Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on September 02, 2016, 07:28:02 AM
-
Was wondering where folk stand on this issue? Is the planned programme of 5 days a month between September and December 'disproportionate' - as the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges has suggested? Is it 'irresponsible' as Jeremy Hunt has described it? Is combatting/amending the new contract vital for the future health of the NHS, as some Junior Doctors' leaders seem to have been suggesting throughout their campaign?
Should the proposed imposition of the new contract - due in October - be postponed/cancelled and new talks started, or what?
Any thoughts?
-
Does anyone actually understand what is wrong with the amended contract? If so, please can they explain?
-
The rhetoric from the government and right-wing press seems to be basically saying:
'all the actual issues have been resolved and current industrial action is politically motivated be the far left'
I dunno . . . maybe it will prove to be an opportunity to downgrade the NHS and blame it on the doctors?
-
Certainly, if the NHS is wracked by disputes and fails to help people when they need it, then anyone with any sense and money will move to private healthcare and the NHS will be degraded. People won't want their taxes spent on a non-working system when they can spend that money more wisely.
However, what does that have to do with whether an employment contract is fair and reasonable or not? Is it fair and reasonable? If not, which bits are unfair or unreasonable?
-
However, what does that have to do with whether an employment contract is fair and reasonable or not? Is it fair and reasonable? If not, which bits are unfair or unreasonable?
The issues appeared to have been resolved after the last industrial action, but against most peoples expectation, the deal was narrowly rejected by the doctors. Difficult to see where they can go from here, but I'm sure that there are some who will see it as an 'opportunity' to make more drastic changes to the NHS.
-
The issues appeared to have been resolved after the last industrial action, but against most peoples expectation, the deal was narrowly rejected by the doctors. Difficult to see where they can go from here, but I'm sure that there are some who will see it as an 'opportunity' to make more drastic changes to the NHS.
The deal was not narrowly rejected
-
The deal was not narrowly rejected
Sorry, that was my understanding from BBC news. The general expectation at the time was that it was a fair deal that would be accepted.
-
Sorry, that was my understanding from BBC news. The general expectation at the time was that it was a fair deal that would be accepted.
58% rejected it. The members, not those who voted
-
58% rejected it. The members, not those who voted
As opposed to 25% of voters voting for the govt
-
58% rejected it. The members, not those who voted
Apparently 58% is right, but:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/05/junior-doctors-reject-contract-offer
"About 37,000 BMA members, or 68% of the 54,000 trainee doctors and final and penultimate-year medical students who were eligible to vote, took part in the ballot, which closed on Friday. "
so that would be 39% of the total number . . . all of which is totally irrelevant to the point I was making.
If they strike over an offer that is generally seen as reasonable, they will be making a good case for more radical reform.
-
Apparently 58% is right, but:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/05/junior-doctors-reject-contract-offer
"About 37,000 BMA members, or 68% of the 54,000 trainee doctors and final and penultimate-year medical students who were eligible to vote, took part in the ballot, which closed on Friday. "
so that would be 39% of the total number . . . all of which is totally irrelevant to the point I was making.
If they strike over an offer that is generally seen as reasonable, they will be making a good case for more radical reform.
how does 37,000, of 54,000 make 39%?
-
58% = 0.58
68% = 0.68
0.68*0.58 = 0.3944
0.3944 = 39% (aprox)
-
:'(
58% = 0.58
68% = 0.68
0.68*0.58 = 0.3944
0.3944 = 39% (aprox)
Which wasn't clear from your post but that is 14% more than the govt vote. In addition that's not covering the vote on striking
And why is the the numbers between entitled to vote from your post changed? Can you post something that breaks it down clearly?
-
:'(
Which wasn't clear from your post but that is 14% more than the govt vote. In addition that's not covering the vote on striking
And why is the the numbers between entitled to vote from your post changed? Can you post something that breaks it down clearly?
NS - I am not attempting to say that the vote is invalid in any way. I have always taken the view that those who choose not to vote in a ballot can't be too bothered about the outcome. However in this case, as we all know, the NHS is under great stress, so the rejection of an offer, that had been recommended by their own chairman and subsequent strike threats, will probably be seen as unreasonable by a large number of people, and some in the government might want to use it as justification for more drastic changes to the NHS. For example "in order to pay for the doctors pay demands we must introduce patient fees" - It could happen!
I don't really understand your problem with the figures, it's just GCSE level maths.
-
The rhetoric from the government and right-wing press seems to be basically saying:
'all the actual issues have been resolved and current industrial action is politically motivated be the far left'
I dunno . . . maybe it will prove to be an opportunity to downgrade the NHS and blame it on the doctors?
