I see that Howard Davies on QT tells an anecdote of having met Johnson and then seen him on TV the following day lying about what Davies had said to him.
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
In that his about face was entirely a matter of political convenience ?
It'll be up to Congress anyway no matter who is POTUS next year won't it? They'll have to decide if they want to keep pumping $50bn/year worth of weapons into Ukraine.
But it’s not costing them anywhere near $50bn, that’s what really annoying about the debate in the US.
As an example, the successful HIMARS systems are old, almost obsolete in American terms, and were due to be replaced anyway in the next couple of years. Putting a huge dollar value on them is misrepresentative, and drives a lot of the opposition in the US to helping the Ukranians.
Well, yes. That’s the point.
That said, all of American public discourse at the moment is thoroughly toxic.
Toxified by Trump.
I really wish he had lost in 2016, the world would be in a better place today.
Trump would have been a curious footnote in history rather than the most dangerous man in America, if not the world.
What's remarkable is just how much he was able to capture the party. Americans don't have leaders the opposition but its sure felt like they have since he lost, even people like Pence who have reason to be furious with him are very cautious in criticism, and typically get into line along with everyone else.
That's why he wins the nomination, because ultimately the big hitters remain too frightened to take him on directly in a consistent way, and if you support him as much as thru demonstrably do, and if you think he was cheated of victory last time, and most claim to believe that, then why not support him?
Pence is actually now Trump's firmest opponent, not only was he pivotal to stopping Trump's January 2021 coup but also takes a harder line v Putin than Trump and DeSantis.
If Pence won evangelical heavy Iowa and De Santis won New Hampshire, Trump's 2024 campaign would be over before it began.
I originally thought that Boris would survive - yes found guilty but with a less than 2 week suspension. But that performance has proven not only that he misled parliament, but he proved himself a congenital liar and showed contempt to the committee in the process. He is going to get a 4 or 6 week suspension - but an expulsion may now be on the cards! Good riddance.
He made life worse for himself that's for sure. Don't think he'll be expelled from the Commons but a recall worthy suspension rather than something less serious must now be on the cards.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
We should listen to anyone but Dura and TOPPING on military matters We should listen to TOPPING on teaching We should listen to TOPPING on academic matters and science We should listen to TOPPING on health We should listen to TOPPING on legal We should listen to TOPPING on Scotland We should listen to TOPPING on politics and everything else
A slight edit to keep it simple so people aren't confused.
Yeah, I'm with you, don't worry. It was Stuart who seemed to be suggesting we listen to experts
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
His initial remarks were pretty clear and unambiguous in their implications (I dont recall the accusation being that he thought the invasion justified). That's not a clarification he's made it's a shift because he got pushback.
Clarify is one of the most abused words in politics. People use it to mean 'how dare you criticise me for what I said, I meant something else entirely and it's your fault for assuming otherwise'.
What were the clear and unambiguous implications of his initial remarks in terms of what he would have actually done differently to Biden? His initial remarks seem to me to be entirely ambiguous and unclear, and his latest 'clarification' not much clearer.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
I'm just finishing a book on the many problems in education.
I was toying with the idea of calling it 'We've had enough - experts.'
The problem with most expert educational commentators is their only qualification is they attended school (most likely a private school) between the ages of 4 and 18. Our very own senior education commentator, HYUFD of course fulfills this CV requirement.
I don't mind the commentators. Any more than I mind any other third rate pub bore.
The problem is that the civil servants in charge are equally ignorant and so smug in their belief they had an outstanding education at private school and Russell Group university they are utterly-pigheaded about their ignorance.
Isn't Amanda Spielman a case in point? Seven years at Rodean? three at Oxbridge, a career in finance, and BINGO! The ultimate educational expert.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
The Junior's are hardly alone in suffering that annual recurring event.
The "need" for a real terms rise is applicable to many.
But those many aren't in a position to leverage the suffering of sick people to force their cause.
Like I said, reprehensible from a "caring" profession.
Sorry but the Government has made a political choice to uplift unearned wages by inflation.
So why should those working for a living settle for less than inflation?
If pensions and other benefits were getting slashed by 9% in real terms then we would be "all in it together" but why should people going out to work for a living see their wages decline to pay for those who aren't? And from a Conservative government no less.
Because if we had not uprated benefits in line with inflation then people would have died? The amounts are very modest.
Excuse me, very modest? In what universe is it modest? And who would have died?
The Treasury is spending £123 bn in pensioner benefits alone this year. Uplifting that by inflation, which is a political choice, is going to cost about £13 billion. That's before we even speak about other benefits.
If the money doesn't exist supposedly for inflation-matching pay rises then you may consider pissing away £13 billion in taxpayers money to be "very modest" but I for one do not.
Wages of those who are working for a living should go up by at least as much as wages for those who are not working for a living. If we can't afford a pay rise for those who are working, then we can't afford a pay rise for those who are not either.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
I'm just finishing a book on the many problems in education.
I was toying with the idea of calling it 'We've had enough - experts.'
The problem with most expert educational commentators is their only qualification is they attended school (most likely a private school) between the ages of 4 and 18. Our very own senior education commentator, HYUFD of course fulfills this CV requirement.
I don't mind the commentators. Any more than I mind any other third rate pub bore.
The problem is that the civil servants in charge are equally ignorant and so smug in their belief they had an outstanding education at private school and Russell Group university they are utterly-pigheaded about their ignorance.
While of course the comprehensive educated Liz Truss has just proved to be the most outstanding Prime Minister of our lifetimes, a leader who will live down the ages!!
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
In that his about face was entirely a matter of political convenience ?
It'll be up to Congress anyway no matter who is POTUS next year won't it? They'll have to decide if they want to keep pumping $50bn/year worth of weapons into Ukraine.
But it’s not costing them anywhere near $50bn, that’s what really annoying about the debate in the US.
As an example, the successful HIMARS systems are old, almost obsolete in American terms, and were due to be replaced anyway in the next couple of years. Putting a huge dollar value on them is misrepresentative, and drives a lot of the opposition in the US to helping the Ukranians.
Well, yes. That’s the point.
That said, all of American public discourse at the moment is thoroughly toxic.
Toxified by Trump.
I really wish he had lost in 2016, the world would be in a better place today.
Trump would have been a curious footnote in history rather than the most dangerous man in America, if not the world.
What's remarkable is just how much he was able to capture the party. Americans don't have leaders the opposition but its sure felt like they have since he lost, even people like Pence who have reason to be furious with him are very cautious in criticism, and typically get into line along with everyone else.
That's why he wins the nomination, because ultimately the big hitters remain too frightened to take him on directly in a consistent way, and if you support him as much as thru demonstrably do, and if you think he was cheated of victory last time, and most claim to believe that, then why not support him?
Yes. Trump wins the nomination because he is a force of nature. Politically he is Untouchable and Unstoppable.
We have to take a few steps back and ask how America got itself into this mess. Trump clearly lost the 2020 election heavily, yet a substantial proportion of the country believe he won (because he says so). Trump clearly has some legal troubles but his supporters see *any* action against him as a political witch hunt (because he says so). Trump is a huge liability in office and corrupts every part of government he touches, yet is seen to be draining the swamp of government.
So how can other candidates stop him? Because he is unpopular? Incompetent? A crook? A loser?
The question is can Biden keepittogether long enough to beat The Donald again. Perhaps he might consider a better VP candidate this time as you do wonder if he will make the end of his second term.
