On a break

So the New year resolution was to write a blog a month and of course, I immediately wondered what on Earth I should choose as a topic to set the standard high enough to keep interesting but not so amazing I'd never top it.

And so it is with surprise that I bid a grand thank you to Richard and Judy, and their delightful article in the Daily Express on Saturday:

RISKING A BABY'S LIFE FOR LUNCH

West Midlands Ambulance Service’s finest continued to munch their lunch after a six-week-old baby boy suffered a heart attack. His family dialled 999 but had to wait 41 minutes for an ambulance to come, because a crew were on their break and couldn’t be interrupted.

A spokesman for the West Midlands Ambulance Service says that staff work 12-hour shifts and ‘have the right to request’ that their breaks are not disturbed. So the shift in question didn’t even know about the 999 call until they’d wiped their mouths.
Undisturbed lunch breaks? Even if that means a baby might die while you’re finishing off your Muller Fruit Corner, guys? Really?
If you believe that, you’re in the wrong bloody job, the lot of you.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370313

This is an excerpt on an opinion piece by some experts in daytime entertainment. When you pick away at their words it becomes clear that the actual gist of the story is not quite as clear cut. I think it essentially boils down to there not being an available ambulance rather than a crew actively rejecting to "save a baby's life" as so artfully depicted in the article. It's probably worth noting that the child in question didn't die.

Now you might want to argue, just like Richard and Judy, that a baby is more important than a sandwich. But then it's easy to simplify things down to a simple black-and-white choice like that and sit back in your armchair, content that the world has been put to rights. 

The article itself notes that the paramedic crew in question were unaware of the nature of the call when it went out, or even that one had gone out. I would bet anything that their Muller Corner would have been cast aside and the blue lights flicked on immediately if they had known. Not that it would have made any difference to this child... who was still alive at the time of writing.

For me the issue is a bigger one of taking a "break" and the notion that this might not be considered acceptable. Forgetting about the legal aspects of taking a break at work, working a 12 hour day, where you might have to try to save a baby's life, rush a stroke victim for treatment, talk a suicidal person out of their intentions... or indeed pick up a drunk teenager; it seems reasonable that you'd want that paramedic team to be at the top of their game and that having some food and drink in that time would be a good idea. It's not as if the job allows you to eat whilst you work - the one-handed CPR whilst chowing down on a chicken wrap technique has yet to be developed.

It's not just about the nutritional elements though - the amount of things a paramedic has to see and deal with in a day, and the amount of abuse they get for it - means the break time is a stop to take stock and psychologically re-adjust. Knowing you have some time to yourself is an important element of that healing. 

London Ambulance Service - Staff perspective

"Day in the Life of a London Paramedic" - video - BBC News

To be pedantic, if we follow Richard & Judy's ill-thought logic out, must we ask all trained paramedics to remain at work, without stopping, until there are no more 999 calls to answer? Should we join them in a crusade to breate anyone who does not use their skills 24 hours a day, 365 days a year regardless of their own personal welfare? 

I wonder how Judy would feel about doing such a job?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/judy-finnigan-says-she-doesnt-miss-1520878 

Oh right.

Let's be clear, I don't support the idea of laziness. But I do think that we shouldn't hound healthcare workers for doing something that is both legal and sensible, and in the best interests of the population as a whole. There are plenty of decisions that have to be made that will not suit everybody, all of the time and to take the long view, I would rather have an ambulance service of focussed and mentally sharp paramedics than an overworked, tired and berated one. In Richard's ideal world, I'm not sure many school leavers are going to be jumping for the career of a paramedic, where crimes such as going to the toilet or an inability to work for twelve hours constantly at a time (maintaining excellent driving and clinical skills, of course) are inexcusable.

