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'

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'

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'

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

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

It's all 'bollocks' ... @ No 10

"Put your paws over your eyes, Butch!", cried Arturo. "You don't want to read the words that I've just seen. It's yet another verbal tirade from 'Weasel Man' Maude!"

Of course, he could not have said anything that made me want to read 'the words' more than that! Frantically, I thumbed through every paper in sight until I found THE interview 'Weasel Man' Maude had given. It was originally in The Independent on Sunday, October 2.

The title was 'Top Tory rounds on core support over green belt : Francis Maude risks enraging grassroots over countryside and post-2015 government.'

It was written by Jane Merrick and Matt Chorley. Brave couple to venture into the quagmire that surrounds one, Francis Maude, Tory MP for Horsham, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. As I said in a previous post (Pooh-Bah calls the shots on August 3), he is a bit like a veritable 'Lord-High-Everything-Else' - none other than a modern Pooh Bah.

In the interview, 'Weasel Man' Maude turned his venom on the critics of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He was particularly aiming his attack on bodies like the National Trust.

Asked (by Merrick and Chorley) whether he had sympathy for the National Trust and other opponents of planning reform, Mr Maude says:

No. I mean our position is right. I think this idea that creating a presumption in favour of sustainable development is somehow a massive erosion of the ability to conserve, is bollocks, frankly.

Ah! Ha! 'Bollocks', is it? So, that was what Arturo didn't want me to see! I've heard worse than that coming from within the portals of Nos 10 and 11 - but then, that's behind closed doors! His 'bollocks' was uttered for all the world to read! And did they read it? I should say they did!

The Daily Telegraph took up the cudgel, against this outburst, in the form of an article and their Telegraph View . The article was written by James Kirkup, Political Correspondent. He quotes 'Weasel Man' Maude's outrageous comments, then writes:

The planning reform has infuriated many traditional Conservatives. The row has been stoked by ministers’ attacks on their critics. In August, Greg Clark, the planning minister, dismissed opponents as “selfish nihilists”.

The National Trust described Mr Maude’s comments as “the latest in a string of insults” but insisted it would continue to negotiate with ministers.

Many ministers are privately angry about opposition to the NPPF, which they say is needed to revive the housing market and aid the economic recovery.

But Downing Street is coming to accept that a more emollient tone is required.

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, whose department is overseeing the NPPF, also called for an end to public spats over the reforms. “I don’t think that we’re at the point of embracing,” he told Sky News. “But we are prepared to sit down and start looking at any individual objection.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8803014/Francis-Maude-launches-tirade-against-the-critics-of-new-planning-reforms.html

So! Even old 'Bagpuss' Pickles has seen sense! That was some achievement, I can tell you! Eric 'Bagpuss' Pickles, not unknown to foolishness and downright ignorance himself, actually thought a calmer mode might be in order! Well, well!

The Daily Telegraph, a staunch supporter of critics of the NPPF, had a strongly worded Telegraph View in today's online version of the paper. It stated in its now regular 'Hands Off Our Land' section : Planning critics deserve a more mature response - Francis Maude's outburst suggests the consultation on planning reform is a sham.'

It comments:

Intemperate language from government ministers has been an unfortunate feature of the debate around the proposed reform of planning laws. There has been a wilful attempt to traduce critics and close down the discussion that has not reflected well on those responsible.

It goes on to cite comments made by senior people in government who are angry with the critics of the NPPF. These include Bob Neill,a minister in the local government department, George Osborne and old 'Bagpuss' Pickles himself! He does pop up everywhere, doesn't he? When there's trouble - you'll find Pickles!

The Daily Telegraph had hoped that the so called 'consultation' was intended to be what the word actually means - namely a free and frank exchange of ideas without prejudice. Some hope, eh?

It seems that even 'Boy David' Cameron had :

sanctioned talks between ministers and the Government's principal critics to see if anxieties can be addressed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8803175/Hands-Off-Our-Land-Planning-critics-deserve-a-more-mature-response.html

The Telegraph View points out that Cameron's more studied words and comments indicate that he, at least, is prepared to listen.

However, as Arturo and I discussed later, what on earth will be the point of these 'talks between ministers and the Government's principal critics', now that 'Weasel Man' Maude has uttered the memorable word to describe the critics' attitude as 'bollocks'? No doubt Georgy from No 11, 'Bagpuss' Pickles, 'Apple Schnapps' Shapps and 'Disgusting' Clark were all in the wings cheering and clapping Maude - after all he just said what they think. They're just careful not to use the term themselves.

This consultation looks like being, as Telegraph View suspects, a 'sham'! That is unless, of course, 'Boy David' can be persuaded to do another u-turn. That, however, depends on people like you, dear readers, making your voices heard!

'Bye'

The 'fast lane' to ... @ No 10

No 10 and No 11 are almost empty! The big conference looms! Arturo and I are not going to Manchester with 'Boy David' Cameron and Georgy Osborne. No, siree - we'll have the place to ourselves. A few civil servants around but the politicos will be away politicking like mad! And already the madness has started.

