Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
Strange, you'd think from reading that the years 2015-2024 didn't happen.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
Strange, you'd think from reading that the years 2015-2024 didn't happen.
Really ? Why would I be advocating the policies of a government I didnt support.
Re Tory Leader. I think the safe choice (regroup, stabilise, stop digging) is Cleverly. But they'll probably want to be more aspirational than that. In which case (if I had a vote) I'd apply some horse racing analysis. DecrepiterJohnL, Stodge, Peter_the_Punter, these sorts will get my drift here. So you pass over the horses that are well tried with their best form not good enough to win and you look for one that is just coming through, has maybe shown flashes but is what they call "unexposed", meaning hasn't really been tested yet and could be, COULD be, better than the form in the book. For me, in this (as it were) Conservative Leadership Selling Plate sponsored by Chums, that horse is probably Robert Jenrick.
I would probably go for Patel. I can't stand her politics but leader of a party moving from government to opposition isn't about politics. It's about shaping the party to take advantage of any change in the political environment as it happens. Only Patel of the six candidates appears to have a clue what needs to be done to fix the problems in the party
Or to put it another way, the first important job of the new leader isn't to respond to the Budget. It's to avoid wipeout at the next English council elections.
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
I mentioned the other day that the big tactical advantage of the Kursk invasion is that it gives the Ukrainians the chance to let their western armour run riot without being bogged down in minefields and concrete obstructions. And it appears that the Ukrainians are finally getting proper use of their Challenger II tanks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy54nn4v471t
It will interesting to see what tactics they are using them with.
One speculation was that they would be used like as Conqueror/M103 heavy tanks were supposed to be used - long range backup for attacks by the regular MBTs.
Ukraine does have the ability to use equipment to its best given all the odds and sods that they've been handed.
Challenger (please correct me if I'm wrong) was a tank-on-tank design. I'm not sure there's been much of that at all has there?
Tank on tank was always very rare.
For all the stories of Sherman vs Tiger, most Sherman crew never met a Tiger. Indeed, many never met a tank.
Most tanks from the OG MK1 in 1917 spent their time doing infantry support.
Challenger was optimised for high accuracy and range. Part of the reason that it has become a mess was the instance on a rifled gun, to retain HESH. Which is long obsolete against armour, but effective against every other kind of target.
The speculation (above) was because Challenger (and M1) are heavy tanks compared with the retread (ha) Soviet tanks. They can fight effectively at vastly greater ranges. And there are relatively few of them. The original idea of the M103/Conqueror was to engage targets from very long range to support the main battle tanks (Centurion etc).
Re Tory Leader. I think the safe choice (regroup, stabilise, stop digging) is Cleverly. But they'll probably want to be more aspirational than that. In which case (if I had a vote) I'd apply some horse racing analysis. DecrepiterJohnL, Stodge, Peter_the_Punter, these sorts will get my drift here. So you pass over the horses that are well tried with their best form not good enough to win and you look for one that is just coming through, has maybe shown flashes but is what they call "unexposed", meaning hasn't really been tested yet and could be, COULD be, better than the form in the book. For me, in this (as it were) Conservative Leadership Selling Plate sponsored by Chums, that horse is probably Robert Jenrick.
I agree with your analysis, but not necessarily with your conclusion.
I'd say Cleverly is the safest choice; I'd also put Tugendhat in that bracket. Chances of them soaring seem slim, but chances of them crashing and burning horribly also slim. For me, the one with the biggest upside is Kemi - she might be transformational for them. But the chances of her crashing and burning seem somewhat higher. Jenrick is somewhere between the two camps - a bigger risk but potentially a bigger reward than Tug/Clever, but neither so big a risk nor so big a reward as Kemi.
However, the big question is who gets down to the final two. I have nothing more to go on here than anyone else does, but for me the last three are Tug/Clever/Jenrick. So Kemi not necessarily a value bet.
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
Strange, you'd think from reading that the years 2015-2024 didn't happen.
Really ? Why would I be advocating the policies of a government I didnt support.
Kindly explain.
Have to say you seemed to be much less vocally critical of the last Government you didn't support than the current Government you clearly don't support either.
Fair enough.
As to how we resolve the public finances, as I said last evening, the days of the "small state" are over and they aren't coming back. Thinking spending cuts alone can or will clear the deficit is foolish - there will have to be tax rises both personal and corporate and there will be lots of complaints and anguish I'm sure.
For all many on here seem to treat the notion with contempt, the only real question left is which of the various tax and spend social democratic parties we should entrust with running the country every four or five years.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Fighting on three broad fronts is a blooming difficult problem.
Especially when your rivals don't have it. (The Venn diagram of seats Labour and the Lib Dems are interested in has hardly any overlap, and Reform vs Labour is a dog that hasn't really barked so far.)
And especially when your party has next to no experience of that tricky game.
That was why people on here are arguing that the Tories need to tack Right first to remove the threat of reform before tacking towards the centre.
I don't see how it works but unless the tories identify and grab some of the Reform vote they have a significant long term problem.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Wow! Time travelling back to the 1970s. "Keep the little lady back home with the weans". You may be right power cuts are on their way
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
I mentioned the other day that the big tactical advantage of the Kursk invasion is that it gives the Ukrainians the chance to let their western armour run riot without being bogged down in minefields and concrete obstructions. And it appears that the Ukrainians are finally getting proper use of their Challenger II tanks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy54nn4v471t
It will interesting to see what tactics they are using them with.
One speculation was that they would be used like as Conqueror/M103 heavy tanks were supposed to be used - long range backup for attacks by the regular MBTs.
Ukraine does have the ability to use equipment to its best given all the odds and sods that they've been handed.
Challenger (please correct me if I'm wrong) was a tank-on-tank design. I'm not sure there's been much of that at all has there?
Tank on tank was always very rare.
For all the stories of Sherman vs Tiger, most Sherman crew never met a Tiger. Indeed, many never met a tank.
Most tanks from the OG MK1 in 1917 spent their time doing infantry support.
