to the media.

Now, 'Boy David' Cameron has asked Ursula Brennan, Permanent Secretary at the MOD, to show him the report. Will this satisfy Mr Murphy? Only time will tell.

In the meantime, Dr Fox has issued a statement of his own. In this he says:
I accept that it was a mistake to allow distinctions to be blurred between my professional responsibilities and my personal loyalties to a friend. I am sorry for this.

At no stage did I or my department provide classified information or briefings to Mr Werritty or assist with his commercial work - let alone benefit personally from this work.

Nevertheless, I do accept that given Mr Werritty's defence-related business interests, my frequent contacts with him may have given an impression of wrongdoing, and may also have given third parties the misleading impression that Mr Werritty was an official adviser rather than simply a friend.

He went on to add:
I accept that with the benefit of hindsight I should have taken much greater care to ensure that any meetings with Adam Werritty, at which defence and security related issues were raised, were properly attended by officials and recorded - to protect myself and the Government from any suggestion of wrongdoing.

I have apologised to the Prime Minister and agreed with my permanent secretary to put in place new procedures to ensure that this does not happen again."

Hindsight
! What about a bit of foresight?

Now - to return to my original theme - remember it, do you? The dilemma for 'Boy David' Cameron. He will not want to get rid of Dr Fox, if he can help it! Dr Fox has many, many supporters! He did not get rid of the two LibDems who caused him problems! He did not, in fact, get rid of Coulson - he resigned.

If push comes to shove, the question will be asked: 'has Cameron got balls - or has he got no balls?'

The dilemma, my friends, is this: If he has balls and gets rid of Dr Fox then his own Tory Party stalwarts will be furious. If he has no balls and keeps him - then the LibDems will moan and Labour will shout. Either way - he's 'well in schtuck'! Oh! The joys of being Prime Minister!

In the meantime, 'Tally Ho!' Foxy!

'Bye'

Saturday 8 October 2011

Tweet in haste - delete fast ... @ No 10

Arturo was tutting today. I dread seeing him in this mood - there's always a lecture coming on! Sure enough - I was right!

"Why do humans 'act in haste and repent at leisure?'" He asked. "Or - you could ask 'why do fools rush in where angels fear to tread?'"

This was becoming tedious! I knew if I kept quiet - he was bound to draw my attention to something he had either read or seen.

"Take for instance - Chris Huhne." He said.

Personally, I wouldn't touch this Huhne chap with a barge-pole - but I was intrigued.

"You know he's the LibDem Minister for Energy and Climate Change?" Arturo quizzed. "Some choice, eh? He's already in loads of hot water, so he'll do his best to keep the temperature down!" He chuckled.

I left Arturo debating with himself and went to study the papers about this Huhne character. There was plenty to find!

The Daily Mail has the headline: 'From someone else fine, but I do not want my fingerprints on that story': Embarrassment for Chris Huhne after accidental tweet
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046710/Chris-Huhne-Twitter-embarrassment-accidental-fingerprints-tweet.html#ixzz1aDH2IrS8)

Now, you'd think the Minister for Energy would have had a bit more nous than that, wouldn't you? I mean - he is a minister, isn't he? But he obviously has itchy fingers and can't keep them off the keypad.

So - what was this tweet? Well - if it's true he didn't want the world to read it - Boy, is he in trouble! Every paper and radio news broadcast repeated it in full. The tweet read as follows:
'From someone else fine but I do not want my fingerprints on the story. C'

Now that is interesting! 'I do not want my fingerprints on the story'. What 'story' might that be, I wonder? In the Daily Mail article, Tim Shipman writes:
Mr Huhne's critics say he has a reputation for enhancing his standing and belittling that of his colleagues by privately briefing journalists
Ah! Ha! I thought, a reputation for 'briefing' against colleagues! Doesn't sound like any 'colleague' I'd want!

In today's Daily Telegraph, Robert Winnett, and Martin Beckford, under the title 'Speculation over Chris Huhne's 'fingerprints' tweet' write:
Mr Huhne, the Energy Secretary, is known to have had a volatile relationship with other senior members of his party, including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. When he ran against Mr Clegg for leadership of the Lib Dems in 2007, he had to apologise after one of his team wrote a dossier titled “Calamity Clegg”.

So - poor old Clegg suffered at the hands of this Huhne character! I thought LibDems were sandal wearing smoothies! But producing a 'dossier' like this doesn't seem very smooth. In fact I'd say, it's downright 'rough'.

The article adds:
Paul Richards, a Labour blogger, wrote: “Having studied his MO, Huhne’s story will be designed to do down Osborne on climate change, based on leaked Cabinet papers/info.”

Now - that is what I call, 'playing with fire!' If, Georgy was the intended victim - and I do say if, then 'Machiavelli' Huhne had better watch out. You would not want to mess with Georgy!! No, siree! Even if it was from the shadows and the 'fingerprints' had been removed!

