Today the major story about the Labour Party from the BBC was this:

Desert Island Discs: Miliband brothers’ rift still open

A programme that was always about promoting Miliband and ‘smoothing over’ recent events….as indeed it did…Falkirk..nothing to see there, the Mail’s story about his father’s influence over him….nothing to see there….which is curious really as he admits…

“In modern politics, who you are, who your family is, it’s always going to be relevant and important to people, so it comes with the territory.”

‘Integrity of party’

He added: “We live in a capitalist society – my dad thought you could abolish capitalism, I don’t – but I think it throws up fundamental injustices.

“What motivates me as a politician is you see injustice and you seek to do something about it.”

Owen Jones, in an interview with the BBC,  said that of course he was a Marxist, it would almost be odd if he wasn’t…why?..because four generations had been so inclined and he’d grown up ion a house full of Marxist books.

At least I suppose Jones is honest enough to admit his real political leanings.

However that is digressing…..the BBC’s top story on Labour….a puff for Miliband……

The BBC is completely ignoring Labour’s connections to the Co-op…or rather doing its best to downplay them whilst making the most of Labour’s counter attack on the Tories.

Here they talk of ‘Parties’ but really use the article as an excuse to bash one party, the Tories…just how many times can they mention the ‘nasty party’ or other disparaging remarks in one article?

Parties continue row over Paul Flowers ‘smears’

The Conservatives have been accused of a “return to the nasty party”

The shadow home secretary said there had been a “real deterioration” in the politics pursued by the Tories.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said previous prime ministers would not have linked the revelations to Labour in the way David Cameron has.

“What we’ve seen recently is a real deterioration in the nature of the politics that the Tory party is pursuing,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme.

“It is a return to the nasty party.“

“It is just smear and the politics of the gutter for the Tory party to keep pushing this”.

The “nasty party” phrase was first coined by Home Secretary Theresa May

Whilst the BBC is happy to adopt Labour’s narrative the Daily Mail reports that Labour’s tactics are a desperate bid to hide the truth:

Tories label Ed pathetic as he fumes at Co-op ‘smears’: Labour leader under fire for bid to shift blame over drug banker

‘This is a pathetic attempt to evade the serious issues. Labour have big questions to answer, and when they are asked, they simply try to avoid them by claiming they are smears,’

Here the BBC do manage to find time to report a Tory criticism of the FSA…and by association the Treasury and government…

Co-op Bank crisis: David Davis says ministers should have seen it coming

But is there any investigation into Labour’s connections and shady deals with the Co-op?

Such as this:

Labour Party’s property firm cashed in on cheap loans from Co-op

Opposition’s property portfolio benefited from low rates of interest offered by the bank

The revelation raises fresh questions about Labour’s close relationship with the Co-operative Bank [Not for the BBC though]

LPPL paid 2.88 per cent interest on the loan, according to the company’s 2012 accounts – a far cheaper rate than would typically be offered to property firms on the open market, one expert said.

Interesting that Labour’s response is:

It is a “smear” to call them soft loans, a spokesman said.

Guess Labour has no intention of being open and transparent then.

Wonder what they make of this if they think the last was a ‘smear’?

A commercial mortgage broker who inspected the accounts said: “This is a ratbag collection of second and third-rate properties, and any of my clients would not get money at that rate of interest out of any bank on the face of the planet.

“They are paying half the rate of interest that the rest of us would pay. This is not a genuine arm’s-length transaction – it’s far too cosy. Poor little Co-op bondholders who are taking a haircut should be asking why they are doing it.”

Just why doesn’t the BBC proactively investigate Labour rather than sitting back waiting for Labour Party press releases which the BBC then disseminates for them whilst also undermining the opposition?

Co-op bondholders, pensioners and those with plain old bank accounts at the Co-op must be wondering how the Labour Party are taking them for a ride…..whilst they counted their losses Miliband and Co plundered their assets to fund their Socialist Dream.

Guess Thatcher was right…..

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money “

Labour’s new media strategy:

“It is important to hang a lantern on any media-led campaign against Labour well before the election is called so you do not waste precious campaigning time exposing the motivation behind their attacks, as we were forced to do. Second, enlist allies and third parties to reinforce your message about media bias. Research and publicise the concrete examples early and often. Put together a team to ‘war-game’ possible attacks by hostile media outlets and how to pre-empt them or respond effectively. Utilise social media as a strong alternative means of disseminating your message.

