whoyg's FotoPage - Fotopages.com

Pearl Jewelry - The Story of Pearl Hunters

As long as pearl jewelry have been known to people, they have been a highly sought commodity for their beauty. It's only in recent times however that the industry has taken the hunt for the perfect pearl to a whole different level. Today, the shiny orbs that we see on in display in jewelry stores have actually almost always been grown in farms.

That's a far cry from the dangerous extraction and collection methods used before the invention of modern technology. In the past, not more than 100 years ago, the only way to retrieve pearls was by diving in lakes, floods and the ocean to pick them up, one at the time. The unfortunate divers who'se job it was to do this, were often poor and lured by the relative large sums they could get. The diver would sometimes have to dive as deep as 100 feet on one single breath of air. In order to preserve air and to stay submerged the longest, the divers would hold on to heavy stones on the way down.

Naturally, this dangerous activity was reserved for the desperate or the powerless - in many cases slaves or extremely poor peasents. Today, this method is all but obsolete in most places of the world. The cheaper cultured pearls have become popular and are many times the only pearls available to the consumer.

There are however still a few isolated areas that practice this old art of pearl diving. Some of the finest natural pearl speciments come from the gulf of Bahrain. Here, divers still risk their health to retrieve what are considered the top of the crop in the world. In fact, Bahrain wants no part of the sale of cultured pearls, banned from trade. Bahrain is one of the few places on earth that does an active job in trying to preserve the natural habitat and waters from pollution.

It's an interesting story and one that continues to fascinate buyers around the world. Somehow, the beauty of the pearl grows when it's been retrieved from the depth of the ocean.

Saturday, 13-Nov-2010 03:05

Email | Share |

Buying Pearl Jewelry Without Being Ripped Off

Buying pearl jewelry can be fun, exciting and confusing. Whether you're considering a gift of pearl jewelry for someone special or as a treat for yourself, take some time to learn the terms used in the industry. Here's some information to help you get the best quality pearl jewelry for your money, whether you're shopping in a traditional brick and mortar store or online.

Pearls

Natural or real pearls are made by oysters and other mollusks. Cultured pearls also are grown by mollusks, but with human intervention; that is, an irritant introduced into the shells causes a pearl to grow. Imitation pearls are man-made with glass, plastic, or organic materials.

Because natural pearls are very rare, most pearls used in jewelry are either cultured or imitation pearls. Cultured pearls, because they are made by oysters or mollusks, usually are more expensive than imitation pears. A cultured pearl's value is largely based on its size, usually stated in millimeters, and the quality of its nacre coating, which give it luster. Jewelers should tell your if the pearls are cultured or imitation. Some black, bronze, gold, purple, blue and orange pearls, whether natural or cultured, occur that way in nature; some, however, are dyed through various processes. Jewelers should tell you whether the colored pearls are naturally colored, dyed or irradiated.

Clams, oysters, mussels and many other mollusks with limy shells are known to produce pearls. But very few kinds yield gem pearls of jeweler's quality. The pearl is an abnormal growth of mother-of-pearl, or nacre, imbedded in the soft bodies of these shellfish. It is built up, layer upon layer, in the same way as nacre is added to the lining of the growing shell and always has the same color and luster. For example, over the country, hundreds of good-sized pearls are found each year in the oysters we eat. Unfortunately these have no commercial value regardless of whether they have been cooked or not because they are dull opaque white or purple like the shell of the parent oyster. In recent times almost all pearls of gem quality come from the oriental pearl oyster which has a bright shimmering translucent nacre.

A pearl starts growing when some irritating foreign substance such as a sand grain, bit of mud, parasite or other object becomes lodged in the shell-producing gland called the mantle. Pearls formed in the soft flesh where nacre can be added on all sides are most likely to be spherical and the most highly prized. By far the great majority are flattened or variously distorted and have little value. Size, color, luster and freedom from flaws are other essential qualities. Unlike other gems, such as diamonds, pearls have an average life of only about 50 years. In time the small amount of water in a pearl's make-up is lost and its surface cracks. Because they are mostly lime, necklaces which are worn often are injured by the acid secretions of the human skin.

Monday, 8-Nov-2010 08:09

Email | Share |

Pearl Jewelry - The Story of Pearl Hunters

As long as pearl jewelry have been known to people, they have been a

highly sought commodity for their beauty. It's only in recent times

however that the industry has taken the hunt for the perfect pearl to

a whole different level. Today, the shiny orbs that we see on in

display in jewelry stores have actually almost always been grown in

farms.

