Liberal Vision

Botton it!

Earlier this month, Alain de Botton expressed his point of view in defence of the nanny state, which (it will come as no surprise to regular readers to learn that) the BBC was happy to host.

Liberal Vision blogger Simon Goldie immediately and repeatedly took up the cause of freedom against de Botton on this site. Now, over at the Adam Smith Institute, I have published my own response to Mr. de Botton. Thanks to the ASI’s stimulating Think Piece series, I have been able to respond in equal length and depth to de Botton’s original (something which Simon, constrained by good practice at writing blogs, couldn’t do).

Please head over to the ASI site, take a look at my respone, and feel free to submit comments on the accompanying ASI blog.

BBC ban on term “electoral reform” even more preposterous

As recently noted, the BBC powers-that-be have decided to ban the term “electoral reform” being used by its correspondents because the word “reform” sounds too positive (see previous post on why this in itself is preposterous).

But now it looks even more absurd!

The Prime Minister – who is standing with the NO campaign is still using that self-same term.  In his speech on Friday (and i will say this again!), arguing against AV, David Cameron himself uses the term “electoral reform” again and actually defines AV as a type of reform …quoted on the BBC website…

“(David Cameron) said he believed the Alternative Vote was “completely the wrong reform” and would be “bad for our democracy” – leading to unfair results and an unaccountable political system” (source bbc website)

If AV is -according to the PM – the “wrong sort of reform” ..then definition-ally it is “reform”. Any reason why we can ALL agree that this vote is about ELECTORAL REFORM – except the BBC? 

Surely there is something very odd going on…The Prime Minister of this country can make a speech against electoral reform in which he uses – once again –  the term “electoral reform” … and in that speech define  AV as a type of reform (if the wrong one). That the BBC can report that speech, quoting the PM using the term “electoral reform” and showing the highlights of the speech in its website. BUT the BBC journalists are banned from using the term themselves? 

The dictat looks more preposterous and untenable with every day that passes. 

On a related issue – any reason why the main BBC News political story on AV runs with the title “Votes referendum: Cameron rejects Clegg AV call” . Is that really fair? to headline the story with reference to Cameron’s view (what’s wrong with “Clegg and Cameron go head to head over…..”) …. is it really impartial to list the PMs objections extensively at the top of the article and drop in Nick ‘s arguments much further down the piece?  Maybe it doesn’t matter – but for a BBC that appears obsessive about impartiality this seems a tad..oh how can I say this…biased?

Tags: ban, BBC, David Cameron, electoral reform, Nick Clegg, no to AV, yes to AV

Alcohol poisoning is not an issue for government

The BBC has just announced that an alcohol label campaign has just been launched by the partner of former Stereophonics drummer Stuart Campbell. Campbell died after a heavy drinking session in 2010, choking on his own vomit.

 His partner, Rachel Jones, has launched a campaign aimed at bringing alcohol labels into line with stark warnings on cigarette packets and has secured the help of Llanelli MP Nia Griffith to achieve this. 

On Wednesday Ms Griffith raised the issue with David Cameron during PMQs. Cameron referred her to plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol (a bad piece of policy in my view that will unfairly penalise responsible drinkers on low incomes, whilst leaving  posh middle class kids binge to drink on our streets as before).

But for the Rachel Jones campaign and the Llanelli MP, this is not enough. Calling for for stronger labelling on alcohol,  Ms Griffiths said “If you saw someone drinking a bottle of poison or bleach you would stop them”…”People need to be aware that alcohol – in particular spirits – can lead to death.” 

 The thrust of this campaign is grounded in the belief that people are unaware of the fatal consequences of drinking a large amount of spirits in a short time. It is undoubtedly extremely sad that Stuart Campbell died in wholly avoidable circumstances. But surely, we should look at the bigger picture?According to the Office of National Statistics 179 people died due to accidental alcohol poisoning in 2009 (latest figures available). That sounds like a lot of people. But consider how else people died that year….

The FACTS:

462 people died from complications of medical /surgical care

223 people died in cars hitting a stationary object (a fraction of the total number of car accidents)

431 motorcyclists died in traffic accidents

205 died people drowned

182 people died from inhalation or ingestion of food

….. and so on……

According to the Office of National Statistics, the NHS killed over twice as many people as alcohol poisoning. More people also died from drowning, car and motorcycle accidents; for goodness sake, even FOOD killed more people than a binge drinking session. Are we going to put similar labels on every car, every bathtub and swimming pool, and on the front door of every hospital?

Of course consuming alcohol carries risks. Drunks get behind car steering wheels and kill people. Drunks walk out into the street and get knocked down. Drunks get into fights and kill each other. Drunks go home and beat up their wives and kids. We are also aware that long term heavy drinking can lead to ongoing health issues including liver damage etc..

Almost all of the above are more serious than death by alcohol poisoning. And the idea that a label on a bottle will cut the number of such deaths is just plain fanciful. I have heard (too many times) the line “….if it saves just one life then it will be worth it”. That is just plain wrong. Even if it did “save just one life” – and proving that would be mighty tricky – the cost to the rest of us is simply too high. You just can’t save every person from themselves (there were 3457 suicides in 2009). And the implications of where this might lead next are simply dreadful….leading this government down the same path as the previous government – treating us like incompetent children.