“It is also a very effective medium to lampoon and expose media bias. And enlist their competition to expose bias. Remember, your enemy’s enemy is your friend”.

And remember Ed…the BBC is your best friend!

The BBC has been looking at the NHS, the number of nurses in particular.

This, which might have some relevance, they haven’t looked at:

 ‘Stealth’ pay rises for NHS staff costing £1bn a year

 The NHS is spending almost £1 billion a year on a “stealth” system of automatic pay rises, which have seen some workers’ earnings rise by up to a third in five years, an investigation discloses today.

The system means the cost of employing 1.3 million NHS workers is constantly increasing above inflation.

The system, known as increments, have led to pay increases as high as 45 per cent over the last seven years for some staff without any promotion or improvement in performance.

 More than half of NHS staff received an incremental rise last year, giving an average total rise of 4.5 per cent last year, well above the rate of inflation.
 
The nationally announced pay settlement was a one per cent rise last year.

Last night Dr Dan Poulter, the health minister, said he system was not fair because it meant senior managers gained far more in cash terms than low-paid workers, and was not affordable.

Abolishing the system would allow the NHS to recruit at least 10,000 more front line staff, he suggested.

The BBC asks if there are enough nurses in the NHS and informs us that below a certain number patients will die:

Are there enough nurses in the NHS?

A recent study by the National Nursing Institute seems to confirm this.
It found that half of hospitals are regularly running wards with fewer than one nurse to every eight patients.
The one-to-eight ratio is considered the minimum level – below this research shows that an average-sized hospital could expect to see as many as 20 extra deaths a year.
According to official data from the Health and Social Care Information Centre, there are just under 307,000 midwives and nurses working in England (in terms of full-time equivalent posts).
Once you strip out the midwives, health visitors and school nurses, which are not employed by the NHS, there are about 275,000 nurses working across the health service in both hospitals and community services.
That represents a drop of 6,000 – or 2% – since the election.

This raises two questions…firstly are the BBC’s figures for the number of nurses accurate, secondly are the claims made regarding the effectiveness of certain nurse to patient ratios correct?

Answering the first, it should be noted that getting an accurate number of staff in the NHS seems to be fairly difficult.
The BBC limits it here to the number of nurses in England, full time ones at that…and limits it further specifically to fully qualified nurses…disregarding Health Care Assistants as well as Midwives, despite right at the very end of the article stating that the mix of staff should also be considered.

This is the total NHS figure in 2012 (not just England):
Professionally qualified clinical staff? There were 687,810 professionally qualified clinical staff in the NHS Workforce, an increase of 1,063(0.2%) since 2011.

For the NHS as a whole these figures are relevant and put things in perspective:

2011-2012  the NHS lost 3238 staff members in total.

A total of 8602 non-medical staff were made redundant.  That would indicate that at least 5364 more frontline medical staff were employed.

The number of nurses lost was 2409.…but there were 2239 doctors employed, and 1,063 professionally qualified clinical staff added to the payroll….and 6000 Health Care Assistants have been recruited as well as hundreds of Midwives.

The total figure for nurses lost since 2010 seems to vary….but the usual figure is between 5,000 and 6,000.…but, the BBC does mention…by the end of this financial year the NHS will be employing an extra 3,700 nurses.

Even the government can’t get its figures to add up though, this from Aug 2012:

“There are 2,400 more clinical staff working in the NHS than there were two years ago in May 2010, including over 3,700 more doctors, and over 900 extra midwives. In contrast, the number of admin staff has fallen by over 17,500, creating savings that will be reinvested into frontline patient care.
“Funding will increase by £12.5bn over the next three years, protecting the NHS for the future.”

This from March 2013:
Health minister Dr Dan Poulter said: “These figures are exaggerated. There are now more clinical staff in the NHS than in 2010, including around 5,500 more doctors, 1,300 more midwives and more than 900 more health visitors. In contrast, the number of admin staff has fallen by over 18,000, and the money saved put back into frontline patient care.

But no doubt qualified nursing jobs have gone.

It should be noted though that highly qualified nurses are not needed for all the tasks that patients need to have done for them….these can be done by the HCA’s, allowing the qualified nurses to concentrate on the patients with the most need…thereby possibly improving care.