That's a far cry from the dangerous extraction and collection methods

used before the invention of modern technology. In the past, not more

than 100 years ago, the only way to retrieve pearls was by diving in

lakes, floods and the ocean to pick them up, one at the time. The

unfortunate divers who'se job it was to do this, were often poor and

lured by the relative large sums they could get. The diver would

sometimes have to dive as deep as 100 feet on one single breath of

air. In order to preserve air and to stay submerged the longest, the

divers would hold on to heavy stones on the way down.

Naturally, this dangerous activity was reserved for the desperate or

the powerless - in many cases slaves or extremely poor peasents.

Today, this method is all but obsolete in most places of the world.

The cheaper cultured pearls have become popular and are many times

the only pearls available to the consumer.

There are however still a few isolated areas that practice this old

art of pearl diving. Some of the finest natural pearl speciments come

from the gulf of Bahrain. Here, divers still risk their health to

retrieve what are considered the top of the crop in the world. In

fact, Bahrain wants no part of the sale of cultured pearls, banned

from trade. Bahrain is one of the few places on earth that does an

active job in trying to preserve the natural habitat and waters from

pollution.

It's an interesting story and one that continues to fascinate buyers

around the world. Somehow, the beauty of the pearl grows when it's

been retrieved from the depth of the ocean.

Monday, 8-Nov-2010 08:01

Email | Share |

Buying Pearl Jewelry Without Being Ripped Off

Thursday, 22-Oct-2009 03:29

Email | Share |

It’s a bonobo-help-bird world, not dog-eat-dog

The strangest interview I have conducted — and the most moving — took place in a hot Georgia swamp with a young mother named Panbanisha, who spent much of the time scratching herself and trying to stick a twig in my ear. We discussed marshmallows and fruit, swatted mosquitoes and played hide-and-seek for hours.

At the end, she gave me part of her banana, and urinated on my foot.

Panbanisha was a 14-year-old bonobo, an African ape similar to a chimpanzee, that had been taught to “speak”’ by scientists at a primate research centre near Atlanta, using a computer keypad with pictograms and a voice synthesiser.

Bonobos are probably our closest animal relatives, sharing more DNA with us (98.7 per cent) than they do with gorillas. They are risk-averse, peaceable, vegetarian and exceptionally keen on sex, which they use to defuse tense situations. Several American fan clubs are devoted to the akoya pearl “hippy chimp”, which The New Yorker recently described as “equal parts dolphin, Dalai Lama and Warren Beatty”.
BACKGROUND

What struck me as most “human” about Panbanisha was not her mastery of rudimentary language (a working vocabulary of perhaps 250 words), but how she played hide and seek. It quickly became apparent, as we took turns to hide, that she was trying to understand what I was thinking, and thus what I was planning to do. Deception requires empathy, the ability imaginatively to inhabit the lives of others. In a small but astonishing way, this ape was trying to get inside my mind.

Empathy, an emotional tuning to others’ feelings, and the altruism that accompanies it, seems in short supply in the human world. With bankers greedily reamassing fortunes, MPs feathering their own duck islands, wars for oil and rogue states on the hunt for nuclear muscle, humanity seems close to the dog-eat-dog vision of Thomas Hobbes, the war of all against all, in which “man is wolf to man”.

There is a widely held assumption that humans are hard-wired for relentless and ruthless competition, locked into a Darwinian struggle for survival and individual success. For centuries some economists and biologists have argued that nature, red in tooth and claw, requires us to be selfish too.

The Dutch psychologist and primatologist Frans de Waal sees nature differently — as a biological legacy in which empathy, not mere self interest, is shared by humans, bonobos and animals in general. In his new book, The Age of Empathy, De Waal cites an amazing array of evidence to biwa pearl show that altruism, self-sacrifice, co-operation and even notions of fairness abound not just among our close primate relatives, but throughout the animal kingdom.

De Waal’s research shows that mutual assistance, not ferocious competition, is the default position of animals, and not just within the herd. He cites tigers nursing piglets (when they might be expected to regard such things as a light snack), and seals that save dogs from drowning.

Chimps lick each other’s wounds, prefer to share and display a keen sense of outrage when goods are unfairly distributed. Kuni, a female bonobo that finds a wounded bird, spreads its wings to set it flying again. Whales seem to exhibit a form of gratitude.