That he is a loser is probably the strongest card others have, since his base dont believe or dont care if he is incompetent or a crook, since he's still their guy.
That he's got most of them to say he won last time, or at least not push back on the claim, is a genius level achievement as it neuters that attack. Instead they focus on electoral measures to help him win rather than picking someone else.
With difficult times and the best Democrat candidate being 82 come the election, it could yet work.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
I'm just finishing a book on the many problems in education.
I was toying with the idea of calling it 'We've had enough - experts.'
The problem with most expert educational commentators is their only qualification is they attended school (most likely a private school) between the ages of 4 and 18. Our very own senior education commentator, HYUFD of course fulfills this CV requirement.
I don't mind the commentators. Any more than I mind any other third rate pub bore.
The problem is that the civil servants in charge are equally ignorant and so smug in their belief they had an outstanding education at private school and Russell Group university they are utterly-pigheaded about their ignorance.
Isn't Amanda Spielman a case in point? Seven years at Rodean? three at Oxbridge, a career in finance, and BINGO! The ultimate educational expert.
She had a brief time as financial officer at Ark Academies, but basically yes.
Disappointed in Andrew Bailey. He exhorts firms to moderate price increases and workers to reduce wage demands. Shades of Edward Heath trying to control inflation. Inflation however is a monetary phenomenon and it is the BoE's express duty to keep it under control. Interest rates and money supply are the appropriate levers and they are in Bailey's hands.
To be fair to him, what we really need to do is radically increase supply of energy to reduce its cost as that is driving inflation. Sadly that is not on the Government's agenda, and it is gross dereliction of duty. All else is tinkering and hoping for the best.
No, the price of energy is not the cause of inflation. Insofar as it affects the general price level it is because the money supply has increased to accommodate it. Whatever ensues in the scenario you paint the cost of energy in terms of other goods or services foregone to obtain it must rise. To keep the value of money stable (i.e. avoid inflation) other prices must fall in money terms.
I don't think this is true. Prices have increased because costs of doing business have increased. Whether that's frying your chips, heating your spa, running your factory, charging your hair clippers - the cost of energy is at the basis of it all.
The relative prices of individual goods or services, or even whole classes of goods and services, have nothing to do with inflation which relates to the value of money (= the inverse of the general price level).
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
Also, if it helps, I’m willing to be a GP. I’ve watched mine in operation and I’m just as good at using google to diagnose and then look up the usual dose.
You think you jest but NHS England's big cheese was wittering on the other day about doctors being over-skilled for what they do.
I see that Howard Davies on QT tells an anecdote of having met Johnson and then seen him on TV the following day lying about what Davies had said to him.
Yes, I put a link to that earlier. Quite astonishing - we know that Boris is a repeated and brazen liar, but to have someone call it out with a clear example is still shocking. And that was when Boris was only Mayor of London! After that he was elevated to Foreign Secretary then Prime Minister and the lies only escalated.
But we can't pre-judge the committee investigating whether the liar lied to parliament. Despite the prima fasciae evidence and him being called out by the committee for lying to it.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Why on earth do you suppose that it is so competitive to become a junior doctor.
{Experience: being a sixth form form tutor who gets pupils through the Uni admissions process}
A lot of those who want to become doctors who don't are lovely people who, bless 'em, don't have the academic grip to study medicine successfully. You could say to current junior doctors "bugger off, we'll get someone else", but the someone elses won't be as good.
As for why, it's a prestigious profession that is a net good in the world that everyone has seen close up. That means that they can imagine (or at least fantasise) themselves doing that job in a way that isn't true for software engineers or patent attorneys.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
We should always listen to those with direct knowledge and experience of an issue. But we shouldn't simply delegate our opinion on the related matter to them either.
So long as there is some shared understanding of factual matters an outside and informed perspective can on occasion be more on the money than those in the thick of it.
That is meant to be how politics works after all. External but informed people setting policy taking account of the big picture for society.
They forget the informed bit a lot. Especially if they have an ideology.
Ministers are put in charge precisely because they know nothing - Jim Hacker.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
Don’t believe them. Easy to say.
But, as noted above, this is about supply and demand. Introduce some penal fees on those leaving the NHS before we get the costs of their tuition back and if we still can’t man the NHS, pay them more.
Correcting for below inflation rises for ten years is a non-starter on fairness grounds because you then have to do it for every public sector employee.
Don't want to become a doctor on the prospect of a miserable six figure salary and no tea? Fine. Fuck off.
Plenty in the queue behind you who can put up with such privations.
There are not that many in the queue because the BMA insists on limits to numbers of medical school places.
I believe they have reversed that policy, in recent years.
A question for Starmer - will he commit to setting up education and *training places* for 100% of the projected need for medical staff for the NHS.
The NHS has the projected staff requirements going a decade into the future.
I was told the following by a friend. His son was told that the U.K. foreign aid budget money has got shifted a bit. So more medical students were being sponsored by them. Since this is on full overseas fees, the universities love the idea. They won’t train in the NHS after graduation - go straight home to train in the hospitals there.
This means there is a reduction in the number of places for U.K. students this year, to become doctors, apparently. So my friends son is seeing increased competition for a place.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
Don’t believe them. Easy to say.
But, as noted above, this is about supply and demand. Introduce some penal fees on those leaving the NHS before we get the costs of their tuition back and if we still can’t man the NHS, pay them more.
Correcting for below inflation rises for ten years is a non-starter on fairness grounds because you then have to do it for every public sector employee.
I mean we can't man the NHS now. We have record numbers of shortages.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
The Junior's are hardly alone in suffering that annual recurring event.
The "need" for a real terms rise is applicable to many.
But those many aren't in a position to leverage the suffering of sick people to force their cause.
Like I said, reprehensible from a "caring" profession.
Sorry but the Government has made a political choice to uplift unearned wages by inflation.
So why should those working for a living settle for less than inflation?
If pensions and other benefits were getting slashed by 9% in real terms then we would be "all in it together" but why should people going out to work for a living see their wages decline to pay for those who aren't? And from a Conservative government no less.
Because if we had not uprated benefits in line with inflation then people would have died? The amounts are very modest.
Excuse me, very modest? In what universe is it modest? And who would have died?
The Treasury is spending £123 bn in pensioner benefits alone this year. Uplifting that by inflation, which is a political choice, is going to cost about £13 billion. That's before we even speak about other benefits.
If the money doesn't exist supposedly for inflation-matching pay rises then you may consider pissing away £13 billion in taxpayers money to be "very modest" but I for one do not.
Wages of those who are working for a living should go up by at least as much as wages for those who are not working for a living. If we can't afford a pay rise for those who are working, then we can't afford a pay rise for those who are not either.
Yes. It costs the state a lot to pay them a very modest amount each.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
"as soon as they can" - you mean this afternoon? Or is there a tie in that you are not allowed to leave given the training, etc?
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
Don’t believe them. Easy to say.
But, as noted above, this is about supply and demand. Introduce some penal fees on those leaving the NHS before we get the costs of their tuition back and if we still can’t man the NHS, pay them more.
Correcting for below inflation rises for ten years is a non-starter on fairness grounds because you then have to do it for every public sector employee.
Don't want to become a doctor on the prospect of a miserable six figure salary and no tea? Fine. Fuck off.
Plenty in the queue behind you who can put up with such privations.
There are not that many in the queue because the BMA insists on limits to numbers of medical school places.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
The Junior's are hardly alone in suffering that annual recurring event.