So you have to look at the whole picture…which the BBC doesn’t.

Also whilst nurses leave the NHS they are not lost to nursing…and in fact are often still employed, via private companies, by the NHS, often providing care in the community.
Midwives should not have been dismissed by the BBC here either….for if they provide services in the community that means mothers to be don’t have to go to hospital…and therefore fewer nurses are required in hospital:

NHS figures reveal 5,000 fewer nurses since 2010
Trade unions and Labour blame drop on coalition’s cuts, but figures may also reflect nursing moving to private firms or charities.
The drop in nursing numbers is significant because it represents in part a shift from state employment to working for private companies and charities. Nursing is moving out of hospitals and into the community, where staff work for private firms or the voluntary sector but are paid for by the NHS.

The BBC article paints the loss of nurses as a bad thing…telling us that below a certain nurse staffing level and…an average-sized hospital could expect to see as many as 20 extra deaths a year.

So the next thing is to ascertain whether claims about the nurse/patient ratio are correct.

The figures on which the BBC is basing its report comes essentially from a single piece of research in the USA, in California, where they made it  law to maintain a certain ratio of nurses to patients.

These are some qualifications in that research itself which might be relevant but again the BBC doesn’t mention them:

Our study is cross sectional and we cannot establish causality in the associations we observe.

Although our data are cross sectional and lack baseline measures, our positive findings are bolstered by other research showing improved nurse staffing in California hospitals between 2004 and 2006 (Bolton et al. 2007) and increases in satisfaction of California nurses between 2004 and 2006 (Spetz2008

There is little evidence in the research literature that having more unlicensed personnel in hospitals adversely affects patient outcomes.

So no causality, no baseline and little evidence elsewhere.  

Here is the Royal College of Nursing’s take on the report:

The potential consequences of such ‘compromised’ care were made explicit in recent research (Aiken et al., 2010) which found that lower patient per nurse ratios (as a result of mandated minimum staffing levels in California) were associated with significantly lower mortality rates.

Put bluntly, the research concludes that fewer patients die in hospitals with better nurse staffing levels.

But here is a report on that research from Bristol University in the UK in 2012, ignored by one and all, and the BBC:

New study reveals increasing nurse-to-patient ratios do not extend patient safety
Press release issued 27 February 2012

We evaluate the impact of California Assembly Bill 394, which mandated maximum levels of patients per nurse in the hospital setting……We find persuasive evidence that AB394 had the intended effect of decreasing patient/nurse ratios in hospitals that previously did not meet mandated standards.
However, these improvements in staffing ratios do not appear to be associated with relative improvements in measured patient safety in affected hospitals.

A study into the effects of a law requiring increased nurse-to-patient ratios on patient mortality finds that mandating such changes do not reduce adverse patient outcomes.
Dr Andrew Cook, lead author of the study, said:  “Our findings suggest that mandating nurse-to-patient ratios, on its own, does not lead to improved patient safety.”
Martin Gaynor added: “While we do not find evidence that the regulation improved patient safety, that does not necessarily mean that nurse staffing levels are unimportant.  Improved nurse staffing might be crucial in improving patient safety, but only in combination with other elements. It is important that analysts, policy-makers, and healthcare providers sort out these important issues.”

And there are many more doubters:

Many registered nurses believe that nurse staffing in acute care hospitals is inadequate. In 1999 California became the first state to mandate minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals. State officials announced draft ratios in January 2002 and expect to implement the legislation by July 2003. We estimate that the direct costs of compliance will be small. However, mandatory ratios could generate opportunity costs that are not easily measured and that may outweigh their benefits. Policymakers elsewhere should consider other strategies to address nurses’ concerns, because other approaches may be less costly and produce greater benefits to nurses and patients.

A key finding from this synthesis is that the implementation of minimum nurse-to-patient ratios reduced the number of patients per licensed nurse and increased the number of worked nursing hours per patient day in hospitals. Another finding is that there were no significant impacts of these improved staffing measures on measures of nursing quality and patient safety indicators across hospitals. A critical observation may be that adverse outcomes did not increase despite the increasing patient severity reflected in case mix index.

We find persuasive evidence that AB394 had the intended effect of decreasing patient/nurse ratios in hospitals that previously did not meet mandated standards. However, these improvements in staffing ratios do not appear to be associated with relative improvements in measured patient safety in affected hospitals.