Challenger was optimised for high accuracy and range. Part of the reason that it has become a mess was the instance on a rifled gun, to retain HESH. Which is long obsolete against armour, but effective against every other kind of target.
The speculation (above) was because Challenger (and M1) are heavy tanks compared with the retread (ha) Soviet tanks. They can fight effectively at vastly greater ranges. And there are relatively few of them. The original idea of the M103/Conqueror was to engage targets from very long range to support the main battle tanks (Centurion etc).
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Targeting the people who voted Tory in 2019 would be a big mistake. 2019 was an unusual election. 2010 is the best guide in my view.
Not post Brexit for the foreseeable future, 2010 Tories who voted Labour or LD in 2024 are much less likely to swing back even if Turgendhat or Stride are leader unless Labour completely crash the economy and massively increase taxes.
2019 Tories though who went Reform in 2024 are more likely to switch back with a harder on immigration leader like Jenrick
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now youre just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
1. They're only massive because their pay has been frozen for years 2. The productivity improvement is because they're no longer on strike 3. Many of the strikes have been in protest at wazzock management by things like the DfT which have wrecked productivity by (as an example) dictating to Transpennine Express management that they should reduce traincrew route knowledge so that a Newcastle - Liverpool train needs 2 changes of driver and conductor en-route
Yes all those poor sods heading off to University to get £50k of Clegg induced debt and who wont be able to get a well paid job shouold drop the whole charade and apply to be a train driver, £75k plus pension for pushing a lever.
On the other hand do you buy scotch eggs ? I could maybe do you a deal.
Strange, you'd think from reading that the years 2015-2024 didn't happen.
Really ? Why would I be advocating the policies of a government I didnt support.
Kindly explain.
Have to say you seemed to be much less vocally critical of the last Government you didn't support than the current Government you clearly don't support either.
Fair enough.
As to how we resolve the public finances, as I said last evening, the days of the "small state" are over and they aren't coming back. Thinking spending cuts alone can or will clear the deficit is foolish - there will have to be tax rises both personal and corporate and there will be lots of complaints and anguish I'm sure.
For all many on here seem to treat the notion with contempt, the only real question left is which of the various tax and spend social democratic parties we should entrust with running the country every four or five years.
I quite happily criticised the last government but since that chimed with your view you didnt pick it up.
However if I understand correctly you work in the public sector so you are never going to be for a small state. But a small state will be back on the cards as we increasingly have less new things to tax. The "third way " has run its course and isnt producing growth or wealth for all.
I personally think that this is the biggest economic story in the world right now. Construction/property is over 30% of China's GDP. That needs a massive correction. China has already built enough houses to home another 3bn people.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
Something that could easily be done is to ship the EUs unwanted migrants to China. I can only see benefits on all sides.
The Tory leadership race is hotting up, but things aren't looking too rosy for Priti Patel.
Tory party donors who were formerly Team Boris are refusing to get behind Priti because of her links to the Partygate leak. Her top spin doctor James Starkie was the one they suspect sent the Mirror the infamous CCHQ photo of a lockdown Christmas party - the first domino in the chain that eventually toppled BoJo.
Starkie is so reviled in those circles he's suffered an extremely Tory punishment. Nick Candy - billionaire and husband of Holly Valance - has had him banned from various clubs in London.
Priti Patel is having Portillo's problem in 2001, started off darling of the Thatcherite right, now seen as too wet and moderate and betraying the legacy of the great leader ie then Thatcher (who ultimately endorsed IDS) and now Boris (who made a video for his 'old friend' Robert Jenrick in the GE) and so ends up winning not enough of either camp
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Wow! Time travelling back to the 1970s. "Keep the little lady back home with the weans". You may be right power cuts are on their way
Honestly, Alanbrooke is like some caricature from the 1970s. He epitomises the kind of manager that drove Britain into the dirt back then.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
I mentioned the other day that the big tactical advantage of the Kursk invasion is that it gives the Ukrainians the chance to let their western armour run riot without being bogged down in minefields and concrete obstructions. And it appears that the Ukrainians are finally getting proper use of their Challenger II tanks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy54nn4v471t
It will interesting to see what tactics they are using them with.
One speculation was that they would be used like as Conqueror/M103 heavy tanks were supposed to be used - long range backup for attacks by the regular MBTs.
Ukraine does have the ability to use equipment to its best given all the odds and sods that they've been handed.
Challenger (please correct me if I'm wrong) was a tank-on-tank design. I'm not sure there's been much of that at all has there?
Tank on tank was always very rare.
For all the stories of Sherman vs Tiger, most Sherman crew never met a Tiger. Indeed, many never met a tank.
Most tanks from the OG MK1 in 1917 spent their time doing infantry support.
Challenger was optimised for high accuracy and range. Part of the reason that it has become a mess was the instance on a rifled gun, to retain HESH. Which is long obsolete against armour, but effective against every other kind of target.
The speculation (above) was because Challenger (and M1) are heavy tanks compared with the retread (ha) Soviet tanks. They can fight effectively at vastly greater ranges. And there are relatively few of them. The original idea of the M103/Conqueror was to engage targets from very long range to support the main battle tanks (Centurion etc).
Are there 'infantry tanks' once again?
MBTs are supposed to do it all in the one package. The again, you have the idea vehicles with a palette load of precision missiles providing longer range support and strike for the infantry. Some lash up version of that have appeared in Ukraine. BAe were flogging an idea of a vehicle stuffed with Brimstones, recently, IIRC.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Wow! Time travelling back to the 1970s. "Keep the little lady back home with the weans". You may be right power cuts are on their way
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
You mean “fewer” women doctors. At least try to be a grammatically correct misogynist.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Wow! Time travelling back to the 1970s. "Keep the little lady back home with the weans". You may be right power cuts are on their way
Honestly, Alanbrooke is like some caricature from the 1970s. He epitomises the kind of manager that drove Britain into the dirt back then.
Youre just a poor lost soul. You have no experience of the 70s nor have you much contact with industry now.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
You mean “fewer” women doctors. At least try to be a grammatically correct misogynist.