The "need" for a real terms rise is applicable to many.
But those many aren't in a position to leverage the suffering of sick people to force their cause.
Like I said, reprehensible from a "caring" profession.
Sorry but the Government has made a political choice to uplift unearned wages by inflation.
So why should those working for a living settle for less than inflation?
If pensions and other benefits were getting slashed by 9% in real terms then we would be "all in it together" but why should people going out to work for a living see their wages decline to pay for those who aren't? And from a Conservative government no less.
Because if we had not uprated benefits in line with inflation then people would have died? The amounts are very modest.
Excuse me, very modest? In what universe is it modest? And who would have died?
The Treasury is spending £123 bn in pensioner benefits alone this year. Uplifting that by inflation, which is a political choice, is going to cost about £13 billion. That's before we even speak about other benefits.
If the money doesn't exist supposedly for inflation-matching pay rises then you may consider pissing away £13 billion in taxpayers money to be "very modest" but I for one do not.
Wages of those who are working for a living should go up by at least as much as wages for those who are not working for a living. If we can't afford a pay rise for those who are working, then we can't afford a pay rise for those who are not either.
Yes. It costs the state a lot to pay them a very modest amount each.
And that modest amount should rise by no more than what wages modest amounts rises by.
If the money's not there, the money's not there. If the money is there, it should go first to those who are working for it.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
I'm just finishing a book on the many problems in education.
I was toying with the idea of calling it 'We've had enough - experts.'
The problem with most expert educational commentators is their only qualification is they attended school (most likely a private school) between the ages of 4 and 18. Our very own senior education commentator, HYUFD of course fulfills this CV requirement.
I don't mind the commentators. Any more than I mind any other third rate pub bore.
The problem is that the civil servants in charge are equally ignorant and so smug in their belief they had an outstanding education at private school and Russell Group university they are utterly-pigheaded about their ignorance.
Isn't Amanda Spielman a case in point? Seven years at Rodean? three at Oxbridge, a career in finance, and BINGO! The ultimate educational expert.
She had a brief time as financial officer at Ark Academies, but basically yes.
A role that would have focused on dividing up the local authority cash grants between Board Directors and perhaps leaving a little available for teacher's salaries (getting rid of the expensive experienced ones to square the circle) and pencils.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
A lot of people say if you train in this country you should work in this country.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
Don’t believe them. Easy to say.
But, as noted above, this is about supply and demand. Introduce some penal fees on those leaving the NHS before we get the costs of their tuition back and if we still can’t man the NHS, pay them more.
Correcting for below inflation rises for ten years is a non-starter on fairness grounds because you then have to do it for every public sector employee.
Don't want to become a doctor on the prospect of a miserable six figure salary and no tea? Fine. Fuck off.
Plenty in the queue behind you who can put up with such privations.
There are not that many in the queue because the BMA insists on limits to numbers of medical school places.
I believe they have reversed that policy, in recent years.
A question for Starmer - will he commit to setting up education and *training places* for 100% of the projected need for medical staff for the NHS.
The NHS has the projected staff requirements going a decade into the future.
I was told the following by a friend. His son was told that the U.K. foreign aid budget money has got shifted a bit. So more medical students were being sponsored by them. Since this is on full overseas fees, the universities love the idea. They won’t train in the NHS after graduation - go straight home to train in the hospitals there.
This means there is a reduction in the number of places for U.K. students this year, to become doctors, apparently. So my friends son is seeing increased competition for a place.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
A lot of people say if you train in this country you should work in this country.
And those people are categorically wrong. People aren't slaves, and are free to migrate as they choose.
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
Don’t believe them. Easy to say.
But, as noted above, this is about supply and demand. Introduce some penal fees on those leaving the NHS before we get the costs of their tuition back and if we still can’t man the NHS, pay them more.
Correcting for below inflation rises for ten years is a non-starter on fairness grounds because you then have to do it for every public sector employee.
Don't want to become a doctor on the prospect of a miserable six figure salary and no tea? Fine. Fuck off.
Plenty in the queue behind you who can put up with such privations.
There are not that many in the queue because the BMA insists on limits to numbers of medical school places.
I believe they have reversed that policy, in recent years.
A question for Starmer - will he commit to setting up education and *training places* for 100% of the projected need for medical staff for the NHS.
The NHS has the projected staff requirements going a decade into the future.
I was told the following by a friend. His son was told that the U.K. foreign aid budget money has got shifted a bit. So more medical students were being sponsored by them. Since this is on full overseas fees, the universities love the idea. They won’t train in the NHS after graduation - go straight home to train in the hospitals there.
This means there is a reduction in the number of places for U.K. students this year, to become doctors, apparently. So my friends son is seeing increased competition for a place.
There seems to be an institutional thing here - I've argued for increased places over the years, and met a surprisingly uniform pushback from politicians and civil servants who I spoke to.
One politician accused me of wanting to push foreign medical staff out of the NHS!
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Why on earth do you suppose that it is so competitive to become a junior doctor.
{Experience: being a sixth form form tutor who gets pupils through the Uni admissions process}
A lot of those who want to become doctors who don't are lovely people who, bless 'em, don't have the academic grip to study medicine successfully. You could say to current junior doctors "bugger off, we'll get someone else", but the someone elses won't be as good.
As for why, it's a prestigious profession that is a net good in the world that everyone has seen close up. That means that they can imagine (or at least fantasise) themselves doing that job in a way that isn't true for software engineers or patent attorneys.
(
Exactly. And for all those reasons there is a queue as long as your arm to become a doctor.
"someone elses won't be as good"? I'll take my chances. At least they will really want to be there and not decide to go on strike for a 35% pay increase on top of what many would deem to be a very healthy wage already.
But of course it's doctors and the NHS so they are sacrosanct. Any other professions routinely earning £100k+ which the Left worships? LotO, perhaps but that is also quite a competitive gig.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
Sturgeon however departs with a very healthy +8 rating
New leader boost expected though?
Possible if Forbes gets it. Sturgeon's high rating is due to way she presented during Covid. Her domestic record is being widely derided by the commentariat. I think her ratings will decline over time though not as precipitously as Blair's did.
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
His initial remarks were pretty clear and unambiguous in their implications (I dont recall the accusation being that he thought the invasion justified). That's not a clarification he's made it's a shift because he got pushback.
Clarify is one of the most abused words in politics. People use it to mean 'how dare you criticise me for what I said, I meant something else entirely and it's your fault for assuming otherwise'.
What were the clear and unambiguous implications of his initial remarks in terms of what he would have actually done differently to Biden? His initial remarks seem to me to be entirely ambiguous and unclear, and his latest 'clarification' not much clearer.
It was sufficiently clear to his Senate Republican colleagues that his remarks meant he would likely scale back support, a position advanced by others in the party, so that they felt the need to criticise him about it.
If it were at all ambiguous they would not have felt that need, they'd have attacked the media for mischaracterising his remarks, as he is now lamely attempting.
They didn't, because it was obvious who he was trying to appeal to.
What's amusing is any articles saying he was right about what he said, which he is now saying is not what they thought.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
Don’t believe them. Easy to say.
But, as noted above, this is about supply and demand. Introduce some penal fees on those leaving the NHS before we get the costs of their tuition back and if we still can’t man the NHS, pay them more.
Correcting for below inflation rises for ten years is a non-starter on fairness grounds because you then have to do it for every public sector employee.
