How do the BMA propose to lower death rates at weekends?
You do know that the most likely date to die is Wednesday, don't you? Or do you believe Hunt's lies?
I would imagine that they would get a 7 day NHS (there already is one by the way) by employing more staff so that you can have the same level of cover throughout the weekend.
You clearly believe the nonsense being spouted by the BMA, and those greedy junior doctors cock-a-hoop across the media at the prospect of striking.
Patient safety? Bolleaux. It's all about money. £250K worth of training at the taxpayers expense, and as soon as their demands aren't met, out come the threats of hotfooting it overseas for greater rewards.
So if doctors see something dangerous being planned in their hospital -they should keep quiet about it then?
Something dangerous to patient safety like a strike?
How about something like working an extra 20 hours a week?
Whether that is dangerous depends on what the start point is. But let us be honest, this strike has nothing to do with patients. As the good and learned Doctor Sox of this parish explained the other day, this strike is about doctors terms and conditions of employment, or to put in bolder terms it is about remuneration. It is a good old fashioned industrial dispute where the management want to change working practices and the workers are demanding more money for doing so.
We used to have such disputes all the time but nowadays they are only to be found in the unreformed parts of the public services where producer interests hold sway.
How do the BMA propose to lower death rates at weekends?
You do know that the most likely date to die is Wednesday, don't you? Or do you believe Hunt's lies?
I would imagine that they would get a 7 day NHS (there already is one by the way) by employing more staff so that you can have the same level of cover throughout the weekend.
Transnational problem, but usual can we have more cash to study plea isn't far away.
And I see you stopped reading when you wanted your quote out of context. Keep going on and you'll come to "Hospital trusts need to do more to make sure that more senior medical staff work at the weekend."
So just how is the idiot Hunt working junior doctors into the ground going to solve this one then?
How do the BMA propose to lower death rates at weekends?
You do know that the most likely date to die is Wednesday, don't you? Or do you believe Hunt's lies?
I would imagine that they would get a 7 day NHS (there already is one by the way) by employing more staff so that you can have the same level of cover throughout the weekend.
You clearly believe the nonsense being spouted by the BMA, and those greedy junior doctors cock-a-hoop across the media at the prospect of striking.
Patient safety? Bolleaux. It's all about money. £250K worth of training at the taxpayers expense, and as soon as their demands aren't met, out come the threats of hotfooting it overseas for greater rewards.
So if doctors see something dangerous being planned in their hospital -they should keep quiet about it then?
Something dangerous to patient safety like a strike?
How about something like working an extra 20 hours a week?
Whether that is dangerous depends on what the start point is. But let us be honest, this strike has nothing to do with patients. As the good and learned Doctor Sox of this parish explained the other day, this strike is about doctors terms and conditions of employment, or to put in bolder terms it is about remuneration. It is a good old fashioned industrial dispute where the management want to change working practices and the workers are demanding more money for doing so.
We used to have such disputes all the time but nowadays they are only to be found in the unreformed parts of the public services where producer interests hold sway.
So trying to cure elderly, confused, sick patients when tired is not dangerous? It's difficult to believe the nonsense spouted on here at times. If Hunt wants more junior doctors at weekends then he's going to have to employ more of them. Simple.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
Essentially the government are slashing overtime rates and increasing basic pay, but when one considers that the average working week for a junior doctor is between 60-70 hours and it would be impossible for the NHS to staff up to run the NHS without overtime they are getting a huge pay cut.
Additionally many of these guys are carrying £40k of student loans and the next lot will have £80-90k worth of student loans.
If people like my cousin are on strike then the government have got it wrong IMO, he isn't someone they can just brush off as saying the BMA are pushing some Marxist agenda and he got caught up in it.
"Swedish police face allegations of cover up over mass sex assault
Sweden’s prime minister has condemned his country’s own version of the Cologne mass sexual assault allegations and alleged police cover-up, calling claims of similar events at a youth festival in Stockholm “a double betrayal” of women and a “big democratic problem”.
Swedish police promised an urgent investigation into the claims first reported by liberal newspaper Dagens Nyheter that a gang of youths — reportedly mostly from Afghanistan — groped and molested girls as young as 11 or 12 at the We Are Sthlm festival in both 2014 and 2015."
How do the BMA propose to lower death rates at weekends?
You do know that the most likely date to die is Wednesday, don't you? Or do you believe Hunt's lies?
I would imagine that they would get a 7 day NHS (there already is one by the way) by employing more staff so that you can have the same level of cover throughout the weekend.
You clearly believe the nonsense being spouted by the BMA, and those greedy junior doctors cock-a-hoop across the media at the prospect of striking.
Patient safety? Bolleaux. It's all about money. £250K worth of training at the taxpayers expense, and as soon as their demands aren't met, out come the threats of hotfooting it overseas for greater rewards.
So if doctors see something dangerous being planned in their hospital -they should keep quiet about it then?
Something dangerous to patient safety like a strike?
How about something like working an extra 20 hours a week?
I thought they were already working those extra hours and in future would continue to do but not be paid as much. So not about the hours but about the money.
Oh come on it's simple maths. If you have the same number of doctors working the same number of hours you can only get more cover at weekends by reducing that during the week - or else making them work longer. Even Hunt is clever enough to work this one out.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
So far as I can work out the Gov't is officially paying them more, and they'll get more providing they work sub 45 hours or some such. But because alot of them work very long hours, they'll actually get paid less because they've come to expect to work very long hours with alot of overtime.
I might be wrong, but I think thats more or less it.
So they don't have a problem working the extra hours, but object when someone tells them to work shorter shifts, and subsequently earn less? Where does patient safety come into that?
Shorter shifts? Who is going to do the work then? It just isn't tenable for the NHS to reduce hours given out because there aren't an unlimited number of doctors to pick up the slack.
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
That would be a viable solution, have the debt on commercialish terms - but have sped up write offs for time served in the NHS. Combined with the sinking Aussie dollar, that should keep them here.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
So far as I can work out the Gov't is officially paying them more, and they'll get more providing they work sub 45 hours or some such. But because alot of them work very long hours, they'll actually get paid less because they've come to expect to work very long hours with alot of overtime.
I might be wrong, but I think thats more or less it.
So they don't have a problem working the extra hours, but object when someone tells them to work shorter shifts, and subsequently earn less? Where does patient safety come into that?
Shorter shifts? Who is going to do the work then? It just isn't tenable for the NHS to reduce hours given out because there aren't an unlimited number of doctors to pick up the slack.
Now we've established that junior doctors are happy to work longer hours, get paid the overtime, and in turn pay off their student debts.
So why is Chris A bleating on about patient safety, and working fewer hours? This would appear to be exactly what Hunt wants too.
How do the BMA propose to lower death rates at weekends?
You do know that the most likely date to die is Wednesday, don't you? Or do you believe Hunt's lies?
I would imagine that they would get a 7 day NHS (there already is one by the way) by employing more staff so that you can have the same level of cover throughout the weekend.
You clearly believe the nonsense being spouted by the BMA, and those greedy junior doctors cock-a-hoop across the media at the prospect of striking.
Patient safety? Bolleaux. It's all about money. £250K worth of training at the taxpayers expense, and as soon as their demands aren't met, out come the threats of hotfooting it overseas for greater rewards.
