I think we need a POLL to determine the biggest PLUM called Jezza.
The contestants could be
Hunt
Corbyn
Clarkson
Kyle (who I saw on Thursday bumming a Marlboro Lite off a security guard).
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Jeremy Hunt-v-Junior Doctors.
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
I think we need a POLL to determine the biggest PLUM called Jezza.
The contestants could be
Hunt
Corbyn
Clarkson
Kyle (who I saw on Thursday bumming a Marlboro Lite off a security guard).
- Jun 27, 2012
- 13,972
that bloke who posts on here from Chailey is a right old pompous pedant who sucks up to Barber et al. So add him to the list.
drew
Drew
Looks like a dead heat to me.
One doesn't know the truth when it's staring him in the face.
One doesn't know reality when it's staring him in the face.
One doesn't know there are alternative opinions and
one just doesn't know.
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,496
Not exceptional money for running a country is it?
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,496
Clarkson by a country mile,.... and that says something considering my dim view of Corbyn.
Interesting that, amidst all the predictable political posturing and brouhaha on this issue, no-one has opted to post the article by Simon Jenkins from the Guardian on 12th February on this issue - see reference below
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/10/adoration-nhs-tough-love-gps-consultants-nurses
The article seeks to cut through the emotion and channel vision which so often clouds and confuses any debate about the NHS and place the issue of Doctor's pay into a (recent) historical context. It underlines the failure of successive governments to stand up to the BMA, resulting in a series of excellent pay deals for health care staff (e.g. the consultants contract, nurses and other health care groups "Agenda for Change" pay deals and previous junior doctor pay deals) with little or no discernible benefit to the NHS. The article starts as follows:
"John Reid, then the Labour government's health secretary, in 2004 offered GPs a deal that ended weekend and home visits. They could hardly believe it. He also leveraged their average pay to £100,000 a year. People said it would send thousands rushing to accident and emergency. The British Medical Association called the deal "a bit of a laugh", and the King's Fund later calculated it added £30bn in costs to the NHS with no appreciable benefit. But no one blamed the NHS. Everyone loved the NHS.
Worth a read.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/10/adoration-nhs-tough-love-gps-consultants-nurses
The article seeks to cut through the emotion and channel vision which so often clouds and confuses any debate about the NHS and place the issue of Doctor's pay into a (recent) historical context. It underlines the failure of successive governments to stand up to the BMA, resulting in a series of excellent pay deals for health care staff (e.g. the consultants contract, nurses and other health care groups "Agenda for Change" pay deals and previous junior doctor pay deals) with little or no discernible benefit to the NHS. The article starts as follows:
"John Reid, then the Labour government's health secretary, in 2004 offered GPs a deal that ended weekend and home visits. They could hardly believe it. He also leveraged their average pay to £100,000 a year. People said it would send thousands rushing to accident and emergency. The British Medical Association called the deal "a bit of a laugh", and the King's Fund later calculated it added £30bn in costs to the NHS with no appreciable benefit. But no one blamed the NHS. Everyone loved the NHS.
Worth a read.
Yes, an interesting article.
Trouble is, as he says, it is almost a mortal sin to criticise the NHS, doctors and nurses.Just look at what has been posted on NSC.
As I have said, the BMA is a very political and powerful trade union; but no, according to the gospel of NSC, doctors right and vile Tory politicians wrong.
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
The BMA has no political affiliations.
Not sure what you mean by 'powerful'. It has no power within government. If you mean its members almost unanimously back its stance in the issue over junior doctors' contract, it gives them a powerful mandate to enter into negotiations.
It's not the gospel of NSC that says the BMA is right and vile Tory politicians are wrong - it's wider society, including Health Chief Executives who have had to spend their time putting right a falsehood Jeremy Hunt said about them (i.e. that they supported the imposition of contracts - when they did not).
drew
Drew
To be honest, I take with a pinch of salt what Simon Jenkins says about the NHS. He is not a fan and as far as I'm aware, never has been so will always try to put the knife in. Yes there was a pay rise back in 2004, 'the New Deal' but it wasn't the intention of it stop doctors working weekends and home visits. In fact, I'm not even sure that home visits did stop! There was also a pay deal with the nurses before that but that was mainly due to them being traditionally shafted by governments and therefore being very low paid.
Exactly how many pay deals have governments not stood up to? Easy to write good prose but where is the substance.
There are a number of activists in the BMA who are known to hold pretty strong political views.Just because the BMA has no political affiliations it does not mean that their actions are without political motivation.