What is certain is that more nurses means a happier staff as noted by all reports…naturally I suppose…a lighter workload is going to make life easier and more manageable with some benefits all round….less stress and less burnout.

Here is the RCN’s look at staffing levels from 2009:

A key theme in the 2006 RCN ward staffing level guidance was the recommendation that skill-mix on acute wards should not be more dilute than the benchmark average of 65 per cent registered nurses
A large-scale RCN survey of 9,000 nurses in 2009 (Ball and Pike, 2009) found that on average NHS hospital wards have a ratio of eight patients per registered nurse during the daytime, and 11 at night (see Table 5.1). Across all specialties, on average 5.4 nursing staff are on duty during the daytime – roughly three RNs and two HCAs/auxiliaries per ward

So the average Registered Nurse ratio was around 9 patients per nurse in 2009.…the ratio the BBC tells us is ‘acceptable’ on average is 8 to 1.

The BBC discounts the number of other staff, such as HCA’s, helping…and with those on hand the ratio drops to around 5 patients per staff member….well below the 8-1 ratio.

The HCA’s do much of the lower skilled work thereby allowing the more qualified nurses to deal with patients who have the most serious problems rather than having such highly qualified nurses running around emptying bed pans etc.

So for the BBC to just make a blanket claim that a ratio of 1 nurse to 8 patients saves lives doesn’t give a full and sophisticated explanation of the mix of skills that could be used on a ward.

Here is a brief summary of the research from California:

Aitken and colleagues compared outcomes from common surgeries in the three states. Nurses in California care for an average of one fewer patient per shift, and these lower ratios have sizable associations with surgical mortality.After adjusting for extensive patient and hospital characteristics, the investigators found that better nurse staffing was associated with a decreased risk of 30-day mortality and failure-to-rescue. The effect of adding an additional patient to hospital nurse workloads increased the odds of a patient dying by 13% in California, 10% in New Jersey, and 6% in Pennsylvania. The effects of increased workloads on failure-to-rescue were similar. The investigators then estimated how many fewer deaths would have occurred in New Jersey and Pennsylvania from 2005-2006 if those hospitals had the same nurse staffing ratios as California.

The findings suggest 222 fewer surgical deaths, (a 13.9% reduction) in New Jersey, and 264 fewer surgical deaths, (a 10.6% reduction) in Pennsylvania. Thus, in the two states alone, 486 lives might have been saved among general surgery patients in a two-year period if the hospitals adopted California nurse staffing levels.

Although this study cannot draw cause-and-effect conclusions, it strongly suggests that better nurse staffing is associated with better nurse and patient outcomes.

Here is the actual study and its own conclusions:

Implications of the California nurse staffing mandate for other states.

We have tried to minimize this source of potential bias by obtaining reports from nurses in states without legislation and by using in-dependent patient data to validate the better outcomes for California hospitals. Our study is cross sectional and we cannot establish causality in the associations we observe.

Although our data are cross sectional and lack baseline measures, our positive findings are bolstered by other research showing improved nurse staffing in California hospitals between 2004 and 2006 (Bolton et al. 2007) and increases in satisfaction of California nurses between 2004 and 2006 (Spetz2008

There is little evidence in the research literature that having more unlicensed personnel in hospitals adversely affects patient outcomes.

When we use the predicted probabilities of dying from our adjusted models to estimate how many fewer deaths would have occurred in New Jersey and Pennsylvania hospitals if the average patient-to-nurse ratios in those hospitals had been equivalent to the average ratio across the California hospitals, we get 13.9 percent (222/1,598) fewer surgical deaths in New Jersey and 10.6 percent (264/2,479) fewer surgical deaths in Pennsylvania

This is the important bit where they lay out what they conclude are the odds on a patient dying if one more patient is added to the nurses’ workload:
The effect of adding an additional patient to hospital nurse workloads increases the odds on patients dying by a factor of 1.13 in California, 1.10 in New Jersey, and by a factor of 1.06in Pennsylvania. The effects of increased workloads on FTR were substantially similar, with odds ratios of 1.15 in California, 1.10 in New Jersey, and 1.06 in Pennsylvania.

What that says is that in California the odds of you dying are actually greater than in States where they don’t have mandatory ratios when you add one more patient to the nurses’ workload.

