I'm going to watch House again in tribute to the Junior Doctors new contract.
And tempted to ask what unusual diseases Pb-ers have had. Sadly, I can only claim Scarlet Fever. Does anybody still get this?
Not heard of that for a while.
I once had.a quinsey - which I take is quite uncommon given about half of my hospital's doctors asked if they could take a look down my throat because they'd never seen one...
How did it feel ?
At the start of Jan I had flu, followed by laryngitis followed by tonsilitis and now I can't clear my throat of phlegm ><.</p>
Like I had an open wound in my throat and couldn't do anything other than suck ice cubes.
The NHS saved your life.
Or from a life of Ice Cube sucking
And yet you are unimpressed FFS what are you expecting!!
To use an apposite aphorism "One does not applaud the tenor for clearing his throat."
I'm going to watch House again in tribute to the Junior Doctors new contract.
And tempted to ask what unusual diseases Pb-ers have had. Sadly, I can only claim Scarlet Fever. Does anybody still get this?
Not heard of that for a while.
I once had.a quinsey - which I take is quite uncommon given about half of my hospital's doctors asked if they could take a look down my throat because they'd never seen one...
How did it feel ?
At the start of Jan I had flu, followed by laryngitis followed by tonsilitis and now I can't clear my throat of phlegm ><.</p>
Like I had an open wound in my throat and couldn't do anything other than suck ice cubes.
The NHS saved your life.
Or from a life of Ice Cube sucking
And yet you are unimpressed FFS what are you expecting!!
A service paid to diagnose issues correctly took several weeks to diagnose something, only realising much later that the issue was quite serious.
This is a service that my parents had paid tax into for their entire lives.
And a service that since administered drugs to which I am allergic despite being told 3 times. And that was on a Sunday.
I once had a wedding tackle related complaint that is rare, and the doctor visit was mortifyingly embarrassing.
I had a nasty bout of epididymitis some years back. It is characterized by the beautifully euphemistic symptom of 'exquisite pain'. In an open room separated by just a privacy curtain, the doctor diagnosing me kept on calling in residents to come and feel it. Both embarrassing and extremely painful.
I'm going to watch House again in tribute to the Junior Doctors new contract.
And tempted to ask what unusual diseases Pb-ers have had. Sadly, I can only claim Scarlet Fever. Does anybody still get this?
Not heard of that for a while.
I once had.a quinsey - which I take is quite uncommon given about half of my hospital's doctors asked if they could take a look down my throat because they'd never seen one...
How did it feel ?
At the start of Jan I had flu, followed by laryngitis followed by tonsilitis and now I can't clear my throat of phlegm ><.</p>
Like I had an open wound in my throat and couldn't do anything other than suck ice cubes.
The NHS saved your life.
Or from a life of Ice Cube sucking
And yet you are unimpressed FFS what are you expecting!!
A service paid to diagnose issues correctly took several weeks to diagnose something, only realising much later that the issue was quite serious.
This is a service that my parents had paid tax into for their entire lives.
And a service that since administered drugs to which I am allergic despite being told 3 times. And that was on a Sunday.
Miss Plato, no diseases, but I did once solve a House case (whilst watching) before he did. I was absurdly proud of myself (the episode where an individual has two genetic codes. Did a little about that at university).
Mr Dancer. I solved that one almost immediately. Patricia Cornwell in her Scarpetta series had a whole case based upon a murderer with a mosaic genome
Mr. Urquhart, I liked the Doctor Who comparison picture. I'd take a wax Tom Baker over Chris Evans
Mr. Taffys, I had two trouser-removing medical conditions (neither diseases). I can assure you from personal experience, wedding tackle is not the worst area to be examined.
[I hope your issue was resolved quickly and painlessly].
Miss Plato, can't recall, it was maybe a decade ago now. Essentially, one heterogeneous twin (at embryo stage) absorbs the other. So you get one human, with two genetic codes.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Thanks for the responses to my US Election 101 musings yesterday @david_herdson@rodcrosby. I'd gathered the emphasis on the momentum, but it's not clear to me where that lies now and I think things can only be assessed by breaking down into stages.
Concentrating on the Republican side, the main question defining the next phase is who, if anyone, establishes themselves as the sole establishment candidate, how soon that happens and how far in front Trump is by that time. So looking particularly at that:
(1) If Trump takes S. Carolina winner takes all and the proportionals don't do much at all to split the establishment field, I guess the probability is that Kasich / Rubio / Bush are still all there.
(2) Super Tuesday is mostly proportional or proportional / WTA with thresholds that, with 5 candidates standing, are likely to be reached in relatively few cases based on the elections so far. Texas the big WTA state likely splits Cruz, keeping him going. So, finger in the air a possible split of delegates on that night -
Cruz 220ish, Trump 200, Bush/Rubio/Kasich split 200 votes between them - Trump lead of 40-50 delegates over Cruz (290 odd - 240 odd), perhaps a lead of 160-170 over nearest mainstream rival.
Cruz stays in for a while yet on those numbers, mopping up the tea party / religious right vote (both from establishment and from Trump), but presumably goes the same way as every similar candidate has gone previously in the end.
How does this then play out amongst the establishment candidates? What threshold / split determines who has the momentum and triggers withdrawals? Is 170 delegates recoverable at this stage for a single candidate with Cruz still a factor? (yes?), What if the establishment votes split for another 4-6 weeks and at what stage does Trump's lead become irrecoverable?
Apologies, if this narrative is already in the vlog/programme, have not had time to absorb that yet.
Serves them right. I suspect this has more to do with the BMA's (non-)negotiating tactics than anything else.
Sorry but you have no clue what the result of this imposition will be but you are happy to gamble.
Hope YBS puts you on a 7 day contract "Serves you right"!!