So if doctors see something dangerous being planned in their hospital -they should keep quiet about it then?
Something dangerous to patient safety like a strike?
How about something like working an extra 20 hours a week?
Whether that is dangerous depends on what the start point is. But let us be honest, this strike has nothing to do with patients. As the good and learned Doctor Sox of this parish explained the other day, this strike is about doctors terms and conditions of employment, or to put in bolder terms it is about remuneration. It is a good old fashioned industrial dispute where the management want to change working practices and the workers are demanding more money for doing so.
We used to have such disputes all the time but nowadays they are only to be found in the unreformed parts of the public services where producer interests hold sway.
So trying to cure elderly, confused, sick patients when tired is not dangerous? It's difficult to believe the nonsense spouted on here at times. If Hunt wants more junior doctors at weekends then he's going to have to employ more of them. Simple.
So Doctor Sox has got it wrong then? He is a senior medicus working in a hospital, I think I would believe him on this matter, as well as on many others.
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
That would be a viable solution, have the debt on commercialish terms - but have sped up write offs for time served in the NHS. Combined with the sinking Aussie dollar, that should keep them here.
They'll probably call a strike if those conditions are changed. All those jolly Crispins and Jemimas walking out tomorrow appear to have caught a nasty dose of Corbynitis.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
So far as I can work out the Gov't is officially paying them more, and they'll get more providing they work sub 45 hours or some such. But because alot of them work very long hours, they'll actually get paid less because they've come to expect to work very long hours with alot of overtime.
I might be wrong, but I think thats more or less it.
So they don't have a problem working the extra hours, but object when someone tells them to work shorter shifts, and subsequently earn less? Where does patient safety come into that?
Shorter shifts? Who is going to do the work then? It just isn't tenable for the NHS to reduce hours given out because there aren't an unlimited number of doctors to pick up the slack.
Now we've established that junior doctors are happy to work longer hours, get paid the overtime, and in turn pay off their student debts.
So why is Chris A bleating on about patient safety, and working fewer hours? This would appear to be exactly what Hunt wants too.
No it isn't. The Hunt contract removes safeguards on excessive hours.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
So far as I can work out the Gov't is officially paying them more, and they'll get more providing they work sub 45 hours or some such. But because alot of them work very long hours, they'll actually get paid less because they've come to expect to work very long hours with alot of overtime.
I might be wrong, but I think thats more or less it.
So they don't have a problem working the extra hours, but object when someone tells them to work shorter shifts, and subsequently earn less? Where does patient safety come into that?
Shorter shifts? Who is going to do the work then? It just isn't tenable for the NHS to reduce hours given out because there aren't an unlimited number of doctors to pick up the slack.
Now we've established that junior doctors are happy to work longer hours, get paid the overtime, and in turn pay off their student debts.
So why is Chris A bleating on about patient safety, and working fewer hours? This would appear to be exactly what Hunt wants too.
So if your manager came to you and unilaterally said, "your pay is going to be cut by 30%, sign here". You would do it? Because that is basically what's happening. Patient safety is important, but doctors are still people in employment, they don't do it for free, neither would any of us.
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
That would be a viable solution, have the debt on commercialish terms - but have sped up write offs for time served in the NHS. Combined with the sinking Aussie dollar, that should keep them here.
They'd probably call a strike if those conditions were changed.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
So far as I can work out the Gov't is officially paying them more, and they'll get more providing they work sub 45 hours or some such. But because alot of them work very long hours, they'll actually get paid less because they've come to expect to work very long hours with alot of overtime.
I might be wrong, but I think thats more or less it.
So they don't have a problem working the extra hours, but object when someone tells them to work shorter shifts, and subsequently earn less? Where does patient safety come into that?
Shorter shifts? Who is going to do the work then? It just isn't tenable for the NHS to reduce hours given out because there aren't an unlimited number of doctors to pick up the slack.
Now we've established that junior doctors are happy to work longer hours, get paid the overtime, and in turn pay off their student debts.
So why is Chris A bleating on about patient safety, and working fewer hours? This would appear to be exactly what Hunt wants too.
So if your manager came to you and unilaterally said, "your pay is going to be cut by 30%, sign here". You would do it? Because that is basically what's happening. Patient safety is important, but doctors are still people in employment, they don't do it for free, neither would any of us.
Colonel Hubert Bonneau, head of the elite GIGN police..
'Hostages are just a buffer to slow the progress of security forces. If we don't intervene as quickly as possible there will be more victims. That's the lesson to draw from the attacks of November 13, that will change our mode of intervention.
'We need to have surgical action, as forceful as possible and as quickly as possible,' he said.
Multiple, pan-European plots are not new and have been disrupted on several occasions, including one in late August 2010, said Yves Trotignon, a former analyst for France's DGSE intelligence service.
Mr Bonneau should be fired if he is only working out that lesson now. On the night of the attacks I posted that the cops had probably a 2 hour window in a hostage situation at the Bataclan. I posted that they had left it just a bit later than ideal. In reality Western counter terror units know there is no wait time for a return assault and have done for a while. The post incident assessment on the response to the attacks suggested that the French had a deployment issue. In short they took too long to hit the scene with the right type of people.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
Essentially the government are slashing overtime rates and increasing basic pay, but when one considers that the average working week for a junior doctor is between 60-70 hours and it would be impossible for the NHS to staff up to run the NHS without overtime they are getting a huge pay cut.
Additionally many of these guys are carrying £40k of student loans and the next lot will have £80-90k worth of student loans.
If people like my cousin are on strike then the government have got it wrong IMO, he isn't someone they can just brush off as saying the BMA are pushing some Marxist agenda and he got caught up in it.
So this strike really is about money, as per Doctor Sox post some days ago.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
So far as I can work out the Gov't is officially paying them more, and they'll get more providing they work sub 45 hours or some such. But because alot of them work very long hours, they'll actually get paid less because they've come to expect to work very long hours with alot of overtime.
I might be wrong, but I think thats more or less it.
So they don't have a problem working the extra hours, but object when someone tells them to work shorter shifts, and subsequently earn less? Where does patient safety come into that?
Shorter shifts? Who is going to do the work then? It just isn't tenable for the NHS to reduce hours given out because there aren't an unlimited number of doctors to pick up the slack.
Now we've established that junior doctors are happy to work longer hours, get paid the overtime, and in turn pay off their student debts.
So why is Chris A bleating on about patient safety, and working fewer hours? This would appear to be exactly what Hunt wants too.
So if your manager came to you and unilaterally said, "your pay is going to be cut by 30%, sign here". You would do it? Because that is basically what's happening. Patient safety is important, but doctors are still people in employment, they don't do it for free, neither would any of us.
How much does a junior doctor doing 70-80 hours earn at the moment, and what would they earn doing the same hours if Hunt's proposal goes through?
Colonel Hubert Bonneau, head of the elite GIGN police..
'Hostages are just a buffer to slow the progress of security forces. If we don't intervene as quickly as possible there will be more victims. That's the lesson to draw from the attacks of November 13, that will change our mode of intervention.
'We need to have surgical action, as forceful as possible and as quickly as possible,' he said.
Multiple, pan-European plots are not new and have been disrupted on several occasions, including one in late August 2010, said Yves Trotignon, a former analyst for France's DGSE intelligence service.
