Our department has a pretty robust plan for the strike, postponed mandatory training, delayed admin, closed a few clinics etc.
Is this the first time ever you can remember strike action by Doctors?
I only remember one NHS strike in my career in1982 and am pretty sure Drs weren't involved
The last doctors strike was in 74.
My partner went on strike with NUPE nurses in about 1988 as I recall. I have a lovely picture of her picketing.
The strike days are well chosen. Emergencies only on 1 Dec for 24 hours. All out (including emergencies from 0800 to 1700 on 8 Dec and 16th Dec.
This is fairly easy for Consultants and Staff grades to cover by the measures like I mentioned below. It will also give a picture of what the weekday service is like when more doctors are rostered on at the weekend.
Yes - I remember that and for reasons which remain painful to me still. It was a hospital doctors' strike. Other doctors didn't strike, my father included.
I don't have any lovely pictures of people picketing just the images of my father as he was slowly wasted away by the cancer which killed him.
I know all the arguments. You have made them here often enough. You forget the emotions of those affected. Emotions - and consequences - which last a lifetime.
Mr. Jessop, sounds about right. I know Haas are getting a Ferrari engine and at least some more assistance from them (heard the team described as the closest the sport's ever had to a customer team).
I do think Haas could really hit the ground running. If I bet on the spreads, Grosjean's points would be something I'd be looking at very closely.
If "we're all in it together" is to mean anything, surely that means getting on the same flights as the rest of us.
I'm not sure I'd want the PM boarding my flight, which would almost certainly leak out, making it a prime target.
I don't get this 'my shirt is hairer than yours' canard. If it's cost is the same/cheaper and more secure then it makes sense.
The best criticism to make is that it's a bit presidential and unBritish and might give the PM ideas above his station. But if it's an RAF plane used for all of government, including the monarch, and is used modestly I don't see that as a problem.
Last night I had a dream about the House of Lords.
I need to get out more.
The Times are reporting Dave has authorised an MOD open day to be conducted by Michael Fallon for Labour MPs so they can see what the MOD plans are for Syria and ISIS, so they feel comfortable in voting to attack Syria.
'To stuff the Lords with new Tory peers over such an issue would be very petty, and likely to bring the whole house into disrepute'
No - a group of unelected peers (many from a party that was almost wiped out by the voters at the general election) trying to change the voting system to aid the interests of the EU are more likely to do that.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics has reached a stage where we're close to a post-antibiotic era. Or, to rephrase, untreatable infections.
There are a number of excellent new antibiotics in the work, which I'm sure @Charles can talk with much greater knowledge than me.
More interesting to me is the opportunity from bacteriophages, which are viruses that are engineered to kill specific bacteria. The advantage they have - compared to antibiotics - is that that they are targetted to specific bacteria, and don't wipe out (for example) all the good bacteria in your gut.
Mr. 1000, that is what the muppet Farron wants. Foot-stamping and dummy-spitting, and wondering why people didn't like his party any more.
Mr. 1000 (2), I have heard of phages before, though that was in the context of naturally occurring viruses whether than designed ones. I'd read they were used a fair bit in eastern Europe, but hadn't caught on because pharmaceutical companies couldn't monetise them [and, I imagine, there'd be an 'icky' factor, the same way people don't like maggots in their wounds, even though they just eat away dead flesh and leave the good stuff]*.
*Having watched the classic Doctor Who serial The Green Death recently. this is entirely understandable.
Mr. Jessop, sounds about right. I know Haas are getting a Ferrari engine and at least some more assistance from them (heard the team described as the closest the sport's ever had to a customer team).
I do think Haas could really hit the ground running. If I bet on the spreads, Grosjean's points would be something I'd be looking at very closely.
Haas may hit the ground running, but there'll be plenty of stumbles. Remember when BAR joined the sport and they claimed they'd win a GP in their first season? That worked out *really* well.
The problem isn't just the technical side of things, which Haas should have well covered. It's the rest of it, from the comms to the pit stops. They#re going to have lots of niggling little problems to sort out in the first season.
I was always quite a fan of the Lords as a revising Chamber - but over the last couple of decades since Blair's fiddling - it seems to be increasingly political and a coalition of losers.
That's not their job and whilst I do not want the name changed to a Senate or some other hideous Americanism - I think they're asking to be abolished. I do not want them elected either - that wouldn't solve the issue, just make it worse.