I'm already required to work weekends as needed. That's when code implementations occur.
Was that imposed without you agreeing?
If not we are not comparing like with like are we?
Junior Drs already work weekends on a contract they agreed.
I believe imposition is a huge gamble that may cost the NHS in England dear.
There have been several changes to my terms and conditions during my time with the YBS. The most recent was a change to pension arrangements that was imposed on us.
The fact is that the government was elected on a manifesto promising a 7-day-per-week NHS. Getting out of the mentality of 'core hours' and 'out of hours' is part of that process. The whole economy is moving towards the same principle and the public expects public services to do likewise. Indeed, the government has a duty to implement its election promise now. It would be better if there could be a negotiated settlement but given that the independent expert advises that there can't be, then that only leaves the government with one option.
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what? Resign?
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
It does not bring the dispute to a conclusion - the doctors can strike against the new contracts surely!
I think today is a good example of why Boris should never ever be leader of the Conservatives, he gave in to the tube unions pretty much every time iirc.
I do wonder whether Hunt has half an eye on a possible leadership election this autumn.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Serves them right. I suspect this has more to do with the BMA's (non-)negotiating tactics than anything else.
Sorry but you have no clue what the result of this imposition will be but you are happy to gamble.
Hope YBS puts you on a 7 day contract "Serves you right"!!
I'm already required to work weekends as needed. That's when code implementations occur.
Was that imposed without you agreeing?
If not we are not comparing like with like are we?
Junior Drs already work weekends on a contract they agreed.
I believe imposition is a huge gamble that may cost the NHS in England dear.
There have been several changes to my terms and conditions during my time with the YBS. The most recent was a change to pension arrangements that was imposed on us.
The fact is that the government was elected on a manifesto promising a 7-day-per-week NHS. Getting out of the mentality of 'core hours' and 'out of hours' is part of that process. The whole economy is moving towards the same principle and the public expects public services to do likewise. Indeed, the government has a duty to implement its election promise now. It would be better if there could be a negotiated settlement but given that the independent expert advises that there can't be, then that only leaves the government with one option.
One option not so.
The BMA put forward a cost neutral option that the Employers negotiating team was prepared to accept met the 7 day objectives Hunt vetoed it.
The Public of Yorkshire demand a 7 day service from YBS.
There are a number of important “take aways” from the astonishing interview Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has just given to John Humphrys on the Today programme. One could be his assertion – delivered without a hint of irony – that he and his force have been conducting their investigation into “establishment” child abuse “without fear or favour”.
This is the same Metropolitan police force that last year admitted it had continued to purse wholly false allegations relating to former Home Secretary Leon Brittan because “A decision to take no further action in respect of this allegation would undoubtedly have resulted in media criticism and public cynicism”.
Quayle, Gore, Palin, Rubio—pols who became caricatures. And the caricatures stuck. And once they did, it was finished.
And Hillary's next.
Are you writing off both Rubio and Hilary ?
I'm not writing off either, but I think Rubio's chances are less good than the odds imply.
Hillary is in serious trouble on three fronts:
1. Emails. 2. Sanders 3. Reputation and likeability
She needs to survive the first two and reverse the third to get back into the White House master bedroom.
Number 1 is largely out of her control. Basically, if she or people very close to her get formally accused of something serious, she's probably toast. If not, I don't think the scandal itself much matters in terms of changing people's votes (except to reinforce her problems on 3).
Number 2 should be manageable, but her campaign team needs to up its game. Currently they are relying too heavily on what they seem to regard as an immutable truth than Bernie won't cut it with African-Americans and Hispanics. Well, it might be a truth for the moment, but it might not be immutable. The nightmare for the Clinton campaign is the possibility that the lack of support for Bernie amongst these groups is mainly because they don't know much about him as yet.
Number 3 is just getting worse and worse. Some serious work on the messaging is necessary.
She should be able to do this. Hell, she's got enough cash, experience and expert advice on hand. But she's not a good candidate, that is becoming clearer and clearer. She'd probably be a good president, however.
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what? Resign?
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
It does not bring the dispute to a conclusion - the doctors can strike against the new contracts surely!
The BMA could create its own agency of junior doctors with its own short term NHS contract. When junior doctors are faced with the Hunt contract, they refuse it and join the BMA agency bank. If enough junior doctors do this, the NHS will have no choice but to hire them as agency staff on more expensive contracts.
The junior doctors don't need to go on strike. They just go on agency terms. Many nurses already do this and it costs the NHS an arm and a leg.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
Interesting juxtaposition of stories on the BBC website. One involves the increasing problem of enough drivers to drive trains. The reason - we don't train enough of them. Now the NHS haters on here would tell you that it could t happen in a private enterprise as it's only a fault of "socialist", "inefficient", public bodies whose only function is to provide work for its employees.
Well the underlying reasons are the same. Hunt has made the doctor recruitment process a whole lot worse, but it's entirely different in having no-one to drive the 0820 to Waterloo than having no-one to man the crash team when you're having a cardiac arrest.
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what? Resign?
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
It does not bring the dispute to a conclusion - the doctors can strike against the new contracts surely!
The BMA could create its own agency of junior doctors with its own short term NHS contract. When junior doctors are faced with the Hunt contract, they refuse it and join the BMA agency bank. If enough junior doctors do this, the NHS will have no choice but to hire them as agency staff on more expensive contracts.
The junior doctors don't need to go on strike. They just go on agency terms. Many nurses already do this and it costs the NHS an arm and a leg.
Interesting juxtaposition of stories on the BBC website. One involves the increasing problem of enough drivers to drive trains. The reason - we don't train enough of them. Now the NHS haters on here would tell you that it could t happen in a private enterprise as it's only a fault of "socialist", "inefficient", public bodies whose only function is to provide work for its employees.