Mr Bonneau should be fired if he is only working out that lesson now. On the night of the attacks I posted that the cops had probably a 2 hour window in a hostage situation at the Bataclan. I posted that they had left it just a bit later than ideal. In reality Western counter terror units know there is no wait time for a return assault and have done for a while. The post incident assessment on the response to the attacks suggested that the French had a deployment issue. In short they took too long to hit the scene with the right type of people.
Do you think London would be able to respond as quickly?
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
Essentially the government are slashing overtime rates and increasing basic pay, but when one considers that the average working week for a junior doctor is between 60-70 hours and it would be impossible for the NHS to staff up to run the NHS without overtime they are getting a huge pay cut.
Additionally many of these guys are carrying £40k of student loans and the next lot will have £80-90k worth of student loans.
If people like my cousin are on strike then the government have got it wrong IMO, he isn't someone they can just brush off as saying the BMA are pushing some Marxist agenda and he got caught up in it.
So this strike really is about money, as per Doctor Sox post some days ago.
Money is certainly part of it, but not the sole issue by a long way.
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
That would be a viable solution, have the debt on commercialish terms - but have sped up write offs for time served in the NHS. Combined with the sinking Aussie dollar, that should keep them here.
When they reformed the fees system, they missed a massive opportunity here. If the government effectively paid off / wrote off x% of a doctor / nurse / dentists / etc student debt for every year of service and say for that to be completely wiped was y years, you could set the system so there was a large incentive to stay working for the NHS.
No it isn't. The Hunt contract removes safeguards on excessive hours.
Is that to get them to work weekends so they can top up their pay to the same rates they had before?
I think the Tories are barking up the wrong tree here. The people who they are pushing into the arms of a union are naturally conservative and have long memories. It's not a group of people I would want lose from my side so easily. I think having a Tory government (not even coalition so they can't just blame the Lib Dems) oversee the first ever doctor's strike in the NHS is going to destroy any credibility they have left.
Of course it's about the money. Stop being so facetious. I wouldn't train for 6 or 7 years, get into £90k worth of debt and then take a massive pay cut because the PM made a stupid commitment to win an election.
If we are doing the importance of Bowie, many point to his musical career, some point to his life-as-art, even some strange individuals speak of his acting career. But it took Lindsay Ellis (in her Nostalgia Chick incarnation) to point out the crucial importance of a omigod tight pair of camelskin trousers...
How do the BMA propose to lower death rates at weekends?
You do know that the most likely date to die is Wednesday, don't you? Or do you believe Hunt's lies?
I would imagine that they would get a 7 day NHS (there already is one by the way) by employing more staff so that you can have the same level of cover throughout the weekend.
You clearly believe the nonsense being spouted by the BMA, and those greedy junior doctors cock-a-hoop across the media at the prospect of striking.
Patient safety? Bolleaux. It's all about money. £250K worth of training at the taxpayers expense, and as soon as their demands aren't met, out come the threats of hotfooting it overseas for greater rewards.
So if doctors see something dangerous being planned in their hospital -they should keep quiet about it then?
Something dangerous to patient safety like a strike?
How about something like working an extra 20 hours a week?
I thought they were already working those extra hours and in future would continue to do but not be paid as much. So not about the hours but about the money.
Oh come on it's simple maths. If you have the same number of doctors working the same number of hours you can only get more cover at weekends by reducing that during the week - or else making them work longer. Even Hunt is clever enough to work this one out.
But isn't the complaint that because overtime rates would be slashed but they would have to work the same number of long hours they face an effective pay cut, even with an 11% pay increase for core hours?
The 7-day cover is an additional issue. How can such cover be provided when we can't fill current vacancies?
I have sympathy for junior doctors - up to a point - but it's a little disingenuous to say that pay is not a key issue as well as the issue of patient safety.
There was an interesting discussion on Newsnight just now between a junior doctor and Dr Wollaston. But when a junior doctor says that she is protecting patients by withdrawing her care for patients tomorrow, my reaction is hmmmmm.......
As Antifrank said a while ago, a Tory Health Secretary was NEVER going to prevail over doctors in a battle for the public's trust.
True enough. Is popularity the right measure, though? Might having the right policy be a better test? (Not saying that Hunt does have this.)
I'll be honest, I haven't really been able to follow what exactly the dispute is about: I don't really understand much about doctors' working conditions in the first place (the junior doctor on Newsnight before talking about "crash bleeps" and "bleep loads" or whatever the terms were left me all at sea), and as we're seeing in this thread there's competing interpretations about the real motives for the strike.
But, in the absence of a clear understanding of the issue, I (like most people) am naturally going to incline to whichever side I fundamentally trust the most - and in a choice between the government or doctors, it's going to be doctors.
Two-thirds of the public back Tuesday’s junior doctor strike, new polling has revealed, as walkouts involving thousands of medics commence throughout England.
In a blow for the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, 66 per cent of people in an IPSOS Mori poll for the Health Service Journal said they support junior doctors walking out from all but emergency care.
Support for a strike that would also affect A&E and other emergency services – as is planned for next month – is lower, with only 44 per cent backing; but this is still higher than the 39 per cent who said they opposed such action.
Not surprised. The idiot Hunt is on a loser - the public have seen through his charade of getting more work out of the junior doctors but not employing or paying for any more of them.
As far as I can tell, the Government have totally failed to explain their side of the argument.
I don't think it's as anything like as one-sided to the doctors as it's made out to be, but it's jolly hard work to understand why.
Essentially the government are slashing overtime rates and increasing basic pay, but when one considers that the average working week for a junior doctor is between 60-70 hours and it would be impossible for the NHS to staff up to run the NHS without overtime they are getting a huge pay cut.
Additionally many of these guys are carrying £40k of student loans and the next lot will have £80-90k worth of student loans.
If people like my cousin are on strike then the government have got it wrong IMO, he isn't someone they can just brush off as saying the BMA are pushing some Marxist agenda and he got caught up in it.
So this strike really is about money, as per Doctor Sox post some days ago.
Money is certainly part of it, but not the sole issue by a long way.
I am glad you have turned up, Doc. There is a lot being thrown around on this issue, just now and not a little of it is agenda driven. OK, granted we know you are on the side of the angels, but we also know you are a bon ouef, so please, if you have the time, would you explain the dispute as you see it?
This current strand of European Nationalism is so much worse because it doesn't even try to pretend to be democratic. Self determination and nation-state nationalism are a natural reactive response and we'd be foolish not to take the opportunity to discredit 'this' European project.
That is not to say a pan-European or even federal Europe cannot work, they can and perhaps might - but this particular incarnation is an unreformable abomination.
Pay is quite complicated. The Banding (overtime rate) varies with shift/ partial-shift/ on call intensity and the particular hours worked. Currently all hours rostered after 1900 or at weekend are banded. It also depends on the point on the payscale that the Dr is on.
These are Doctors in Specialist training, and shift patterns can be very disruptive to planning teaching sessions. Spreading the Junior Doctors thinner automatically makes it harder to teach them.
If we are doing the importance of Bowie, many point to his musical career, some point to his life-as-art, even some strange individuals speak of his acting career. But it took Lindsay Ellis (in her Nostalgia Chick incarnation) to point out the crucial importance of a omigod tight pair of camelskin trousers...