One question that the Ambulance Trust will be trying to answer and explain though is the length of time it took to respond - why was there no crew available. Perhaps rather than blame the Ambulance Trust, we should turn and look at ourselves. Every so often, a story like this will appear, reminding us of those who feel the emergency service is their personal private direct line to sort out any element of their life.  (Just out of coincidence, the man who calls 999 in the Guardian article for his pigeon was from the Midlands... where the crews in the Express article were allegedly busy). 

This isn't about a sandwich. It's easy to take this solitary situation, without any knowledge of the greater context in which that situation was just one part. The very same West Midlands Ambulance Trust dealt with just under 2000 calls in the 8 hours over New Year - that's an astonishing 250 calls an hour or about one every 15 seconds. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20881278]. In another story from last year, the number of attacks on paramedic staff in the West Midlands in 2012 was 210. This does not sound like a service that is sitting back eating yoghurts, but one that is working pretty hard. This is an ambulance service that is so busy it is struggling to see an ill baby, which is almost certainly a high priority call (http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Emergencyandurgentcareservices/Pages/Ambulanceservices.aspx). Despite all that though, let's not forget that the "victim" at the core of this story is actually ok.

So to re-write the headline, "Baby lives thanks to work of local Ambulance Trust so busy paramedics made to feel guilty for eating a meal"

Oh, and to all aspiring journalists out there, and I include our favourite telly couple in that category, I spent about 5 minutes doing these searches to find the information about West Midlands Ambulance - shame good old Richard and Judy didn't have just five minutes to spare to do their jobs properly. 

Perhaps they were on a break.

  


  

New Year Resolutions

Let's see how we get on with these, but good to have goals right?!

1. I will aim to write at least one blog post per month with a vague theme of NHS politics. I mean, at almost 4000 views, this (http://seb-pillon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/fair-not-preferential-treatment-for-all.html) did pretty well.
2. To take up a new active hobby - likely to be climbing and/or ballroom dancing
3. To visit Slovenia again (http://www.slovenia.info/) - let me know if you'd like to go!
4. To buy a new suit for one of the 2 weddings of lovely friends I have this year
5. To send Christmas cards

Some nice Slovenian Olympians!

So London 2012 is not far away and whilst I'll of course be supporting Team GB, it's nice to look at some of my favourite (and often) small nations and see who they're sending...

Peter Mankoč - Swimming

http://www.london2012.com/athlete/mankoc-peter-1119698/
One of Slovenia's best swimmers.

 

Aljaž Sedej - Judo

http://www.london2012.com/athlete/sedej-aljaz-1119735/

Klemen Strajhar - Archery

http://www.london2012.com/athlete/strajhar-klemen-1119756/

 Peter Kauzer - Canoe Slalom

 Slovenian Sportsman of the Year 2011!

Go Team Slovenia!

Are doctors' pensions too generous?

Are doctor's pensions too generous? asks The Guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jun/21/are-doctors-pensions-too-generous?fb=native

A key point that the wonderful world of media seems oblivious too today is that "doctors'" pensions are no different than any other NHS worker: so that includes porters, nurses, lab workers, radiographers, secretaries, managers and chief executives (some of whom may have chosen not to opt for the NHS pension).

There is no such entity as "the doctors' pension"

Doctors have chosen and voted to take action today, but their actions, if successful, would safeguard pension arrangements for many NHS workers. I'm not going to be all one-sided about this - it will include higher-paid NHS workers earning the same as doctors. Nevertheless, doctors do make up a high proportion of well-paid NHS staff so stand to lose more than other groups that can't earn as much. For those naive patients thinking doctors are the best paid, think again - there are plenty of advanced and senior nurses earning as much and more as many junior doctors; some nurse consultant pay rivals that of medical consultants.

It's obviously a lot easier to vilify the minority of doctors who earn hundreds of thousands of pounds (just like all MPs were tarnished by the expenses scandal which was perpetrated by a minority of greedy MPs) than it is to actually bother to gather some facts, or at least some doctors who are representative of the whole debate. In our TOWIE/Kim Kardashian/"Look at me!" world, it's often whoever shouts loudest who gets their point across, rather than a sensible insult-free individual.