Well the underlying reasons are the same. Hunt has made the doctor recruitment process a whole lot worse, but it's entirely different in having no-one to drive the 0820 to Waterloo than having no-one to man the crash team when you're having a cardiac arrest.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Do you think the use of agency nurses should be made illegal? Do you think strikes should be made illegal? Do you think management should be obeyed without question? Back to the 19th Century.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
The miners can have a whip round to help striking Middle Class doctors pay their mortgages.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Do you think the use of agency nurses should be made illegal? Do you think strikes should be made illegal? Do you think management should be obeyed without question? Back to the 19th Century.
Logical conclusion.
Most PB Tories dont claim to give a stuff for workers rights TBF
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
The miners can have a whip round to help striking Middle Class doctors pay their mortgages.
What miners?
You happy to have no Drs too?
Perhaps you will be happy for your Grand Children to sweep chimmneys
Not saying I agree with this, but its an atom bomb to those supporting the junior doctors....
Training periods should be extended. Doctors might not be very happy about waiting longer before advancing up the career ladder towards greater riches, but patient safety comes first, as they're so keen to tell us.
'All this, as Dr Howard Goodall pointed out, is the creation of an inexperienced profession. Young doctors need to put in long hours; it is how they gain their very necessary expertise. Their apprenticeship for the consultant posts they eventually seek consists of the ‘hours’ they need encounter and observe 'the natural history of disease’. How else would they learn their trade?
Dr Rena Agawal, the young woman doctor on Today programme with Dr Goodall, was outraged. “Thank God those days are over”, she said.
She might thank God, but which of these doctors would you trust most with your care in a medical crisis? Dr Rena Agawal or Dr Howard Goodall who trained along with his mainly male colleagues back in the 1960s? I know who I would pick.'
Actually it might be quite good if more doctors came through agencies. Obviously the price would go down dramatically if there was a massive increase in the supply of agency doctors in competition with one another, and it would allow NHS trusts to increase or decrease staffing more flexibly.
Thanks for the responses to my US Election 101 musings yesterday @david_herdson@rodcrosby. I'd gathered the emphasis on the momentum, but it's not clear to me where that lies now and I think things can only be assessed by breaking down into stages.
Concentrating on the Republican side, the main question defining the next phase is who, if anyone, establishes themselves as the sole establishment candidate, how soon that happens and how far in front Trump is by that time. So looking particularly at that:
(1) If Trump takes S. Carolina winner takes all and the proportionals don't do much at all to split the establishment field, I guess the probability is that Kasich / Rubio / Bush are still all there.
(2) Super Tuesday is mostly proportional or proportional / WTA with thresholds that, with 5 candidates standing, are likely to be reached in relatively few cases based on the elections so far. Texas the big WTA state likely splits Cruz, keeping him going. So, finger in the air a possible split of delegates on that night -
Cruz 220ish, Trump 200, Bush/Rubio/Kasich split 200 votes between them - Trump lead of 40-50 delegates over Cruz (290 odd - 240 odd), perhaps a lead of 160-170 over nearest mainstream rival.
Cruz stays in for a while yet on those numbers, mopping up the tea party / religious right vote (both from establishment and from Trump), but presumably goes the same way as every similar candidate has gone previously in the end.
How does this then play out amongst the establishment candidates? What threshold / split determines who has the momentum and triggers withdrawals? Is 170 delegates recoverable at this stage for a single candidate with Cruz still a factor? (yes?), What if the establishment votes split for another 4-6 weeks and at what stage does Trump's lead become irrecoverable?
Apologies, if this narrative is already in the vlog/programme, have not had time to absorb that yet.
In six weeks' time, two-thirds of pledged GOP delegates will have already been determined.
I've previously said that brokered conventions don't happen these days and the odds still have to be heavily against it but with the primary schedule so loaded into three weeks in March and five candidates still in the running, it has to be a possibility.
Re the establishment candidate, it's basically anyone-but-Cruz IMO; even Trump as a stop-Cruz if necessary - and it might well be necessary. Kasich put all his eggs in the NH basket but it's hard to see him coming out of SC with anything. Nevada might be better but it's a long shot. Rubio isn't really establishment and his previous biggest asset is perhaps now his biggest liability. Which leaves Bush, who may well still end up as the moderate candidate.
But you're right: unless the other candidates can eat into Trump's lead nationally, I can see March 15 or March 22 being the end-game.
2. Any pits left would by now have been closed by labour because of green policies. Heavy industry in labour areas is now being decimated for the same reason.
But don;t let facts get in the way of your ranting.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Do you think the use of agency nurses should be made illegal? Do you think strikes should be made illegal? Do you think management should be obeyed without question? Back to the 19th Century.
Logical conclusion.
Most PB Tories dont claim to give a stuff for workers rights TBF
Workers have enough rights. It is called employment law.
And it is really, really stringent.
Unions are outmoded.
And continually demonstrate how politically weak they are.
Actually it might be quite good if more doctors came through agencies. Obviously the price would go down dramatically if there was a massive increase in the supply of agency doctors in competition with one another, and it would allow NHS trusts to increase or decrease staffing more flexibly.
Wow even for you that is out of touch.
How are your investments you brought back on 6th May going by the way. Hope they are not FTSE 100 linked
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
As long as Britain's energy supply is delivered and affordable, it doesn't much matter where it comes from. Same with healthcare.
Actually it might be quite good if more doctors came through agencies. Obviously the price would go down dramatically if there was a massive increase in the supply of agency doctors in competition with one another, and it would allow NHS trusts to increase or decrease staffing more flexibly.
Good luck trying to explain market economics to an ex-NHSer Richard.