Don't want to become a doctor on the prospect of a miserable six figure salary and no tea? Fine. Fuck off.
Plenty in the queue behind you who can put up with such privations.
There are not that many in the queue because the BMA insists on limits to numbers of medical school places.
Is that true? Why do they do that?
It isn't true. The BMA has no role in deciding the number of medical places and has supported expansion at every opportunity.
It is the government organ the GMC that decides the number of places. It also restricts the number of postgraduate training places too.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
On junior doctors, my worry actually is that the damage is done... the staff shortages from poor wages exacerbate the situation and make UK an unappealing place to be a doctor. Even a pay rise now won't fix that.
Same is true for other health professions but doctors particularly have more global options.
Most people, most of the time, don’t want to work abroad. And where we recruit from abroad, we usually still pay higher.
4/10 junior doctors planning to leave as soon as they can (bmj survey). We already have shortages.
Don’t believe them. Easy to say.
But, as noted above, this is about supply and demand. Introduce some penal fees on those leaving the NHS before we get the costs of their tuition back and if we still can’t man the NHS, pay them more.
Correcting for below inflation rises for ten years is a non-starter on fairness grounds because you then have to do it for every public sector employee.
Don't want to become a doctor on the prospect of a miserable six figure salary and no tea? Fine. Fuck off.
Plenty in the queue behind you who can put up with such privations.
There are not that many in the queue because the BMA insists on limits to numbers of medical school places.
Is that true? Why do they do that?
It isn't true. The BMA has no role in deciding the number of medical places and has supported expansion at every opportunity.
It is the government organ the GMC that decides the number of places. It also restricts the number of postgraduate training places too.
If we need organs removing from this process, I think @Carnyx knows of somebody who can help...
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
A lot of people say if you train in this country you should work in this country.
Yes or pay back all the wasted money spent on training you.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Indeed, junior doctors earn more than trainees at criminal or family law firms or pupils or junior criminal barristers. They also earn more than accountants In their early years outside London.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Whilst all that is true, it is also true that in many cases the working conditions for NHS staff are horrid and highly demoralising, and I suspect that a lot of the discontent which is ostensibly about pay is related to that.
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
And 2 days with private patients in Harley Street
Yes, there will be half a dozen or so private GPs in Harley Street, and no doubt a few elsewhere in the country. Almost all in "Harley Street" are consultants, not GPs.
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
A lot of their friends who go into the city are out on their arses a lot earlier than teh Doctors, it is not a job for life unlike doctors who are bomb proof unless they do a Shipman.
Sturgeon however departs with a very healthy +8 rating
New leader boost expected though?
Possible if Forbes gets it. Sturgeon's high rating is due to way she presented during Covid. Her domestic record is being widely derided by the commentariat. I think her ratings will decline over time though not as precipitously as Blair's did.
It's Iraq that did for Tony's rep, isn't it. There's no obvious equivalent for Nicola Sturgeon.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Indeed, junior doctors earn more than trainees at criminal law firms or pupils or junior criminal barristers. They also earn more than accountants In their early years outside London.
Well, the government does seem to have engineered a shortage of criminal barristers too, and we do not need anything like as many of those as we do doctors.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
Or should be satisfied going into work for below-inflation pay rises while those who they are caring for are getting higher percentage pay rises than they are.
If people are striking despite being paid too much they should be sacked and replaced with others who want to do their job for less, but if there's no others to do the job then they have the leverage and should be paid a reasonable rate. How is that any worse than a cohort of voters using their voting leverage to ensure that all the money available goes to them, while all the taxes go on others?
People need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. If you want someone to do a job then you need to pay them a rate they're willing to work for - or in a free market you can find someone else instead. But nobody has a right to demand others work for them on incomes they're not happy to be paid.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
It's worth noting that the Government has been observed to be feeding the boat people, after rescue, with Dominos pineapple pizza.
Also is block booking middle grade hotels to house them.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
We should listen to anyone but Dura and TOPPING on military matters We should listen to TOPPING on teaching We should listen to TOPPING on academic matters and science We should listen to TOPPING on health We should listen to TOPPING on legal We should listen to TOPPING on Scotland We should listen to TOPPING on politics and everything else
A slight edit to keep it simple so people aren't confused.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
As I said: Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
Yes they work hard, but so do lots of non-partner professionals in legal, accountancy, management consultancy practices up and down the country. It goes with the territory. Also ask an older surgeon whether a younger newly promoted Consultant Surgeon has the hours that they did. They don't, because they are not allowed to work the hours.
Please don't swallow this crap. They have a hard job, but it is their choice and they are not hard done by. Save your sympathy for the non-medical NHS staff; they are being short changed very often, and it could be argued that disproportionately increasing the salaries of the NHS elite (the already well-paid doctors) makes less money available for them.
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
From talking to my GP - quite a few are taking time off for children. Part time work is perfect for this.
Essentially, they are well paid enough that they can afford to take the pay hit for working 2-3 days a week, rather than full time.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
As I said: Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
Yes they work hard, but so do lots of non-partner professionals in legal, accountancy, management consultancy practices up and down the country. It goes with the territory. Also ask an older surgeon whether a younger newly promoted Consultant Surgeon has the hours that they did. They don't, because they are not allowed to work the hours.
Please don't swallow this crap. They have a hard job, but it is their choice and they are not hard done by. Save your sympathy for the non-medical NHS staff; they are being short changed very often, and it could be argued that disproportionately increasing the salaries of the NHS elite (the already well-paid doctors) makes less money available for them.
PS. A lot of GPs are earning a lot more than £80k !!
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
And 2 days with private patients in Harley Street
Yes, there will be half a dozen or so private GPs in Harley Street, and no doubt a few elsewhere in the country. Almost all in "Harley Street" are consultants, not GPs.
Private GPs are a booming business. At work, they were looking at a private insurance option which included a GP who will rock up at your door.
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
In that his about face was entirely a matter of political convenience ?
It'll be up to Congress anyway no matter who is POTUS next year won't it? They'll have to decide if they want to keep pumping $50bn/year worth of weapons into Ukraine.
But it’s not costing them anywhere near $50bn, that’s what really annoying about the debate in the US.
As an example, the successful HIMARS systems are old, almost obsolete in American terms, and were due to be replaced anyway in the next couple of years. Putting a huge dollar value on them is misrepresentative, and drives a lot of the opposition in the US to helping the Ukranians.
Well, yes. That’s the point.
That said, all of American public discourse at the moment is thoroughly toxic.
Toxified by Trump.
I really wish he had lost in 2016, the world would be in a better place today.
Trump would have been a curious footnote in history rather than the most dangerous man in America, if not the world.
What's remarkable is just how much he was able to capture the party. Americans don't have leaders the opposition but its sure felt like they have since he lost, even people like Pence who have reason to be furious with him are very cautious in criticism, and typically get into line along with everyone else.
That's why he wins the nomination, because ultimately the big hitters remain too frightened to take him on directly in a consistent way, and if you support him as much as thru demonstrably do, and if you think he was cheated of victory last time, and most claim to believe that, then why not support him?
Yes. Trump wins the nomination because he is a force of nature. Politically he is Untouchable and Unstoppable.
We have to take a few steps back and ask how America got itself into this mess. Trump clearly lost the 2020 election heavily, yet a substantial proportion of the country believe he won (because he says so). Trump clearly has some legal troubles but his supporters see *any* action against him as a political witch hunt (because he says so). Trump is a huge liability in office and corrupts every part of government he touches, yet is seen to be draining the swamp of government.