JH seems to be saying - if you're still not happy with something that your 'union' bosses agreed with, come and talk to the government rather than bypassing such discussions and simply striking. Not sure quite what the right-wing press is saying - I tend to tune out as soon as I hear 'Daily Mail' or 'the Mirror'.
-
Certainly, if the NHS is wracked by disputes and fails to help people when they need it, then anyone with any sense and money will move to private healthcare and the NHS will be degraded. People won't want their taxes spent on a non-working system when they can spend that money more wisely.
However, what does that have to do with whether an employment contract is fair and reasonable or not? Is it fair and reasonable? If not, which bits are unfair or unreasonable?
Private healthcare have no interest in expensive tricky medical issues all they want is the easy stuff so they can milk it.
Everything the government is doing is forcing the NHS to go fully private like the states - hence many Tories support TTIP. This needs to be resisted with all the force possible. The NHS is being run down so that the people scream for it to be fixed and it will be fixed by the private sector. This is what happened with our other services; they got starved, but the private sector hasn't solved anything, if anything they have made things worse.
-
Private healthcare have no interest in expensive tricky medical issues all they want is the easy stuff so they can milk it.
Everything the government is doing is forcing the NHS to go fully private like the states - hence many Tories support TTIP. This needs to be resisted with all the force possible. The NHS is being run down so that the people scream for it to be fixed and it will be fixed by the private sector. This is what happened with our other services; they got starved, but the private sector hasn't solved anything, if anything they have made things worse.
And Nigel supported an American style health service, until he thought it wasn't gating votes and UKIP, well keep guessing
-
Private healthcare have no interest in expensive tricky medical issues all they want is the easy stuff so they can milk it.
Everything the government is doing is forcing the NHS to go fully private like the states - hence many Tories support TTIP. This needs to be resisted with all the force possible. The NHS is being run down so that the people scream for it to be fixed and it will be fixed by the private sector. This is what happened with our other services; they got starved, but the private sector hasn't solved anything, if anything they have made things worse.
If the government are indeed trying to privatise the NHS, the junior doctors are aiding and abetting them by making it clear to everyone that the current system doesn't work.
-
Private healthcare have no interest in expensive tricky medical issues all they want is the easy stuff so they can milk it.
Everything the government is doing is forcing the NHS to go fully private like the states - hence many Tories support TTIP. This needs to be resisted with all the force possible. The NHS is being run down so that the people scream for it to be fixed and it will be fixed by the private sector. This is what happened with our other services; they got starved, but the private sector hasn't solved anything, if anything they have made things worse.
Maybe or (imo) maybe not. However either way this doesn't tell us what is wrong with the proposed contract or provide any reason for a strike.
ETA: Just been listening to Any Questions .. and seems fairly clear that none of the panel have a clue either.
-
If the government are indeed trying to privatise the NHS, the junior doctors are aiding and abetting them by making it clear to everyone that the current system doesn't work.
because obviously there us only not work/ work on something like the NHS and there is no idea that something that complex might work better.
-
One of the things that I would bet is going on now, is that private health companies are talking to the government trying to convince them how much more reliable their own services are and no doubt they will be offering additional services during the strikes.
-
because obviously there us only not work/ work on something like the NHS and there is no idea that something that complex might work better.
No one believes that the NHS as it stands today is satisfactory, a prolonged doctors strike will certainly influence future decisions. I am sure that there are those in the government who would favour much more involvement of private companies and patient charges - so maybe that is the way things will go.
Personally I very much hope not.
-
One of the things that I would bet is going on now, is that private health companies are talking to the government trying to convince them how much more reliable their own services are and no doubt they will be offering additional services during the strikes.
Quite possibly, sort ofnlijr Southern Rail would be!
-
No one believes that the NHS as it stands today is satisfactory, a prolonged doctors strike will certainly influence future decisions. I am sure that there are those in the government who would favour much more involvement of private companies and patient charges - so maybe that is the way things will go.
Personally I very much hope not.
why is is then that yoy trued to claim one side did think that, and that their opposition to the govts policy was based on that view?
-
Quite possibly, sort ofnlijr Southern Rail would be!
Complicated situation and Jeremy's chums are making a bad situation worse - but that's getting way off topic.
-
Complicated situation and Jeremy's chums are making a bad situation worse - but that's getting way off topic.
yep, only the workers make things bad, the govt and management, all innocent
-
why is is then that yoy trued to claim one side did think that, and that their opposition to the govts policy was based on that view?