Take a listen here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18537655

Dr Wendy Noble makes an admirable attempt to explain the BMA and doctor's opinion, but is it really in any doubt what the interviewer's position is?

I'm perhaps not surprised; a few weeks ago, the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail emailed adverts looking for "doctors who oppose the strike" which ended up on Doctors.net.uk.

Media reporting

Something that really frustrates me about news and media is they way that few journalists are able to approach a situation from a neutral point of view. To try and balance this, they will often try to have two points of view, which supposedly makes a story "balanced" - the trouble with the BMA day of action is that it's easy to drag a member of the Patient's Association and present them as some learned source of information as to why "doctors pensions" are wrong.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients' Association, said: 'The only people who will lose out in this are patients.

'Every extra day that someone waits in pain for an operation or treatment is a day too long.'

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/902742-just-eight-per-cent-of-nhs-doctors-in-england-take-part-in-strike#ixzz1yRmhyo4x

This kind of reporting makes my blood boil. This comment is idiotic on two fronts: firstly, no-one can disagree with the sentence (i.e. NO-ONE wants anyone else to suffer, do they?), but that doesn't make it particularly more relevant to today's action than on any other day. Secondly, the BMA and participating doctors have done their utmost to make today as disruption free as possible. Has any media outlet read the BMA press release?!

 The debate around this one comment is massive, but for me boils down to: if you want a free healthcare service within a limited budget, sometimes instant and all-encompassing care matched to whatever a self-defined patient will be impossible. The whole UK population needs to be considered, and that means everyone can't have what they want. If the PA or anyone else wants a system where there is true 24/7 healthcare, then someone somewhere is going to have to pay more for it.

I've just seen the BBC 6 o'clock news headlines, and predictably they've found a patient whose routine operation has been postponed (I doubt very much it was cancelled as stated). But good old North West Tonight, actually using a neutral phrase; "What impact has the action had?"

A tangled issue

You'll notice from my blogs that it is so easy to veer off and start discussing the meta-issue that is the very nature of the NHS itself. I haven't done a poll but base this comment on discussions with my own colleagues, but for many taking part in action today, the treating of the NHS as a big-old political game of Theme Hospital has engendered many negative feelings. The pensions dispute is simply the match to the well prepared fire-bed.

So are doctors' pensions too generous?

There's a nice graph at the bottom of this BBC news story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18523896

It shows how doctors earn more in their pension than anyone else they are compared to. I don't know what figures have been used to create this graph, and so it's hard to comment on it. I imagine that with the right amount of selection, I could also create a graph that shows doctors earn more than the Queen, Apple and the Chinese Space Agency.

It's quite a hard question that I'm still wrestling with. Just how do you compare doctors to nurses to judges to MPs to teachers to Tube drivers to the unemployed?
 It's complicated because public sector workers typically earn less than their private sector counterparts, in return for better job security and benefits such as pensions. The frequent comparison with private sector pensions is unhelpful - private doctors who have to have private pensions earn more in their day job so can afford more pension contributions.

For me, it boils down to fairness. Why don't we make all public sector pensions equitable - i.e. all public sector workers pay a fixed proportion of their wage into a scheme, with no differentiation between NHS staff, government staff or teachers? If it's fair for NHS staff, then it should be fair for civil servants too. The fact that it isn't says a lot to me about Andrew Lansley's views of NHS staff (and that's for another blog).

What do you think?

Tell your MP, and why not ask them what pension they will get, at what age and how much they need to pay into it. And then ask your GP the same. That way, you make up your own mind and not rely on the Daily Mail to tell you.

Fair, not preferential, treatment for all

That is, after all, what the NHS is founded upon right? That everyone in Britain gets the same treatment within the NHS, the general principle being that healthcare is a right to be enjoyed and respected by all, regardless of their background.


So why are "greedy" doctors asking for "more" pensions then? 