This current strand of European Nationalism is so much worse because it doesn't even try to pretend to be democratic. Self determination and nation-state nationalism are a natural reactive response and we'd be foolish not to take the opportunity to discredit 'this' European project.
That is not to say a pan-European or even federal Europe cannot work, they can and perhaps might - but this particular incarnation is an unreformable abomination.
Who says that americans don't like Bowie, especially on shopping channels: "Buy these amazing Bowie knifes on offer now, to celebrate the death of David Bowie, only 25.73$ each."
As Antifrank said a while ago, a Tory Health Secretary was NEVER going to prevail over doctors in a battle for the public's trust.
True enough. Is popularity the right measure, though? Might having the right policy be a better test? (Not saying that Hunt does have this.)
I'll be honest, I haven't really been able to follow what exactly the dispute is about: I don't really understand much about doctors' working conditions in the first place (the junior doctor on Newsnight before talking about "crash bleeps" and "bleep loads" or whatever the terms were left me all at sea), and as we're seeing in this thread there's competing interpretations about the real motives for the strike.
But, in the absence of a clear understanding of the issue, I (like most people) am naturally going to incline to whichever side I fundamentally trust the most - and in a choice between the government or doctors, it's going to be doctors.
I think a lot of people are in your position. I'm just glad that I'm free of doctors or the need to see them at the moment. My Tigger-on-speed feeling is still going......
Public opinion is so fickle, I expect the poll numbers to be reversed once the strike gets underway and they start to be inconvenienced.
The strike itself will certainly become more unpopular, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will start blaming the doctors (rather than the government) for it.
On a similar (ish) note I can't help thinking the Tube drivers will go the same way as the miners, dockers and Fleet Street. They are deliberately obstructive to a better service, can hold London to ransom, but don't seem to realize that driverless trains are a real possibility.
Bob Crow knew when to take the piss but also when to toe the line and not kill the golden goose, I fear the Tube driver will be extinct in less than ten years.
Public opinion is so fickle, I expect the poll numbers to be reversed once the strike gets underway and they start to be inconvenienced.
The strike itself will certainly become more unpopular, but IMO people will more likely blame the government for it rather than the doctors.
Yes, I think people understand the difference between tube strikes and this one. With the tube drivers people know they are all overpaid already and the union is just using its monopoly position to extort money from TFL. The job itself isn't very hard so most people can imagine doing it themselves and therefore doesn't warrant the kind of pay they receive. With the doctors, it isn't like the average punter could walk into a hospital and be able to assist or perform surgery the next day. Most of us could probably master being a tube drive in less time.
Public opinion is so fickle, I expect the poll numbers to be reversed once the strike gets underway and they start to be inconvenienced.
The strike itself will certainly become more unpopular, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will start blaming the doctors (rather than the government) for it.
On a similar (ish) note I can't help thinking the Tube drivers will go the same way as the miners, dockers and Fleet Street. They are deliberately obstructive to a better service, can hold London to ransom, but don't seem to realize that driverless trains are a real possibility.
Bob Crow knew when to take the piss but also when to toe the line and not kill the golden goose, I fear the Tube driver will be extinct in less than ten years.
I think you may be right: Tube drivers are in a much different position to doctors since they have built up less public goodwill, and are less indispensable.
Public opinion is so fickle, I expect the poll numbers to be reversed once the strike gets underway and they start to be inconvenienced.
The strike itself will certainly become more unpopular, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will start blaming the doctors (rather than the government) for it.
On a similar (ish) note I can't help thinking the Tube drivers will go the same way as the miners, dockers and Fleet Street. They are deliberately obstructive to a better service, can hold London to ransom, but don't seem to realize that driverless trains are a real possibility.
Bob Crow knew when to take the piss but also when to toe the line and not kill the golden goose, I fear the Tube driver will be extinct in less than ten years.
They should be, regardless of their stupid demands (they are already paid way over the odds). The technology is there, the only thing stopping it is politics. London is a global city, that runs 24/7, thus the tube should be too. The best way to achieve that, driverless trains.
Public opinion is so fickle, I expect the poll numbers to be reversed once the strike gets underway and they start to be inconvenienced.
The strike itself will certainly become more unpopular, but IMO people will more likely blame the government for it rather than the doctors.
I understand they are still talking and the answer to this is to let the doctors have their strike tomorrow and then negotiate a settlement. Prolonging strikes will increasingly damage the doctors position
As Antifrank said a while ago, a Tory Health Secretary was NEVER going to prevail over doctors in a battle for the public's trust.
True enough. Is popularity the right measure, though? Might having the right policy be a better test? (Not saying that Hunt does have this.)
I'll be honest, I haven't really been able to follow what exactly the dispute is about: I don't really understand much about doctors' working conditions in the first place (the junior doctor on Newsnight before talking about "crash bleeps" and "bleep loads" or whatever the terms were left me all at sea), and as we're seeing in this thread there's competing interpretations about the real motives for the strike.
But, in the absence of a clear understanding of the issue, I (like most people) am naturally going to incline to whichever side I fundamentally trust the most - and in a choice between the government or doctors, it's going to be doctors.
I think a lot of people are in your position. I'm just glad that I'm free of doctors or the need to see them at the moment. My Tigger-on-speed feeling is still going......
...
That is terrific news, Mrs. Free. I presume I missed the word on the results of your recent tests and whatnots, but super for you that you are free of the quacks. Long may it continue!
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
There must be a strong argument for saying people on medical courses shouldn't have to pay anything. I guess people doing degrees in golf and similar subjects would complain about that not being fair to them.
If we are doing the importance of Bowie, many point to his musical career, some point to his life-as-art, even some strange individuals speak of his acting career. But it took Lindsay Ellis (in her Nostalgia Chick incarnation) to point out the crucial importance of a omigod tight pair of camelskin trousers...
That song is actually about suicide (the lead singer's brother had committed suicide)
I'm sure some hyperbolic leavers will say we're committing national suicide by choosing to stay in the EU.
It was Tony Mortimer's brother not Brian Harvey's And this song is a good illustration of why Roland Barthes was correct about the nullity of authorial intent - everyone knows it's actually about breakups at Christmas irrespective of what the author says
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
There must be a strong argument for saying people on medical courses shouldn't have to pay anything. I guess people doing degrees in golf and similar subjects would complain about that not being fair to them.
I think degrees of vital national importance (doctors, nurses, some kinds of engineer) should get bursaries and debt forgiveness if they stay in the country after they finish their degrees.
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
There must be a strong argument for saying people on medical courses shouldn't have to pay anything. I guess people doing degrees in golf and similar subjects would complain about that not being fair to them.
Mr. JS, there has long been a school of thought that useful subjects (i.e.STEM) should attract full bursaries from the state whilst for others universities should be free to charge what they like.
Medicine is an odd category because on graduation there is only one realistic employer - the state itself. The army used to, and for all I know still does, run a scheme whereby if they sponsor you through a course then you pledge to serve for n years after qualifying. If you leave early then you get a bill for the proportion of your training costs that you have not "worked off". That sort of scheme would be ideal for the NHS. I expect the BMA would hate it, but if so it is probably a very good deal for the taxpayers and patients.