I don't understand what you are saying NS. If you want to re-phrase it I'll have a look tomorrow. I'm going offline now.
-
why is is then that yoy trued to claim one side did think that, and that their opposition to the govts policy was based on that view?
in the post I was replying to you tried to use the idea that the NHS not being perfect now seems to mean that those who might not support a move to privatisation are some how supporting it by opposing it by saying the current system doesn't work perfectly
-
hmm... they should try after works drinks. Everything seems to work fine after a couple :)
-
And Nigel supported an American style health service, until he thought it wasn't gating votes and UKIP, well keep guessing
No, there are insurance services in the EU member states which work fairly ok, that is what he reluctantly referred to.
-
If the government are indeed trying to privatise the NHS, the junior doctors are aiding and abetting them by making it clear to everyone that the current system doesn't work.
And it doesn't work because the government is running it down. They are the ones in charge and so the public should blame them. What the BMA have failed to do is adequately and forcefully is convey that the NHS is being run down and HCunts proposals are just another step in this process.
-
Maybe or (imo) maybe not. However either way this doesn't tell us what is wrong with the proposed contract or provide any reason for a strike.
ETA: Just been listening to Any Questions .. and seems fairly clear that none of the panel have a clue either.
As I have said in other posts the thing wrong with the proposed contract is that it is there to run the NHS down so it can be privatised. Sadly the BMA have made a pigs ear of the issue hence this saying its ok and then back tracking on this.
-
in the post I was replying to you tried to use the idea that the NHS not being perfect now seems to mean that those who might not support a move to privatisation are some how supporting it by opposing it by saying the current system doesn't work perfectly
The NHS quite clearly isn't perfect (though I would be the first to admits that parts are extremely good). There are massive changes going on, operations that might have required a week or more admission are now completed in day surgery (so closing wards is not necessarily bad news), but the ageing population has greatly increased the demands.
A huge leviathan like the NHS is always going to be a nightmare to administrate and there are always going to be strongly opposing opinions on how to manage change. Technology can bring solutions to some of these problems but government run institutions tend not to be great places for innovation so there is a good case for using private companies in some areas.
It's pretty clear that simply 'throwing money' at the problem won't work - the NHS is a bottomless pit - change is essential, but change is generally opposed by those in a large institution.
The Secretary of State for Health has been trying to introduce changes that should mean more NHS facilities would be available days a week. This would produce a number of advantages both in terms of treatment availability and better utilisation of resources; and after negotiations, strikes then a supposed agreement - the deal has been rejected and more industrial action promised.
OK that's my assessment of where we are.
Many (including myself) would consider that the doctors are now being totally unreasonable. From the governments perspective there will be other options. For example, a patient fee would 'pay-off' the doctors and they would get the blame., or maybe the same goal could be achieved by greater use of private companies.
-
As I have said in other posts the thing wrong with the proposed contract is that it is there to run the NHS down so it can be privatised. Sadly the BMA have made a pigs ear of the issue hence this saying its ok and then back tracking on this.
Well - which parts of it are there to "run the NHS down". And if the government decides to run the NHS down, why should the doctors be striking over it? Surely they would earn more, and with reduced working times, in a privatised system?
-
Everything the government is doing is forcing the NHS to go fully private like the states - hence many Tories support TTIP. This needs to be resisted with all the force possible. The NHS is being run down so that the people scream for it to be fixed and it will be fixed by the private sector. This is what happened with our other services; they got starved, but the private sector hasn't solved anything, if anything they have made things worse.
And I understand that TTIP is a dead duck. http://ind.pn/2bs23XZ
-
And it doesn't work because the government is running it down. They are the ones in charge and so the public should blame them. What the BMA have failed to do is adequately and forcefully is convey that the NHS is being run down and HCunts proposals are just another step in this process.
Oddly enough, JK, both the BMA and the leaders of the junior doctors were involved in the negotiations that ended in the latest, now rejected, proposals. Interestingly, the junior doctors have used the strike vote that covered the old, now amended contract to call this one.
-
And I understand that TTIP is a dead duck. http://ind.pn/2bs23XZ
And if you read the article, Hope, you will realise that it is about the trade relationship between the USA and the EU. The EU is strong enough and big enough to stand up to the USA,
Should Brexit actually occur, the UK (or what is left of it) will be looking to make trade deals. A special version of TTIP may be all that is available from the USA,
Lambs to the slaughter doesn't even begin to describe it.
-
Well - which parts of it are there to "run the NHS down".
