Last night on the Sky News Paper Review the Mirror Editor Kevin “Labour Muppet” Maguire reached new lows alongside an Editor/journo from the Indy who’s name I forget. Discussing Army equipment shortages the pair were both quite certain that Gordon Brown wasn’t to blame but instead – in their contrasting “chippy northern” and “Islington liberal” tones – decided to blame the Army! “If it was so bad they should have resigned,” they agreed, advocating in effect dereliction of duty in the middle of a conflict. Then they decided to excuse the equipment shortages – “all wars are like that to begin with” – and cited World War 2 as evidence! Of course WW2 was somewhat larger in scale than Iraq/Afghanistan and most wars do not have equipment shortages to begin with – indeed this one doesn’t if you’re American! – but when you’re either delusional or just mad reality doesn’t really matter. (And come to think of it we’ve been at war for nearly 9 years so it’s hardly still “in the beginning” yet there’s still shortages!)

This morning however I notice Maguire is at it again!

Armchair generals bad-mouthing Gordon Brown sound like tinpot dictators plotting a military coup. The pensioned-off commanders are yomping into a political minefield, dangerously close to overstepping the line of acceptable criticism ahead of a General Election.

If the equipment was so bad, and young men were sent into battle without the weapons to do the job, why didn’t the chiefs do the honourable thing and resign?

Instead, the top brass enjoyed the Brideshead lifestyle on the taxpayer – with lavish dinners served by domestic staff in large houses. I listen with growing cynicism to what sounds like the armed wing of the Tory Party.

The Mirror: Rank bad form to have a go at Gordon Brown

Having again insulted those who have fought for Queen and Country as “pensioned off arm chair generals” and insinuated partisan politics in their comments – the full article also has some very cheap envy politics about military pensions that I decided not to copy – he then decides to attack and insult the Queen!

The Queen stands accused of gross disloyalty to her subjects by threatening to sell off their homes. Secret files released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal the Crown Estate’s “Project Blue” to flog 1,280 London houses and flats.

The properties, in Camden, Hackney, Lewisham and Pimlico, are currently let at decent rents and include “homes fit for heroes” built for returning servicemen after the First World War. Yet the documents, which I’ve read, show flunkeys more worried about making money and “reputational considerations” – flak – than the welfare of the families living in these homes.

Now, it’s possible Her Maj doesn’t know what the Palace sharp suits are doing in her name. In which case, she should get a grip. Or, if she actually wants to sell homes to a “blue-chip private landlord” which would inevitably put up rents, brace yourself, our noble Queen, for those “reputational considerations”. Because a state-subsidised multi-millionaire grandmother – who inherited Buck House, Windsor Castle and the rest – owes ordinary families a roof over their heads at affordable rents.

The Mirror: Queen’s rotten estate

Now the article is an interesting case of language use for a political point. Using the words to suggest a threatening, Sheriff of Nottingham type figure – and the line “currently let at decent rents and include ‘homes fit for heroes’ built for returning servicemen after the First World War” to invoke the image of a charitable basis to the rental agreements and utilise a charity group currently in vogue (veterans) – he assassinates the character of the accused. Who doesn’t want to let homes at decent rents to heroes? That nasty “multi-millionaire…..”.

However Maguire is either ignorant or deliberately deceitful.

Google Crown Estates and their website clearly reads its purpose is “to enhance the value of the estate and the income it generates”. It is therefore not and never has been a ‘homes fit for heroes’ charitable venture as Maguire suggests, and I doubt anyone has been a tenant since 1918 either. And as Maguire mentions no figures for these “decent rates”, I’m guessing they’re in line with the market rates, it’s main objective after all being “to enhance the value of the estate and the income it generates.”

Then there’s one other thing. Maguire used his article to make attacks on the Queen, a childish character assassination from the book of envy, but the Queen doesn’t run or benefit from the Crown Estate. As their website says, “We have two main objectives: to benefit the taxpayer by paying the revenue from our assets directly to the Treasury; and to enhance the value of the estate and the income it generates.”