Animals are not only capable of altruism, it seems, but predisposed to perform empathetic acts that are not directly in their own interests. Elephants and dolphins aid companions in distress. A rhesus monkey will not pull the chain that delivers food once it has become aware that to do so also administers an electric shock to a fellow monkey.

Even wolves console one another after a fight. Dogs, contrary to what humans have long chosen to believe, do not eat dogs.

This not some soppy form of anthropomorphism. De Waal’s argument is that if the animal kingdom is innately caring and dependent on mutual support, the same must surely be true of our species.

If beasts are not beastly and brutes not brutish, why, in Hobbes’s grim summary, need the life of man be “nasty, brutish and short”?

“The story of empathy,” he writes, “means that even our most thoughtful reactions to others share core processes with the reactions of ... elephants, dogs and rodents”.

Modern culture tolerates, and even encourages, the idea that selfishness, raw competition and self-advancement are natural, even laudable. In fact, the herd instinct, the sense of being part of a larger whole, lies at the core of all animal societies. When individual members of the community are allowed unbridled self-interest, the entire pack suffers: think of Enron.

Adam Smith is often held up as the pearl jewelry father of the unfettered free market, a supposed economic free-for-all in which the weak must perish, but the author of The Wealth of Nations was acutely aware of the need for “fellow feeling”, an innate altruism more valuable than wealth: “How selfish so ever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”

Empathy is often regarded as a uniquely human characteristic, setting us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. The reverse may be closer to the truth, as science reveals just how emotionally attuned animals are to the feelings of their companions.

Male chimps tend to ignore their young. But when competing for status, to impress the rest of troop, they go out of their way to groom, cuddle and tickle the babies. This is chimp electioneering, the ultimate expression of primate empathy.

When a banker forgoes a bonus, a politician kisses a child, or a couple make up in bed after a fight, these are responses to a natural empathy, a reflection of the inner bonobo in all of us.

Thursday, 22-Oct-2009 03:22

Email | Share |

How to change the world without shouting

The pantheon of social campaigners was singularly graced by Ludovic Kennedy, deprived by death this week of a glorious 90th birthday. Every country that regards itself as civilised has in its history decades of inflicting cruelty and injustice on millions of individuals with the tolerance or active approval of its citizens. It seems unthinkable now that we should not merely execute criminals but hang, draw and quarter them; ship Africans into slavery; consign seamen to death in overloaded cargo boats; deliver children into prostitution; beat and jail women who demanded the vote.

The more epic struggles are vivid in the popular imagination as dramatic moments swiftly followed by triumph. Emily Davison throws herself under the King’s horse at the 1913 Derby, and five years later women have the vote. What gets forgotten are the long, long, years of agitation, nagging, and outrageous acts — such as suffragettes burning down churches — to break through congealed complacency; for every fulminating Colonel Blimp usefully agitating against a pearl jewelry cause, there are a thousand too bored to bother.

The distinctive qualities of Ludovic Kennedy were not those one associates with campaigners: his were grace, wit, charm and tolerance. He didn’t fume. He didn’t shriek or pound the table; he neither reviled his critics nor offered himself as a candidate for martyrdom.

Ludo’s style was impervious to ridicule. He persuaded with a quiet persistence and irony. He was amused to be called “Ludicrous Kennedy” by Private Eye, and “Ludovich Kennedy” by Alf Garnett in the BBC series Till Death Us Do Part. Indeed, think what kind of man could for all his life — with his dignity intact — inhabit the brand name of a children’s game.
BACKGROUND

Of course, Ludo had courage aplenty. He mocked homophobia when homosexuality was a great unmentionable. Above all, throughout his life, he risked lèse-majesté, not at all as his friend John Grigg did by criticising the Queen, but by confronting injustices sanctified by the Crown when the legal system went “gang aglae”: the framing of Stephen Ward in the Keeler case; the prejudice of Lord Chief Justice Goddard in ignoring the jury’s recommendation of mercy in the Craig-Bentley trial; and, most famously, the wrongful execution of Timothy Evans in 1950.

This is how I got to know Ludo. Like everyone else, I’d appreciated his histories and his BBC journalism for Panorama. I’d written for Granada Television an account of his telegenic performance in the Rochdale by-election in 1958. He lost, but won the highest Liberal vote since the Twenties, pushing the Conservatives into third place.

