Letter 116: So David Cameron's a feminist now? It's just a token of his General Election affectation

"Dear Dave, 
Thank you for your reply to my letter on Joan's half million. Apologies for not yet replying, but I've been taking my time to think over your letter. And then today, just as I was about to put pen to paper, I heard the good news. All I can say is HURRAH! You're a feminist now? How does this manifest? Let me count the ways...
Cuts to Legal Aid... cuts to Working Tax Credit and SureStart... changes to Child Benefit... the scrapping of your equality duty ... cuts to the Public Sector and now cuts to Housing Benefits for under 25s on top of the trebling of tuition fees. Did you realise that 44% of under 25 Housing Benefit recipients are single mums? 
Hold on...I'm not sure I like your kind of feminism. Frankly, it lacks integrity and feels a bit... unequal. You know, it might be worth computing that, as dogs aren't just for Christmas, neither is feminism just for party political conferences and General Elections.
Yours, etc"

Letter 115: It's not the NHS that's failing the elderly, Jeremy Hunt.

"Dear Dave, 
Naughty Jeremy! Trying to distract us from cuts to the NHS and the increasing concerns about the A&E crisis. But well done to RCGP for challenging him, pointing out there's no evidence that the NHS is failing the elderly. You know what might fail the elderly though? Privatising £1billion worth of their health and social care provision in Cambridgeshire. What IS it with your desire to sell everything off? Apparently the BMA are very worried about the unfair advantage some of these large non-NHS providers might have. Is it true that quite a few of those tendering have already had problems with their outsourcing already? What concerns me (and should concern both Jeremy and yourself), is that the duty of a private company is to make as much profit as possible for it's shareholders. Let's hope your outsourcing doesn't mean you have to kiss "patients first and foremost" bye bye.

With best wishes, etc"

Number 10 replies to my letter on #Joanshalfmillion

Looks like a nerve was touched....

"Dear Ms O'Donoghue
I am writing to you on behalf of the Prime Minister to thank you for your recent correspondence, regarding the will of Ms Joan Edwards.
The solicitors for the deceased, acting as executors, informed the Conservative Party that it was a beneficiary of the will. However to put matters beyond doubt, we have decided to pass the money on to the Treasury.
As with all donations to the Exchequer, the money will be used to reduce the national debt
Yours etc"

Letter 114 If the Coalition confuse a gift to the nation with Party donation it's time to overhaul Party Political funding

Dear Dave and Nick,
Well, it would appear we have reached a new low on the issue of political party funding, gentlemen. Where in Joan Edward's will did she say that you should carve up her bequeathed money for the benefit of the Tory and Lib Dem Parties?
You BOTH campaigned at the last General Election on a cleaner politics ticket. Your interpretation of this money as a Party donation is a perfect example of why we need to overhaul Party Political funding. 
Now might be a very good time to get your chequebooks out; that money was a gift to the nation, not your Party coffers. Only a cad would see it any other way.

Yours etc,
PS Stuck for ideas where the money SHOULD go? Try these: Shelter, Help for Heroes, NSPCC, Oxfam, Help theAged, Make a Wish Foundation, Lucy Faithful Foundation, CAB, Unemployment Centres, Youth Centres, NACRO, a community grants pot, Credit Unions, training nurses...

Letter 113: Housing crisis & housing bubble, potentially fuelled by Help to Buy

"Dear Dave,
Do you like camping? All that fresh air, sitting out under the stars, greeting the dawn - kind of romantic. Unless of course, you don't get to go home. Then the damp and no real access to home comforts start to get a bit tedious. Well, more than tedious, pretty soul destroying, I would imagine. Which brings us to an awful story I came across whilst catching up on the UK's current housing crisis. It's hard to believe, but there are homeless people in Stockport who are reduced to living in caves. How disgraceful in a country as rich as ours. Someone ought to do something to help them, however difficult it is right now, with homelessness reaching a five year high. Just not a Help-to-Buy scheme, eh? That would be madness, in so many ways. And let's not count the ways, seeing as Graeme Leach, Albert Edwards, Vince Cable and Fitch Ratings have been so eloquent in their condemnation. Surely the real problem we have is the number of houses there actually are, rather than the difficulty people find in buying one (or two).  

Yours, etc

PS, One final query: how do you think the re emergence of sub prime mortgages (in the wake of your Funding for Lending scheme) will help the homeless, housing market and taxpayer?"

Letter 112: Cameron and Lynton Crosby's Lobbying Row Upstages the Royal Birth

"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?

As I have previously mentioned, you have been described  as:

"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"

Letter 111:Privatisation and NHS; lock everything up, the Tories are in charge.

"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"