That doesn't make sense...?
And if the government decides to run the NHS down, why should the doctors be striking over it? Surely they would earn more, and with reduced working times, in a privatised system?
You'd have to ask them that but it does seem that many doctors, not just junior ones are concerned about the way NHS policy has gone over the decades.
-
And I understand that TTIP is a dead duck. http://ind.pn/2bs23XZ
At the G20 Obama has said he is still wanting to negotiate on it. It may be so that it looks dead but perhaps it just smells funny.
-
Oddly enough, JK, both the BMA and the leaders of the junior doctors were involved in the negotiations that ended in the latest, now rejected, proposals. Interestingly, the junior doctors have used the strike vote that covered the old, now amended contract to call this one.
I have said that they have made a bit of a pigs ear of all this. That doesn't make them wrong just a little uncoordinated.
-
Oddly enough, JK, both the BMA and the leaders of the junior doctors were involved in the negotiations that ended in the latest, now rejected, proposals. Interestingly, the junior doctors have used the strike vote that covered the old, now amended contract to call this one.
partly true, they have used strike vote in conjunction with the vote to reject the contract
-
And if you read the article, Hope, you will realise that it is about the trade relationship between the USA and the EU. The EU is strong enough and big enough to stand up to the USA,
Should Brexit actually occur, the UK (or what is left of it) will be looking to make trade deals. A special version of TTIP may be all that is available from the USA,
Lambs to the slaughter doesn't even begin to describe it.
We already trade with the US to the tune of about £60 billion. You don't need a trade deal to trade.
-
Next week's strike has been called off, but the following months are still on.
-
Well - which parts of it are there to "run the NHS down".
That doesn't make sense...?
Which details (terms, clauses, conditions, pay scales, hours etc) specified in the new contract have been designed to "run down the NHS"?
My feeling is that some hospitals were "run down" under the old contract.
-
If the hospitals can run efficiently, and above all safely, without the junior doctors for five days in a row, perhaps they are not so vital as they think. Just a thought.
-
That doesn't make sense...?
Which details (terms, clauses, conditions, pay scales, hours etc) specified in the new contract have been designed to "run down the NHS"?
My feeling is that some hospitals were "run down" under the old contract.
Yes, it has been a long term project as part of neo-Liberalism. This junior doctors dispute is just one of many nails in the NHS coffin.
-
If the hospitals can run efficiently, and above all safely, without the junior doctors for five days in a row, perhaps they are not so vital as they think. Just a thought.
They don't all stop working, its more of a go slow or minimal service; minimal being relative here i.e. probably less than sufficient.
Rather this than a this level of service all year round from Hunt and co.
-
I have supported the junior doctors all along - I owe them much. I do fear that five-day strikes are going to test the patience of many who otherwise support them. It would only take one tragic death due to their action to bring huge approbation on them.
-
I have supported the junior doctors all along - I owe them much. I do fear that five-day strikes are going to test the patience of many who otherwise support them. It would only take one tragic death due to their action to bring huge approbation on them.
why would essentially in that sense a 5 day strike be different to a one minute strike?
-
I support the junior doctors: I owe them much. I fear, however, that they are know walking a tightrope
-
why would essentially in that sense a 5 day strike be different to a one minute strike?
Well surely there will be a build-up, a back-log of work, and that can be really serious in a hospital
-
Well surely there will be a build-up, a back-log of work, and that can be really serious in a hospital
possibly, but essentially that's true of any length of strike
-
possibly, but essentially that's true of any length of strike
Quite, NS, but it's a different ball-game when it's health and well-being that are at the sharp end.
-
Quite, NS, but it's a different ball-game when it's health and well-being that are at the sharp end.
Agree, it makes all of this hugely complex morally. That said the idea's that have been rolled out about delivering a more complex service with more coverage with no real change other than a vague idea that people already working very long hours can work longer hours and no bad will happen is surely in need of challenging. The sheer nonsense touted by things like the Daily Mail that doctors in this country are some hive of Stalinism would be kauaghable, were it not so pernicious.
-
Agree, it makes all of this hugely complex morally. That said the idea's that have been rolled out about delivering a more complex service with more coverage with no real change other than a vague idea that people already working very long hours can work longer hours and no bad will happen is surely in need of challenging. The sheer nonsense touted by things like the Daily Mail that doctors in this country are some hive of Stalinism would be kauaghable, were it not so pernicious.
As I said, I support them, as we all should, and I've very recent reason to be thankful to them. I just fear that they are getting in too deeply with this strike bit.