As Antifrank said a while ago, a Tory Health Secretary was NEVER going to prevail over doctors in a battle for the public's trust.
True enough. Is popularity the right measure, though? Might having the right policy be a better test? (Not saying that Hunt does have this.)
I'll be honest, I haven't really been able to follow what exactly the dispute is about: I don't really understand much about doctors' working conditions in the first place (the junior doctor on Newsnight before talking about "crash bleeps" and "bleep loads" or whatever the terms were left me all at sea), and as we're seeing in this thread there's competing interpretations about the real motives for the strike.
But, in the absence of a clear understanding of the issue, I (like most people) am naturally going to incline to whichever side I fundamentally trust the most - and in a choice between the government or doctors, it's going to be doctors.
I think a lot of people are in your position. I'm just glad that I'm free of doctors or the need to see them at the moment. My Tigger-on-speed feeling is still going......
...
That is terrific news, Mrs. Free. I presume I missed the word on the results of your recent tests and whatnots, but super for you that you are free of the quacks. Long may it continue!
It was last month, just before Xmas. And I have been in an unbearably good mood ever since. I can only summarise the feeling as being like a sponge weighed down with dirty water and then one day all the muck is squeezed out and I've been springing about all over the place, light and bouncy.
This weekend I was looking at my first iris reticulata bulbs poking their way through the earth. Little jewels! A tiny flower of the most exquisite beauty perfectly designed to lift the heart at the gloomiest time of the year.
Anyway if I don't get some sleep I will make myself ill so night all.
As Antifrank said a while ago, a Tory Health Secretary was NEVER going to prevail over doctors in a battle for the public's trust.
True enough. Is popularity the right measure, though? Might having the right policy be a better test? (Not saying that Hunt does have this.)
I'll be honest, I haven't really been able to follow what exactly the dispute is about: I don't really understand much about doctors' working conditions in the first place (the junior doctor on Newsnight before talking about "crash bleeps" and "bleep loads" or whatever the terms were left me all at sea), and as we're seeing in this thread there's competing interpretations about the real motives for the strike.
But, in the absence of a clear understanding of the issue, I (like most people) am naturally going to incline to whichever side I fundamentally trust the most - and in a choice between the government or doctors, it's going to be doctors.
I think a lot of people are in your position. I'm just glad that I'm free of doctors or the need to see them at the moment. My Tigger-on-speed feeling is still going......
...
That is terrific news, Mrs. Free. I presume I missed the word on the results of your recent tests and whatnots, but super for you that you are free of the quacks. Long may it continue!
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
There must be a strong argument for saying people on medical courses shouldn't have to pay anything. I guess people doing degrees in golf and similar subjects would complain about that not being fair to them.
I think degrees of vital national importance (doctors, nurses, some kinds of engineer) should get bursaries and debt forgiveness if they stay in the country after they finish their degrees.
My cousin has just started medical school and I keep forgetting that she's going to have to fork out £9k over the next few years.
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
There must be a strong argument for saying people on medical courses shouldn't have to pay anything. I guess people doing degrees in golf and similar subjects would complain about that not being fair to them.
I think degrees of vital national importance (doctors, nurses, some kinds of engineer) should get bursaries and debt forgiveness if they stay in the country after they finish their degrees.
My cousin has just started medical school and I keep forgetting that she's going to have to fork out £9k over the next few years.
£54k in fees and up to £30k in maintenance loans. Most people don't go into medicine for the money but the government puts medicine graduates in a position where they feel they need to make a decent wage having spent so much on their degree already.
STEM degrees should pay for themselves in the job market. If Google want more engineers, they should pay more. In so far as it is possible for liberal arts and humanities degrees to do so, that is good, but I imagine they would be reduced to a vanishingly tiny elite if government subsidy ended. Therefore there is a good argument for subsidising arts and humanities equally to, if not more than, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I admit that this line of argument was not original to me and was initiated by notorious cultural Marxist, Milton Friedman
On the junior doctors, my cousin voted to strike. I wouldn't call him an ideologue or anything like that. The issue, IMO, is that junior doctors leave university with around £80-90k worth of debt and now the health secretary is asking them to work for less money when they finish with uni. If fees were still £1k per year or even £3k per year we would not be having this discussion.
If the government were to introduce bursaries for students bringing fees down by say 50% for those who pre-contract with the NHS for 5-7 years (matching the length of their degree course) I think the problem would go away by itself.
There must be a strong argument for saying people on medical courses shouldn't have to pay anything. I guess people doing degrees in golf and similar subjects would complain about that not being fair to them.
I think degrees of vital national importance (doctors, nurses, some kinds of engineer) should get bursaries and debt forgiveness if they stay in the country after they finish their degrees.
There is an argument to the contrary - if something is really, really important, then unless the training places aren't getting filled, then it's better for the government to direct its funding to the creation of more places, rather than more heavily subsidising places that were getting filled already. The more cash you throw at existing places, the more expensive each one becomes, and when future ministers weigh up their options for expanding training places, the harder it will be for them to do so.
Medical courses are, as I understand it, incredibly expensive to teach and even the new higher fees don't get anywhere near reflecting this. The debt is not on commercial terms and young medical professionals are not starving because of their debt load. Nor is their career path a financially unrewarding one, so I wouldn't want to give them more dough in an expression of sympathy.
I personally like your debt forgiveness slant as it gives the government more control over the medium-run incentives of a bunch of people it has spent a large investment training. For "important" courses where the places just aren't being filled, I'd consider chucking some money in for grants/bursaries (I suspect cash in hand might be more important than offering superior debt terms in terms of attracting the attention of 18 year olds). But I wonder how many of them there are. The medical schools certainly could fill themselves up several times over, and commercially important courses can generally attract students on the basis of graduate salary (and in many cases, private sector bursaries are available for the higher flyers).
After starting out pretty poorly, Hunt has made great gains in the past few weeks vs the Jun Docs.
He sounds like the voice of sense after regaining composure on several assured media performances, chimes with the wishes of the public (who are sick of poor GP provisioning and mediocre hospital performance) in improving a service and, most importantly, has rightly positioned the Docs as only being concerned with pay.
This is an industrial dispute. It will be engaged with by:
1) Docs 2) The govt 3) The opposition (if they're not too busy resigning/thinking about sacking each other)
4) and most importantly, by people affected tomorrow
The way the public engage with 4 is key to how this will play out - the public rightly see that 1-3 have skin in the game in what is basically a good old fashioned pay and conditions dispute.
I'd say this is a very good time for the Tories to try this - best case scenario is a win (policy wise) and decreased public confidence in the continual '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
I personally like your debt forgiveness slant as it gives the government more control over the medium-run incentives of a bunch of people it has spent a large investment training. For "important" courses where the places just aren't being filled, I'd consider chucking some money in for grants/bursaries (I suspect cash in hand might be more important than offering superior debt terms in terms of attracting the attention of 18 year olds). But I wonder how many of them there are. The medical schools certainly could fill themselves up several times over, and commercially important courses can generally attract students on the basis of graduate salary (and in many cases, private sector bursaries are available for the higher flyers).
You could imagine a situation that if a person with medical school debt is working in the NHS, the government pays £2 or £3 for every £1 that person pays towards repaying their loan. When they aren't in the NHS, they have to pay the lot back themselves.