So how can other candidates stop him? Because he is unpopular? Incompetent? A crook? A loser?
The question is can Biden keepittogether long enough to beat The Donald again. Perhaps he might consider a better VP candidate this time as you do wonder if he will make the end of his second term.
That he is a loser is probably the strongest card others have, since his base dont believe or dont care if he is incompetent or a crook, since he's still their guy.
That he's got most of them to say he won last time, or at least not push back on the claim, is a genius level achievement as it neuters that attack. Instead they focus on electoral measures to help him win rather than picking someone else.
With difficult times and the best Democrat candidate being 82 come the election, it could yet work.
Biden rightly painted the last presidential election as important for the basic fundamentals of their democracy. The position will have decayed even further by the time we get to November 2024 if Trump is once again the candidate.
Its easy to point at Trump and the Republican Party for the coming disgrace in capitulating to the Trump fantasy. But we also have to point at the Democrats where Joe Biden is their last and only line of defence. Is that all they have left? Really?
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Indeed, junior doctors earn more than trainees at criminal law firms or pupils or junior criminal barristers. They also earn more than accountants In their early years outside London.
Well, the government does seem to have engineered a shortage of criminal barristers too, and we do not need anything like as many of those as we do doctors.
The government did give them a payrise last year but they still earn less than junior doctors.
Even QCs in criminal law will earn less than some of the top consultants
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Whilst all that is true, it is also true that in many cases the working conditions for NHS staff are horrid and highly demoralising, and I suspect that a lot of the discontent which is ostensibly about pay is related to that.
What do we want? A cup of tea When do we want it? On demand, preferably milk two sugars thanks v much.
Again, all the polls have the Labour vote share reasonably static, but the Tory vote share is all over the place. Maybe Sunak is tempting back any (were there any?) Tory to Lib Dem switchers?
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
Or should be satisfied going into work for below-inflation pay rises while those who they are caring for are getting higher percentage pay rises than they are.
If people are striking despite being paid too much they should be sacked and replaced with others who want to do their job for less, but if there's no others to do the job then they have the leverage and should be paid a reasonable rate. How is that any worse than a cohort of voters using their voting leverage to ensure that all the money available goes to them, while all the taxes go on others?
People need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. If you want someone to do a job then you need to pay them a rate they're willing to work for - or in a free market you can find someone else instead. But nobody has a right to demand others work for them on incomes they're not happy to be paid.
Junior doctors want a 25% payrise, the national average rise is 6%
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Whilst all that is true, it is also true that in many cases the working conditions for NHS staff are horrid and highly demoralising, and I suspect that a lot of the discontent which is ostensibly about pay is related to that.
From what I've seen, the employment practices resemble the 1950s. Which, strangely, results in 1950s style industrial relations.
It's almost as if, if you treat people badly, they don't love you. Or something.
They're setting Bordeaux city hall alight in mass protest against the crazy idea that their retirement age be raised to 64.
I disagree with political violence. But the stubborn refusenik tendencies of the French do have their advantages vs the sheeplike way we seem to just accept any old crap that is thrown to us obedient subjects.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
And me on double-entry bookkeeping and the meaning of life. Although they are really one and the same thing.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
They get paid double time for unsocial hours and other stuff as below, hardly peanuts
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
And me on double-entry bookkeeping and the meaning of life. Although they are really one and the same thing.
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
In that his about face was entirely a matter of political convenience ?
It'll be up to Congress anyway no matter who is POTUS next year won't it? They'll have to decide if they want to keep pumping $50bn/year worth of weapons into Ukraine.
But it’s not costing them anywhere near $50bn, that’s what really annoying about the debate in the US.
As an example, the successful HIMARS systems are old, almost obsolete in American terms, and were due to be replaced anyway in the next couple of years. Putting a huge dollar value on them is misrepresentative, and drives a lot of the opposition in the US to helping the Ukranians.
Well, yes. That’s the point.
That said, all of American public discourse at the moment is thoroughly toxic.
Toxified by Trump.
I really wish he had lost in 2016, the world would be in a better place today.
Trump would have been a curious footnote in history rather than the most dangerous man in America, if not the world.
What's remarkable is just how much he was able to capture the party. Americans don't have leaders the opposition but its sure felt like they have since he lost, even people like Pence who have reason to be furious with him are very cautious in criticism, and typically get into line along with everyone else.
That's why he wins the nomination, because ultimately the big hitters remain too frightened to take him on directly in a consistent way, and if you support him as much as thru demonstrably do, and if you think he was cheated of victory last time, and most claim to believe that, then why not support him?
Yes. Trump wins the nomination because he is a force of nature. Politically he is Untouchable and Unstoppable.
We have to take a few steps back and ask how America got itself into this mess. Trump clearly lost the 2020 election heavily, yet a substantial proportion of the country believe he won (because he says so). Trump clearly has some legal troubles but his supporters see *any* action against him as a political witch hunt (because he says so). Trump is a huge liability in office and corrupts every part of government he touches, yet is seen to be draining the swamp of government.
So how can other candidates stop him? Because he is unpopular? Incompetent? A crook? A loser?
The question is can Biden keepittogether long enough to beat The Donald again. Perhaps he might consider a better VP candidate this time as you do wonder if he will make the end of his second term.
That he is a loser is probably the strongest card others have, since his base dont believe or dont care if he is incompetent or a crook, since he's still their guy.
That he's got most of them to say he won last time, or at least not push back on the claim, is a genius level achievement as it neuters that attack. Instead they focus on electoral measures to help him win rather than picking someone else.
With difficult times and the best Democrat candidate being 82 come the election, it could yet work.
Biden rightly painted the last presidential election as important for the basic fundamentals of their democracy. The position will have decayed even further by the time we get to November 2024 if Trump is once again the candidate.
Its easy to point at Trump and the Republican Party for the coming disgrace in capitulating to the Trump fantasy. But we also have to point at the Democrats where Joe Biden is their last and only line of defence. Is that all they have left? Really?
Biden beat Trump in 2020 unlike Hillary in 2016 and Biden polls better v Trump than Harris, Newsom or Buttigieg. So yes if Trump is GOP nominee again
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
Or should be satisfied going into work for below-inflation pay rises while those who they are caring for are getting higher percentage pay rises than they are.
If people are striking despite being paid too much they should be sacked and replaced with others who want to do their job for less, but if there's no others to do the job then they have the leverage and should be paid a reasonable rate. How is that any worse than a cohort of voters using their voting leverage to ensure that all the money available goes to them, while all the taxes go on others?
People need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. If you want someone to do a job then you need to pay them a rate they're willing to work for - or in a free market you can find someone else instead. But nobody has a right to demand others work for them on incomes they're not happy to be paid.
Junior doctors want a 25% payrise, the national average rise in 6%
Have you never taken part in negotiations?
25% is an entirely appropriate starting point to demand when the Government are offering others 11% and you only 2%.
If the Government want to short-change you by 9%, then start demanding much higher than what you will actually accept, then meet in the middle. Government says 2%, you say 25%, meet in the middle at 13% or just 2% higher than what the Government is prepared to pay those who aren't working for a living, and you have an agreement.
If the Government didn't want strikes they shouldn't have offered some people 11% and others 2%.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
And me on double-entry bookkeeping and the meaning of life. Although they are really one and the same thing.