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160422/Doctors-Strike--100-000-pension-deals-1m-property-portfolios.html


Let's get one thing straight - you don't become a doctor in the UK if you want to be rich. Why? Well because of the NHS, there is limited scope for private practice, so there are relatively few doctors who can practise privately, especially once you leave Greater London. This is important because it is in private practice, where you can do as many clinically unneccessary tests and have multiple (chargeable) follow-up appointments as you are willing to pay for.

Without banging on about it too much, for those that think lots of tests and appointments "must be a good thing", ask yourself why, in the USA, where this is commonplace, is the President, who is hardly doing well in popularity polls, is so keen to make the healthcare system more like our beloved NHS? Because sometimes less is more. The NHS is, contrary to the daily newspapers, actually pretty good at stopping people dying, and making their lives healthier, and it does it all within a budget that other countries envy!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/17/us-healthcare-industry-waste-costs 


Becoming a doctor is quite an expensive pursuit.

Once you have paid your fees to become a doctor after at least 5 years as a medical student (and remember, the Government is considering making medicine a graduate-only degree, potentially adding a further 2-3 years) you will be in debt to a MINIMUM of five to eight years of £9000/year; an eye-watering £45 000 - £72 000. And that doesn't include the living costs associated with those years of study.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18128637 


Once you have your medical degree, you'll then need to pay £420 a year to the General Medical Council, who are there to reprimand you if you do something wrong. Handy for the public, who can take on bad doctors without incurring personal cost (and thereby getting rid of the bad doctors), but not exactly a cheap "luxury" (GMC fees are not tax-deductable) item.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/fees.asp 


After two years of training as a Foundation Doctor, where pay has been frozen for several years;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/20/unions-pay-rise-nhs-2013 

and had the useful benefit of free accomodation (admittedly of a poor standard) removed, you get to apply for specialist training. 


This could be 3 years for a GP, 7 years for a paediatrician or 6 years for a psychiatrist. To become a specialist, you need to sit some pretty hard exams; again good news if you're a patient needing an operation, but another dent in your wage (that again, is not tax-deductible and considered a luxury by Inland Revenue). For a GP, the exam fees and regisration fee to be allowed to actually do the training cost about £3000 spread over three years.

http://www.rcgp.org.uk/new_professionals/associates_in_training/ait_membership/faqs.aspx 

 One of the psychiatry examinations costs nearly £2000 and has a pass rate that has never been above 50% (meaning most people need at least two tries to complete it).

It's a cost in time, as well as money.

As a junior doctor, you will be covered under the European Working Time Directive, which means your rota cannot exceed an average of 48 hours per week (That's the equivalent of a 6 1/2 day week for a sandard, say civil servant, office worker). It doesn't neccessarily work out that cleanly; I've been rostered for 52 hours 2 weeks ago, then 50 hours last week and will work 60 hours this week. And of course, it's most days where I leave 30-60 minutes after I'm supposed to, and having a 20 minute "break" where I eat my lunch whilst on the computer of telephone is a luxury.

During this training period before becoming a consultant, it is entirely plausible that you might have to move from locations classed within the same area every six months, with less than 6 weeks notice of this. Where I work, doctors might be working in Whitehaven (Cumbria) one day, and starting in Macclesfield (Cheshire) the next (a nice 150 mile journey covering 4 counties):

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&gl=uk&saddr=whitehaven&daddr=macclesfield&dirflg=d&geocode=Kde5vSvALWNIMRL-TK4zWNyp%3BKRFnYpMINnpIMZmOB5-SZOLB&ei=iJHfT_GsKcr28gOm_dG-Cw&ved=0CAsQ9w8wAA

And let's not add in the other costs incurred by being a junior doctor: stethoscopes, medical torches, pens, petrol, mandatory uniforms, parking,  and all sorts of things you don't have to provide in the private sector.