After starting out pretty poorly, Hunt has made great gains in the past few weeks vs the Jun Docs.
He sounds like the voice of sense after regaining composure on several assured media performances, chimes with the wishes of the public (who are sick of poor GP provisioning and mediocre hospital performance) in improving a service and, most importantly, has rightly positioned the Docs as only being concerned with pay.
This is an industrial dispute. It will be engaged with by:
1) Docs 2) The govt 3) The opposition (if they're not too busy resigning/thinking about sacking each other)
4) and most importantly, by people affected tomorrow
The way the public engage with 4 is key to how this will play out - the public rightly see that 1-3 have skin in the game in what is basically a good old fashioned pay and conditions dispute.
I'd say this is a very good time for the Tories to try this - best case scenario is a win (policy wise) and decreased public confidence in the continual '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
Got any evidence for the "chimes with the wishes of the public"? I have neither the time nor the inclination to crunch my way through the technicalities of the negotiations. Certainly junior doctors feel under severe threat, but on the flip side there is an element of mouths stuffed with insufficient gold - if Hunt wants more doctors on weekends I think ultimately he'll have to cough up more than he initially was hoping for, but these are only the roughest of impressions. The rights and wrongs are not worth the investment of my time it would take to sort out.
However, the polling (as well as historical) evidence looked pretty clear to me that Hunt is on a loser on this one, particularly the PR side. When doctors face off with politicians, there's usually only one winner.
The Strike is more than about pay, but a whole bunch of issues are deliberately being mingled with the contract dispute by both sides.
It is nearly 2 decades since I was last a Junior Doctor and much has changed. Like other bits of national life some of these changes are positive and some negative. Others will take different perspectives.
No one becomes a Doctor to work office hours, and never has. The question is how many hours and to what purpose?
25 years ago the hours were brutal. I once worked 132 out of 168 hours in a week on an acute medical specialist unit with a level 2 High Dependency Unit. Those hours were unsafe and paid at less than normal rates (38% of basic rate even on Christmas Day). There were no formal training programmes and Juniors had very unstable careers where they were applying for new jobs every 1-2 years, or even 6 monthly.
Those hours were tackled both by the EWTD and by the New Deal which was a UK initiative. This is how the Banding system came into being. By paying higher rates for overtime market forces brought down. In 2007 in the infamous MMC/MTAS fiasco all the training posts were amalgamated into regional training programmes, greatly reducing career instability.
So with reduced hours and stable programmes what are they complaining about?
Well the new complex shift patterns mean loss of contact time with other members of the team, and loss of continuity with multiple handovers of patients. This is bad for patients but also for the Trainees who become isolated and unsupported either by their trainers or by their peers.
Regional training programmes make for long commutes. Our Leicester Trainees can be working up to 90 minutes drive away from the base. Doctors very often marry each other, part of the feminisation of medicine, and are often older graduate students. Being on conflicting rotations and conflicting shift patterns can be as destabilising of family life as the old excessive hours without the camerarderie of the old system. Doctors are not alone in this sort of work pattern of course, my father was a salesman and I only saw him at weekends when I was a lad.
The intensity of the out of hours work has increased (technology and sicker patients) and the training to deal with it has got worse. This is particularly the case in some specialities, leading to a recruitment and retention crisis. This year only 59% of UK graduates from 2013 are in a UK training post. About 10-15% are probably overseas, some permenantly. Many of the rest have left for other careers.
I'd say this is a very good time for the Tories to try this - best case scenario is a win (policy wise) and decreased public confidence in the continual '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
Hunts new contract cuts the pay, worsens the hours, penalises part time working and career breaks (remember this is a young largely female workforce), does not address training at all (and these are training posts) at the same time as graduates get higher tuition fees to pay back. No wonder the Juniors voted to overwhelmingly strike!
My solution:
1) Hunt needs to withdraw his threat of imposition in August. This gives a year to come up with a better contract that addresses the issues of Junior Doctors as well as a 7 day NHS that is sustainable not just a slogan. Removing this threat is the only way to stop the strike, as otherwise there is no time for negotiation.
2) Hunt needs to decide what a 7 day NHS means, and work through the implications of the supporting services required. This includes senior doctors supervising, but also pathology, phisio,OT, social workers, managers, secretaries, record clerks, patient transport etc to be decided, and funded. Improving the weekend mortality should not be at the expense of in-week mortality.
...I personally like your debt forgiveness slant as it gives the government more control over the medium-run incentives of a bunch of people it has spent a large investment training. For "important" courses where the places just aren't being filled, I'd consider chucking some money in for grants/bursaries (I suspect cash in hand might be more important than offering superior debt terms in terms of attracting the attention of 18 year olds). But I wonder how many of them there are. The medical schools certainly could fill themselves up several times over, and commercially important courses can generally attract students on the basis of graduate salary (and in many cases, private sector bursaries are available for the higher flyers).
Nah. Give trainee doctors 100% grants for tuition fees and maintenance. Then fit them with an explosive collar. Fail exams? Boom. Leave country? Boom. That'll larn them...
After starting out pretty poorly, Hunt has made great gains in the past few weeks vs the Jun Docs.
He soun....al '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
Got any evidence for the "chimes with the wishes of the public"? I have neither the time nor the inclination to crunch my way through the technicalities of the negotiations. Certainly junior doctors feel under severe threat, but on the flip side there is an element of mouths stuffed with insufficient gold - if Hunt wants more doctors on weekends I think ultimately he'll have to cough up more than he initially was hoping for, but these are only the roughest of impressions. The rights and wrongs are not worth the investment of my time it would take to sort out.
However, the polling (as well as historical) evidence looked pretty clear to me that Hunt is on a loser on this one, particularly the PR side. When doctors face off with politicians, there's usually only one winner.
I'm not sure how it will play out, for sure. IIRC sympathy for all industrial disputes is highest before they begin. A series of strikes combined with vox pops with people who have had cancelled appointments etc won't play out well for the Docs if the govt appear reasonable. And contrary to the (frankly biased) views of the Docs, Hunt has appeared as reasonable as it is possible to be in his position.
Have you ever heard a discussion about the NHS? Everyone has gripes. Most concern GPs, out of hours services especially, but having had an allergic shock after being provided with drugs to which I'd told practitioners that I was allergic on a weekend, I'm pretty worried about the provisioning of the NHS on a weekend. I'm not so sure that these gripes will remain at the back of peoples minds when the halo slips after Jun Docs are seen to be willing to strike.
I agree with you in that that I suspect the 'pay cuts' eventually accepted will be slightly lower - and I can't say that this is a sure fire win for the Govt. But at this time in the electoral cycle with a yawning deficit, making a service more consumer friendly and cost efficient is surely worth a try.
I see some people on YouTube are calling Bowie a racist for his 1983 "China Girl" video. Bit disappointing.
Bowie described this video (and the video for his subsequent single, "China Girl") as "very simple, very direct" statements against racism and oppression
Bowie, who had once pursued sex, drugs and rock n' roll with equal energy, had suffered six heart attacks over the years, which he had also kept secret.