This proves that mandatory ratios save lives?……

That might seem odd…..but I can only assume that because the death rate in States with higher ratios is already higher than in California one more patient will make little difference to the odds of you dying…if the odds are already, for example, 100%, then you can’t really get much worse can you?

But then you look at the figures and the Californian odds are a factor of 1.13 as opposed to 1.10 or 1.06…..very marginal differences.

As suggested above the cost effectiveness of employing highly trained nurses may be less than adopting other measures that will also save lives…possibly more lives……mandatory ratios could generate opportunity costs that are not easily measured and that may outweigh their benefits. Policymakers elsewhere should consider other strategies to address nurses’ concerns, because other approaches may be less costly and produce greater benefits to nurses and patients.

What isn’t in doubt is that more nurses/HCA’s reduces the workload on them and must reduce stress and ‘burnout’……whether that is a factor to consider is one any employer has to think about….but the BBC is presenting this as a life and death matter….that maybe each hospital could see 20 extra deaths per year if they don’t adopt these lower ratios….but only mentions qualified nurses…without considering the mix of skills that could actually be utilised cost effectively for the same health outcomes….telling us that:

…half of hospitals are regularly running wards with fewer than one nurse to every eight patients.

But as seen from the chart above that isn’t the true picture when other staff are considered who also help with patients….and right at the end the BBC admits….

But it is not just about numbers. Skill mix is important too.

The support they receive from healthcare assistants varies too.

Some do no nursing roles, while others have been trained to change dressings and monitor a patient’s vital signs.

As in any work environment a mix of experienced and junior staff is needed.

But that is after a long article which is essentially a promotion of the higher ratio of qualified nurses to patient concept.

In other words the article is highly misleading and, well, wrong about its central claim….at least based on much contrary evidence and the less than certain evidence of the research all this is based on….a study which admits there was no causality, no baseline and little evidence elsewhere to say that staff, like HCA’s, were detrimental to patient outcomes.

Well then, after months of private talks, Obama and the seven dwarfs cut a deal with the Mullahs. It’s been fascinating listening to the BBC cover this with Israel (and even Saudi) being instantly positioned as the bad guys because they think this has been a terrible deal. The BBC have idolised Obama for years – he’s their new JFK – and so they are very cute to use all types of language that implies it is somehow unreasonable to take issue with the outcome of the Kerry-led negotiation, even when the Iranian Foreign Minister instantly goes on TV to declare that Iran can almost instantly reverse the deal if it chooses to do so. I heard Jeremy Bowen on the Today programme talk about this “potentially momentous” deal with little regard to the central fact that the Mullahs have played Obama just like Russia played Obama, just liked Assad played Obama, just like the Muslim Brotherhood played Obama. The hamfisted approach taken by the Obama regime to foreign policy matters is given a pass by the comrades at the BBC and I suppose if in doing so they can beat up a little further on Israel then that is a double win?

Morning all. Here we go – a fresh week to expose the odious bias from the State Broadcaster! Off you go and keep it forensic….

The BBC has been caught out several times using photographs that were not actually photographs of what they were claimed to be of.

Very often they have come by way of ‘Social Media’.

The BBC assures us here how careful they are to verify such images or information that comes from user generated content:

Altered Images Questioning whether cameras never lie

BBC News receives photos every day from people across the world, many purporting to show unfolding events. Trushar Barot, of the BBC’s user generated content team, says there are two aspects to verifying whether images are genuine – technical checks and editorial judgement.

“There are several tools we use to help us assess image data, including whether an image is an original or whether it has been manipulated digitally. We’ll also look for visual clues that we can cross reference, for example the weather, the location, number plates, signs, language and so on. We do reverse image searches to see if the images appear elsewhere on the web to help us track their origin.

“Editorially, we’ll start from a point of scepticism, posing the question ‘Is this image too good to be true?’ We’ll analyse the context of the image and the motives behind why it might have been uploaded on the web at that time. We will also seek to cross-reference what the image purports to show against official or verified sources, such as news agencies or with our own teams on the ground.”

The BBC has no such qualms though when it comes to reporting that a whole nation might be ‘racist’ on the evidence of a few Tweets from a Muslim in Norway:

The tweet that sparked a debate over racism in Norway

Well…not sure if it was a debate…more a witch hunt by the sounds of things.