In 1961, of course, he wrote 10 Rillington Place, about the hanging of Timothy Evans for the 1949 murder of his wife and daughter on the testimony of John Christie, a wartime policeman who lived in the same house. Five years later Christie was convicted as a serial killer, but the authorities refused to admit that “Christie done it”, as the illiterate Evans had insisted up to the gallows.

Ludo’s exposé was not the first. In 1955, after the discovery of more corpses in Rillington Place had revealed Christie to be a monster, Michael Eddowes, a London solicitor, wrote The Man on Your Conscience, in which he laid out the absurdity of the Evans conviction. The insistence on biwa pearl his guilt by successive home secretaries and judges defied credulity. It meant accepting that two men were independently strangling women in the same way at the same time in the same house, and that by chance Evans had accused the one other man who, unbeknownst to him, shared his supposed murdering characteristics. The likelihood of finding two people with the same fingerprints is four billion to one. The Evans-Christie coincidence was like finding two people with the same fingerprints in the same house.

Ludo’s was a more accessible and readable analysis of the case, and of the official cover-up that followed the discovery of Christie’s crimes (he had been swiftly hanged before he could explain how he framed Evans). Kennedy’s book stimulated a parliamentary campaign, but it was dead by 1965 when, as editor of The Northern Echo, I was induced to restart it by Herbert Wolfe, a chemical manufacturer. How could we revive interest after all this time? Would we be regarded as cranks?

Kennedy enhanced our credibility by joining our Timothy Evans committee. He was unfailingly generous. He always accorded Eddowes the recognition he deserved, and swiftly recruited influential allies.

One episode revelatory of Kennedy’s character stands out in my mind. To preserve evidence of Evans’s innocence, Eddowes had bought 10 Rillington Place. We invited the press to see how Evans could not have hidden two bodies in the house when workmen were doing repairs. Eddowes had arranged access with his tenant. Kennedy led four of us into the house, but the tenant decided she didn’t want to allow the press and television people to follow us inside. She put her large presence between us and the front door. The newsmen couldn’t get in, and we couldn’t get out.

After pushing notes through the letterbox imploring the press to wait, Eddowes finally persuaded his tenant to let the press in. Kennedy calmly showed everyone round downstairs, and dealt deftly with the sceptics. In the middle of this, the tenant came back and once more furiously barred the exit. We were hostages for 20 minutes before Kennedy’s charm and eloquence got us out.

We won official recognition of the injustice, despite an inquiry under Mr Justice Brabin concluding that Evans had probably not murdered his baby, the crime for which he was hanged, but had probably murdered his wife. My impulse was to rampage about this declaration as a travesty, an outrage, an abomination, etc.

Kennedy contained himself. “This is certainly an arresting theory,” he remarked, “especially as there is virtually no evidence to akoya pearl support it.”

His coolness and restraint belied his passion, but served us well in his good life.

Thursday, 22-Oct-2009 03:21

Email | Share |

A catholic approach to weirdos is fine with me

I’m hugely in favour of this Roman Catholic raid on Church of England clergy and laity. It’s always best if people emerge in their true biwa pearl colours, and I am (for instance) forever trying to persuade foaming-at-the-mouth Europhobes that they really ought to leave the Conservative Party and join Ukip.

Were I an Anglican I would feel spiritually uncomfortable with anyone who passionately believed that God hated the idea of women priests; and the more reactionaries Pope Benedict can gather around himself and his Church, the faster the whole thing will sink under the weight of its own weirdness.

There’s a world of difference between those who, born and bred in a akoya pearl religion, accept its weirder precepts with an embarrassed shrug, and change the subject, and those whose enthusiasm for the weirder precepts so takes them over that they feel driven by conscience to abandon one Church for another.

Beware the zeal of the converts. “As a biwa pearl Papist-in-the-pew,” a Catholic friend of a friend remarked to her yesterday, “I do hope we won’t now face an influx of misogynistic homophobes who like dressing up.”

Thursday, 22-Oct-2009 03:14

Email | Share |

Pay less tax: hand back your handouts

Thinking that public- spending cuts should begin at home, I suggested to my wife the other day that it was time to hand back our child benefit, which costs the government fully £1,500 a year. I went on to suggest to my mother that she should give back her pension and free travel pass, and to my father-in-law that he shouldn’t claim those benefits when they were due. Aren’t benefits just for people on the lowest incomes, I suggested? Shouldn’t middle-class people be independent of Government welfare?