Ok, so you get the idea. Being a junior doctor is like, so totally hard okay yah?! The sceptics among you will be wondering then if it's all just a whinge, because we're actually all earning hundreds of thousands of pounds. I'm not sure I do... I'm four years into my training now and take home about £27 000 after tax. Pretty good for a graduate job, but do some maths based upon my hours and it isn't quite the golden handshake Andrew Lansley would have you believe. A benefit to working 6 and half days a week as standard is that you don't really have much time for a life outside of your job in which to spend your money, which is handy to pay off all those loans and fees.

So why on earth would anyone put themselves through this? Well, there's a light at the end of the tunnel. As a GP, I could typically work from 0730-1830 four and half days a week, woohoo! I'll earn more for this, obviously, and only partly because I'll be working more hours than I do now. As a GP, I will be personally responsible for thousands of people's lives. Believe me, when you're making life and death decisions every 10 minutes, it can sometimes be a bit hard to sleep at night, a single off-moment could prove disastrous. It happens, occassionally, but perhaps not as often as the Daily Mail would have you believe. It's a bit of a downer to think that you'll never be publically thanked for saving lives, but that one human mistake might cost someone their life. To have that level of responsibility needs an upside, that's why doctors do earn more than many other professions (although many still earn less than an MP/MSP/MEP/AM).
Average MP wage: £65 738
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/
"Salaried GPs employed directly by PCTs earn between £53,781 to £81,158, dependent on, among other factors, length of service and experience."
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553

Compared to many other highly specialised graduate professions though, a doctor's salary isn't neccessarily fantastic. That's ok though, because there are other benefits, such as the public sector pension...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/15/barclays-capital-average-pay-236000-pounds

WHOA THERE.

I finally made it. The pension. The reason why "millions of patients will suffer" (according to the Daily Mail)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160049/A-million-patients-suffer-week-doctors-strike-time-40-years.html

Here are the myths and facts:

1. "Millions of patients will suffer". No-one, and I mean NOT ONE PATIENT AT ALL, will be harmed by the doctor's action on Thursday 21st June. Why? Because all doctors taking industrial action (crudely refered as a "strike" by many) will be at work, seeing "anyone who feels that they are ill". Pretty much like any other day then huh? We'll do blood tests, order X-rays, see patient's on ward rounds, answer patient's questions and provide all treatments just like we will on Wednesday or Friday. All we won't do is "anything that can safely be postponed".
2. "So you're saying no-one will die because of the doctors' action?" People will still die, just like any other day. Medicine can't fix everything, but you can be certain that of any day you might choose to be ill, doctors will certainly do their utmost to make sure you don't die on the 21st June. Some people might unfortunately not be able to be saved, but we'll do our best (just like any other day).
3. "Ah, but what if you had an operation planned that day that has been cancelled? Got you there!" What if you had an operation planned for Tuesday 6th June, the bonus bank holiday (where incidentally, all NHS staff worked as normal and did not have a day off)? No-one complained then about a day's delay. Urgent surgical cases - for example those with cancer, or, at least where I work, anyone that cannot be rebooked within a fortnight, will have their operation as planned.
4. "Well everything in hospital is urgent, how can you say you'll safely postpone it?". Examples of things that will be postponed are junior doctor training (ironically meaning there will be MORE, not less doctors on wards on Thursday!), paperwork, office hours or routine investgations/operations that can be rebooked within a short period.
5. "Will my GP turn me away if they don't think I'm ill?" No. If you think you're ill and need to see a doctor, then one will see you. GPs taking part in industrial action will likely cancel any pre-booked appointments to make sure that anyone who thinks they need urgent care can see a GP that day. So again, it will probably be EASIER to see a doctor on Thursday!
6. "Doctors should be grateful for what they've got - the whole country is suffering". We know, and we are. Doctors accepted a major pension reform of a system that was probably a bit too generous only 4 years ago, and agreed to a new system that became not only self-sustaining, but profitable: i.e. the amount junior doctors pay into the pension fund more than covers the cost of pensions projected to go out. A BMA calculation shows a surplus of more than £2 million pounds this year, which helps cover other NHS worker pensions. The new system meant doctors agreed to pay more (despite their salary freeze) to get less back and work longer. 
7. "The government must know what it's doing - doctors are just being selfish" Far from it. Civil servants, on the exact same wage as doctors, such as those working in the Home Office, will continue to pay half the pension contribution, get more out at the end, and have to work for less years to earn it. If we all need to shoulder the burden, then why aren't we ALL sharing it? 