Mr. 1000, that is what the muppet Farron wants. Foot-stamping and dummy-spitting, and wondering why people didn't like his party any more.
Mr. 1000 (2), I have heard of phages before, though that was in the context of naturally occurring viruses whether than designed ones. I'd read they were used a fair bit in eastern Europe, but hadn't caught on because pharmaceutical companies couldn't monetise them [and, I imagine, there'd be an 'icky' factor, the same way people don't like maggots in their wounds, even though they just eat away dead flesh and leave the good stuff]*.
*Having watched the classic Doctor Who serial The Green Death recently. this is entirely understandable.
There are a number of university trials in the West right now that I know about, and a few biotech companies are doing interesting stuff. I know of one that is creating a virus specificially targetted at MRSA for hospitals.
And if you think bacteriophages are icky, what do you think of faecal transplants?
Mr. Jessop, different times. As Lowdon said in a recent interview, Haas, by not joining this year, could do a full year of massive testing and development which would be contrary to the rules if they were in the sport. They're doing the opposite of what Honda did what the engine.
The Ferrari engine should be good and may exceed the Mercedes, and Grosjean's a good, perhaps very good, driver.
There will be niggling issues, but there always are, and sometimes with major teams too (McLaren pit stops a couple of seasons back, and engines this year spring to mind).
I was always quite a fan of the Lords as a revising Chamber - but over the last couple of decades since Blair's fiddling - it seems to be increasingly political and a coalition of losers.
That's not their job and whilst I do not want the name changed to a Senate or some other hideous Americanism - I think they're asking to be abolished. I do not want them elected either - that wouldn't solve the issue, just make it worse.
I think it's terrific the way the Lords have selflessly made the case for their abolition.
There is an argument, not one I think I have more than 4% support for but which I can understand, which says that with FPTP there are millions of voters who didn't vote for the government and are effectively without a voice (especially so now, of course, with Jezza).
Under such circumstances to have a combatative HoL which puts forward an alternative view but without final sanction is not wholly a bad thing.
I wonder if there is a further implication of the Lords' amendment.
As things now stand, 16 year old are due to come onto the electoral register.
Would this not increase the number of electors in some constituencies more than others?
If it does would the Boundary Commission not have to take the new numbers into account?
And might this not scupper Mr Osborne's cunning plot to gerrymander the Parliamentary boundaries in favour of the Conservatives?
Just wondering.....
I can't see how it should, they're not going to be voting in the GE, just the referendum.
which makes it all a dog's dinner. I don't think that the Lords should be meddling in these matters. You should only logically have one age of being able to vote, not a muddled mess.
I wonder if there is a further implication of the Lords' amendment.
As things now stand, 16 year old are due to come onto the electoral register.
Would this not increase the number of electors in some constituencies more than others?
If it does would the Boundary Commission not have to take the new numbers into account?
And might this not scupper Mr Osborne's cunning plot to gerrymander the Parliamentary boundaries in favour of the Conservatives?
Just wondering.....
I don't think so as they would only be joining the register for the EU referendum and this is national based rather than constituency based. Besides the boundary commissions are due to start work in the spring based on the December 2015 electorate figures
I think it's terrific the way the Lords have selflessly made the case for their abolition.
There is an argument, not one I think I have more than 4% support for but which I can understand, which says that with FPTP there are millions of voters who didn't vote for the government and are effectively without a voice (especially so now, of course, with Jezza).
Under such circumstances to have a combatative HoL which puts forward an alternative view but without final sanction is not wholly a bad thing.
There is certainly an argument for that.
Keep FPTP for the Commons and allow it primacy (i.e. it can always implement things via the Parliament act).
But introduce PR for the Lords so that UKIP (and others) at least get a voice.
If "we're all in it together" is to mean anything, surely that means getting on the same flights as the rest of us.
And making us all targets?
No thanks!
That was my first thought. I would not be that thrilled to see a senior minister on my flight these days and I would speculate that this was the reason that security was even more miserable than usual.
I was always quite a fan of the Lords as a revising Chamber - but over the last couple of decades since Blair's fiddling - it seems to be increasingly political and a coalition of losers.
