"Dear Dave,
I have not watched the Andrew Marr interview this week, where you were repeatedly questioned about Lynton Crosby and plain packaging, but I have been reading the papers. Despite good news of royal births and the questionable changes to the internet proposed by you, the lobbying issue hasn't really gone away. There, Lynton and yourself are, standing centre stage, issuing denials (or not, as the case may be) while Sheila Gunn, former spin doctor to John Major expresses the opinion that all is not what it seems. Very confusing. To make matters worse, it's been uncovered that Mr Crosby has also advised private healthcare providers on the best ways to exploit perceived failings in the NHS. And what's this about his connections to lobbying on behalf of the fracking industry?
"A man who has made transparency not just a political philosophy but a personal credo over the last few years", but I remain unconvinced. If what I've read is true, your plans for a register of lobbyists would allow Lynton Crosby to keep his clients secret.
So how about you put your money where your mouth is? In honour of that transparency you claim to cherish, and in order that we can rule out any conflict of interest, might now be a good time to
publish your Australian strategist's FULL client list?
With best wishes, etc"
"Dear Dave,
So you've finally done it, sold off our NHS plasma supplier (or 80% of it) and sneaked the announcement out just as Parliament went into recess. So much once again for transparency and for "no decision about me without me".
Is this how you think the trust of voters is earned? By selling such a precious, integral service to Bain Capital, a US private equity firm co-founded by Mit Romney which has a reputation for aggressive asset stripping? According to Dr Lucy Reynolds who works at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, your deal undervalued the company. Earlier this year she wrote an academic paper strongly arguing against the sale of PRUK. She has said:
"Plasma supplies have a long record of being operated on a not for profit basis, using voluntary donors where all the necessary checks take place. The difference with a commercial firm is that they will want to have as many donors as possible and be looking to secure large profits first and foremost.This amounts to the government abandoning UK blood products users to the tender mercies of the cheapest supplier."
Is she correct in saying that there isn't any mechanism to protect the interests of UK users from harm caused by the change of ownership? Did Lord Owen's advice mean nothing to you?
Of course, this is entirely predictable. Your Government scapegoats doctors and nurses on a weekly basis for funding and organisational failures within the NHS. Isn't that also an attempt to undermine public confidence, running down the service so it can be outsourced or privatised more easily? The orthodoxy that Tories can never get ahead of Labour on the NHS has too many strands to it, to be simply brushed away by Jeremy Hunt using Sir Bruce Keogh's review as a political football, attempting to smear both the Opposition and the NHS in Parliament this week. But there's too much distrust for Jeremy to scapegoat away, full stop. Voters love the NHS and with good reason, so to trust the Tories with it seems idiotic, especially when 13% of your Party funding comes from the Private Health sector. Or when so many Tory MPs stand to gain financially from the outsourcing of NHS services to the private sector. If you factor in A&E waiting times, the possible unsustainability of the NHS 111 service, and the expansion of privatised services in NHS hospitals, it's clear:
ON THE NHS YOUR ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN YOUR WORDS.
Much, much louder.
Yours, etc"
"Dear Dave,
Ever shopped in Iceland? Aldi? Scoured the supermarket's reduced aisle, not because it's fun to nab a bargain, but because you were down to your last quid, days before the next paycheque? Or have you visited a food bank because Sam had to forgo breakfast, dinner or supper (or even all three) so that your children had enough to eat? No... that would be silly, your wife earns a very good income as do you.
which I suggest you read, despite how much it may make you squirm.Why not print it off and nail it to one of Westminster's many subsidised dining rooms walls for the hell of it? Then MPs can see what voters know. Your pay does not need to be increased, and noble suggestions to manage within the current system ring very hollow. Most people rightly feel that the gravy currently flowing freely on the Parliamentary train should be most definitely rationed, rather than rationalised as IPSA suggests. MP's salaries, even without a rise, are an embarrassment of riches, especially as foodbanks mushroom on your watch in a way even Labour can't take credit for.
Yours, etc"