But, of course, Huhne has given another explanation. The one that is quoted by the Daily Telegraph article is that he:
had merely intended to send a private message to a member of staff, concerning a new angle on the ongoing row over a pet cat and the Human Rights Act
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8814848/Speculation-over-Chris-Huhnes-fingerprints-tweet.html

So - this Huhne character appears to go from one disaster to the next. You could say that he's a political version of the Titanic - excepting that unlike the Titanic, he rushes round looking for an iceberg on which to impale himself!

'Bye'


Friday 7 October 2011

No 'nimbys' here @ No 10

Despite the 'catgate' scandal and all the 'cat flap' jokes surrounding 'Leopard-skin Lady' Theresa May and her spat with Hush-Puppy Man - Ken Clarke, Arturo and I are still concerned about the possible destruction of the British countryside.

In today's Daily Telegraph in the Letters page, there are a number of comments dealing directly with the 'Hands Off Our Land' Campaign which the paper is so successfully running. Under the heading 'A wedge of housing development in green Sussex countryside near a village that doesn’t want it: Building houses in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8811783/A-wedge-of-housing-development-in-green-Sussex-countryside-near-a-village-that-doesnt-want-it.html

The area that doesn't want it is the small village of Ardingly, in Sussex. It is an area that has been designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Thus, one would think it would be protected from uncalled for development. However, according to Sue Karle who wrote to the Daily Telegraph, the village is 'now under threat on two fronts'.

She writes that two developers are:
... about to apply for planning permission on two different greenfield sites, both outside the village boundary. Both developers intend to include affordable housing in their plans, as they are compelled to, although this would not be ringfenced for local people.

There is concern that as a result of the machinations of 'Bagpuss' Pickles, Apple Schnapps Shapps and 'Disgusting' Clark the rights and wishes of local people will be ignored.

Sue Karle writes that despite hoping to preserve the 'integrity' of their village, there will 'be a presumption in favour of these developers'.

She ends the letter by telling 'Boy David' Cameron that:
... he will go down as the man who destroyed much of rural England.

As it happens, in the same issue of the Daily Telegraph, Bob Neill MP (Con)Local Government Minister has written defending the new planning policy proposals. He writes:
The draft (planning policy) maintains strong protections against urban sprawl and gives local communities the power to decide where to protect or develop, through their local plan.

When Arturo read that, he almost choked! I thought he'd swallowed a hair-ball! He said: "If you believe that, you'll believe anything!"

As it happens, I didn't need him to tell me that! I had already seen the comments made the previous day by 'Baby Face' Gove - Yes! He of the constant smile and the deceptive look of wide-eyed innocence!

Anyway, 'Baby Face' Gove was quoted by Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor of The Daily Telegraph as saying:
When it comes to reforming planning laws in order to allow companies to expand, he [Mr Cameron] made it clear that he’s on the side of jobs, not the nimbys. ... In so doing, he was saying to some of the people in the hall, 'I know you think your lawns are precious, but actually people’s jobs at the moment are what’s important’.

'Not the nimbys'!!! I ask you!! Who does this chap think he is? No doubt, Cameron, Osborne, Gove and associated pals have lawns the size of small villages surrounding their own estates! Certainly, 'Boy David' Cameron's father-in-law does!

But the good people of these same small villages have tiny lawns and small village greens - and they want the right to protect them. As Sue Karle wrote in her letter today, there are genuine fears for the people in these small communities.

The new planning policy is so drafted that it gives a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

Christopher Hope writes:
Last night the National Trust, which has entered talks with the Government about changes to the framework after receiving assurances from the Prime Minister that he had the interests of the countryside at heart, criticised Mr Gove’s “rudeness”.

A trust spokesman said: “This is so far from what these reforms are supposed to be about. We have got used to rudeness but we are not going to let it have any effect.”

Arturo shook his head! I shook my head too!

"Wasn't Eton College supposed to produce 'gentlemen'?" Arturo asked.

"Well - " I paused for thought - "something has gone wrong somewhere!"

'Bye' from Arturo


'Bye' from me


Thursday 6 October 2011

It's all hypocrisy @ No 10

"It seems that cats are in the driving seat - as far as Coalition policy goes." Arturo remarked to me after hearing a podcast of Home Secretary, Theresa May's speech to the Conservative Party Conference.

I'd heard it too. It was being reported that some foreign person claimed it was his 'human right' to have a family life with a cat that he'd grown to love! My! My! My! Is there an animal right, I wondered. The right NOT to live with a human being!

However - that was not the point of my posting today - Oh No! There are many other interesting things to catch the eye. Yesterday in The Daily Mail, there was a longish article by Zoe Brennan. It had the headline: 'The Tory Nimbies: The ministers backing planning law changes who have opposed developments in their own back yards'.