So it’s not the Queen who should be “accused of gross disloyalty threatening to sell off homes…currently let at decent rents and including ‘homes fit for heroes’ built for returning servicemen after the First World War, and more worried about making money and flak than the welfare of the families living in these homes” – it’s Maguire’s beloved and cash-strapped Labour Government!

Wonder if he’ll issue a correction/apology?

It’s been announced that the BBC “licence fee” is to go up 2%, which takes it to £145.50 per year. Just a decade ago it was £104, making a 43% increase in ten years! Doing the maths – where did I put that calculator? – that equates to 40p a day. But I don’t watch the BBC every day – I might watch Sky or ITV or a DVD, I might be on holiday or out or suffering a powercut – which got me thinking: how much does the BBC cost me per hour? I did the maths.

With the assumption this last week was a normal week, I have watched the following programmes:
Seven Ages of Britain (BBC1)
Country House Rescue (C4)
The Mentalist (Five)
I watch Sky News because the BBC News is inferior, and never listen to BBC Radio. I watch a programme on BBC4 probably once a month or so on average, recently Indian Hill Railways and – as there was nothing else on – a documentary about Skippy the Bush Kangeroo, these being the only things I’ve watched on BBC4 for upwards of six months. I watch New Tricks and Spooks when they have new series. So this week I’ve watched 1 hour of the BBC, but adding in these I probably average 2.

So 2-hours of BBC1 costs me a mandatory £145.50 a year, or £1.40 per hour watched. Click, click, click… What’s that Skippy, you think it’s a rip off?

The NHS seems to be getting a lot of column inches today in the news, and as usual none of it is good. It seems the national “envy of the world” religion which none must question isn’t all it’s cracked up to be – at least that is if you need it and have managed to compare it with the health systems of our neighbouring countries. For liberal dinner party chat among Guardian columnists I imagine it’s great, but it’s somewhat lacking if you’re a patient.

Patients are routinely being treated in areas of hospitals not designed for care, a Nursing Times survey has revealed. Nurses are being asked to treat patients in store rooms, mop cupboards, wards that are already full and, in one case, a kitchen area.

In a Nursing Times survey responded to by more than 900 nurses, nearly two thirds said patients at their hospital were being treated in areas not designed for clinical care.

They highlighted threats to safety including patients having no access to call bells, water and suction facilities, missing emergency equipment, risk of infection and fire exits being blocked.

Patients’ privacy and dignity is often compromised and nurses say the situation makes it harder to provide good care. Of those nurses who had seen the practice, nearly 60 per cent said it happened more than once a week. Two thirds said patients were left in the areas for more than 12 hours – for some the areas are used for days at a time. A majority said it had happened at their trust for at least a year.

One nurse said patients had started describing an area normally used to store linen and equipment, where beds were being put, as an “overspill car park”.

One said: “There is little room around the three beds and it would be difficult to get a crash trolley into any of the beds. There is no privacy, no oxygen and no call bell.”

Just 3 per cent said nurses were asked whether they agreed with the area being used. Eighty-three per cent said they had raised it with senior nurses or managers but, of those, only 4 per cent said it had then been stopped.

They were commonly told that all other space was full, accident and emergency was under pressure, the move was authorised by senior managers, or the A&E waiting time target was at risk. They were told there was “a temporary capacity issue”, “the hospital does not close its doors” and “unfortunately the hospital is full”.

A small number said complaining had resulted in bullying, being accused of “not being a team player” or told the issue was “none of your business”.

One nurse said: “I carried out a risk assessment on my ward which showed this was a very dangerous and high risk practice, but it still continues as I am told there are just no other beds available and the instruction has come from the chief executive.”

Another commented: “I was advised to find a more appropriate patient for the extra bed, as the bed was needed, and if I couldn’t find a patient then they would.”

NHS South Central chief nurse Katherine Fenton told Nursing Times: “Directors of nursing should be visiting areas and forbidding this kind of practice. This type of practice is always unacceptable.