This went down like the heaviest of lead balloons. We argued it back and forth, but in the end their objection boiled down to one principle: “I’ve paid in, so why shouldn’t I get something back?”

I’m sure my family are not alone in their opinion. At Reform we have calculated that the true amount of benefits claimed by middle-class people is £31 billion. That is £1 in every £4 spent on benefits and enough to pearl jewelry pay for the police service twice over. The benefit most skewed to higher earners is statutory maternity pay, where £8 in every £10 is given to people on or above middle income. Child benefit, tax credits and the basic state pension are the other main offenders, with subsidised loans for higher-education students also benefiting the better off.

Different people will have different definitions of middle class, though perhaps not as wide a definition as that of John Prescott, who memorably said “We are all middle-class now” shortly before Labour’s 1997 election victory. Our research sets the line at an income of £40,000 for a couple with two children (ie, £15,000 of income per adult plus £5,000 per child). Others would define middle class at a lower level of income, meaning that middle-class benefits cost even more.
BACKGROUND

This is a massive subsidy in any terms — what Noel Edmonds might call “life-changing money”. But we middle classes need to read the small print. Middle-class people tend to oppose higher taxes, but that is the price of our entitlements. £31 billion is the equivalent of an extra 8p on the basic rate of income tax. We are being bribed with our own money.

We also need to think about the hole in the public finances. The country is finishing a decade in which public spending of every kind increased beyond the government’s ability to pay. The result is that Britain is spending £6 for every £5 raised in tax (leaving out the effects of the recession), according to the Treasury, and leaving an even bigger hole according to every other economic commentator. Push is about to come to shove. Either taxes are going to go up on a grand scale — with the greatest share inevitably falling on the middle classes — or spending has to be pulled back.

Perhaps my family’s underlying concern was a more general one: that so much of their tax is lost in general government inefficiency that they might as well get something back in benefits. There is certainly a lot of biwa pearl evidence for government inefficiency. But the answer to that is to reform the NHS and education, not to protect welfare for the better off.

Politicians have rightly started to sketch out this territory. Vince Cable said earlier this year that he supported means-testing child benefit in principle. At the Conservative Party conference George Osborne said he would abolish tax credits for families earning over £50,000 and limit child trust-funds to the poorest third of families. But he went on to give three big hostages to fortune, saying that he would “preserve” child benefit, winter-fuel payments and free TV licences for the over-75s on the grounds that they are “valued by millions”. They may be valued by millions but the cost runs to billions. The public-finance deficit will not be tackled seriously unless politicians question every budget (including the NHS, also wrongly ring-fenced by the Opposition).

The question is, what kind of society do politicians want us to live in after the recession? Is it one with endlessly rising taxes to pay for a protected public sector? Or is it one where the rest of us take on more responsibility for ourselves — where, to use the jargon, the “risk” of poor health, retirement, unemployment and so on is “shifted” from government to the rest of society?

In July, the insurance industry issued a report saying that it was ready to take more of the burden of welfare off the government. That would require much more flexible products than the industry has traditionally offered. But the idea is right, and the offer from the industry should be seized with both hands.

Other countries are ahead of akoya pearl the UK. Ireland, Australia and New Zealand have already means-tested child benefit to reduce their deficits. Many countries have more flexible savings systems.

In fact, the welfare state is a bad deal for the middle classes. We need a new deal that opens the door to lower taxes and higher economic growth in the long term. The hole in the public finances means that this is a good moment to start.

Thursday, 22-Oct-2009 03:09

Email | Share |

It’s not about women, it’s about taking power

Aaagrgh — it’s all-women shortlists again. White middle-class men talking about bringing more girlies into the House of Commons, jokes about breastfeeding on the benches, shire matrons stomping around in their Clarks shoes muttering about career women, thrusting young men wondering why they wasted their twenties pushing leaflets through the door just to be pushed aside by a female novelist/teacher/ GP who doesn’t even know the name of the Shadow Environment Secretary.

Grammar schools, Europe and all-women shortlists always get the Tories into a lather. Margaret Thatcher made it on her own with a little help from a voice coach they will tell you and Blair’s Babes were an embarrassment. Remember all those matching red suits and that lipstick – humiliating.

Tory women can do it by themselves. What was David Cameron doing mentioning it? His wife didn’t need an all-women shortlist to become design director of Smythson. His mother became a magistrate without requiring a helping hand.