A good idea to bring forward the leadership result to the end of October so it avoids being overshadowed by events in the calendar.
Though you can't plan for unexpected events, eg when IDS was elected party leader in 2001 it was overshadowed by September 11th a few days before
Still there though, the Quiet Man.
Indeed, while most of the Tory MPs who toppled him have either now left politics long ago or lost their seats on 4th July while he held his
He only held his seat because Starmer dropped the ball over candidate selection.
I suspect, second only to Farage's victory in Clacton that was the second biggest disappointment for anyone who wasn't on the extreme right of the Conservative Party on July 5th
Yet IDS' voteshare even then was only down 12% in Chingford and Woodford Green even with a Reform candidate compared to the 20% decline in the Tory voteshare nationally
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Of course, in this country if they do medicine undergrad they're not technically a doctor.
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
You mean “fewer” women doctors. At least try to be a grammatically correct misogynist.
You're a rule taker and worry about such things,
You believe in rules too - but only for other people. Like rules preventing too many women becoming doctors. You want to be a rule giver, a man who gives the orders, like your avatar. If we took orders from melts like you though we’d be royally fucked
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Fighting on three broad fronts is a blooming difficult problem.
Especially when your rivals don't have it. (The Venn diagram of seats Labour and the Lib Dems are interested in has hardly any overlap, and Reform vs Labour is a dog that hasn't really barked so far.)
And especially when your party has next to no experience of that tricky game.
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Ilford is London now not Essex
Cricket goes by traditional county boundaries. Which is why Surrey play in London, Lancashire play in Greater Manchester and Warwickshire play in the West Midlands. Poor old Middlesex doesn’t even exist administratively anymore.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
You mean “fewer” women doctors. At least try to be a grammatically correct misogynist.
You're a rule taker and worry about such things,
You believe in rules too - but only for other people. Like rules preventing too many women becoming doctors. You want to be a rule giver, a man who gives the orders, like your avatar. If we took orders from melts like you though we’d be royally fucked
Again you are limited by the narrowness of your training. I think we should have fewer rules than we have today we dont need so many governments keep passing them to make it look like they are doing something.
And as for the women doctors that was clickbait to attract idiots. It seems it worked.
Re Tory Leader. I think the safe choice (regroup, stabilise, stop digging) is Cleverly. But they'll probably want to be more aspirational than that. In which case (if I had a vote) I'd apply some horse racing analysis. DecrepiterJohnL, Stodge, Peter_the_Punter, these sorts will get my drift here. So you pass over the horses that are well tried with their best form not good enough to win and you look for one that is just coming through, has maybe shown flashes but is what they call "unexposed", meaning hasn't really been tested yet and could be, COULD be, better than the form in the book. For me, in this (as it were) Conservative Leadership Selling Plate sponsored by Chums, that horse is probably Robert Jenrick.
I agree with your analysis, but not necessarily with your conclusion.
I'd say Cleverly is the safest choice; I'd also put Tugendhat in that bracket. Chances of them soaring seem slim, but chances of them crashing and burning horribly also slim. For me, the one with the biggest upside is Kemi - she might be transformational for them. But the chances of her crashing and burning seem somewhat higher. Jenrick is somewhere between the two camps - a bigger risk but potentially a bigger reward than Tug/Clever, but neither so big a risk nor so big a reward as Kemi.
However, the big question is who gets down to the final two. I have nothing more to go on here than anyone else does, but for me the last three are Tug/Clever/Jenrick. So Kemi not necessarily a value bet.
For me, Cleverly is the best value at present.
There is a hidden and mostly unaddressed question: which of them (if any) are top, stellar quality at leadership. The only person I have heard address this central point with understanding is Steve Baker (of whom I am not a fan).
Leadership has been an epic fail consistently since early Blair. Later Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss and Sunak have all faltered at this critical level. The jury is out on Starmer, but he may have it.
From the outside, as most of us are, you can get an idea from guesswork and hunch, but that isn't enough. It can be, and is, tested for in many workplaces and so on.
In this regard none of the six stand out. But at the time neither did Thatcher. If any of them have this elusive quality, I would guess in order they would be: Stride, Tugendhat (both possible but unlikely), Cleverly (just about possible), the other three: almost impossible.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
But if you reduce the pool of potential applicants by making the job less attractive, then you are going to end up with people who struggle even more to get through the training and a greater drop-out rate. I'm sure Foxy has already explained this to you, but you don't strike me as the kind of person to listen to anything anyone else says.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
Hence the retention problem with Junior Doctors, a high percentage of whom are overseas graduates.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Isn't it more that there aren't enough places on courses. My understanding (which can't possibly be true, because in what sane world would things work this way) is that we have a massive shortfall of medical staff, resulting in us having to poach them from abroad; and a massive surplus of clever people WANTING to be medical staff - but the courses to turn these problems into the solutions to each other are kept artificially constrained, with universities under dire financial penalties if they train too many medics.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
You mean “fewer” women doctors. At least try to be a grammatically correct misogynist.
You're a rule taker and worry about such things,
You believe in rules too - but only for other people. Like rules preventing too many women becoming doctors. You want to be a rule giver, a man who gives the orders, like your avatar. If we took orders from melts like you though we’d be royally fucked
Again you are limited by the narrowness of your training. I think we should have fewer rules than we have today we dont need so many governments keep passing them to make it look like they are doing something.
An as for the women doctors that was clickbait to attract idiots. It seems it worked.
Thanks for the insult, but the greatest minds in science and technology have yet to invent a microscope powerful enough to locate the number of fucks I give about the opinion of a man who appropriates and disgraces the distinguished name you do.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
You mean “fewer” women doctors. At least try to be a grammatically correct misogynist.
You're a rule taker and worry about such things,
You believe in rules too - but only for other people. Like rules preventing too many women becoming doctors. You want to be a rule giver, a man who gives the orders, like your avatar. If we took orders from melts like you though we’d be royally fucked
Again you are limited by the narrowness of your training. I think we should have fewer rules than we have today we dont need so many governments keep passing them to make it look like they are doing something.