 Doctors are an easy target for the Government though, because they would never harm patient care for their own gains, which is why Thursday's action is aimed at the Govermnent and not the public. If we don't stand up for ourselves now, then who knows what will happen in another 4 years - will the Government decide our contributions should become triple a civil servants'?!

I don't think I deserve more than anyone else. I enjoy my job, and accept many things about it that private sector workers don't have to... but that's partly because there's supposed to be some reward in it somewhere. Remove all the rewards, and being a doctor might not seem attractive anymore.

If you want to read more about how the Day of Action WON'T affect you:

http://www.bmaaction.org/index.html

Eurovision 2011 - Dusseldorf to Baku

What a night!

Eurovision is essentially my Christmas, and it really didn't disappoint. It's perhaps cliche, but I really do think that the quality of the songs improves year on year.

At my house party, the best reactions were for Denmark, Ireland & Sweden, with everyone singing along to Switzerland and Finland too. We loved Ukraine's sand artist and the mental Moldovan unicyclist trumpeter.

We felt that Blue's performance was okay, but that "it's a better song to sing along with than just listen to".

All party attenders were given a country or two support, and got to sport a fab Eurovision Minipop pin badge. We ate Black Forest cakes and hot dogs in honour of Germany's hosting, and drank more than 20 different spirits from around Europe in the voting drinking run. Newcomers this year were an Austrain Chocolate liqueur (lush) and a Lithuanian spirit (caustic). We were unfortnately unable to locate any Vana Tallin, our favourite Estonian petrol-like spirit.

So what about my analysis? Starting with the Semi-Final qualifiers, I was pretty sad that San Marino failed to qualify in their second outing, and I still rate Senit's "Stand By" as one of my favourite entries this year. I was also disappointed that Norway's "Haba Haba" didn't qualify, especially as questionable entries from Lithuania and Greece did. From the second Semi, my favourite song was Latvia, largely due to the lyric "Love me with luscious thighs", but along with Israel's Dana International, it failed to qualify in favour of dull Austria and bizarre Moldova.

In the Final itself, I chose to support Azerbaijan out of tradition, and whilst I really liked the song from the first listen, I didn't see it as a contender to win. The staging was simple and singing great. Once again, the winner of Eurovision was a simple song, with simple staging, proving that it's not always about the tricks and gimmicks.

Having said that, there were some great gimmicks: Sweden's glass-shattering and Bieber-licious dancing; Bosnia's triangle; Russia's glow-jackets; Lena's sperm-dancers and Ukraine's set-stealing sand-artist.

I was a bit disappointed with the low positions for Hungary and Estonia, I really liked their entries and thought they deserved better.
The UK song is great on CD, but felt a bit lacklustre live, I've read since that there were sound mixing issues which is a real shame but does probably explain why it lacked the anthemic sound Blue were aiming for. Nevertheless, we scored ten times the points of last year and an 11th place for a country with no friends or countries with shared music taste is pretty good!

So that's it for the year, I've just got to finish off the last of my smoked cheese and anaemic meats, play the CD to death and start researching Azerbaijan, ready for next year's party... here's a map to show you where Baku, the Azeri capital is.