How are your investments you brought back on 6th May going by the way. Hope they are not FTSE 100 linked
No, I avoid tracking the FTSE100, it's a very bad index for investment purposes. Far too skewed to a small number of companies in the mining, oil and banking sectors
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Do you think the use of agency nurses should be made illegal? Do you think strikes should be made illegal? Do you think management should be obeyed without question? Back to the 19th Century.
Logical conclusion.
Most PB Tories dont claim to give a stuff for workers rights TBF
Workers have enough rights. It is called employment law.
And it is really, really stringent.
Unions are outmoded.
And continually demonstrate how politically weak they are.
Quayle, Gore, Palin, Rubio—pols who became caricatures. And the caricatures stuck. And once they did, it was finished.
And Hillary's next.
Are you writing off both Rubio and Hilary ?
I'm not writing off either, but I think Rubio's chances are less good than the odds imply.
Hillary is in serious trouble on three fronts:
1. Emails. 2. Sanders 3. Reputation and likeability
She needs to survive the first two and reverse the third to get back into the White House master bedroom.
Number 1 is largely out of her control. Basically, if she or people very close to her get formally accused of something serious, she's probably toast. If not, I don't think the scandal itself much matters in terms of changing people's votes (except to reinforce her problems on 3).
Number 2 should be manageable, but her campaign team needs to up its game. Currently they are relying too heavily on what they seem to regard as an immutable truth than Bernie won't cut it with African-Americans and Hispanics. Well, it might be a truth for the moment, but it might not be immutable. The nightmare for the Clinton campaign is the possibility that the lack of support for Bernie amongst these groups is mainly because they don't know much about him as yet.
Number 3 is just getting worse and worse. Some serious work on the messaging is necessary.
She should be able to do this. Hell, she's got enough cash, experience and expert advice on hand. But she's not a good candidate, that is becoming clearer and clearer. She'd probably be a good president, however.
I checked Google Trends the other day in South Carolina. It worked quite well to predict NH !!!
Sanders is being searched for twice as much as Trump, next is Cruz Then it is Rubio and Kasich, with Bush about half their levels (Similiar for both states)
Clinton is way down.
So maybe people are finding out about Kasich and especially Sanders as you say.
Quayle, Gore, Palin, Rubio—pols who became caricatures. And the caricatures stuck. And once they did, it was finished.
And Hillary's next.
Are you writing off both Rubio and Hilary ?
Who?
I'm waiting for some South Carolina polls before I do anything.
Any polls post 10 Feb will be useful. The last one (for Oklahoma) was conducted just before Rubio was crucified in the NH debate and Bush made a reasonable showing.
I'm watching for the magnitude of the Rubio to Bush movement to judge whether to pile on Bush for the nomination. He's at great odds at the moment but I'd like some up-to-date data.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Do you think the use of agency nurses should be made illegal? Do you think strikes should be made illegal? Do you think management should be obeyed without question? Back to the 19th Century.
Logical conclusion.
Most PB Tories dont claim to give a stuff for workers rights TBF
Workers have enough rights. It is called employment law.
And it is really, really stringent.
Unions are outmoded.
And continually demonstrate how politically weak they are.
2. Any pits left would by now have been closed by labour because of green policies. Heavy industry in labour areas is now being decimated for the same reason.
But don;t let facts get in the way of your ranting.
So whip round from Miners as suggested by W30 would be fruitful?
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Do you think the use of agency nurses should be made illegal? Do you think strikes should be made illegal? Do you think management should be obeyed without question? Back to the 19th Century.
When a union challenges a government over its right to govern and implement its manifesto, the government in question has only two options: to fight or to accept that the vested interest in question is indeed above the law.
As an aside, if the agency doctor market was flooded with new supply, the terms and conditions on offer would become far less generous very quickly. That's simple market economics.
FWIW, I still expect both sides to come to a negotiated agreement before any imposition takes place but having called what they perceived to be Hunt's bluff, he didn't really have an option other than to prove he was serious.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
As long as Britain's energy supply is delivered and affordable, it doesn't much matter where it comes from. Same with healthcare.
Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service. One wonders if the BMA really thought about the long term implications, though since they were resistant to the idea of a public health service in the first place, maybe they did.
Actually it might be quite good if more doctors came through agencies. Obviously the price would go down dramatically if there was a massive increase in the supply of agency doctors in competition with one another, and it would allow NHS trusts to increase or decrease staffing more flexibly.
There hasn't been a price drop with agency nurses. They are very expensive.
I suspect that if the BMA set up its own agency shop, it could have a near monopoly. An interesting experiment!
Quayle, Gore, Palin, Rubio—pols who became caricatures. And the caricatures stuck. And once they did, it was finished.
And Hillary's next.
Are you writing off both Rubio and Hilary ?
Who?
I'm waiting for some South Carolina polls before I do anything.
Any polls post 10 Feb will be useful. The last one (for Oklahoma) was conducted just before Rubio was crucified in the NH debate and Bush made a reasonable showing.
I'm watching for the magnitude of the Rubio to Bush movement to judge whether to pile on Bush for the nomination. He's at great odds at the moment but I'd like some up-to-date data.
BJO..I imagine that most PB posters.. on all sides are actually workers.. .
A couple of years ago I was absolutely on my arse financially, and had to put up with "hugh" and "bobajob/fett etc" saying I was a boss of a company that exploited his workers/not from a working class background
How are your investments you brought back on 6th May going by the way. Hope they are not FTSE 100 linked
No, I avoid tracking the FTSE100, it's a very bad index for investment purposes. Far too skewed to a small number of companies in the mining, oil and banking sectors
Good so you are in positive territory since 6th May return of funds then?