That could be your memoir title right there: Double-entry bookkeeping and the meaning of life
Again, all the polls have the Labour vote share reasonably static, but the Tory vote share is all over the place. Maybe Sunak is tempting back any (were there any?) Tory to Lib Dem switchers?
More likely Conservative/Stay at homers. Partly because staying at home is commoner than switching party, and partly because we know different pollsters are making different assumptions about where to put them.
They're setting Bordeaux city hall alight in mass protest against the crazy idea that their retirement age be raised to 64.
I disagree with political violence. But the stubborn refusenik tendencies of the French do have their advantages vs the sheeplike way we seem to just accept any old crap that is thrown to us obedient subjects.
And the gendarmes should crack down hard on them. Macron is right, a state retirement age of 64 is unaffordable now
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
From talking to my GP - quite a few are taking time off for children. Part time work is perfect for this.
Essentially, they are well paid enough that they can afford to take the pay hit for working 2-3 days a week, rather than full time.
Meanwhile people who really are underpaid are doing 2 and sometimes 3 jobs to make ends meet
Again, all the polls have the Labour vote share reasonably static, but the Tory vote share is all over the place. Maybe Sunak is tempting back any (were there any?) Tory to Lib Dem switchers?
The LD voteshare is down 4% on 2019 yes, even if RefUK slightly up on what the Brexit Party got
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Indeed, junior doctors earn more than trainees at criminal law firms or pupils or junior criminal barristers. They also earn more than accountants In their early years outside London.
Well, the government does seem to have engineered a shortage of criminal barristers too, and we do not need anything like as many of those as we do doctors.
You really have swallowed it hook line haven't you? I am really surprised that you are so supportive of a private school dominated elite lol.
That said, you are not alone. Doctors are the last bastion of deference. Watch the BBC interview someone from the BMA and it is like the deference that used to be shown to politicians in the 1950s. And do you know what? The doctors unions know it. They are not accountable, because no-one questions their obvious vested interests.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
As I have said before, it isn't racism, its jingoism. The racism used to be there of course, and growing up in an east Lancashire township we saw plenty of racial unrest caused by the pig-ignorant policies of previous councils and the pig-ignorance of some of the older residents. But that is the past.
What we have instead is fear of the other. The other isn't defined by race, it is simply not being me and mine. The north has a real problem with the south and southerners. Lancashire and Yorkshire share a deep-rooted dislike despite their obvious mass similarities. Sheffield was trialling the Hunger Games districting long before the book or the movie, as was Washington with predictable results. Thornaby was described rightly as full of "parochial bigots" by an old man born and raised there, with the town Mayor ranting drunk on Facebook about how outsiders do not understand the town "and never will".
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
I think there is a lot of projection going on. Ascribing these kinds of views to other people allows upper middle class people to express things they'd be embarrassed about saying in polite company. Plus it gives wealthy people a kind of vicarious thrill and sense of connection to something more "authentic" to feel like they are channelling the views of the kind of people they never encounter in their actual lives (largely by choice). Watch Succession or spend a day on a trading floor if you want to understand what I'm talking about.
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
In that his about face was entirely a matter of political convenience ?
It'll be up to Congress anyway no matter who is POTUS next year won't it? They'll have to decide if they want to keep pumping $50bn/year worth of weapons into Ukraine.
But it’s not costing them anywhere near $50bn, that’s what really annoying about the debate in the US.
As an example, the successful HIMARS systems are old, almost obsolete in American terms, and were due to be replaced anyway in the next couple of years. Putting a huge dollar value on them is misrepresentative, and drives a lot of the opposition in the US to helping the Ukranians.
Well, yes. That’s the point.
That said, all of American public discourse at the moment is thoroughly toxic.
Toxified by Trump.
I really wish he had lost in 2016, the world would be in a better place today.
Trump would have been a curious footnote in history rather than the most dangerous man in America, if not the world.
What's remarkable is just how much he was able to capture the party. Americans don't have leaders the opposition but its sure felt like they have since he lost, even people like Pence who have reason to be furious with him are very cautious in criticism, and typically get into line along with everyone else.
That's why he wins the nomination, because ultimately the big hitters remain too frightened to take him on directly in a consistent way, and if you support him as much as thru demonstrably do, and if you think he was cheated of victory last time, and most claim to believe that, then why not support him?
Yes. Trump wins the nomination because he is a force of nature. Politically he is Untouchable and Unstoppable.
We have to take a few steps back and ask how America got itself into this mess. Trump clearly lost the 2020 election heavily, yet a substantial proportion of the country believe he won (because he says so). Trump clearly has some legal troubles but his supporters see *any* action against him as a political witch hunt (because he says so). Trump is a huge liability in office and corrupts every part of government he touches, yet is seen to be draining the swamp of government.
So how can other candidates stop him? Because he is unpopular? Incompetent? A crook? A loser?
The question is can Biden keepittogether long enough to beat The Donald again. Perhaps he might consider a better VP candidate this time as you do wonder if he will make the end of his second term.
That he is a loser is probably the strongest card others have, since his base dont believe or dont care if he is incompetent or a crook, since he's still their guy.
That he's got most of them to say he won last time, or at least not push back on the claim, is a genius level achievement as it neuters that attack. Instead they focus on electoral measures to help him win rather than picking someone else.
With difficult times and the best Democrat candidate being 82 come the election, it could yet work.
Biden rightly painted the last presidential election as important for the basic fundamentals of their democracy. The position will have decayed even further by the time we get to November 2024 if Trump is once again the candidate.
Its easy to point at Trump and the Republican Party for the coming disgrace in capitulating to the Trump fantasy. But we also have to point at the Democrats where Joe Biden is their last and only line of defence. Is that all they have left? Really?
Biden beat Trump in 2020 unlike Hillary in 2016 and Biden polls better v Trump than Harris, Newsom or Buttigieg. So yes if Trump is GOP nominee again
I know Biden has been a winner. We all know that. But he is 142 years old. Are we saying that there is nobody else more relevant who could also be a winner?
Sturgeon however departs with a very healthy +8 rating
New leader boost expected though?
Possible if Forbes gets it. Sturgeon's high rating is due to way she presented during Covid. Her domestic record is being widely derided by the commentariat. I think her ratings will decline over time though not as precipitously as Blair's did.
It's Iraq that did for Tony's rep, isn't it. There's no obvious equivalent for Nicola Sturgeon.
What might do for NS's reputation (she does not have the power, thankfully, to invade a few large middle eastern countries on a whim) is: prison population, GRR, drug deaths, ferries, internal party stuff, failure to get support for the one key project of separation, education standards, court room show boating including the Supreme Court, running out of other people's money.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
As I have said before, it isn't racism, its jingoism. The racism used to be there of course, and growing up in an east Lancashire township we saw plenty of racial unrest caused by the pig-ignorant policies of previous councils and the pig-ignorance of some of the older residents. But that is the past.
What we have instead is fear of the other. The other isn't defined by race, it is simply not being me and mine. The north has a real problem with the south and southerners. Lancashire and Yorkshire share a deep-rooted dislike despite their obvious mass similarities. Sheffield was trialling the Hunger Games districting long before the book or the movie, as was Washington with predictable results. Thornaby was described rightly as full of "parochial bigots" by an old man born and raised there, with the town Mayor ranting drunk on Facebook about how outsiders do not understand the town "and never will".
Racism is simply the wrong label.
Would you describe it as a loss of national cohesion?
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
In that his about face was entirely a matter of political convenience ?