No.Labelling is tackling the problem from the wrong direction. We live in a society that has become increasingly dependent on the government to sort out our problems and our friends, families and neighbours problems. Its time we took a whole lot of that responsibility back.

I heard Rachel Jones on the radio yesterday. She is a genuine person; articulate and yes, courageous, to speak of her loss, and through it, highlight the dangers of binge drinking. But surely her efforts would be better placed using her experience  to encourage people to look after each other a little better. Most of us have been out with mates who have drunk way too much. I have seen good responsible mates take that person in hand, take them back to their place, sit up with them until they have recovered. I have even seen a good friend of mine walk a stranger back to her place one night and sit with her til she had sobered up. That one action probably did save a life.

Doesn’t the answer to death from alcohol poisoning (or rape or assault) lie in a bit more care from everyone of us to our fellow man? That is surely 100 times more effective than a label on a bottle that will be wholly ignored.

I can’t make people care more, or demand that people take more responsibility for those them, nor can the government, but people like Rachel Jones probably can raise awareness to the dangers and persuade us to all be better friends to one another.  That is where she should be putting her efforts, rather than demanding that the Government does something. A harder task but infinitely more effective.

Tags: alcohol labelling, Nia Griffith, Rachel Jones, Stuart Campbell, Think Before You Drink

“No to AV” campaign losing the plot?

Am I the only one I wonder thinking that the “NO to AV” campaign is running into trouble ?

First they bully persuade the BBC that they should not refer to this as “electoral reform” (too positive a word).

Then they discover that “media-darling-of-the-moment” Colin Firth is backing the “YES” campaign.

Then they run quite simply ludicrous ads on Liberal Vision telling our readers why they should vote NO.

Occassionally across the top of the LV site you will see an ad featuring a rather tasty soldier – with the line ..

” He needs bulletproof vests”

Hover your cursor over it (hoping it will tell you why he needs more than one bulletproof vest .. how many vests can you wear at once?)

and it tells you

 “he needs bullet proof vests not an alternative voting system”.

Methinks this sounds rather desperate/sad/unimaginative to suggest that the reason we should say no to AV is because it will cost the country  £250million. Is that really the best reason they can come up with ? Sounds like rather a bargain to spend a measly £250million to get a better voting system.  That’s about £4 each isnt it ? Can’t buy a packet of cigarettes for that. Good grief .

If the main case for the “no” campaign is that it costs £4 per person to implement – then we (the yes campaign)- must be home and hosed. Afterall what are they saying – we should not have had a general election last May because it was too costly ?

Watch out for more public sector worker ads from No to AV along the same lines – well until somebody sensible realises they are a laughing stock and pulls them.

Abuse of the elderly, so who got fired?

My gut reaction, other than revulsion, to yesterday’s story on abuse of the elderly within the NHS was uh oh, ‘research abuse’ and ‘policy by headline’ alert.

Digesting just the headlines,

“Appalling neglect” – Telegraph

“NHS to evict elderly” – Daily Mail 

“Ageist doctors” – Time

and the grim details in the case studies in the Abraham report, this summary from the Daily Mash nails it:

“NHS forcing old people into bare-knuckle boxing”

But how many case studies are covered by the Report?

The answer is ten.

This out of around 1,600 ‘properly made’ complaints to the ombudsman about the treatment of the elderly, itself 18% of the total number made each year.

This in turn is from around 250 million treatments a year, by a staff of just over 1.2m, much of whom work with the elderly given their more frequent and severe health problems.

Even accounting for under-reporting, and issues resolved quietly within hospitals, this Report is not evidence of a trend of abuse by the NHS. 

I cannot then agree with Care Services Minister, Paul Burstow,  when he says

“This report exposes the urgent need to update our NHS.”

The issues are principally about management and practice at an individual level within some hospitals. These complaints and how they are dealt with is an issue of professional not political leadership.

If national policy changes occur as a result of this report, it will be much in line with the emotional spasms of legimania and micro-management that guided the last Labour administration. 

The Coalition would be better advised not to comment as though this is something in their gift to change with initatives. They should instead focus on this follow up piece by the Telegraph, which answers the question in my headline.

“No NHS workers disciplined over neglect of the elderly”

“None of the trusts identified in the report said that any staff had been sacked, demoted or given warnings over their behaviour, although they insisted “lessons had been learned” and in some cases re-training given”

That is a policy issue. One sadly typical of the public sector. It is far too difficult to dismiss incompetent doctors, teachers, police officers and council workers. That in turn the result of decades of political interference in what are professional services, and concessions to unions for a quiet life. Patients don’t go on strike when you ignore them.

That culture and legal protections need to go, as do the staff who think leaving an old man soaking in his own urine is a bit of an oversight, and their managers who think the response to a such a complaint is a training course on ‘respect’.