“You have to make sure that your processes through the hospital are lean and that you are getting patients out at the other end, as you are bringing the right ones in through the front door.

“If you haven’t got good senior management, and this is not just about nursing, you don’t get those fundamental processes sorted out.”

The Department of Health said: “It is for local healthcare commissioners and providers to assess the services needed locally to meet the demands of their population.

“However, every nurse must comply with the standards, performance and ethics outlined in the NMC code. In particular, any nurse who is concerned about any risk to their patients should report their concerns to their manager, in writing if necessary.”

Nursing Times: ‘Full’ hospitals treating patients in non-clinical areas

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the “eighth wonder of the world”…

A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital. Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help. They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control.

The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours. She said nurses had failed to give him vital drugs which controlled fluid levels in his body. ‘He was totally dependent on the nurses to help him and they totally betrayed him.’

Daily Mail: Neglected by ‘lazy’ nurses, man, 22, dying of thirst rang the police to beg for water

But of course none of this seems to bother management, who as you’d imagine are more bothered about their own salary and paying Labout’s higher National Insurance Contributions*…

Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in England are to receive an average 5.5 per cent increase in their budgets this year. But the prices hospitals will get for their work – their income – has been frozen at zero increase, to try and reduce costs.

With medicines getting more expensive, previously agreed pay increases for nurses, plus bigger national insurance costs*for all staff, hospitals face real terms budget cuts. Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is closing 200 beds and two wards to cut a £30m deficit.

Channel 4: NHS bed and staff cuts condemned

There is however an answer to all of this, and it’s in today’s Telegraph from Nurses For Reform, a brilliant group who have both the intellegence to think rationally tocompare other systems and the courage to take on a national institution that so many view through rose tinted glasses.

All health provision in the UK, such as hospitals, clinics and care homes, should be placed in the independent sector, be it for-profit, co-operative, or not-for-profit forms of ownership. What matters here is genuine diversity and openness.

Following the logic of planned Conservative Party changes to education and schools, local planning laws must be reformed in order to enable a much greater diversity of – and non-government investment in – health facilities. In a truly post-bureaucratic age, the Secretary of State for Health should no longer have any say over when or where hospitals are built, opened or closed, and nor should local politicians.

The laws surrounding health censorship should be repealed so that patients can be empowered with much greater information. In this context, hospitals, GP practices and pharmaceutical enterprises should all be free to advertise and build trusted brands. Only by allowing reputations to be freely built will people be able to realise the advantages of competitive standards and judge for themselves who they can trust in a health-care market.

National collective pay-bargaining for health professionals should be ended, monopoly bodies such as the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council should be opened up to genuine private alternatives, and all health-related training should be paid for by independent providers – thereby boosting the diversity and opportunities available in a more vibrant labour market.

Finally, tax-funded “public health” should regain the trust of people by only concerning itself with those areas that specifically overlap with, and are akin to, warfare: for example, natural disasters and pandemics. Beyond these limits, any further health initiatives aimed at informing or nannying people should only be undertaken by independent-sector organisations, be they for-profit or not-for-profit, and providing they do not use any taxpayers’ money in their execution. All initiatives should be created and funded without any involvement from any aspect of the public sector, again including local government.

The Telegraph: Health care needs to be depoliticised and patient led

This weekend the Conservatives have descended on the beautiful Regency City of Brighton on the Sussex coast for a conference rather optimistically called the 2010 “Spring Forum”. February is not Spring, it’s very much still Winter – which is why I’m not there – but this seasonal confusion has affected all the parties who are holding their “Spring” get togethers early due to the as yet unknown date of the election, so I’ll let them off.

Ahead of the last Spring Forum, held in the also beautiful Regency town of Cheltenham in April 2009, the Party enjoyed a 18-point lead over Labour (CON 45, LAB 27) in the YouGov polls for the Telegraph and Sunday People. Today the poll lead is just 6-points (CON 39, LAB 33) in the YouGov poll, now conducted daily for The Sun. Despite this sudden turn-around there has been very little analysis, something Liberal Conspiracy points out. They of course trot out the usual guff about “bad policies, wrong rhettotic, Cameron, and shaky support” – and as usual get it wrong. So to spare them any more confusion, I thought I’d do my own analysis. Here then is why the poll lead has dived.