It'll be up to Congress anyway no matter who is POTUS next year won't it? They'll have to decide if they want to keep pumping $50bn/year worth of weapons into Ukraine.
But it’s not costing them anywhere near $50bn, that’s what really annoying about the debate in the US.
As an example, the successful HIMARS systems are old, almost obsolete in American terms, and were due to be replaced anyway in the next couple of years. Putting a huge dollar value on them is misrepresentative, and drives a lot of the opposition in the US to helping the Ukranians.
Well, yes. That’s the point.
That said, all of American public discourse at the moment is thoroughly toxic.
Toxified by Trump.
I really wish he had lost in 2016, the world would be in a better place today.
Trump would have been a curious footnote in history rather than the most dangerous man in America, if not the world.
What's remarkable is just how much he was able to capture the party. Americans don't have leaders the opposition but its sure felt like they have since he lost, even people like Pence who have reason to be furious with him are very cautious in criticism, and typically get into line along with everyone else.
That's why he wins the nomination, because ultimately the big hitters remain too frightened to take him on directly in a consistent way, and if you support him as much as thru demonstrably do, and if you think he was cheated of victory last time, and most claim to believe that, then why not support him?
Yes. Trump wins the nomination because he is a force of nature. Politically he is Untouchable and Unstoppable.
We have to take a few steps back and ask how America got itself into this mess. Trump clearly lost the 2020 election heavily, yet a substantial proportion of the country believe he won (because he says so). Trump clearly has some legal troubles but his supporters see *any* action against him as a political witch hunt (because he says so). Trump is a huge liability in office and corrupts every part of government he touches, yet is seen to be draining the swamp of government.
So how can other candidates stop him? Because he is unpopular? Incompetent? A crook? A loser?
The question is can Biden keepittogether long enough to beat The Donald again. Perhaps he might consider a better VP candidate this time as you do wonder if he will make the end of his second term.
That he is a loser is probably the strongest card others have, since his base dont believe or dont care if he is incompetent or a crook, since he's still their guy.
That he's got most of them to say he won last time, or at least not push back on the claim, is a genius level achievement as it neuters that attack. Instead they focus on electoral measures to help him win rather than picking someone else.
With difficult times and the best Democrat candidate being 82 come the election, it could yet work.
Biden rightly painted the last presidential election as important for the basic fundamentals of their democracy. The position will have decayed even further by the time we get to November 2024 if Trump is once again the candidate.
Its easy to point at Trump and the Republican Party for the coming disgrace in capitulating to the Trump fantasy. But we also have to point at the Democrats where Joe Biden is their last and only line of defence. Is that all they have left? Really?
Objectively he has done a good job as President. There is sometimes a chasm between perceptions of what makes a good President, and what people expect will make a good President. Pragmatism and a capability to get things done are seriously underrated traits in democratic politics but core to successful delivery.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Whilst all that is true, it is also true that in many cases the working conditions for NHS staff are horrid and highly demoralising, and I suspect that a lot of the discontent which is ostensibly about pay is related to that.
Yep. Any job is a balance between pay and conditions.
I'm an academic. Many say we're underpaid and - like medicine - you can certainly make the case on starting salaries given required experience. But we have hugely flexible jobs where, effectively, we get to choose what we work on (as long as we can persuade someone to fund it) and - unlike clinicians - we get to largley decide when to do it outside of teaching duties. I've been offered more to be a stats/coding monkey in the private sector, but here I still am.
The junior docs I know (and I know a fair few* as students on Masters courses, collaborators on research, clinical research fellows etc) are much more upset about the conditions and the chronic understaffing and the feeling that they can't, due to that, do the job as well as they think it should be done than they are about pay. Better pay comes, if they can stick it out. But that's hard to do if the job itself is demoralising.
*far fewer, obviously, than our hospital-based clinicians and likely a skewed sample
If junior doctors' pay is so poor, how come places at med schools are so massively over subscribed?
There is some truth in what Malcolm suggested in somewhat blunt terms earlier, a lot of students go into medicine for the wrong reasons. If you are an above average sixth-former on the science side, medicine is an obvious choice because it is interesting, well-paid, and everyone loves doctors, so not a great deal of thought goes into the process. This means a lot of junior hospital doctors find reality is not what they imagined. The hours are long, the pay is low (at the start), and the work dull and repetitive, they are permanently knackered and suddenly life outside looks more attractive. Oh, and their mates from school are now three years into their careers, earning money and settling down.
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
If you get to be a partner in a gp surgery however you still get the 6 figure salary but with longer holidays and a better pension than your university friends who went into the City
Jam tomorrow. A salaried GP is on about £80,000 so a lot of friends who went into the City will be on that ten years earlier. More interestingly, something is going wrong among GPs too, it is not just junior hospital doctors. A lot of GPs now work part-time or have so-called portfolio careers (2-days GP, 2-days in different clinics at the local hospital.
A lot of their friends who go into the city are out on their arses a lot earlier than teh Doctors, it is not a job for life unlike doctors who are bomb proof unless they do a Shipman.
For once we are on the same page Malcolm. Journalists never mention the fact that the medical profession is the only one left with genuine "job for life" status.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
As I have said before, it isn't racism, its jingoism. The racism used to be there of course, and growing up in an east Lancashire township we saw plenty of racial unrest caused by the pig-ignorant policies of previous councils and the pig-ignorance of some of the older residents. But that is the past.
What we have instead is fear of the other. The other isn't defined by race, it is simply not being me and mine. The north has a real problem with the south and southerners. Lancashire and Yorkshire share a deep-rooted dislike despite their obvious mass similarities. Sheffield was trialling the Hunger Games districting long before the book or the movie, as was Washington with predictable results. Thornaby was described rightly as full of "parochial bigots" by an old man born and raised there, with the town Mayor ranting drunk on Facebook about how outsiders do not understand the town "and never will".
Racism is simply the wrong label.
What you're describing is more parochialism than jingoism I'd say.
But its also again a deep element of projectionism there too. Most Lancashire v Yorkshire stuff for instance is no more than banter, like Liverpool v Manchester, rather than real dislike. While local Government has often attracted fruitcakes, partially because of how little attention the ordinary voter pays to it which allows them to get by there rather than in serious politics, the overwhelming majority of ordinary voters are not fruitcakes or parochial/jingoistic/racist.
The overwhelming majority of ordinary voters here are normal people, who care about issues that affect them and their family first and foremost.
Comments
There are half a dozen players who had top 20 finishes in all three years.
Two long shots stand out: Corey Conners 10th, 8th, 6th and Kevin Na 13th, 12th, 14th
This is impressive consistency - they clearly like the course.
Both available at eye-catching odds on BF, and may work as trading bets especially if they get off to a good start:
Connors is 120 and Na is 370.
If Pence won evangelical heavy Iowa
and De Santis won New Hampshire, Trump's 2024 campaign would be over before it began.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65027039
The Treasury is spending £123 bn in pensioner benefits alone this year. Uplifting that by inflation, which is a political choice, is going to cost about £13 billion. That's before we even speak about other benefits.
If the money doesn't exist supposedly for inflation-matching pay rises then you may consider pissing away £13 billion in taxpayers money to be "very modest" but I for one do not.
Wages of those who are working for a living should go up by at least as much as wages for those who are not working for a living. If we can't afford a pay rise for those who are working, then we can't afford a pay rise for those who are not either.