View Larger Map

Eurovision 2011 Semi Final 2: predictions

Oh dear. My Semi-Final 1 predictions were a little off, but at least 3 of my favourites made it through. All in all, I guessed only 5 right, so let's see if I can do better tonight:

• Sweden
• Israel
• Bosnia-Hercegovina
• Denmark
• Latvia
• Ukraine
• Slovakia
• Estonia
• Romania
• Belarus

(Sorry Slovenia, I'm really warming to you but don't think it's your year)

Eurovision 2011 Semi-Final 1 Predictions

Okay so in just over 90 minutes BBC Three will start showing the first Semi Final. The UK get to vote in this one to decide which 10 acts progress to the final on Saturday.

I'm going to split my predication in two...

My 5 favourites are Turkey "Live It Up", San Marino "Stand By", Iceland "Coming Home", Hungary "What About My Dreams?" & Azerbaijan "Running Scared". I have some doubts about Hungary's ability to sing live and whether anyone will care about tiny San Marino, but I do hope for the best.

I actually don't like many of the other entries. Nevertheless, I suspect that the other 5 entries that will garner votes will be Armenia, Russia, Albania, Poland & Greece. Of these 5, Poland and Russia's are okay.

Now all there is to do is watch and wait!

The Quirky

Germany/Deutschland – "Taken by a stranger" – Lena

Lena won Eurovision 2010 and wanted to return to “defend her title”. Yeah whatever, I think she wanted to show off this amazing song that in no way will win, but will definitely be on my playlist for time to come. It’s a little Bjork-like, but not quite so weird, with a haunting melody and clever but sometimes-crazy lyrics.

Here's last year's winning entry by Lena:

Finland/Suomi – "Da Da Dam" – Paradise Oskar

This sweet guitar song is all about Peter, who wants to save the environment, though I’m not quite sure how singing “dad a dum” does that, but I know he’s not coming back until the planet is saved. It’s quite charming and bizarre at the same time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/contestants/2010/finland.shtml

Estonia/Eesti – "Rockefellar Street" - Getter Jaani

This is cute in the most part, though the chorus is a bit weak, though the sense of disappointment is probably because the verses and stage presence are actually pretty good. Not a winner, but not a toilet break song either.

Belarus/Беларусь – "I Love Belarus" – Anastasia Vinnikova

This is delightfully mental, from the title right through the tinging little Belarussian xylophone or whatever it is. You clearly will be singing along by the end, and that’s when you realise just how creepy that is, given that Belarus is the USSR’s last bastion and is a nation ruled autocratically by the power of fear. Perhaps it’s a subversive metaphor for the mind control that the KGB (which still exist in Belarus) wish to exert over their populace?

The Power Ballads

Albania/Shqipërisë – "Feel The Passion" – Aurela Gaçe

This starts off with some nice Balkan beats, but gets a bit shouty in the choruses, which is a shame as she really wants to “share this song with you”. She’s got a definite Eastern European look and I like the video, but am a bit apprehensive about seeing it live.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/songs/2011/albania.shtml 

Cyprus/Κύπρος - San Aggelos S'Agapisa - Christos Mylordos

Standard male ballad from Cyprus full of Laika, wailing, crying and angst. I’m all for formulaic pop music but seriously, it’s boring now. (Still, can always bet on the 12 points from Greece eh?)

He's not even really a looker to be honest so I'm quite disappointed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/songs/2011/cyprus.shtml

Austria/Österreich – "The secret is love" - Nadine Beiler

No denying Nadine is a good singer, with lovely tone, but this ballad is so by the numbers you can predict the staging from about 10 seconds of the song – smoke machine, spotlight and backing singers doing “the grab”. Not bad at all, but not exactly standout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/songs/2011/austria.shtml

Slovenia/Slovenija – "No one" – Maja Keuc

Every year I want to like Slovenia’s entry so much it hurts, and as hard as I try, I can’t warm to this ballad, though I do like the incongruous dancing by the two out-of-time dancers. Maja was on "Slovenia's Got Talent" (perhaps quite an ambitious feat for a country of just 2 million) She does sound quite like Anastacia and it's not awful, but it doesn't really have the POW! it should.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eurovision/songs/2011/slovenia.shtml