And as for the women doctors that was clickbait to attract idiots. It seems it worked.
Females are on the medical courses to attract males onto the courses? Astounding if true.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Pretty well every GP in my local practice - a large on - works part-time. It's definitely a thing. And given the bottleneck in supply, a serious problem.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
But if you reduce the pool of potential applicants by making the job less attractive, then you are going to end up with people who struggle even more to get through the training and a greater drop-out rate. I'm sure Foxy has already explained this to you, but you don't strike me a the kind of person to listen to anything anyone else says.
Ive said you need to recruit more.This allows for a higher drop out rate and means you retain the numbers you need, And since you have a larger pool of trainees you can gradually cut back on excessive hours being foisted on people, that way the working conditions can start to improve thereby assisting retention rates.
Re Tory Leader. I think the safe choice (regroup, stabilise, stop digging) is Cleverly. But they'll probably want to be more aspirational than that. In which case (if I had a vote) I'd apply some horse racing analysis. DecrepiterJohnL, Stodge, Peter_the_Punter, these sorts will get my drift here. So you pass over the horses that are well tried with their best form not good enough to win and you look for one that is just coming through, has maybe shown flashes but is what they call "unexposed", meaning hasn't really been tested yet and could be, COULD be, better than the form in the book. For me, in this (as it were) Conservative Leadership Selling Plate sponsored by Chums, that horse is probably Robert Jenrick.
I agree with your analysis, but not necessarily with your conclusion.
I'd say Cleverly is the safest choice; I'd also put Tugendhat in that bracket. Chances of them soaring seem slim, but chances of them crashing and burning horribly also slim. For me, the one with the biggest upside is Kemi - she might be transformational for them. But the chances of her crashing and burning seem somewhat higher. Jenrick is somewhere between the two camps - a bigger risk but potentially a bigger reward than Tug/Clever, but neither so big a risk nor so big a reward as Kemi.
However, the big question is who gets down to the final two. I have nothing more to go on here than anyone else does, but for me the last three are Tug/Clever/Jenrick. So Kemi not necessarily a value bet.
For me, Cleverly is the best value at present.
There is a hidden and mostly unaddressed question: which of them (if any) are top, stellar quality at leadership. The only person I have heard address this central point with understanding is Steve Baker (of whom I am not a fan).
Leadership has been an epic fail consistently since early Blair. Later Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss and Sunak have all faltered at this critical level. The jury is out on Starmer, but he may have it.
From the outside, as most of us are, you can get an idea from guesswork and hunch, but that isn't enough. It can be, and is, tested for in many workplaces and so on.
In this regard none of the six stand out. But at the time neither did Thatcher. If any of them have this elusive quality, I would guess in order they would be: Stride, Tugendhat (both possible but unlikely), Cleverly (just about possible), the other three: almost impossible.
Both MPs and membership are underrating this.
Leadership qualities probably aren't that rare, but they are in those are nasty enough to rise to the top.
Thatcher just breezed through because nobody was paying attention.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
Hence the retention problem with Junior Doctors, a high percentage of whom are overseas graduates.
Interesting polling on doctors today by YouGov
I would argue the "retention problem" has more to do with not recruiting enough in the first place. If there is a high drop out rate you need to allow for it.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
But if you reduce the pool of potential applicants by making the job less attractive, then you are going to end up with people who struggle even more to get through the training and a greater drop-out rate. I'm sure Foxy has already explained this to you, but you don't strike me a the kind of person to listen to anything anyone else says.
Ive said you need to recruit more.This allows for a higher drop out rate and means you retain the numbers you need, And since you have a larger pool of trainees you can gradually cut back on excessive hours being foisted on people, that way the working conditions can start to improve thereby assisting retention rates.
You are absolutely correct on that. But it will take 5-15 years to filter through and your other suggestions will just make it even worse for the next 5-10 years for no particular benefit. Cut headline wages and we end up paying £3,000 for a single shift as cover is needed, the money saved is an illusion.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Isn't it more that there aren't enough places on courses. My understanding (which can't possibly be true, because in what sane world would things work this way) is that we have a massive shortfall of medical staff, resulting in us having to poach them from abroad; and a massive surplus of clever people WANTING to be medical staff - but the courses to turn these problems into the solutions to each other are kept artificially constrained, with universities under dire financial penalties if they train too many medics.
The number of medical school places is set by the GMC (which has been a government quango for many years), so in effect by the government.
There is a growing dropout problem, once very rare in medical schools, and the number of applications per place dropping significantly. Bear in mind that around a third of the applicants are repeat applications who didn't get in in previous years, so we aren't fishing in a very big pool.
We probably could drop entry standards a bit further, though that does tend to up the dropout rate when they cannot cope with the demands of the course.
Or perhaps improve the lot of Junior Doctors, not all of their disgruntlement is about pay. Poor career advice and Stalinist Deanery's that randomly send them to jobs could do with Reform for example.
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Targeting the people who voted Tory in 2019 would be a big mistake. 2019 was an unusual election. 2010 is the best guide in my view.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
Hence the retention problem with Junior Doctors, a high percentage of whom are overseas graduates.
Interesting polling on doctors today by YouGov
I would argue the "retention problem" has more to do with not recruiting enough in the first place. If there is a high drop out rate you need to allow for it.
There didn't used to be a retention and dropout problem.
Of course, if you want to expand training places then you do need experienced medical professionals to spend more time training and less time treating patients.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
You mean “fewer” women doctors. At least try to be a grammatically correct misogynist.
You're a rule taker and worry about such things,
You believe in rules too - but only for other people. Like rules preventing too many women becoming doctors. You want to be a rule giver, a man who gives the orders, like your avatar. If we took orders from melts like you though we’d be royally fucked
Again you are limited by the narrowness of your training. I think we should have fewer rules than we have today we dont need so many governments keep passing them to make it look like they are doing something.
An as for the women doctors that was clickbait to attract idiots. It seems it worked.
Thanks for the insult, but the greatest minds in science and technology have yet to invent a microscope powerful enough to locate the number of fucks I give about the opinion of a man who appropriates and disgraces the distinguished name you do.