Reason #1 – Unwinding of “mid-term blues”
All governing parties usually suffer in the polls during their period in office, generally picking up near the end. Labour had a lead in the middle of each of Thatcher’s three terms, but lost in ‘83, ‘87 and ‘92. The fall in Conservative support and rise in Labour support is in part the unwinding of these “mid-term blues”, and though disappointing is to be expected.

Reason #2 – “All substance and no style”
Usually critics attack the Conservatives as being “all style and no substance” – they’re wrong, it’s the other way round! The Conservatives have tons of policies – too many in fact to campaign on – an issue which is made worse by poor stylising. The recent billboard with its confused message being a case in point. Most people do not vote on policies, even fewer on policies poorly presented. Instead they are valence voters, more interested in the person who is leader and the broad direction of travel they will take than in the minor details of policy. They are electing a Prime Minister, not picking a policy shopping list. They want to know who the leader is as a person, whether they are motivated by the same things as they are, and in what sort of way they will react to events as yet unknown. They want to know they are on the same wave length – “one of us” or “thinks like I do”. For Conservatives this is even more important as they cannot fall back on “class” like Labour can – they have to connect with voters on a more philosophical “way of thinking” basis. The Conservatives have been too detailed on policy but too vague on who they are as people and what they believe in.

Reason #3 – Brown’s makeover
Peter Mandelson says that he can’t get Gordon Brown hairbrushed let alone airbrushed – what rubbish! Gordon Brown has had one of the biggest and most drastic makeovers ever seen by stealth. The voice has been refined, the walk softened, a smile created – he had to do hours of exercises to achieve this – and the hair dyed, though not completely. The gaffes such as the misplaced auto-cue have been banished.

With the poll lead now so narrow that the odds of Labour winning have been cut to 5/1, work is needed to demonstrate what a Conservative government would be like.

The daily must-read TechCrunch blog had this interesting story a few days ago of how an Italian court yesterday convicted two current and one former Google executives.

The Google Italy employees were accused of breaking Italian law by allowing the video of bullying of a teenager with autism to be posted on YouTube Google Video in late 2006. Despite the fact that Google removed the video within hours of being notified of its existence, Judge Oscar Magi (pictured) absolved the three of defamation but convicted them of privacy violations. The three executives have received a suspended six-month sentence, while a fourth defendant was acquitted. Google is appealing the sentences on their behalf.

The situation being explained by Google thus…

In late 2006 Students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved. In these rare but unpleasant cases, that’s where our involvement would normally end.

Now my mind would have soon forgotten this sade case of bullying and worrying case of insanity among Italy’s Judisciary [in convicting the Google Execs] – filed forever under “Europe: Reasons not to integrate” – if it wasn’t for a Tweet from Liberal Conspiracy Editor Sunny Hundal supporting the frankly crack-pot decision.

Spot on RT: @bloggerheads: Why Italy was RIGHT to find Google guilty (by @malcolmcoles) http://j.mp/ItalyGoogle

The blog post linked to Malcolm Cole who puts up a rather bizarre argument in support of the decision, an argument that is based entirely on a dislike of Google in my opinion.

The blogger states first that Google did not remove the video fast enough…..

if people are complaining that your platform is allowing abuse of a vulnerable boy, and you do nothing about it – either because you’ve ignored complaints or have no effective way to discover those complaints – it is right you are held to account.

…but he misses the point. The video was removed as soon as they could, and it is not for him, a Judge or the State to deem what constitutes what is fast enough. If an abusive comment is left on his blog, it’s not for us to decide how longer wait until removal is acceptable. Furthermore the platform did not “allow” the abuse, the abuse would have happened with or without GoogleVideo [then a rival to YouTube] – it was simply broadcast on it. This case is rather like convicting the camera or computer manufacturer.