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
Do you think the use of agency nurses should be made illegal? Do you think strikes should be made illegal? Do you think management should be obeyed without question? Back to the 19th Century.
Logical conclusion.
Most PB Tories dont claim to give a stuff for workers rights TBF
Workers have enough rights. It is called employment law.
And it is really, really stringent.
Unions are outmoded.
And continually demonstrate how politically weak they are.
No, unions are necessary to ensure that employers stick to employment law.
Quayle, Gore, Palin, Rubio—pols who became caricatures. And the caricatures stuck. And once they did, it was finished.
And Hillary's next.
Are you writing off both Rubio and Hilary ?
Who?
I'm waiting for some South Carolina polls before I do anything.
Any polls post 10 Feb will be useful. The last one (for Oklahoma) was conducted just before Rubio was crucified in the NH debate and Bush made a reasonable showing.
I'm watching for the magnitude of the Rubio to Bush movement to judge whether to pile on Bush for the nomination. He's at great odds at the moment but I'd like some up-to-date data.
That was conducted 6-9 Feb so it was before the NH debate which might have been a gamechanger for Rubio. I like your Twitter research. As you say, there was a big correlation in NH. Perhaps a fluke?
Actually it might be quite good if more doctors came through agencies. Obviously the price would go down dramatically if there was a massive increase in the supply of agency doctors in competition with one another, and it would allow NHS trusts to increase or decrease staffing more flexibly.
While the cost per hour may well decrease (depending on how many hours each new agency doctor worked compared to standard 48/week full time hours they're currently working), I very much doubt that it would decrease the overall pay-bill. Having a monopsony position as the only employer in town will be keeping the pay bill down by under-paying doctors currently (unless you believe successive governements have been paying doctors more than the market rate for fun).
I think it's fairly clear that the government/NHS don't like market forces in pay when they encounter them!
I'm disappointed by the imposition of contracts - it's happened to me three times, and I wasn't a happy bunny. I walked on two of them, but personal circumstances forced me to suck up the third.
We'll likely see an acceleration of the trend of pillaging the Second and Third world's medical professionals. You can see this most clearly in NHS Wales.
Where I take issue with BJO is this worship of the NHS as is; it's clearly not fit for purpose, but we have so many people who turn the service into an ideological crusade. That's not helpful.
Interesting review from North of the Border - Stephen Daisley STV News:
FMQ Review: Roughest ride @NicolaSturgeon has had since becoming FM. @kdugdalemsp back on form, using SNP's own cuts against it. 1/5
@RuthDavidsonMSP opened up a new front by painting the Scottish Government as out of touch with rural Scotland. 2/5
While @kdugdalemsp was already getting the better of @NicolaSturgeon, MSP who shouted "liar" gave her an unfair advantage. 3/5
The "liar" accusation really seemed to throw @NicolaSturgeon off her game. Poor form from parliamentarian responsible. 4/5
Scottish Labour has found its pluck again and sounds like it's up for a fight. Can't see it making much of a difference. 5/5
LOL, Labour have nothing to add to politics other than shouting "Liar" liek children and then don't have the cojones to own up to what bright spark shouted it , 0/5. Daisley is a deluded halfwitted unionist lickspittle. We will see in May who the people think are liars are and who they think are the real politicians.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
As long as Britain's energy supply is delivered and affordable, it doesn't much matter where it comes from. Same with healthcare.
Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service. One wonders if the BMA really thought about the long term implications, though since they were resistant to the idea of a public health service in the first place, maybe they did.
Oh thats OK then.
Why dont you try getting elected on Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
Actually it might be quite good if more doctors came through agencies. Obviously the price would go down dramatically if there was a massive increase in the supply of agency doctors in competition with one another, and it would allow NHS trusts to increase or decrease staffing more flexibly.
There hasn't been a price drop with agency nurses. They are very expensive.
I suspect that if the BMA set up its own agency shop, it could have a near monopoly. An interesting experiment!
Good so you are in positive territory since 6th May return of funds then?
I doubt it, but I don't have a valuation for that date. In any case I didn't make any changes to my portfolio on the 6th May, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at even if my pension pot was relevant to anything discussed here today.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
As long as Britain's energy supply is delivered and affordable, it doesn't much matter where it comes from. Same with healthcare.
Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service. One wonders if the BMA really thought about the long term implications, though since they were resistant to the idea of a public health service in the first place, maybe they did.
Oh thats OK then.
Why dont you try getting elected on Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
See how well you get on.
Tory majority, probably. Given Corbo and McMao's continued presence.
Quayle, Gore, Palin, Rubio—pols who became caricatures. And the caricatures stuck. And once they did, it was finished.
And Hillary's next.
Are you writing off both Rubio and Hilary ?
Who?
I'm waiting for some South Carolina polls before I do anything.
Any polls post 10 Feb will be useful. The last one (for Oklahoma) was conducted just before Rubio was crucified in the NH debate and Bush made a reasonable showing.
I'm watching for the magnitude of the Rubio to Bush movement to judge whether to pile on Bush for the nomination. He's at great odds at the moment but I'd like some up-to-date data.
That was conducted 6-9 Feb so it was before the NH debate which might have been a gamechanger for Rubio. I like your Twitter research. As you say, there was a big correlation in NH. Perhaps a fluke?
Rubio dropped for sure in New Hampshire, but Bush didn't pick any of his votes up. They look to have gone to a mixture of Kasich and possibly even Trump.
I'd expect if he did fall away some of his more God fearing supporters would head to Cruz too - of course Jeb Bush could pick up some too but I don't think him and Rubio are the connected pair the betting markets are right now. Bush is putting ALOT of effort into South Carolina, he was around 10% there, Rubio at 12.7. Rubio 9ish, Bush 7ish in Nevada.