First, old 'Bagpuss' Pickles tried to grab the headlines by announcing that there will be weekly bin collections!

Next - Iain Duncan Smith states that it is important for the UK to get things straight with the EU over benefits claimants coming to the UK and claiming benefits that are way and above those they could expect in their own country. He was cheered for this.

Now - we have another rabbit jumping out of the hat. This time the rabbit has the look of an overgrown schoolboy and he goes by the name of Philip Hammond. Not heard of him, eh? Mr Philip Hammond is Secretary of State for Transport. A pretty harmless and low-key job, you might think. How can this MP for Runnymede and Weybridge strike a pose that will attract attention? How can he ensure that the 'big' boys will want to play ball with him? How he must have racked his little brain over this. How he must have urged his assistants to come up with an idea - any idea! How the group must have brainstormed their way through the maze of possibilities.

Then, just like E=mc2 entered Einstein's head - an idea entered into that elegantly coiffured Hammond head!

And the idea? Nothing less than - 'I'll suggest raising the speed limit on motorways!'. Now that is what I call an idea, I'm sure you will agree! And - to be fair - 'Mr Teazy Weazy' Hammond has got the headlines he so desperately sought. It was on the 'Today' programme on BBC Radio 4! It was in the Daily Mail! It was in almost all the daily newspapers - and nearly everyone had an opinion.

In The Guardian, Damian Carrington's Environment blog had the headline 'Higher speed limit is the fast track to more fumes and funerals : Conservative plan to increase speed limit to 80mph will spark UK's spluttering economic engine in the most hideous ways'

However, Damian Carrington's blog highlights the grave disadvantages of raising the speed limit. He writes:

More people will die and be injured in crashes: more work for doctors, nurses and ambulances. More cars will be written off or damaged: good news for motor manufacturers and mechanics. And the biggest, most profitable companies in the nation – BP and Shell – will have yet more money poured into their coffers as drivers pump more petrol into their tanks. The fact that emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide will leap too seems, astonishingly, a secondary concern in the short term.

He explains that many core Tory voters will be delighted that the 'nanny state' will have to 'pipe down'. Also, the Party contains many climate change sceptics who are not convinced that raising the speed limit will do any serious harm. His blog makes interesting reading.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/sep/29/damian-carrington-blog-fast-lane-to-nowhere)

A direct quote from 'Mr Teazy Weazy' Hammond was given in several papers. He said:

Now it is time to put Britain back in the fast lane of global economies and look again at the motorway speed limit which is nearly 50 years old, and out of date thanks to huge advances in safety and motoring technology.
Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph would generate economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds through shorter journey times. So we will consult later this year on raising the limit to get Britain moving.

So - that's alright then! So long as we generate 'economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds' - why worry about Mr Carrington's concerns about faster speeds causing more serious crashes? Why worry about the increased usage of petrol as the speedometer creeps up? It will only mean more pollution - who cares about that? Of course, since the government gets a large proportion of its revenue from fuel duty - whoopee! more petrol usage = more money for the government!

Speaking on BBC news Mr Hammond made the following memorable statement:

Clearly there will be at the margin an impact on casualty numbers, but it will be very, very small and the economic benefits will... outweigh it. Mr Hammond also said he did not think the rise would have a "significant impact on safety. ... There are enormous economic benefits to be had by increasing the speed limit and shortening journey times.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064)

Rather a cavalier attitude on the part of 'Mr Teazy Weazy' Hammond , I would have thought. If you or a loved one were counted among the casualty numbers that are 'very, very small' - I am sure you will be pleased to know that there are 'enormous economic benefits'. After all - a little bit of self-sacrifice on the part of others - goes a long way.

Stephen Joseph, chief executive of Campaign for Better Transportt, said:

Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph would not help the economy and would increase costs for drivers. It would also add to pollution and increase road casualties. Responsible motorists know that driving steadily at or below 70mph is most fuel-efficient, reduces jams and is safer. This is an empty gesture that in the end would not benefit anyone.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064)

Ellen Booth, senior campaigns officer at road safety charity Brake, said:

We are strongly opposed to the idea of raising the motorway speed limit. "We would be strongly opposed to any policy that would increase deaths on the roads. To have such a policy would be unethical. Each death on the road affects not only the victim but their family too.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064)

His policy does, however, have a high profile supporter. One Mr Jeremy 'Air Head' Clarkson. In the Sun newspaper on Friday, he was quoted as saying:

An 80mph limit is good for the economy, polar bears and your soul. It is also good for parents who will get home quicker to stop their children becoming glue sniffers. The limit should be 180mph.

It proves that all the dumb-heads are not in the government!

So - congratulations 'Mr Teazy Weazy' Hammond - give him a big hand, friends. He got the headlines! He got the attention! He's the man that Runneymede and Weybridge should be proud of - I don't think! Once again, we see that 'The love of money is the root of all evil.' And Boy, Oh Boy! - Do those politicians just 'love money'! Anything - at the present time - that smacks of 'making' money will grab headlines and be approved. As Arturo has so often said 'Plus ça change!'

Still - who am I to pass judgement - I'm only the under stairs cat!

'Bye'