But calm down, the blues. It’s not what you think. The pearl jewelry Tory leader isn’t demanding that every seat be filled by Chloe-bots (named after the 27-year-old Chloe Smith, who was recently elected MP for Norwich North). He is actually trying to recruit the best candidates. If you listened to Mr Cameron’s words he suggested only that a few seats would be chosen in this way and he was probably just trying to put down a marker with the old colonels.
BACKGROUND

Women already make up 30 per cent of Tory candidates in seats selected so far. What the high command want to ensure is that they have control over all the seats coming up after Christmas so that they can reshape the backbenches after the expenses debacle.

More than 30 Tory MPs have already announced that they are standing down, 14 have no successor yet, and the grandees expect another 14 to hand in their passes before the next election rather than pay back their gardening bills.

“It’s not the A list they want, it’s the CD list — Cameron-David — modern traditionalists who have the same values as the leader, regardless of whether they are male or female, black, Asian or white rather than mavericks and mischief makers,” according to one constituency chairman with a vacancy. Women-only shortlists are a Trojan horse for bringing in Dave’s recruits.

It’s all about people not policies. The Tories already have their plans in place if they win the next general election. They have spent months pondering their education policy, their health non-policy, how to tackle the benefit culture and they have held endless meetings across Whitehall with senior civil servants desperate to emphasise their Tory credentials. Now they need the right team and a compliant Commons to implement their plans.

Having been out of power for 13 years, only two Shadow Cabinet ministers have swung a red box — William Hague and Sir George Young. There are few big hitters among the rest. Yet the moment that Mr Cameron puts his mug down on the Downing Street desk, he will have to start writing out a list of 119 ministers and whips to go on the government payroll.

Tony Blair blundered as he took his first gulp of tea. He couldn’t gather enough experienced flatmates to push through his agenda. Blur and Oasis might have been fun to strum a guitar with, but they didn’t understand his desire to change Britain. The backbenchers didn’t get the Blair Project either. So years were wasted. The same happened when Boris Johnson became Mayor of London. He found it frustrating trying to recruit deputies and floundered over their appointments.

Gordon Brown thought he’d been clever with his biwa pearl Government of All the Talents but he couldn’t keep the goats tethered for long. Soon they were roaming freely round the House of Lords.

The Tories have been learning the lessons. They have only 192 peers on the red benches compared to Labour’s 213 and the Liberal Democrats 71. So they can bring in about 40 new recruits.

“Of course it would be great to get out an envelope and write down the names of all your favourite crime writers, chefs, sporting heroes and TV presenters who would look good in ermine, but it’s not going to happen,” said one Shadow Cabinet minister. “Think more 21st-century America than Henry VIII’s court. This isn’t about patronage it’s about pragmatism, we need people in the Lords who can hit the ground running.”

Their role model is Lord Adonis, who finally pushed through Mr Blair’s plans for academies and high speed trains. David Freud was an obvious choice to boost Theresa May’s work and pensions team. General Sir Richard Dannatt lends gravitas to Liam Fox at defence. Neither is in it for the costumes and Mr Cameron has made it clear that he would like to restrict peers’ terms to ensure that they are not just doing it for membership to a jolly club with free parking in Central London.

Tory aides have been taking the advice of headhunters about who will survive the transition to the Lords.

“Most CEOs would find politics tough; they are akoya pearl used to pulling the lever and watching it happen. What you need are people who have worked in partnerships and collegiate organisations — entrepreneurs, barristers, officers, campaigners — people who are tenacious and make stuff happen,” one headhunter said.

Sir James Dyson, the inventor, is “an ideal candidate for a peerage”, according to one Shadow Cabinet minister, “as is the Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross”, who is at the forefront of the academies programme.

Some of the best private-sector candidates will be unwilling to take the pay cut (ministers in the Lords don’t get the same salary as MPs) so the Tories are also rummaging around for family treasures in the attic. Lord Heseltine has been dragged away from his arboretum to have breakfast with Ken Clarke. Lord Baker of Dorking was brought back in his red corduroys to address the Tory conference on technical colleges. Lord Hurd of Westwell and Sir John Major have been dusted down.

“Voters are now nostalgic for the 1980s when MPs didn’t seem so grasping,” said one strategist. Lord Trimble, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon and David Davis are also being lined up for senior roles. The Tories will also use consultants (although they hate the word) until they can get the measure of their civil servants.

The Cameroons are determined not to repeat Mr Blair’s mistake in believing that he, Alastair and Peter could change their party and the country. They know they need strength in numbers.