That's not their job and whilst I do not want the name changed to a Senate or some other hideous Americanism - I think they're asking to be abolished. I do not want them elected either - that wouldn't solve the issue, just make it worse.
I think it's terrific the way the Lords have selflessly made the case for their abolition.
There is an argument, not one I think I have more than 4% support for but which I can understand, which says that with FPTP there are millions of voters who didn't vote for the government and are effectively without a voice (especially so now, of course, with Jezza).
Under such circumstances to have a combatative HoL which puts forward an alternative view but without final sanction is not wholly a bad thing.
There is certainly an argument for that.
Keep FPTP for the Commons and allow it primacy (i.e. it can always implement things via the Parliament act).
But introduce PR for the Lords so that UKIP (and others) at least get a voice.
I'd favour STV with age based constituencies.
So every 6th May, only those aged 18, 28, 38, 48 etc vote.
Last night I had a dream about the House of Lords.
I need to get out more.
The Times are reporting Dave has authorised an MOD open day to be conducted by Michael Fallon for Labour MPs so they can see what the MOD plans are for Syria and ISIS, so they feel comfortable in voting to attack Syria.
I think it's terrific the way the Lords have selflessly made the case for their abolition.
There is an argument, not one I think I have more than 4% support for but which I can understand, which says that with FPTP there are millions of voters who didn't vote for the government and are effectively without a voice (especially so now, of course, with Jezza).
Under such circumstances to have a combatative HoL which puts forward an alternative view but without final sanction is not wholly a bad thing.
There is certainly an argument for that.
Keep FPTP for the Commons and allow it primacy (i.e. it can always implement things via the Parliament act).
But introduce PR for the Lords so that UKIP (and others) at least get a voice.
Spot on. I personally wouldn't want an elected second chamber, but this nonsense about the Lords speaking for those that didn't vote Tory has got to stop. I didn't vote Tory and I'm livid that Labour and Lib Dems claim to speak for me.
If "we're all in it together" is to mean anything, surely that means getting on the same flights as the rest of us.
Just a thought, but....
When the Eejit that signed the contract - one Mr Gormless McBruin - he (and his BoS friends) stipulated that the civvie-contracted MRTT (as only 9 [IIRC] are dedicated to the RAF) should be available for charter-flights. As such these aircraft do not have DASS.
So if it it one of the remaining five that are being utilised then: a) We have a requirement to add DASS to the aircraft, and b) We have another hose-and-drogue available to the RAF. That said; if he is taking from the RAF stock then he is contemptible.
My hunch is this is a charter-aircraft that will be taken: Maybe BoS want to clear these assets of their books PDQ. If so we could see a quick tranche of government/tax-payer shares in that Scottish failure [truism?] being sold in the next twelve months.
Comments
In only 10% of hospitals are all admissions (in a voodoo sample) seen within 14 hours by a Consultant. Overall the figure is 79%.
All are seen by at least one junior doctor of course.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34857015
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics has reached a stage where we're close to a post-antibiotic era. Or, to rephrase, untreatable infections.
I don't have any lovely pictures of people picketing just the images of my father as he was slowly wasted away by the cancer which killed him.
I know all the arguments. You have made them here often enough. You forget the emotions of those affected. Emotions - and consequences - which last a lifetime.
I do think Haas could really hit the ground running. If I bet on the spreads, Grosjean's points would be something I'd be looking at very closely.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/18/jeremy-hunt-statement-on-nhs-weekend-hospital-care-is-misleading-experts-warn
1) We do have a 7 day 24 hour NHS for emergencies
2) Hunt continues to deliberately mix up elective and emergency work
3) Doctors are better at analysing stats than politicians.
4) The claim of higher mortality at weekends and its causes are highly contentious, and often unrelated to medical staffing levels.
As things now stand, 16 year old are due to come onto the electoral register.
Would this not increase the number of electors in some constituencies more than others?
If it does would the Boundary Commission not have to take the new numbers into account?
And might this not scupper Mr Osborne's cunning plot to gerrymander the Parliamentary boundaries in favour of the Conservatives?
Just wondering.....
What is the source?
I don't get this 'my shirt is hairer than yours' canard. If it's cost is the same/cheaper and more secure then it makes sense.
The best criticism to make is that it's a bit presidential and unBritish and might give the PM ideas above his station. But if it's an RAF plane used for all of government, including the monarch, and is used modestly I don't see that as a problem.