As far as 'powerful' is concerned just look back through history.
Finally, I think that you have taken the so called falsehood by Jeremy Hunt, out of its complete context.
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
There are a number of people who support and/or work for Brighton & Hove Albion with strong political views. It doesn't mean the club has strong political views. Or would you rather the individuals who make up the whole not have any political views?
The union's motiviation is to support its members, without any given political consideration.
Put it this way, you'd be supporting the BMA if a Labour government decided to impose lesser contracts on junior doctors.
A powerful trade union is required to defend its members against the worst excesses of an even more powerful government.
No context to be taken here. The CEOs felt Hunt's offer was 'fair', Hunt took it one stage further and also said that they supported the notion of imposing the contracts. At least 10 felt miffed enough that they needed to come out and clarify that they didn't support the imposition of contracts. In fact, they went further and said that they were against that idea.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
I heard Ken Clarke talking about how the doctors were just trying to get a bit more money out of Jeremy Hunt, the way he described the situation was so cynical.
All the while I hear the doctors talking about a very simple problem. The government want's to get more out, without putting more in. When you stretch something it gets longer, but it also gets thinner. This is common sense, and not one politican has adequately acknowledged that this is what they are trying to do, and not one of them have acknowledged that the concerns of the Junior Doctors are legitimate and based on genuine concern for patient safety.
All they have done is spin against the Junior Doctors and made them out to be acting politically for financial gain.
I don't believe that for a second. Whatever you think of the deal being offered I think that how this has been handled and how the Junior Doctors have been spun against is embarassing and shameful.
& I am no fan of the NHS.
All the while I hear the doctors talking about a very simple problem. The government want's to get more out, without putting more in. When you stretch something it gets longer, but it also gets thinner. This is common sense, and not one politican has adequately acknowledged that this is what they are trying to do, and not one of them have acknowledged that the concerns of the Junior Doctors are legitimate and based on genuine concern for patient safety.
All they have done is spin against the Junior Doctors and made them out to be acting politically for financial gain.
I don't believe that for a second. Whatever you think of the deal being offered I think that how this has been handled and how the Junior Doctors have been spun against is embarassing and shameful.
& I am no fan of the NHS.
Del Fenner
Because of Boxing Day
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,348
there was a number of issues originally, such as total working hours, shift pattern length. they've been resolved, agreed. the outstanding issue is that of how they get paid for early evening and weekend hours. financial gain? i dont think so myself, however the BMA and the placards at the strikes make reference to pay so they seem to think its about pay. i recall a BMA saying this explicitly on the radio last weekend.
the objective is about budgeting. if you have to pay double time for one 24hr period verses another, how does that impact the rostering? for the same pot of money you'll put more staff on the lower paid shift and less on the higher pay shift. so if you equalise the pay rates you can smooth out the difference to some degree. same budget, difference staffing levels. thats all there is to it really.
We will just have to agree to disagree about all the above.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Having more staff working what were previously higher paid shifts would have to involve less staff working what were previously the lower paid shifts. Unless you increase the numbers of staff (not happening), or unless you require Doctors to work more hours than they are currently working (happening, and inescapably problematic).
Last edited:
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
With the exception of believing what your attitude woud be in a dispute between a Labour government and the BMA, I wasn't offering an opinion.
Albion Roar, I am not quite clear on the point you are making.
Anyway, I am off to watch the telly now,so farewell for today.
Indurain's Lungs
Legend of Garry Nelson
You're right about the safety issues, they're mostly resolved but there are some intricacies that could still lead to exploitation and accessing hours (abusing the on call from home rotas then always calling people in to work the full shift).
There is not really a mechanism to increase the number of doctors so you have to take from somewhere if you want more on at the weekends.
Actually as the current contract stands, you could make people work every single weekend as long as average weekly hours weren't more than 48. Intensive care and A&E rotas routinely work 2in3 or 3in4 weekends. Junior doctor cover at weekends is simply not the problem.
Oh well, let us just say the statements are your take on the BMA.
My take on the BMA is rather different. Take your blinkers off and you will probably realise I am correct.
As far as the para re CEO's, I do agree with what you say........... the CEO' s believe the contracts to be fair, but a number of them are against imposition. I understand though, that the suggestion of imposition has been put forward to end the uncertainty of a situation, where it would appear negotiations have been exhausted. I also understand that imposition has the backing of the Government's chief negotiator and the head of the NHS, Simon Stevens.