Even by "Never trust the Tories on the NHS standards"
Hunt has gambled big time.
What happens when 90% of Drs refuse them??
And do what? Resign?
Changes in terms and conditions of contract not necessarily to one's liking have been absolutely standard in the private sector over the last several years. As an example a company that I am a director of, along with many other of course, closed the final salary pension scheme on the basis it was no longer affordable and went to fixed contribution instead.
1 member of staff held out and left the company. Do you think many doctors will leave the NHS?
It does not bring the dispute to a conclusion - the doctors can strike against the new contracts surely!
And lose public support. The details outlined on the BBC and SKY confirm an increase in basic pay of 13.5%, more than the 11%, some movement on social hours and a review of Junior Doctors working concerns. The way it is being reporting is changing against the doctors and the public who are used to working Saturdays as normal will not see any justification for doctors to be paid overtime rates. The world has changed.
I'm disappointed by the imposition of contracts - it's happened to me three times, and I wasn't a happy bunny. I walked on two of them, but personal circumstances forced me to suck up the third.
We'll likely see an acceleration of the trend of pillaging the Second and Third world's medical professionals. You can see this most clearly in NHS Wales.
Where I take issue with BJO is this worship of the NHS as is; it's clearly not fit for purpose, but we have so many people who turn the service into an ideological crusade. That's not helpful.
Most of us just want the healthcare that our taxes pay for. Who ultimately provides it is irrelevant as long as it has good outcomes and provides value for money.
It's best to ignore the zealots who treat it as a religious ideology.
Good so you are in positive territory since 6th May return of funds then?
I doubt it, but I don't have a valuation for that date. In any case I didn't make any changes to my portfolio on the 6th May, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at even if my pension pot was relevant to anything discussed here today.
You said you had liquidated all your investments ahead of GE2015 in case there was a Labour victory, didn't you?
Good so you are in positive territory since 6th May return of funds then?
I doubt it, but I don't have a valuation for that date. In any case I didn't make any changes to my portfolio on the 6th May, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at even if my pension pot was relevant to anything discussed here today.
You said you had liquidated all your investments ahead of GE2015 in case there was a Labour victory, didn't you?
I f it was someone else apologies
The oval office address whenever a poll put Labour ahead
They all say they like Cruz because that's what their church and Glenn Beck say. They all don't like Trump, although they like that he's an outsider. They all say that they will vote for Cruz. They all expect Trump to win S.Carolina.
Sounds like a focus group of Ted Cruz voters rather than a representative sample.
ABC News had an election-day New Hampshire focus group of about 20 people in a cafe. Only one was thinking of voting Trump, and she wasn't sure. Clinton voters outnumbered Sanders voters. It was agreeable watching, but as a guide to anything it was worse than random guesswork.
Actually it might be quite good if more doctors came through agencies. Obviously the price would go down dramatically if there was a massive increase in the supply of agency doctors in competition with one another, and it would allow NHS trusts to increase or decrease staffing more flexibly.
There hasn't been a price drop with agency nurses. They are very expensive.
I suspect that if the BMA set up its own agency shop, it could have a near monopoly. An interesting experiment!
Wouldn't that fall foul of competition law?
It would if the BMA bought up other agencies or colluded with them. Not otherwise I think.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
As long as Britain's energy supply is delivered and affordable, it doesn't much matter where it comes from. Same with healthcare.
Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service. One wonders if the BMA really thought about the long term implications, though since they were resistant to the idea of a public health service in the first place, maybe they did.
Oh thats OK then.
Why dont you try getting elected on Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
See how well you get on.
Tory majority, probably. Given Corbo and McMao's continued presence.
You think the Tories will stand on W30 ticket of Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
You said you had liquidated all your investments ahead of GE2015 in case there was a Labour victory, didn't you?
I f it was someone else apologies
No, I said I was rebalancing my portfolio in favour of Miliband-proof investments, which I did. In the end it wasn't necessary (although it did little or no harm), thank goodness, but if we had had a Miliband government the movement on the 6th May would have been sharply in the other direction. My approach was sensible risk management with little downside.
I'm going to watch House again in tribute to the Junior Doctors new contract.
And tempted to ask what unusual diseases Pb-ers have had. Sadly, I can only claim Scarlet Fever. Does anybody still get this?
nephrotic syndrome. Successfully resolved but I put on 40lbs at its peak.
Basic sign is you retain water, legs, waist chest etc. Jonah Lomu's version eventually ended in his death. Consultants had no idea what caused mine but suspicion fell on trips in tropical areas may have been a cause. About 8 years ago a Consultant "you will always be on a diuretic". Reality is I have not been on them for 6+ years.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
As long as Britain's energy supply is delivered and affordable, it doesn't much matter where it comes from. Same with healthcare.
Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service. One wonders if the BMA really thought about the long term implications, though since they were resistant to the idea of a public health service in the first place, maybe they did.
Oh thats OK then.
Why dont you try getting elected on Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
See how well you get on.
Tory majority, probably. Given Corbo and McMao's continued presence.
You think the Tories will stand on W30 ticket of Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
Hope so
I don't, because they're more sensible than that and far more nuanced from a comms POV - but I still think they'd win even if they did
Good so you are in positive territory since 6th May return of funds then?
I doubt it, but I don't have a valuation for that date. In any case I didn't make any changes to my portfolio on the 6th May, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at even if my pension pot was relevant to anything discussed here today.
You said you had liquidated all your investments ahead of GE2015 in case there was a Labour victory, didn't you?
I f it was someone else apologies
The oval office address whenever a poll put Labour ahead
Off topic, but the FT reports huge anger amongst tory MPs about Osborne's proposed flat rate pension tax relief plans.