Most of the lawyers I know can do much better than that. I assume youre not a partner ?
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Wow! Time travelling back to the 1970s. "Keep the little lady back home with the weans". You may be right power cuts are on their way
Im trying to raise your blood pressure
I don't need you to feed my hypertension, I can manage to raise my blood pressure quite well on my own.
Surely it makes more sense for the current LotO, and former Chancellor, to respond to the Budget.
He’s going to be by far the most capable of all the possibilities, to understand the nuances of the Budget book almost immediately, having been on the other side of the debate on a handful of occasions already.
And since most of the budget speech is going to be a rant about what a terrible mess the Tories left behind and why it is now necessary to increase taxes despite promising not to someone actually familiar with those figures will surely be able to respond with vigour.
That's exactly why it shouldn't be Sunak, IMHO - he would be unable to avoid turning it into a defence of his record.
If the new leader were in place, they'd be free to draw a line under the past and concentrate on attacking the Labour govt.
The other problem with having a lame-duck leader for such an important occasion is that they might end up choosing to support some aspect of the budget that their successor might rather oppose (or vice versa). Remember what happened during Harriet Harman's second stint as Labour leader - she decided not to oppose the two child benefit cap, and the resulting furore led the way for Corbyn's victory in the subsequent leadership election.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
About 25% of that 60 000 get an A or A* I presume, so you are really looking at a pool of about 15 000.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
"My son (or daughter) is a DOCTOR!"
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
Correct a doctor has a certain status and kudos and when they get to the top of their scale its not a badly paid job. It the grind of getting through the scale which is uncomfortable.
But if you reduce the pool of potential applicants by making the job less attractive, then you are going to end up with people who struggle even more to get through the training and a greater drop-out rate. I'm sure Foxy has already explained this to you, but you don't strike me a the kind of person to listen to anything anyone else says.
Ive said you need to recruit more.This allows for a higher drop out rate and means you retain the numbers you need, And since you have a larger pool of trainees you can gradually cut back on excessive hours being foisted on people, that way the working conditions can start to improve thereby assisting retention rates.
You are absolutely correct on that. But it will take 5-15 years to filter through and your other suggestions will just make it even worse for the next 5-10 years for no particular benefit. Cut headline wages and we end up paying £3,000 for a single shift as cover is needed, the money saved is an illusion.
Yes it will take time but you have to start and not keep putting it off. And I suspect it wont take quite as long as you think. however you'll probably be fighting the BMA to do so,
'Harrismania' is hugely overblown, and Trump's chances are being understated.
1. She has picked up big support with younger voters and Black voters but she is below Hillary Clinton levels with whites, Hispanics, and over-50s
2. Trump's base is still hugely energised and still has a small enthusiasm edge on Harris
3. Trump holds the 'holy trinity' of political attributes, being seen as more 'strong', more likely to 'get things done' and as best on the economy by voters
4. Independents are either split or give Trump a narrow edge -- and their main concern about Harris is that she is too liberal
Yes she has tightened the race but in my view Trump still has the edge.'
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
'Harrismania' is hugely overblown, and Trump's chances are being understated.
1. She has picked up big support with younger voters and Black voters but she is below Hillary Clinton levels with whites, Hispanics, and over-50s
2. Trump's base is still hugely energised and still has a small enthusiasm edge on Harris
3. Trump holds the 'holy trinity' of political attributes, being seen as more 'strong', more likely to 'get things done' and as best on the economy by voters
4. Independents are either split or give Trump a narrow edge -- and their main concern about Harris is that she is too liberal
Yes she has tightened the race but in my view Trump still has the edge.'
'Harrismania' is hugely overblown, and Trump's chances are being understated.
1. She has picked up big support with younger voters and Black voters but she is below Hillary Clinton levels with whites, Hispanics, and over-50s
2. Trump's base is still hugely energised and still has a small enthusiasm edge on Harris
3. Trump holds the 'holy trinity' of political attributes, being seen as more 'strong', more likely to 'get things done' and as best on the economy by voters
4. Independents are either split or give Trump a narrow edge -- and their main concern about Harris is that she is too liberal
Yes she has tightened the race but in my view Trump still has the edge.'
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Pretty well every GP in my local practice - a large on - works part-time. It's definitely a thing. And given the bottleneck in supply, a serious problem.
To be honest, if I could earn £100,000 a year, I'd work part time. I just don't need that much money and would rather have the time off. And I presume the lady docs are doing it for childcare reasons.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
About 25% of that 60 000 get an A or A* I presume, so you are really looking at a pool of about 15 000.
Which is consistent with something that I think I've seen here (maybe from your good self), that pretty much all students who sincerely want to study medicine and have A/A* at A Level get to do so, even if it means going a longer way round.
And then I come from it with my education hat on, working with young people for two years and knowing the grades they eventually get. I can imagine some of the students I have taught who came out with Bs being fine doctors in the end, but below that... I'm not sure there is a huge pool of unrealised medics out there.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Nice to see you quote the 2023 figures when the Telegraph article is based on the 2024 figures..
Are you daft take 12% off a record number and you are still massively oversubscribed. Really cant you handle numbers ?
7500 places, 12000 applicants.
You seem to have this strange idea that all the people applying to study medicine are suitable for a career in medicine. That simply won't be the case...
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Ilford is London now not Essex
And is where Nasser Hussain is from. Until 1933 Essex's HQ was in Leyton. The East End East of the Lea is Essex in cricketing terms and full of Carribeans and Asians
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
It will not end well, Labour's usual spaffing money at unions will end in tears. They will be out on their arses by next election.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
My son dod A level chemistry and dragged me rounds lots of medicine schools. In the end he diecided not and ended up in PWC, a lot of his colleagues also ended up in the professions.
The comment on women is simply to point out they for personal reasons ( family etc ) want to make medicine a part time job. I know several women doctors in their early thirties for whom this is their career goal. I also know blokes who moan about it since they have to pick up the slack. So if there is a retention problem it has several aspects.
