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'

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'

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'

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'

'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!

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'

'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'