In this article, she exposed the downright hypocrisy and mealy-mouthed verbiage issuing from the mouths of ministers. Who are they, do you ask? Why - the usual suspects: 'Bagpuss' Pickles given the moniker 'a human wrecking ball' by George Monbiot. Francis 'Weasel Man' Maude, as you would guess, if you'd seen my previous posting. Then there is 'Disgusting' Clark.

Zoe Brennan produced some interesting quotations from 'Disgusting' Clark, who as she commented:
... has been at the forefront of the Government’s defence of the National Planning Policy Framework

As we know, he was very opposed to 'New Labour’s attempts to increase the number of homes built in and around his rural Tunbridge Wells constituency.' In 2006, he actively supported campaigners who were concerned that the plans would have an impact on greenfield sites. Among those who campaigned against this new homes policy was the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

At the time, 'Disgusting' Clark was determined to save the greenbelt. He was quoted as saying:
This nationally imposed hike in housing numbers will place yet more pressure on our precious green spaces. It should be for local communities, through their councillors, to make development decisions based on the needs and character of the area.

Previously used industrial land or brownfield sites must be the first priority for houses, not green spaces.

Three years later, in 2009, when there were plans to build 6,000 affordable new homes, he said:
‘One of the delights of our area is that there is scarcely a neighbourhood that is not within a short walk of green fields.’

Yet now - this same staunch protector of all things green and beautiful is quoted as commenting:
I believe passionately that decisions should be made at local level — by people who know their communities best. Our reforms — by scrapping national targets and putting local councils in charge — do exactly what I’ve always campaigned for.

This statement of Clark's is rather disingenuous. He and his colleagues have made it clear that planning should favour development. In fact, various large development companies have lauded the Draft National Planning Policy Framework. George Monbiot pointed out, in an article entitled 'Our planning system is authorised blackmail – and it's about to get worse' in The Guardian on 26 September, that local interests have little chance against large businesses hell bent on developing land, under the Coalition's new planning policy.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) also sees very little distinction between the New Labour development plans and those so vociferously advocated by 'Disgusting' Clark. They have protested vigorously against the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Instead of the CPRE and Clark being allies, Clark now dismisses their expressed anxieties as needless. Other political colleagues have referred to them as being nihilistic in their approach. With former friends like Clark et al, what other enemies does the CPRE need?

Now we come to another favourite politician of mine!! 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps. As Zoe Brennan commented: 'Another minister who has supported efforts to prevent major projects is Grant Shapps, minister for housing and local government.'

In 2006, the same year that Clark was exercising his little brain cells to oppose New Labour housing plans, Shapps was also opposing proposals for new houses in his Welwyn Hatfield constituency.

Zoe Brennan wrote:
He even founded a popular ‘No Way to 10K’ campaign, resisting New Labour efforts to build 10,000 homes in his constituency. He backed the local newspaper’s ‘battle to save our green belt’, and filmed a YouTube clip decrying the building work.

He said: ‘The only way to object to these crazy plans is to do it yourself. If we leave it to everyone else to make the objections, well, the houses will go right here, on our green belt.’

Now, Mr 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps is right behind the Coalititon's NPPF. Recently, he was quoted as saying:
Like every good constituency MP, I’ll fight to ensure we get sustainable growth, not any growth.

He omits to mention that 'sustainable growth', in fact, over-rides local people's objections and favours developers. That is why there has been such a hue and cry throughout the land about it.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045296/Planning-law-reform-Tory-ministers-changes-oppose-backyard-developments.html#ixzz1Zw6ye7B9)

So now the massed forces of the great British Press are marshalling themselves to expose the rank hypocrisy of these high ranking ministers. The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian - and now The Daily Mail have all exposed it - Arturo and I have seen it.

Jack Neill-Hall, campaign spokesman for the Campaign to Protect Rural England is disillusioned. He is quoted as saying:
We need ministers to stop the rhetoric and take this consultation seriously. Their proposals will need significant improvements to give ordinary countryside the protection it deserves, but we believe this is possible if they are prepared to listen to advice other than from their friends in the construction industry.

And the response? 'Bagpuss' Pickles - the human wrecking ball - denies any suggestion of hypocrisy. As a rather infamous lady once said of another gentleman trying to deny the facts: 'He would, wouldn't he?'

"What's with these politicians?" Arturo asked me. "Do they think people are daft? Don't they know that we know what they've said in the past?"

"Ah, Arturo, my friend! They know that we know and they know that we know what they said. And we know that they know that we know, that they know that we know what they said." At that point I became confused!

"And?" Arturo asked.

"They don't give a tinker's cuss! 'Cos they think we'll forget that they know that we know that they know that we know what they said."

"Oh! Shut up!" Arturo said before slinking out to the kitchen!

'Bye' from Arturo

'Bye' from me