You once again jump to the pay up solution without explaining why medicine is so popular a course, We dont have a recruitment problem. And despite your jibes as a mager I have never been a treat employees mean manager, but neither do I throw money at a problem just to make it go away. If you do it nearly always comes back.
'Harrismania' is hugely overblown, and Trump's chances are being understated.
1. She has picked up big support with younger voters and Black voters but she is below Hillary Clinton levels with whites, Hispanics, and over-50s
2. Trump's base is still hugely energised and still has a small enthusiasm edge on Harris
3. Trump holds the 'holy trinity' of political attributes, being seen as more 'strong', more likely to 'get things done' and as best on the economy by voters
4. Independents are either split or give Trump a narrow edge -- and their main concern about Harris is that she is too liberal
Yes she has tightened the race but in my view Trump still has the edge.'
At New Road, Kasey Aldridge is doing his chances of playing Tests this summer no harm at all. 1-20 off six overs and an excellent 78 off 96 to lift England Lions from 190-6 to 324 all out.
New Road was a wonderful ground. Almost like a village green and then they stuck up that God awful stand on New Road. I hear Ashley Giles is talking about moving "New Road" out of the city due to flooding, and they are already playing in Kiddy for the early season games.
Yes.
Can't blame them for wanting to move either. I think the square was under water for all bar about three weeks of the winter. That's not fair on the club. Kidderminster isn't a bad ground but it's not got the facilities or the access of New Road. Better to sell the land for car parking and move to the east of the city, near the M5 and the railway.
A shame, because it's an iconic ground, but an iconic ground that's constantly under two feet of water is no good to man nor ECB.
Glos are looking at moving too, for the slightly different reason that the ground's very cramped, access is terrible and the pitch is desperately slow.
Putting it in Norton would make some sense. Just off Junction 7 of the M5 and handy for the new "railway station from nowhere".
Essex keep talking about moving too. Current ground's small, but bang in the middle of Chelmsford.
Presumably they could make tens of millions selling off the ground for blocks of river view apartments to be built on the site, and find another site that’s currently a random field a mile out of town? Not an easy decision to make, especially when the money is being dangled in front of you.
It's access that's the big issue. At the moment it's good for bus, train and car, and foot from the City centre.
Maybe they should move back to London, the centre of gravity has moved that way rather than the north Essex and Suffolk villages
See what you mean, but I think that moving to London would mean that that the cricket mandarins would say "Ah, but Lords ...."
Essex looked at moving but I don't think they could afford to build a new ground. They'd probably have an even better talent stream if they moved some games back towards Ilford.
Ilford is London now not Essex
And is where Nasser Hussain is from. Until 1933 Essex's HQ was in Leyton. The East End East of the Lea is Essex in cricketing terms and full of Carribeans and Asians
The Oval is not in Surrey and Lords isn't in Middlesex which ceased to exist in 1965.
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Targeting the people who voted Tory in 2019 would be a big mistake. 2019 was an unusual election. 2010 is the best guide in my view.
Maybe. The tricky thing is the people who made the switch to Reform, Labour and LD appear to be content with their respective choices.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Nice to see you quote the 2023 figures when the Telegraph article is based on the 2024 figures..
Are you daft take 12% off a record number and you are still massively oversubscribed. Really cant you handle numbers ?
7500 places, 12000 applicants.
You seem to have this strange idea that all the people applying to study medicine are suitable for a career in medicine. That simply won't be the case...
Oh FFS undestand your own article its 12% drop not 12,000 applications. See below
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Targeting the people who voted Tory in 2019 would be a big mistake. 2019 was an unusual election. 2010 is the best guide in my view.
Maybe. The tricky thing is the people who made the switch to Reform, Labour and LD appear to be content with their respective choices.
Actually the one thing that is a feature of British politics is a discontent with the choices that they're making when voting. (I have no evidence for this)
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
It will not end well, Labour's usual spaffing money at unions will end in tears. They will be out on their arses by next election.
Are you anticipating an SNP revival both sides of the border? As it stands the Tories are a long was from getting their act together. Or maybe you think Reform run riot so to speak...
'Harrismania' is hugely overblown, and Trump's chances are being understated.
1. She has picked up big support with younger voters and Black voters but she is below Hillary Clinton levels with whites, Hispanics, and over-50s
2. Trump's base is still hugely energised and still has a small enthusiasm edge on Harris
3. Trump holds the 'holy trinity' of political attributes, being seen as more 'strong', more likely to 'get things done' and as best on the economy by voters
4. Independents are either split or give Trump a narrow edge -- and their main concern about Harris is that she is too liberal
Yes she has tightened the race but in my view Trump still has the edge.'
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
given teh country si skint , 22% is absolute madness and it will just start the domino effect for the rest. Private companies do not have similar options , they must improve productivity or get rid of the equivalent number of workers to fund it. Labour will hir emor efeet up netflix workers without a thought to who pays it.
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
At least I understand basic economics and the fundamental laws of supply and demand. How the hell are you going to get smart people to train to become doctors when than can earn better money doing far easier jobs?
Explain then why medicine is one of the most oversubscribed university courses ? There is no shortage of capable candidates, there is a shortage oftraining places. And its not as if the work conditions are a secret.
It's not anymore. In fact the number of applicants to do medicine has dropped by 12% over the past 2 years
Nice to see you quote the 2023 figures when the Telegraph article is based on the 2024 figures..
Are you daft take 12% off a record number and you are still massively oversubscribed. Really cant you handle numbers ?
7500 places, 12000 applicants.
You seem to have this strange idea that all the people applying to study medicine are suitable for a career in medicine. That simply won't be the case...
Oh FFS undestand your own article its 12% drop not 12,000 applications. See below
Nope that's your inability to read - This is a quote from the Telegraph article
Just 12,100 teenagers applied to study medicine at university this year, down 12 per cent in two years, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas).
In the nicest possible way... This looks like Conservatives who haven't taken on board that they're in opposition for the longish haul.
If things go badly for the government, the next election is May 2029. The window from May 2028 to then is what all the parties should be thinking about.