...I personally like your debt forgiveness slant as it gives the government more control over the medium-run incentives of a bunch of people it has spent a large investment training. For "important" courses where the places just aren't being filled, I'd consider chucking some money in for grants/bursaries (I suspect cash in hand might be more important than offering superior debt terms in terms of attracting the attention of 18 year olds). But I wonder how many of them there are. The medical schools certainly could fill themselves up several times over, and commercially important courses can generally attract students on the basis of graduate salary (and in many cases, private sector bursaries are available for the higher flyers).
Nah. Give trainee doctors 100% grants for tuition fees and maintenance. Then fit them with an explosive collar. Fail exams? Boom. Leave country? Boom. That'll larn them...
...I personally like your debt forgiveness slant as it gives the government more control over the medium-run incentives of a bunch of people it has spent a large investment training. For "important" courses where the places just aren't being filled, I'd consider chucking some money in for grants/bursaries (I suspect cash in hand might be more important than offering superior debt terms in terms of attracting the attention of 18 year olds). But I wonder how many of them there are. The medical schools certainly could fill themselves up several times over, and commercially important courses can generally attract students on the basis of graduate salary (and in many cases, private sector bursaries are available for the higher flyers).
Nah. Give trainee doctors 100% grants for tuition fees and maintenance. Then fit them with an explosive collar. Fail exams? Boom. Leave country? Boom. That'll larn them...
Battle Royale Free Hospital?
I was thinking more of the shotgun collar scene in Saw 3...:-(
As Antifrank said a while ago, a Tory Health Secretary was NEVER going to prevail over doctors in a battle for the public's trust.
True enough. Is popularity the right measure, though? Might having the right policy be a better test? (Not saying that Hunt does have this.)
I'll be honest, I haven't really been able to follow what exactly the dispute is about: I don't really understand much about doctors' working conditions in the first place (the junior doctor on Newsnight before talking about "crash bleeps" and "bleep loads" or whatever the terms were left me all at sea), and as we're seeing in this thread there's competing interpretations about the real motives for the strike.
But, in the absence of a clear understanding of the issue, I (like most people) am naturally going to incline to whichever side I fundamentally trust the most - and in a choice between the government or doctors, it's going to be doctors.
I think that's pretty much how this will play out politically. The Government can limit the damage by settling the dispute fast.
Within the Government, this seems to run counter to the don't-piss-off-the-public-before-the-referendum plan. I guess George is not happy.
Bowie, who had once pursued sex, drugs and rock n' roll with equal energy, had suffered six heart attacks over the years, which he had also kept secret.
...I personally like your debt forgiveness slant as it gives the government more control over the medium-run incentives of a bunch of people it has spent a large investment training. For "important" courses where the places just aren't being filled, I'd consider chucking some money in for grants/bursaries (I suspect cash in hand might be more important than offering superior debt terms in terms of attracting the attention of 18 year olds). But I wonder how many of them there are. The medical schools certainly could fill themselves up several times over, and commercially important courses can generally attract students on the basis of graduate salary (and in many cases, private sector bursaries are available for the higher flyers).
Nah. Give trainee doctors 100% grants for tuition fees and maintenance. Then fit them with an explosive collar. Fail exams? Boom. Leave country? Boom. That'll larn them...
Battle Royale Free Hospital?
I was thinking more of the shotgun collar scene in Saw 3...:-(
I'd say this is a very good time for the Tories to try this - best case scenario is a win (policy wise) and decreased public confidence in the continual '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
I'd say this is a very good time for the Tories to try this - best case scenario is a win (policy wise) and decreased public confidence in the continual '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
I'd say this is a very good time for the Tories to try this - best case scenario is a win (policy wise) and decreased public confidence in the continual '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
Seventeen *days?* Hey man, I don't wanna rain on your parade, but we're not gonna last seventeen *hours!* Those things are gonna come in here just like they did before. And they're gonna come in here...
Comments
We used to have such disputes all the time but nowadays they are only to be found in the unreformed parts of the public services where producer interests hold sway.
So just how is the idiot Hunt working junior doctors into the ground going to solve this one then?
Hugh Jackman doesn't even pretend to be anything other than broad Strine. Just awful.
David Bowie is a class act. I agree with the Evening Standard tonight: he managed to sound both cut-glass and very much south London at the same time.
One of a kind.
True enough. Is popularity the right measure, though? Might having the right policy be a better test? (Not saying that Hunt does have this.)
Additionally many of these guys are carrying £40k of student loans and the next lot will have £80-90k worth of student loans.
If people like my cousin are on strike then the government have got it wrong IMO, he isn't someone they can just brush off as saying the BMA are pushing some Marxist agenda and he got caught up in it.
Sweden’s prime minister has condemned his country’s own version of the Cologne mass sexual assault allegations and alleged police cover-up, calling claims of similar events at a youth festival in Stockholm “a double betrayal” of women and a “big democratic problem”.
Swedish police promised an urgent investigation into the claims first reported by liberal newspaper Dagens Nyheter that a gang of youths — reportedly mostly from Afghanistan — groped and molested girls as young as 11 or 12 at the We Are Sthlm festival in both 2014 and 2015."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/775235c8-b834-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/companies/feed//product#axzz3wylrXVi0
So why is Chris A bleating on about patient safety, and working fewer hours? This would appear to be exactly what Hunt wants too.
Not sure how it will go down with the swing electorate.
It's all about the money, money, money...
Genuine question, no agenda.
I think the Tories are barking up the wrong tree here. The people who they are pushing into the arms of a union are naturally conservative and have long memories. It's not a group of people I would want lose from my side so easily. I think having a Tory government (not even coalition so they can't just blame the Lib Dems) oversee the first ever doctor's strike in the NHS is going to destroy any credibility they have left.
Hunt 34,199
NHA 4,851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Of course it's about the money. Stop being so facetious. I wouldn't train for 6 or 7 years, get into £90k worth of debt and then take a massive pay cut because the PM made a stupid commitment to win an election.
Alright
Everything's gonna be alright
The 7-day cover is an additional issue. How can such cover be provided when we can't fill current vacancies?
I have sympathy for junior doctors - up to a point - but it's a little disingenuous to say that pay is not a key issue as well as the issue of patient safety.
There was an interesting discussion on Newsnight just now between a junior doctor and Dr Wollaston. But when a junior doctor says that she is protecting patients by withdrawing her care for patients tomorrow, my reaction is hmmmmm.......
But, in the absence of a clear understanding of the issue, I (like most people) am naturally going to incline to whichever side I fundamentally trust the most - and in a choice between the government or doctors, it's going to be doctors.
That is not to say a pan-European or even federal Europe cannot work, they can and perhaps might - but this particular incarnation is an unreformable abomination.
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/686593308047634432
Pay is quite complicated. The Banding (overtime rate) varies with shift/ partial-shift/ on call intensity and the particular hours worked. Currently all hours rostered after 1900 or at weekend are banded. It also depends on the point on the payscale that the Dr is on.
These are Doctors in Specialist training, and shift patterns can be very disruptive to planning teaching sessions. Spreading the Junior Doctors thinner automatically makes it harder to teach them.