Things of course are different here, we like to debate sensitive subjects openly…..

When Dominic Grieve suggested that Pakistani’s were prone to corruption, more prone than perhaps other communities, he has had to back down and apologise:

Dominic Grieve ‘sorry’ for minority corruption remark

….as out came the usual ‘victims’ who are all highly ‘offended’ …..

Dominic Grieve is a v clever man. Hope he realises his sweeping generalisation is wrong, has caused huge offence & unequivocally apologises

— Sadiq Khan (@SadiqKhan) November 23, 2013

As a British Pakistani I find your comments not based on fact and deeply alienating and offensive @Dominc Grieve.

— Sajjad Karim MEP (@SHKMEP) November 23, 2013

So no ‘sparking of a debate’ there then about corruption imported from abroad…or anything else by way of foreign culture imported from abroad that is detrimental to good order in this country.

You can see why debate might be unwelcome in some quarters……

‘Is the BBC biased?’  does it’s usual good job in looking at ‘Sunday Morning Live’ which examines immigration…..

Is immigration good for Britain?

Recent reports have suggested that immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a “substantial” contribution to public finances and immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain. 

So are immigrants actually good for Britain? You can have your say by voting online now and then by text when the programme is on air.

Note the  reference is to a report that is highly positive about immigration….one that spins the figures in Sir Andrew Green’s words.

And the outcome?

Can you guess what the result of this morning’s Sunday Morning Live poll result was, when the question put was:

Is immigration good for Britain?

Of course you can.

It was inevitable:

11% said ‘yes, immigration is good for Britain’

89% said ‘no, immigration is not good for Britain’

Yes…I guess the BBC is right not to trust that user generated content…they just don’t vote the way you want them to!

The BBC never seem to tire of Owen Jones….they must think he has something worthwhile to say….well, not so far.

Right, doing #bbcpapers on the BBC news channel with @neilwallis1 at 10.30 and 11.30. Time in if you like. Otherwise, well, don't

— Owen Jones???? (@OwenJones84) November 20, 2013

On @BBCFreeSpeech on BBC 3 at 8 with an eclectic panel debating everything from the political elite to foreign aid

— Owen Jones???? (@OwenJones84) November 20, 2013

Karl Marx in London: Owen Jones on Marxism

He pops up again on the Beeb, this time his derivative Marxist pap on the prestigious RTS Huw Weldon Memorial Lecture:

Totally Shameless: How TV Portrays the Working Class

From Little Britain’s Vicky Pollard to the Jeremy Kyle Show to toxic documentaries on ‘feckless scroungers’ – writer and broadcaster Owen Jones argues that this growing strain of malevolent British TV programming denigrates the working class.

Of course that is how the working class are always portrayed by TV:

It’s a shame that a person who propagates an ideology that is so old and so discredited, one that has caused so much death and misery in the world, not least for the ‘working classes’ he pretends to speak for, should be given such a platform, the respect for which can only lend ‘authority’ to Jones in future and give his Marxist ramblings credibility.

Jones cleverly limits his outrage, crocodile tears some might say, to the TV’s depiction of the  ‘working class’, to ‘Chavs’ in particular….because of course TV only mocks Chavs…upper class twits or ‘exploiters’ of the poor, or middle class pretentions are never ridiculed by TV…

Safe ground he calculates, lucrative ground, Jones is the ‘Wonga’ of the ‘Wonks’, a poverty parasite…making a splendid living whilst ‘helping’ the poorest in society out…knowing he will get immediate approval for his pious grandstanding ….and so it proves with a very rewarding career, built like the Cathedrals of old, on the sweated labour of the very Chavs he says he is speaking up for….to the Glory of Owen.

Vicky Pollard… her story is actually a bit of an inspirational one….she used to be a bit of a tearaway however she has turned her life around:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MatUG_xTMg

And the posh birds don’t get the same treatment do they?

The trouble is, and the reason why the BBC should think twice before giving him so much prime air time,  Jones is a Labour Party stooge…he works for the Unite union, which of course is the principle backer and influential policy ‘adviser’, to Miliband.

As Guido tells us: he is a paid lobbyist for UNITE the union and as such he should be registered. When Guido called his CLASS think-tank recently the phone was answered by someone who said “CLASS or UNITE business?” It is just a lobbying front for Red Len…

When Miliband has staked his political future on being seen as the man who can put an end to his so called ‘living standard’s crisis’,  to have Owen Jones continually invited onto the BBC to promote that idea, whilst not admitting his close ties to Labour, is verging on the dishonest.