And the Leader of the Opposition's response to a Budget speech is like doing a wee while wearing a dark suit. Nobody will notice.
It doesn't matter how brilliantly the Magnificent One Hundred and Twenty One perform; the government is basically going to do whatever it wants for the next few years.
Leader's first task is to make sure they don't go backwards and end up 3rd in seats to the Lib Dems or 3rd behind the popular vote to Reform. Or both !
The Conservatives still have the very oldest voters so the start point for the next GE is actuarially slightly behind where they are now.
Whilst that's true, there's surely a fairly significant number of people out there who vote Tory more often than not but couldn't support them in July for various reasons who would be expected to drift back as the farce of the last few years fades into memory - at least if they avoid picking Patel as leader.
These are people who voted Conservative in 2019 and who switched variously to Reform, Lib Dem and Labour. They would need a reason to switch back again where those reasons are different for each party they have switched to. A challenge the Conservatives don't appear even to be aware of. Albeit it is early days.
Targeting the people who voted Tory in 2019 would be a big mistake. 2019 was an unusual election. 2010 is the best guide in my view.
Maybe. The tricky thing is the people who made the switch to Reform, Labour and LD appear to be content with their respective choices.
Actually the one thing that is a feature of British politics is a discontent with the choices that they're making when voting. (I have no evidence for this)
Still spitting the dummy out because your team were well beaten?
Oh now your just plain boring. I didnt vote in the last election. But its for you to justify the failures of this government for the next 5 years.
Massive public sector pay rises with no productivity attached ? We all know the outcome.
But I'll leave to you to justify closing down the North Sea and putting Scots out of work. Off you go.
How well do you think productivity was rolling along with train strikes, NHS strikes and academics striking?
LOL youre only debating how fast public sector productivity will fall.
No I am not. I am suggesting that with improved morale comes improved performance
Morale is about objectives and leadership. Pay rises buy people off temporarily but if nothing else improves it soon sinks back. In this case nothing has changed.
That's a very narrow minded view, particularly in the light that in many of these cases safety was also an issue on the table.
When it comes down to doctors, nurses and teachers, pissing them off so royally that they leave the sector and even the country, is doing nothing for productivity.
You see pay as the issue I dont. The pay is a symptom of poor organisation. If we trained enough doctors and nurses we wouldnt have the problems we have. A 22% pay rise will not solve the doctor problem. Training more doctors will.
You are seeing supply and demand economics as an answer to, for example, a shortage of Junior Doctors. Adding to the supply would indeed in theory bring wages down. In the same way Stellantis have built lots of Vauxhall cars that they can't sell, so to sell them they discount the prices, but that doesn't work with Junior Doctors. If the demand in the UK for Doctors decreases they **** off to somewhere else to achieve their self-perceived value.
Actually I dont. I see a government prepared to raise its labour bill by 22%. It will spend the money and nothing will change the doctors have already said they will be back for more. If they re going to spend the money they should give them a pay rise in line with inflation and spend say 12% on more doctors. With more doctors they can then treat more patients and also address the ridiculous working hours some doctors have to work to keep the system functioning. And if they are recruiting they should perhaps consider recruiting less women doctors.
Yes, I'm sure paying less and alienating half the potential workforce will work wonders for recruitment and retention.
Shows how little you know what goes on.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Consider availablity, though.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
About 25% of that 60 000 get an A or A* I presume, so you are really looking at a pool of about 15 000.
Which is consistent with something that I think I've seen here (maybe from your good self), that pretty much all students who sincerely want to study medicine and have A/A* at A Level get to do so, even if it means going a longer way round.
And then I come from it with my education hat on, working with young people for two years and knowing the grades they eventually get. I can imagine some of the students I have taught who came out with Bs being fine doctors in the end, but below that... I'm not sure there is a huge pool of unrealised medics out there.
About 75% of current applicants get in, albeit often not first go.
Some of the other 25% would rather frighten the horses!
Comments
Kindly explain.
For all the stories of Sherman vs Tiger, most Sherman crew never met a Tiger. Indeed, many never met a tank.
Most tanks from the OG MK1 in 1917 spent their time doing infantry support.
Challenger was optimised for high accuracy and range. Part of the reason that it has become a mess was the instance on a rifled gun, to retain HESH. Which is long obsolete against armour, but effective against every other kind of target.
The speculation (above) was because Challenger (and M1) are heavy tanks compared with the retread (ha) Soviet tanks. They can fight effectively at vastly greater ranges. And there are relatively few of them. The original idea of the M103/Conqueror was to engage targets from very long range to support the main battle tanks (Centurion etc).
I'd say Cleverly is the safest choice; I'd also put Tugendhat in that bracket. Chances of them soaring seem slim, but chances of them crashing and burning horribly also slim. For me, the one with the biggest upside is Kemi - she might be transformational for them. But the chances of her crashing and burning seem somewhat higher. Jenrick is somewhere between the two camps - a bigger risk but potentially a bigger reward than Tug/Clever, but neither so big a risk nor so big a reward as Kemi.
However, the big question is who gets down to the final two. I have nothing more to go on here than anyone else does, but for me the last three are Tug/Clever/Jenrick. So Kemi not necessarily a value bet.
For me, Cleverly is the best value at present.
Fair enough.
As to how we resolve the public finances, as I said last evening, the days of the "small state" are over and they aren't coming back. Thinking spending cuts alone can or will clear the deficit is foolish - there will have to be tax rises both personal and corporate and there will be lots of complaints and anguish I'm sure.
For all many on here seem to treat the notion with contempt, the only real question left is which of the various tax and spend social democratic parties we should entrust with running the country every four or five years.
Over 50% of those recruited are female. As a good GP friend of mine pointed out the new intake aim to secure a position and then work 3 days a week. My daughter has two friends both female doctors who are aiming to do precisely this. So if we are paying for full time training but getting part time employees it would make sense to look at this.
Go back to your kennel Donald!
I don't see how it works but unless the tories identify and grab some of the Reform vote they have a significant long term problem.