That he's got most of them to say he won last time, or at least not push back on the claim, is a genius level achievement as it neuters that attack. Instead they focus on electoral measures to help him win rather than picking someone else.
With difficult times and the best Democrat candidate being 82 come the election, it could yet work.
But we can't pre-judge the committee investigating whether the liar lied to parliament. Despite the prima fasciae evidence and him being called out by the committee for lying to it.
Will KCIII be permitted shoes, do we think? Or will he wear holey/holy socks for the occasion?
A lot of those who want to become doctors who don't are lovely people who, bless 'em, don't have the academic grip to study medicine successfully. You could say to current junior doctors "bugger off, we'll get someone else", but the someone elses won't be as good.
As for why, it's a prestigious profession that is a net good in the world that everyone has seen close up. That means that they can imagine (or at least fantasise) themselves doing that job in a way that isn't true for software engineers or patent attorneys.
(
A question for Starmer - will he commit to setting up education and *training places* for 100% of the projected need for medical staff for the NHS.
The NHS has the projected staff requirements going a decade into the future.
I was told the following by a friend. His son was told that the U.K. foreign aid budget money has got shifted a bit. So more medical students were being sponsored by them. Since this is on full overseas fees, the universities love the idea. They won’t train in the NHS after graduation - go straight home to train in the hospitals there.
This means there is a reduction in the number of places for U.K. students this year, to become doctors, apparently. So my friends son is seeing increased competition for a place.
Is this right? @Foxy?
@BritainElects
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 46% (-1)
CON: 31% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
REF: 5% (-)
GRN: 4% (-)
via
@techneUK
, 22 - 23 Mar"
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1639176545804734465
What would convince you there's a problem here?
https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o3066
If the money's not there, the money's not there. If the money is there, it should go first to those who are working for it.
https://www.punchline-gloucester.com/articles/aanews/three-counties-medical-school-may-be-forced-to-train-mainly-foreign-students
Even without moving overseas, there are an awful lot of doctors on gap years, and others working part-time. My mate's doctor-child wants to be a management consultant.
One politician accused me of wanting to push foreign medical staff out of the NHS!
"someone elses won't be as good"? I'll take my chances. At least they will really want to be there and not decide to go on strike for a 35% pay increase on top of what many would deem to be a very healthy wage already.
But of course it's doctors and the NHS so they are sacrosanct. Any other professions routinely earning £100k+ which the Left worships? LotO, perhaps but that is also quite a competitive gig.
If it were at all ambiguous they would not have felt that need, they'd have attacked the media for mischaracterising his remarks, as he is now lamely attempting.
They didn't, because it was obvious who he was trying to appeal to.
What's amusing is any articles saying he was right about what he said, which he is now saying is not what they thought.
It is the government organ the GMC that decides the number of places. It also restricts the number of postgraduate training places too.
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
Let me kiss your laquered toes,
Gosh oh gosh, your royal Highness,
Stick your fingers up my nose.”
https://twitter.com/TaoualitAmar/status/1638934766606254080
If people are striking despite being paid too much they should be sacked and replaced with others who want to do their job for less, but if there's no others to do the job then they have the leverage and should be paid a reasonable rate. How is that any worse than a cohort of voters using their voting leverage to ensure that all the money available goes to them, while all the taxes go on others?
People need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. If you want someone to do a job then you need to pay them a rate they're willing to work for - or in a free market you can find someone else instead. But nobody has a right to demand others work for them on incomes they're not happy to be paid.
Also is block booking middle grade hotels to house them.
ICC, where are you?
Yes they work hard, but so do lots of non-partner professionals in legal, accountancy, management consultancy practices up and down the country. It goes with the territory. Also ask an older surgeon whether a younger newly promoted Consultant Surgeon has the hours that they did. They don't, because they are not allowed to work the hours.
Please don't swallow this crap. They have a hard job, but it is their choice and they are not hard done by. Save your sympathy for the non-medical NHS staff; they are being short changed very often, and it could be argued that disproportionately increasing the salaries of the NHS elite (the already well-paid doctors) makes less money available for them.
Essentially, they are well paid enough that they can afford to take the pay hit for working 2-3 days a week, rather than full time.
Its easy to point at Trump and the Republican Party for the coming disgrace in capitulating to the Trump fantasy. But we also have to point at the Democrats where Joe Biden is their last and only line of defence. Is that all they have left? Really?
Even QCs in criminal law will earn less than some of the top consultants
When do we want it? On demand, preferably milk two sugars thanks v much.
The placards write themselves.
It's almost as if, if you treat people badly, they don't love you. Or something.
I disagree with political violence. But the stubborn refusenik tendencies of the French do have their advantages vs the sheeplike way we seem to just accept any old crap that is thrown to us obedient subjects.
Although they are really one and the same thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65052816
25% is an entirely appropriate starting point to demand when the Government are offering others 11% and you only 2%.
If the Government want to short-change you by 9%, then start demanding much higher than what you will actually accept, then meet in the middle. Government says 2%, you say 25%, meet in the middle at 13% or just 2% higher than what the Government is prepared to pay those who aren't working for a living, and you have an agreement.
If the Government didn't want strikes they shouldn't have offered some people 11% and others 2%.
I had sent this almost three months ago.
I have just rung up to complain about their data handling procedures as they clearly aren't very good.
The reply was that they are having trouble reading and storing information from emails.
Who was I talking to?
The Information Commissioner's Office...
Double-entry bookkeeping and the meaning of life
That said, you are not alone. Doctors are the last bastion of deference. Watch the BBC interview someone from the BMA and it is like the deference that used to be shown to politicians in the 1950s. And do you know what? The doctors unions know it. They are not accountable, because no-one questions their obvious vested interests.
What we have instead is fear of the other. The other isn't defined by race, it is simply not being me and mine. The north has a real problem with the south and southerners. Lancashire and Yorkshire share a deep-rooted dislike despite their obvious mass similarities. Sheffield was trialling the Hunger Games districting long before the book or the movie, as was Washington with predictable results. Thornaby was described rightly as full of "parochial bigots" by an old man born and raised there, with the town Mayor ranting drunk on Facebook about how outsiders do not understand the town "and never will".
Racism is simply the wrong label.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/24/tory-bbc-question-time-boris-johnson-truth-partygate-hearing/
I'm an academic. Many say we're underpaid and - like medicine - you can certainly make the case on starting salaries given required experience. But we have hugely flexible jobs where, effectively, we get to choose what we work on (as long as we can persuade someone to fund it) and - unlike clinicians - we get to largley decide when to do it outside of teaching duties. I've been offered more to be a stats/coding monkey in the private sector, but here I still am.
The junior docs I know (and I know a fair few* as students on Masters courses, collaborators on research, clinical research fellows etc) are much more upset about the conditions and the chronic understaffing and the feeling that they can't, due to that, do the job as well as they think it should be done than they are about pay. Better pay comes, if they can stick it out. But that's hard to do if the job itself is demoralising.
*far fewer, obviously, than our hospital-based clinicians and likely a skewed sample
But its also again a deep element of projectionism there too. Most Lancashire v Yorkshire stuff for instance is no more than banter, like Liverpool v Manchester, rather than real dislike. While local Government has often attracted fruitcakes, partially because of how little attention the ordinary voter pays to it which allows them to get by there rather than in serious politics, the overwhelming majority of ordinary voters are not fruitcakes or parochial/jingoistic/racist.
The overwhelming majority of ordinary voters here are normal people, who care about issues that affect them and their family first and foremost.