Class seeks to shape ideas that can inspire the trade union movement, cement a broad alliance of social forces and influence policy development to ensure the political agenda is on the side of working people.

National Advisory Panel Owen Jones advises Class on policy direction.

Jones doesn’t like how the ‘Working Class’ are portrayed…but he’s not above shutting down debate and labelling those who disagree with him…’demonising’ trolls….despite all those appearances on BBC’s ‘Freespeech’ programme…..

Where's the best place to be a woman? See our gender gap map of the world http://t.co/kX4vjoAdev #100Women pic.twitter.com/KlSD5pbfsn

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) October 25, 2013

The World Economic Forum has produced a ranking for women’s position and influence in societies around the world. (page 16)

The UK ranks  18th, one below South Africa, whilst Japan ranks 105 and Kazakstan 32….and France 45, Israel 53.

The BBC is quick to make sure you know that:

The G20 group of leading industrial nations has no representative in the top 10, nor do the Middle East or Africa.

That was undoubtedly just in case you were thinking that Islamic countries were oppressive regimes for women….Western Democracies are too…..what the BBC doesn’t point out is the massive gap between those G20 countries and ‘The Middle East’ as it coyly names the offending regimes.

Just by coincidence there’s this map of the world’s religions in the Daily Mail:

Remarkable similarity.

As mentioned before…The BBC working hand in hand with Labour to massage Miliband’s image….and we all know Marxists love ‘the family’…..about as much as the BBC does.

We’ve had the Newsnight ‘Milibandism’ party political broadcast and now this clip from Desert Island Discs (full version on Monday).

Guess now that Miliband’s ally at the top of the Co-op is no longer available for donations the BBC has stepped up with its donations ‘in kind’.

The BBC’s trail shows exactly what the intention of this charade is:

Ed Miliband: ‘Parents welcomed us into politics’

Ed Miliband has attributed his interest in politics to his parents, in a programme for BBC Radio 4.

The Labour leader spoke to Kirsty Young for an edition of Desert Island Discs, which is due to air on Sunday.

In October, Mr Miliband called for an apology from the Daily Mail newspaper, after it published an article about his late father, Ralph, entitled ”The Man Who Hated Britain.”

In a contrast to the BBC’s take on East European immigration here is the Daily Mail’s:

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A million of our young out of work, dictatorship by Brussels and why Mr Cameron can no longer ignore the people on immigration

In less than six weeks, unless there is a decisive Government U-turn, Britain, as required by the European Union, will throw open its jobs market to the 29 million citizens of Romania and Bulgaria.

It’s a development which could have the most considerable implications for the Prime Minister, British society and, most importantly, this country’s one million unemployed young people.

Yet David Cameron and his ministers are approaching January 1 with a head-in-the-sand insouciance which is so sadly typical of a political class that is increasingly remote from the lives and concerns of ordinary voters.

Incredibly, the Government has refused to estimate how many migrants will arrive. 

This week, Mark Harper, the Immigration Minister, said — with frightening complacency — that he didn’t think the number would be huge.

In doing so, he ignored hard empirical evidence that a new wave of immigration is about to take place that will place huge strain on our already stretched schools, hospitals and housing.

Consider the facts: the average wage in Britain is about £26,000 a year, compared with just over £3,000 in Bulgaria and £4,000 in Romania. It’s utterly unsurprising that, when the Mail visited both countries recently, there were huge queues at recruitment centres for British hotel chains, fast-food firms and the NHS.

Even before the restrictions are lifted, 135,000 workers from Romania and Bulgaria are already in this country. This number has increased by 23,000 in the past year alone.

So now we know…. the BBC told us that moving production out of London was providing jobs for Taxi drivers and hairdressers:

Host David Dimbleby was forced to apologise to viewers as panelists Labour Peer Baroness Bakewell – formerly TV presenter Joan Bakewell – and blogger Tim Stanley were left stranded in a stricken train. Their train was diverted because of a trackside fire near Tamworth which caused widespread disruption to Virgin services on the West Coast mainline.

Should have put the taxi driver on the panel to fill in….talk more sense than little old Russell ever does.