If construction grinds to a halt China's GDP will fall by more (in terms of value) than any economy in the history of the world. 2008 will be a rounding error by comparison. That would lead to massive unemployment and the reimpoverishment of much of the Chinese middle class.
Its not obvious how this can be prevented. Attempts to increase exports to create domestic demand is driving tariffs around the world already. Once again, the scale is incredible. China already exports more solar panels than the rest of the world needs by a large margin. Production simply cannot go on at the current rates. We are seeing similar problems with electric vehicles.
When will this strike? I am really not sure but when something cannot go on it eventually stops. And when it does it won't just be the China economy that gets hurt.
2019 Tories though who went Reform in 2024 are more likely to switch back with a harder on immigration leader like Jenrick
However if I understand correctly you work in the public sector so you are never going to be for a small state. But a small state will be back on the cards as we increasingly have less new things to tax. The "third way " has run its course and isnt producing growth or wealth for all.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108390
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1808203735979483172
Definite bragging rights in some communities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001167
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk
And as for the women doctors that was clickbait to attract idiots. It seems it worked.
Leadership has been an epic fail consistently since early Blair. Later Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Boris, Truss and Sunak have all faltered at this critical level. The jury is out on Starmer, but he may have it.
From the outside, as most of us are, you can get an idea from guesswork and hunch, but that isn't enough. It can be, and is, tested for in many workplaces and so on.
In this regard none of the six stand out. But at the time neither did Thatcher. If any of them have this elusive quality, I would guess in order they would be: Stride, Tugendhat (both possible but unlikely), Cleverly (just about possible), the other three: almost impossible.
Both MPs and membership are underrating this.
Interesting polling on doctors today by YouGov
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/12/nhs-begs-teens-to-become-doctors-as-applications-drop-12pc/
This is probably my favourite from my new route. The couple bought it it in France. It’s a lady’s hand holding a ball, which does the knocking
The ring on the (wrong?) finger apparently shows that the lady of the house is married - so it’s definitely not a knocking shop
https://www.pwc.co.uk/press-room/press-releases/ukeo-education-article-2023.html
Thatcher just breezed through because nobody was paying attention.
Don't know who posted this, but the graph shows a large increase in investment in manufacturing while George W. Bush was president.
And, investments in manufacturing don't necessarily lead to more jobs, if they make processes more efficient.
(Did the better treatment of investment under GWB have something to do with that increase? Very possibly.)
There is a growing dropout problem, once very rare in medical schools, and the number of applications per place dropping significantly. Bear in mind that around a third of the applicants are repeat applications who didn't get in in previous years, so we aren't fishing in a very big pool.
We probably could drop entry standards a bit further, though that does tend to up the dropout rate when they cannot cope with the demands of the course.
Or perhaps improve the lot of Junior Doctors, not all of their disgruntlement is about pay. Poor career advice and Stalinist Deanery's that randomly send them to jobs could do with Reform for example.
https://www.themedicportal.com/blog/ucas-application-stats-for-2023-entry-medicine/
Of course, if you want to expand training places then you do need experienced medical professionals to spend more time training and less time treating patients.
There are about 60 thousand young people who do A Level Chemistry each year, which is the core qualification to go on to do a medical degree.
We currently have about 7500 places on medical degree courses each year, with plans to increase that. So as it stands, we're taking a bit more than ten percent of available eighteen year olds. (And trust me, there are many reasons why we don't want all of them doing medicine.) Besides, we need lots of them to do other things with their lives as well. The more you squeeze women out, the higher percentage of men you need. At some point, it stops being sensible.
It would be great to have more doctors, especially if you want to use a "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" model of management. But the time and cost of training and the human limit on people who can effectively practice medicine, put limits on that.
Besides, if the pay fails to keep up with the alternatives, why would people choose to study medicine?
If the new leader were in place, they'd be free to draw a line under the past and concentrate on attacking the Labour govt.
The other problem with having a lame-duck leader for such an important occasion is that they might end up choosing to support some aspect of the budget that their successor might rather oppose (or vice versa). Remember what happened during Harriet Harman's second stint as Labour leader - she decided not to oppose the two child benefit cap, and the resulting furore led the way for Corbyn's victory in the subsequent leadership election.
🔵 Harris 50% (+4)
🔴 Trump 46%
Last poll (7/8) - 🔴 Trump +6
Emerson #B - 1000 RV - 8/14
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1824051210799686085
Not the greatest of pollsters, but that’s a huge swing.
He was several Leons ago..
And then I come from it with my education hat on, working with young people for two years and knowing the grades they eventually get. I can imagine some of the students I have taught who came out with Bs being fine doctors in the end, but below that... I'm not sure there is a huge pool of unrealised medics out there.
Baffling!
You seem to have this strange idea that all the people applying to study medicine are suitable for a career in medicine. That simply won't be the case...
https://conservativehome.com/2024/08/15/andrew-obrien-holding-down-pay-is-not-a-substitute-for-a-public-sector-reform-agenda/
Apparently there was a poll from Stonehaven (yes, I'd forgotten them too) with fieldwork from 2-5 August so basically ancient history.
LAB: 34% (-1)
CON: 22% (-2)
RFM: 17% (+2)
LDM: 12% (=)
GRN: 9% (+2)
Changes from the general election.
The comment on women is simply to point out they for personal reasons ( family etc ) want to make medicine a part time job. I know several women doctors in their early thirties for whom this is their career goal. I also know blokes who moan about it since they have to pick up the slack. So if there is a retention problem it has several aspects.
You once again jump to the pay up solution without explaining why medicine is so popular a course, We dont have a recruitment problem. And despite your jibes as a mager I have never been a treat employees mean manager, but neither do I throw money at a problem just to make it go away. If you do it nearly always comes back.
Anyway, pub night so I wish you a good evening,
UCAS 24150 applications
https://www.themedicportal.com/blog/ucas-application-stats-for-2024-entry-medicine/
Right to the pub. Youve driven me to drink.
Just 12,100 teenagers applied to study medicine at university this year, down 12 per cent in two years, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas).
Some of the other 25% would rather frighten the horses!