Unsurprisingly, they don't want to have to polish his upcoming Brownian turd of a budget to constituencies already incensed by the EU renegotiation handling.
One option for the BMA is to create their own short term contract and unilaterally impose it on the NHS.
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Like I say, back to the NUM of the 1970s: if you don't do what we say we'll shut the country down and sod the consequences. That worked so well for them, didn't it?
You want there to be no British hospitals as well as no British pits?
As long as Britain's energy supply is delivered and affordable, it doesn't much matter where it comes from. Same with healthcare.
Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service. One wonders if the BMA really thought about the long term implications, though since they were resistant to the idea of a public health service in the first place, maybe they did.
Oh thats OK then.
Why dont you try getting elected on Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
See how well you get on.
Tory majority, probably. Given Corbo and McMao's continued presence.
You think the Tories will stand on W30 ticket of Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
Hope so
I don't, because they're more sensible than that and far more nuanced from a comms POV - but I still think they'd win even if they did
That is how hopeless Labour are now.
Cultist Howls is ranting.
Here's a question for the general public -
'Does it matter who provides healthcare in the UK, if it remains free at the point of delivery?' (Assuming equivalent healthcare outcomes, cost and taxpayer value).
You said you had liquidated all your investments ahead of GE2015 in case there was a Labour victory, didn't you?
I f it was someone else apologies
No, I said I was rebalancing my portfolio in favour of Miliband-proof investments, which I did. In the end it wasn't necessary (although it did little or no harm), thank goodness, but if we had had a Miliband government the movement on the 6th May would have been sharply in the other direction. My approach was sensible risk management with little downside.
Ah Miliband proof investments might have done you a favour if it got you out of Osbornes 20% shares dip. Back below 2012 levels.
Google has confirmed that it will be updating its 'right to be forgotten' so that any hidden content under the ruling is removed from all versions of its search engine in countries where it has been approved.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12151659/Europe-waters-down-Cameron-EU-deal.html
This is a service that my parents had paid tax into for their entire lives.
And a service that since administered drugs to which I am allergic despite being told 3 times. And that was on a Sunday.
Official: Top Clinton aides also handled ‘top secret’ intel on server | Via @foxnewspolitics | https://t.co/FPLBRrRpzY
Mine is medium to well done!
It was but the condition (phlebitis) occurs so rarely in that area it required a certain amount of feeling about to determine.
The GP even called in his partner for confirmation...!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12151208/It-is-hard-to-see-how-Bernard-Hogan-Howe-can-keep-his-job-now.html
UK is a Union
When the Hunt contract is imposed, it is rejected and the BMA contract is offered. If you want the NHS to continue to function, you need doctors and these are our terms. Take it or leave it. Two can play the unilateral imposition game.
Matthew Continetti @continetti
Quayle, Gore, Palin, Rubio—pols who became caricatures. And the caricatures stuck. And once they did, it was finished.
And Hillary's next.
Concentrating on the Republican side, the main question defining the next phase is who, if anyone, establishes themselves as the sole establishment candidate, how soon that happens and how far in front Trump is by that time. So looking particularly at that:
(1) If Trump takes S. Carolina winner takes all and the proportionals don't do much at all to split the establishment field, I guess the probability is that Kasich / Rubio / Bush are still all there.
(2) Super Tuesday is mostly proportional or proportional / WTA with thresholds that, with 5 candidates standing, are likely to be reached in relatively few cases based on the elections so far. Texas the big WTA state likely splits Cruz, keeping him going. So, finger in the air a possible split of delegates on that night -
Cruz 220ish, Trump 200, Bush/Rubio/Kasich split 200 votes between them - Trump lead of 40-50 delegates over Cruz (290 odd - 240 odd), perhaps a lead of 160-170 over nearest mainstream rival.
Cruz stays in for a while yet on those numbers, mopping up the tea party / religious right vote (both from establishment and from Trump), but presumably goes the same way as every similar candidate has gone previously in the end.
How does this then play out amongst the establishment candidates? What threshold / split determines who has the momentum and triggers withdrawals? Is 170 delegates recoverable at this stage for a single candidate with Cruz still a factor? (yes?), What if the establishment votes split for another 4-6 weeks and at what stage does Trump's lead become irrecoverable?
Apologies, if this narrative is already in the vlog/programme, have not had time to absorb that yet.
The fact is that the government was elected on a manifesto promising a 7-day-per-week NHS. Getting out of the mentality of 'core hours' and 'out of hours' is part of that process. The whole economy is moving towards the same principle and the public expects public services to do likewise. Indeed, the government has a duty to implement its election promise now. It would be better if there could be a negotiated settlement but given that the independent expert advises that there can't be, then that only leaves the government with one option.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3440444/Cologne-police-reveal-INCREASE-sex-attacks-year-s-festival-including-one-incident-sparked-huge-brawl-migrant-groped-teenager.html
The BMA put forward a cost neutral option that the Employers negotiating team was prepared to accept met the 7 day objectives Hunt vetoed it.
The Public of Yorkshire demand a 7 day service from YBS.
When are we getting it?
Hillary is in serious trouble on three fronts:
1. Emails.
2. Sanders
3. Reputation and likeability
She needs to survive the first two and reverse the third to get back into the White House master bedroom.
Number 1 is largely out of her control. Basically, if she or people very close to her get formally accused of something serious, she's probably toast. If not, I don't think the scandal itself much matters in terms of changing people's votes (except to reinforce her problems on 3).
Number 2 should be manageable, but her campaign team needs to up its game. Currently they are relying too heavily on what they seem to regard as an immutable truth than Bernie won't cut it with African-Americans and Hispanics. Well, it might be a truth for the moment, but it might not be immutable. The nightmare for the Clinton campaign is the possibility that the lack of support for Bernie amongst these groups is mainly because they don't know much about him as yet.