Malcolm goes on to decide that although you may not have anything to do with an illegal activity, you should be made a criminal if they use your product, even if it is impossible to police…

They are senior executives at the company – responsible for the systems put in place to stop abusive content being published. If those systems have failed, it is right that senior executives are held responsible….You have set up a platform that allows people to publish things – some of which it’s illegal or immoral to publish. If you can’t police it properly, that’s not our fault.

Of course it’s not their fault either, but that doesn’t seem to bother them. He goes on to conclude….

if I want anyone to watch a video, I can leave it up on YouTube and forget about it – anyone can then see it by choosing to go and view it. I don’t need to be involved in them seeing it, and anyone can see what the subject of the video is [therefore it is not like convicting the Post Office]. This is why Google can and ought to have systems in place to alert it when abusive videos being published, whereas the post office can’t and shouldn’t. We do hold companies responsible for what they publish or facilitate the publishing of if they are negligent. Google runs a publishing platform. It doesn’t send out individual videos in boxes that were used to hit someone. It has ongoing control over that platform in the way that the tissue-box and camera manufacturer do not.

…which would have serious legal rammifications. If someone puts illegal graffiti on my wall, will I be convicted for not having the “systems” in place to remove it? And if we hold companies responsible for what they facilitate the publishing of, what about libraries with photocopiers, schools with printers, and the entire internet?

Why can’t the Left “get it”. We are responsible for our actions, not other people’s actions.

One of my current projects is MyBillboard.Net, a conservative version of MyDavidCameron – the site by Labour activists for spoof Tory billboards – and its automated billboard generator. This new website will be linked up with ConservativeHome’s new MyLaboutPoster, to which I have offered the generator. Currently I’m finalising a few server issues for v1 to launch tonight I hope, this initial launch offering users the ability to add their text to a number of pre-made poster designs and share them from the site. By Friday and possibly tomorrow however I hope to have v1.1 live, which will allow users to upload their own background images as well. In the meantime try not to get too excited about the possibilities and enjoy these posters I’ve generated featuring some new Labour voters – be sure to read the small print.

And you should read this to go with the last one.

The great and the good (read barmy and bonkers) have hit the press and Twitter’s trending topics with a campaign for a tax. Yes you read that right, a campaign for a new tax, as in in support of a new tax!

The tax is of course that old favourite of the Left, the global tax on financial transactions first proposed by James Tobin and known to economists as the Tobin Tax. The trouble is that every campaign in support of a Tobin Tax runs aground on the same problem, namely that all you have to do in order to see why such a tax is (a) bad and (b) unworkable is to look it up!

This new campaign has successfully circumvented such problematic issues as economic scrutiny by rebranding itself the “Robin Hood Tax” – cleverly replacing the “T” with an “R” and adding the urban slang term for a ghetto neighbourhood (and the name of a WW2 battleship) – thereby escaping trial by Google and allowing its supporters to revel in the Lincoln green shaded medieval romanticism of an English folklore. It’s spearheaded by Bob Geldoff, Richard Curtis, Bill Nighy (i.e. the usual suspects).

What we need is a tax which is (a) workable, (b) doesn’t harm the productive economy, and (c) doesn’t fall unfairly upon lower to middle income earners. The Tobin “Robin Hood” Tax fails all three tests – needing global agreement, reducing international movement of capital, and reducing bank profits (bank shareholders being primarily pension funds and the Government). However I have a better idea…The Celebrity Tax!

Like bankers, celebrities earn huge sums of money. Unlike bankers and banks they don’t have no pension funds as shareholders and won’t move abroad – the lack of press and glitzy parties would starve them back – and so we wouldn’t need a global agreement. A few might take refuge in Dubai but the Inland Revenue could snatch them when they sneak back for London Fashion Week or the Harrods sale, impounding Bono’s jet at Heathrow and cornering Peaches Geldoff by the perfume counter of Harvey Nichs. And since celebrities produce nothing of value, unlike banks perform no economic function, and are in unlimited supply, the “dead weight loss” would be negligible to zero. Celebrities are therefore the perfect tax victim.