When one of them comes up with a right policy, maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InIxKCa3H9g
I would like to inform the world, I shall be mostly engaged on March 4, 2016.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/celebrate-the-life-of-david-bowie-with-the-top-6-bowie-knives-ever-made/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Who says that americans don't like Bowie, especially on shopping channels:
"Buy these amazing Bowie knifes on offer now, to celebrate the death of David Bowie, only 25.73$ each."
Let's hope it's gets resolved soon.
Bob Crow knew when to take the piss but also when to toe the line and not kill the golden goose, I fear the Tube driver will be extinct in less than ten years.
And this song is a good illustration of why Roland Barthes was correct about the nullity of authorial intent - everyone knows it's actually about breakups at Christmas irrespective of what the author says
Medicine is an odd category because on graduation there is only one realistic employer - the state itself. The army used to, and for all I know still does, run a scheme whereby if they sponsor you through a course then you pledge to serve for n years after qualifying. If you leave early then you get a bill for the proportion of your training costs that you have not "worked off". That sort of scheme would be ideal for the NHS. I expect the BMA would hate it, but if so it is probably a very good deal for the taxpayers and patients.
...however, his Southern accent, which wasn't very good, has begun to improve...
It was last month, just before Xmas. And I have been in an unbearably good mood ever since. I can only summarise the feeling as being like a sponge weighed down with dirty water and then one day all the muck is squeezed out and I've been springing about all over the place, light and bouncy.
This weekend I was looking at my first iris reticulata bulbs poking their way through the earth. Little jewels! A tiny flower of the most exquisite beauty perfectly designed to lift the heart at the gloomiest time of the year.
Anyway if I don't get some sleep I will make myself ill so night all.
PS Low as an album, and Heroes as a track are my favorites.
I admit that this line of argument was not original to me and was initiated by notorious cultural Marxist, Milton Friedman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4d7Wp9kKjA
Medical courses are, as I understand it, incredibly expensive to teach and even the new higher fees don't get anywhere near reflecting this. The debt is not on commercial terms and young medical professionals are not starving because of their debt load. Nor is their career path a financially unrewarding one, so I wouldn't want to give them more dough in an expression of sympathy.
I personally like your debt forgiveness slant as it gives the government more control over the medium-run incentives of a bunch of people it has spent a large investment training. For "important" courses where the places just aren't being filled, I'd consider chucking some money in for grants/bursaries (I suspect cash in hand might be more important than offering superior debt terms in terms of attracting the attention of 18 year olds). But I wonder how many of them there are. The medical schools certainly could fill themselves up several times over, and commercially important courses can generally attract students on the basis of graduate salary (and in many cases, private sector bursaries are available for the higher flyers).
He sounds like the voice of sense after regaining composure on several assured media performances, chimes with the wishes of the public (who are sick of poor GP provisioning and mediocre hospital performance) in improving a service and, most importantly, has rightly positioned the Docs as only being concerned with pay.
This is an industrial dispute. It will be engaged with by:
1) Docs
2) The govt
3) The opposition (if they're not too busy resigning/thinking about sacking each other)
4) and most importantly, by people affected tomorrow
The way the public engage with 4 is key to how this will play out - the public rightly see that 1-3 have skin in the game in what is basically a good old fashioned pay and conditions dispute.
I'd say this is a very good time for the Tories to try this - best case scenario is a win (policy wise) and decreased public confidence in the continual '2 minutes to save the NHS' balls spouted by oppositions and the employees of the NHS.
However, the polling (as well as historical) evidence looked pretty clear to me that Hunt is on a loser on this one, particularly the PR side. When doctors face off with politicians, there's usually only one winner.
Trump Forever!
The Strike is more than about pay, but a whole bunch of issues are deliberately being mingled with the contract dispute by both sides.
It is nearly 2 decades since I was last a Junior Doctor and much has changed. Like other bits of national life some of these changes are positive and some negative. Others will take different perspectives.
No one becomes a Doctor to work office hours, and never has. The question is how many hours and to what purpose?
25 years ago the hours were brutal. I once worked 132 out of 168 hours in a week on an acute medical specialist unit with a level 2 High Dependency Unit. Those hours were unsafe and paid at less than normal rates (38% of basic rate even on Christmas Day). There were no formal training programmes and Juniors had very unstable careers where they were applying for new jobs every 1-2 years, or even 6 monthly.
Those hours were tackled both by the EWTD and by the New Deal which was a UK initiative. This is how the Banding system came into being. By paying higher rates for overtime market forces brought down. In 2007 in the infamous MMC/MTAS fiasco all the training posts were amalgamated into regional training programmes, greatly reducing career instability.
So with reduced hours and stable programmes what are they complaining about?
Well the new complex shift patterns mean loss of contact time with other members of the team, and loss of continuity with multiple handovers of patients. This is bad for patients but also for the Trainees who become isolated and unsupported either by their trainers or by their peers.
Regional training programmes make for long commutes. Our Leicester Trainees can be working up to 90 minutes drive away from the base. Doctors very often marry each other, part of the feminisation of medicine, and are often older graduate students. Being on conflicting rotations and conflicting shift patterns can be as destabilising of family life as the old excessive hours without the camerarderie of the old system. Doctors are not alone in this sort of work pattern of course, my father was a salesman and I only saw him at weekends when I was a lad.
The intensity of the out of hours work has increased (technology and sicker patients) and the training to deal with it has got worse. This is particularly the case in some specialities, leading to a recruitment and retention crisis. This year only 59% of UK graduates from 2013 are in a UK training post. About 10-15% are probably overseas, some permenantly. Many of the rest have left for other careers.
Part 2 to follow.
Part 2:
Hunts new contract cuts the pay, worsens the hours, penalises part time working and career breaks (remember this is a young largely female workforce), does not address training at all (and these are training posts) at the same time as graduates get higher tuition fees to pay back. No wonder the Juniors voted to overwhelmingly strike!
My solution:
1) Hunt needs to withdraw his threat of imposition in August. This gives a year to come up with a better contract that addresses the issues of Junior Doctors as well as a 7 day NHS that is sustainable not just a slogan. Removing this threat is the only way to stop the strike, as otherwise there is no time for negotiation.
2) Hunt needs to decide what a 7 day NHS means, and work through the implications of the supporting services required. This includes senior doctors supervising, but also pathology, phisio,OT, social workers, managers, secretaries, record clerks, patient transport etc to be decided, and funded. Improving the weekend mortality should not be at the expense of in-week mortality.
It is not a short or simple answer.
Have you ever heard a discussion about the NHS? Everyone has gripes. Most concern GPs, out of hours services especially, but having had an allergic shock after being provided with drugs to which I'd told practitioners that I was allergic on a weekend, I'm pretty worried about the provisioning of the NHS on a weekend. I'm not so sure that these gripes will remain at the back of peoples minds when the halo slips after Jun Docs are seen to be willing to strike.
I agree with you in that that I suspect the 'pay cuts' eventually accepted will be slightly lower - and I can't say that this is a sure fire win for the Govt. But at this time in the electoral cycle with a yawning deficit, making a service more consumer friendly and cost efficient is surely worth a try.
According to Wikipedia
Within the Government, this seems to run counter to the don't-piss-off-the-public-before-the-referendum plan. I guess George is not happy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDh_gHDvkk
...however, we only have fourteen hours to save the Earth
http://www.ft.com/home/uk
Jerry, what first attracted you to ....... etc.