Number 3 is just getting worse and worse. Some serious work on the messaging is necessary.
She should be able to do this. Hell, she's got enough cash, experience and expert advice on hand. But she's not a good candidate, that is becoming clearer and clearer. She'd probably be a good president, however.
The junior doctors don't need to go on strike. They just go on agency terms. Many nurses already do this and it costs the NHS an arm and a leg.
Well the underlying reasons are the same. Hunt has made the doctor recruitment process a whole lot worse, but it's entirely different in having no-one to drive the 0820 to Waterloo than having no-one to man the crash team when you're having a cardiac arrest.
Q. What is the 2nd biggest story to lead the 2pm BBC News?
A. Osborne's brother being struck off as a psychiatrist.
Not saying I agree with this, but its an atom bomb to those supporting the junior doctors....
Most PB Tories dont claim to give a stuff for workers rights TBF
You happy to have no Drs too?
Perhaps you will be happy for your Grand Children to sweep chimmneys
'All this, as Dr Howard Goodall pointed out, is the creation of an inexperienced profession. Young doctors need to put in long hours; it is how they gain their very necessary expertise. Their apprenticeship for the consultant posts they eventually seek consists of the ‘hours’ they need encounter and observe 'the natural history of disease’. How else would they learn their trade?
Dr Rena Agawal, the young woman doctor on Today programme with Dr Goodall, was outraged. “Thank God those days are over”, she said.
She might thank God, but which of these doctors would you trust most with your care in a medical crisis? Dr Rena Agawal or Dr Howard Goodall who trained along with his mainly male colleagues back in the 1960s? I know who I would pick.'
I've previously said that brokered conventions don't happen these days and the odds still have to be heavily against it but with the primary schedule so loaded into three weeks in March and five candidates still in the running, it has to be a possibility.
Re the establishment candidate, it's basically anyone-but-Cruz IMO; even Trump as a stop-Cruz if necessary - and it might well be necessary. Kasich put all his eggs in the NH basket but it's hard to see him coming out of SC with anything. Nevada might be better but it's a long shot. Rubio isn't really establishment and his previous biggest asset is perhaps now his biggest liability. Which leaves Bush, who may well still end up as the moderate candidate.
But you're right: unless the other candidates can eat into Trump's lead nationally, I can see March 15 or March 22 being the end-game.
1. labour shut more pits than the tories.
2. Any pits left would by now have been closed by labour because of green policies. Heavy industry in labour areas is now being decimated for the same reason.
But don;t let facts get in the way of your ranting.
And it is really, really stringent.
Unions are outmoded.
And continually demonstrate how politically weak they are.
How are your investments you brought back on 6th May going by the way. Hope they are not FTSE 100 linked
Sanders is being searched for twice as much as Trump, next is Cruz
Then it is Rubio and Kasich, with Bush about half their levels (Similiar for both states)
Clinton is way down.
So maybe people are finding out about Kasich and especially Sanders as you say.
I'm watching for the magnitude of the Rubio to Bush movement to judge whether to pile on Bush for the nomination. He's at great odds at the moment but I'd like some up-to-date data.
Are you hedging your lays on Bush?
Are you a junior doctor who opposes this decision? How does it make you feel? What would you say to the health secretary?
We’re looking for your stories. Here’s where you can tell us about how it will affect you.
As an aside, if the agency doctor market was flooded with new supply, the terms and conditions on offer would become far less generous very quickly. That's simple market economics.
FWIW, I still expect both sides to come to a negotiated agreement before any imposition takes place but having called what they perceived to be Hunt's bluff, he didn't really have an option other than to prove he was serious.
I suspect that if the BMA set up its own agency shop, it could have a near monopoly. An interesting experiment!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ok/oklahoma_republican_presidential_primary-4288.html#polls
Oklahoma looks like a very close Cruz/Trump race to me.
I'm exposed on Bush still.
I think it's fairly clear that the government/NHS don't like market forces in pay when they encounter them!
I'm disappointed by the imposition of contracts - it's happened to me three times, and I wasn't a happy bunny. I walked on two of them, but personal circumstances forced me to suck up the third.
We'll likely see an acceleration of the trend of pillaging the Second and Third world's medical professionals. You can see this most clearly in NHS Wales.
Where I take issue with BJO is this worship of the NHS as is; it's clearly not fit for purpose, but we have so many people who turn the service into an ideological crusade. That's not helpful.
Why dont you try getting elected on Someone will fill the gap if NHS hospitals can't provide the service.
See how well you get on.
I'd expect if he did fall away some of his more God fearing supporters would head to Cruz too - of course Jeb Bush could pick up some too but I don't think him and Rubio are the connected pair the betting markets are right now. Bush is putting ALOT of effort into South Carolina, he was around 10% there, Rubio at 12.7. Rubio 9ish, Bush 7ish in Nevada.
It's best to ignore the zealots who treat it as a religious ideology.
I f it was someone else apologies
Perhaps the Docs have realised how weak their position is.
Hope so
That is how hopeless Labour are now.
@BBCNormanS: “More strikes now look likely. If that happens, it will be clear that the blame lies with the government, not the doctors - @jeremycorbyn
SC importance of religion
Very 69%
Somewhat 16%
Not too 8%
Not at all 6%
https://t.co/OaUq4k7qUq https://t.co/eZ6Domq5dA
Unsurprisingly, they don't want to have to polish his upcoming Brownian turd of a budget to constituencies already incensed by the EU renegotiation handling.
Here's a question for the general public -
'Does it matter who provides healthcare in the UK, if it remains free at the point of delivery?' (Assuming equivalent healthcare outcomes, cost and taxpayer value).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA
Except this time the strikes are right apparently.