So I propose the Celeb Tax, calculated by column inches! And since people such as Geldoff, Curtis, Bono and the other “do gooder” celebrities love advocating higher taxes, higher spending and more restriction – whilst earning millions and (in many cases) being registered in tax havens – they won’t mind paying a higher “sanctimonious do gooder rate” on their column inches.

Shane Greer has a blog post about Labour’s latest billboard, which is as apt for photoshopping as the recent Tory one.

ToryRascal has his own poster. As does Ollie Cromwell.

If you have any ideas of your own, get in touch.

UPDATE: Thanks to TrevorsDen who submitted this idea.

UPDATE 2: As requested, the blank template. E-Mail me your creations and/or links.

The leftist blogosphere has got itself all excited at the prospect of a conspiracy. There’s nothing the Left likes more than a good conspiracy theory, usually complete with a secret society, evil plot and mysterious non-government authority. They usually go something like “Elvis shot JFK because the Illuminati told him to and we know because in a Da Vinci painting there’s a missing plate on the table” or something ludicrous like that, but this one is more Gordon Brown than Dan Brown.

According to Left Foot Forward at a “Tory bloggers briefing last night…Eric Pickles and the CCHQ press team told the bloggers they would be given 7am briefing emails or ‘talk point memos’ during the election campaign which would include the days lines and strategy and rebuttals to Labour attacks.”

Talk about a boring conspiracy theory! Where are the UFOs, secret societies, dastardly plots and the like. Usually wacky Leftist conspiracy theories involve 9/11, Princess Diana, Nazi gold, Elvis and Mosad, this one involves Eric Pickles and a newsletter! How boring, how unoriginal, how unexciting. Where are the tinfoil hats, and is City Inn and a Chinese restaurant secret enough?

As it happens I was invited to this event but couldn’t attend sadly, however I have it on very good authority from people who did that this is total rubbish. There is no 7am briefing! 

Calling the event a bloggers briefing is a bit misleading also, as although Eric Pickles did briefly speak it was about…his preference for pies over doughnuts! I don’t know where on ‘the grid’ the Pies Vs Doughnuts debate is planned for but it would make a great memo.

I’ve also yet to know of a briefing involving kareoke renditions of “I Did It My Way”… Sounds more like a drinks and kareoke party to me (coincidentally just what the invite said)…

Iain Martin at the WSJ feels the Conservatives are making a mistake avoiding negative campaigning.

New Labour was [skilled] at negative campaigning and sloganeering. In comparison, the modern Conservatives have seemed a bit wimpish and wet in their approach. However, it appears to be deliberate. The Tories are determined to stay positive. Cameron’s marketing guru, Steve Hilton, wants to run an upbeat campaign — apparently calculating that the public is sick of negativity and that voters want hope.

I think by and large Hilton is right, the voters want hope and the Tories do have a historic “nasty party” image problem which negative advertising certainly won’t help. The problem is that hope is in short supply at the moment: the cupboard is bare and voters know it! To pretend otherwise will not only be hopelessly hollow that voters see right through it but also let Labour off the hook for the debt they have built up and let them propose their own giveaways. We have to have some form of negative campaigning to complement what limited positive we can offer.

Iain Martin also shares my view on the recent billboard.

The Tories are overthinking this and getting themselves into a tangle. Their most recent poster launch illustrated the problem. The slogan was two or three slogans fused into one, because they couldn’t decide which line to pursue. So it said something like: “We can’t go on like this, darling. I’ll cut the deficit but leave the nice NHS alone, although not the education or defense budgets.” It’s a confusion of positive and negative messages.

Negative campaigning however is risky and must be handled with care. They must avoid looking too personal, spiteful and childish, instead focussing on humour and something concrete – a policy, their record etc – that will resonate with voters. Or something iconic, the iPod inspired poster here being my suggestion.