I need to get out more.
The Times are reporting Dave has authorised an MOD open day to be conducted by Michael Fallon for Labour MPs so they can see what the MOD plans are for Syria and ISIS, so they feel comfortable in voting to attack Syria.
Dozens of Labour MPs are expected to turn up.
No - a group of unelected peers (many from a party that was almost wiped out by the voters at the general election) trying to change the voting system to aid the interests of the EU are more likely to do that.
More interesting to me is the opportunity from bacteriophages, which are viruses that are engineered to kill specific bacteria. The advantage they have - compared to antibiotics - is that that they are targetted to specific bacteria, and don't wipe out (for example) all the good bacteria in your gut.
And I know of a number of interesting trials going on right now.
Mr. 1000, that is what the muppet Farron wants. Foot-stamping and dummy-spitting, and wondering why people didn't like his party any more.
Mr. 1000 (2), I have heard of phages before, though that was in the context of naturally occurring viruses whether than designed ones. I'd read they were used a fair bit in eastern Europe, but hadn't caught on because pharmaceutical companies couldn't monetise them [and, I imagine, there'd be an 'icky' factor, the same way people don't like maggots in their wounds, even though they just eat away dead flesh and leave the good stuff]*.
*Having watched the classic Doctor Who serial The Green Death recently. this is entirely understandable.
The problem isn't just the technical side of things, which Haas should have well covered. It's the rest of it, from the comms to the pit stops. They#re going to have lots of niggling little problems to sort out in the first season.
That's not their job and whilst I do not want the name changed to a Senate or some other hideous Americanism - I think they're asking to be abolished. I do not want them elected either - that wouldn't solve the issue, just make it worse.
And if you think bacteriophages are icky, what do you think of faecal transplants?
The Ferrari engine should be good and may exceed the Mercedes, and Grosjean's a good, perhaps very good, driver.
There will be niggling issues, but there always are, and sometimes with major teams too (McLaren pit stops a couple of seasons back, and engines this year spring to mind).
I just don't think it should be made up of appointees.
Under such circumstances to have a combatative HoL which puts forward an alternative view but without final sanction is not wholly a bad thing.
which makes it all a dog's dinner. I don't think that the Lords should be meddling in these matters. You should only logically have one age of being able to vote, not a muddled mess.
Keep FPTP for the Commons and allow it primacy (i.e. it can always implement things via the Parliament act).
But introduce PR for the Lords so that UKIP (and others) at least get a voice.
That would just lead to the 'Lords' claiming they were more legitimate than the commons and obstructing the government more than now I think.
If we can't have something like a real Lords then I would prefer Swiss-style referenda as a check on the executive.
'I wonder if there is a further implication of the Lords' amendment.
As things now stand, 16 year old are due to come onto the electoral register.
Would this not increase the number of electors in some constituencies more than others?
If it does would the Boundary Commission not have to take the new numbers into account?
And might this not scupper Mr Osborne's cunning plot to gerrymander the Parliamentary boundaries in favour of the Conservatives?'
A coalition of losers including an almost extinct party tries to gerrymander the electoral franchise via an entirely unelected chamber.
http://www.news.com.au/world/former-british-pm-involved-in-airline-dispute-report-says/story-e6frfkyi-1226029153691
'Approximately half of the world's sovereign states are presently unicameral'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism
Make the Lords PR, and it would only lead to more clashes with the Commons.
New Thread New Thread
So every 6th May, only those aged 18, 28, 38, 48 etc vote.
When the Eejit that signed the contract - one Mr Gormless McBruin - he (and his BoS friends) stipulated that the civvie-contracted MRTT (as only 9 [IIRC] are dedicated to the RAF) should be available for charter-flights. As such these aircraft do not have DASS.
So if it it one of the remaining five that are being utilised then: a) We have a requirement to add DASS to the aircraft, and b) We have another hose-and-drogue available to the RAF. That said; if he is taking from the RAF stock then he is contemptible.
My hunch is this is a charter-aircraft that will be taken: Maybe BoS want to clear these assets of their books PDQ. If so we could see a quick tranche of government/tax-payer shares in that Scottish failure [truism?] being sold in the next twelve months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Strategic_Tanker_Aircraft
Would also suggest http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/ should be scanned (as a few bods actually work on the systems).