Doctor's strike.

[Rincewind]

Only my opinion but this seems a better approach than stirring up more confrontation and disputes.

 

I'd be interested to hear the view from any junior doctor's perspective and happy to be corrected as they will be the ones directly affected by the changes and are more likely to have more knowledge and facts and more likely able to give constructive criticism and replies.

 

 

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/697795732145885184

[Bryn]

At this point I'd like to see what the proposed contract looks like before deciding if I advocate further strike action, but I won't be signing an imposed contract.

[HighPeakFox]

The worst of it for me is that something was worked out that was agreeable to all affected parties, but it got vetoed by Hunt (and/or those operating him) for reasons one can only speculate upon.

 

Of course, our national media hasn't been loud in informing you of that.

[Thracian]

The worst of it for me is that something was worked out that was agreeable to all affected parties, but it got vetoed by Hunt (and/or those operating him) for reasons one can only speculate upon.

 

Of course, our national media hasn't been loud in informing you of that.

This is as much, if not more, about politics than principle - you really can't overstate the degree of labour activism within the NHS.

And the whole idea of bonding Labour-leader Corbyn with the Labour-backing trades unions (probably most powerful within the health and transport sectors) is to provoke as much conflict as possible.

Go onto GP sites and see how much moaning they do for people often earning, not some pittance, but upwards of £100,000 a year with "overtime", agency work (at lots of £s an hour), through product promotion and recommendation, lecturing and so on.

The rights or wrongs of this dispute are about curbing or maintaining wasteful practice, depending which side of the fence you're sitting.

The NHS is a runaway cash cow for everyone involved in it except the government, and those working within it - backed by their unions - have no intentions of letting those practices be eroded.

It wouldn't be so bad but the service is getting worse and worse and in part because of many factors so encouraged and enabled by the labour movement.

So often called "the best health service in the world" I can only lament the state of the others because it offers neither the fast access, nor the standards of service it once boasted.

And with so many staff seemingly not wanting to accept the responsibilities for which they were employed I wish the whole unwieldy mess could be dismantled, established in a new form and re-staffed with people who did want to work there conscientiously and with the attitude of doing their best rather than activists more interested in fighting a political battle because their beloved Labour Party got whacked at the polls.

This is a bit old but it emphasises the real fight going on between different (both flawed but self-serving) ideologies going on between the lines so to speak but with the NHS as one of its major battlegrounds. Joe Public is just the poor sod caught up in it all. http://www.socialist.net/the-future-of-the-nhs-under-capitalism.htm.

https://www.politicshome.com/health-and-care/articles/story/jeremy-hunt-bma-guilty-distorting-facts-junior-doctors-dispute

[Guest MattP]

I've said enough about this that I won't repeat but it's very sad when you can agree on over 90% of a contract and still not able to finish off negotiations.

 

My prediction - Contracts imposed, Docs kick off for a bit and then accept it after Hunt is sacked as health secretary, both sides look like they have won, government happy with outcome, very similar to the way they played it with Gove.

[Rincewind]

The worst of it for me is that something was worked out that was agreeable to all affected parties, but it got vetoed by Hunt (and/or those operating him) for reasons one can only speculate upon.

 

Of course, our national media hasn't been loud in informing you of that.

Did you know that Jeremy Hunt has co-authored  a book calling for the privatisation of the NHS?

[Alf Bentley]

This is as much, if not more, about politics than principle - you really can't overstate the degree of labour activism within the NHS.

And the whole idea of bonding Labour-leader Corbyn with the Labour-backing trades unions (probably most powerful within the health and transport sectors) is to provoke as much conflict as possible.

Go onto GP sites and see how much moaning they do for people often earning, not some pittance, but upwards of £100,000 a year with "overtime", agency work (at lots of £s an hour), through product promotion and recommendation, lecturing and so on.

The rights or wrongs of this dispute are about curbing or maintaining wasteful practice, depending which side of the fence you're sitting.

The NHS is a runaway cash cow for everyone involved in it except the government, and those working within it - backed by their unions - have no intentions of letting those practices be eroded.

It wouldn't be so bad but the service is getting worse and worse and in part because of many factors so encouraged and enabled by the labour movement.

So often called "the best health service in the world" I can only lament the state of the others because it offers neither the fast access, nor the standards of service it once boasted.

And with so many staff seemingly not wanting to accept the responsibilities for which they were employed I wish the whole unwieldy mess could be dismantled, established in a new form and re-staffed with people who did want to work there conscientiously and with the attitude of doing their best rather than activists more interested in fighting a political battle because their beloved Labour Party got whacked at the polls.

This is a bit old but it emphasises the real fight going on between different (both flawed but self-serving) ideologies going on between the lines so to speak but with the NHS as one of its major battlegrounds. Joe Public is just the poor sod caught up in it all. http://www.socialist.net/the-future-of-the-nhs-under-capitalism.htm.

https://www.politicshome.com/health-and-care/articles/story/jeremy-hunt-bma-guilty-distorting-facts-junior-doctors-dispute

 

 

I certainly don't have a utopian view of the NHS. After 14 months of frustration and NHS mismanagement, I'm finally close (I think) to getting a proper explanation of why my mother died suddenly in hospital. My wife has lost most of the sight in one eye due to delay and complacency by NHS and private GP practice alike. I've spent 14 months of stressful frustration dealing with 15+ different health and social care agencies about my father's ongoing decline - partly due to their lack of resources, but partly due to mismanagement, an over-attention to systems and procedures, and a lack of common sense, as far as I can tell. In contrast, my own medical issues have been handled quite efficiently so far.

 

All sorts of arguments can be made about the NHS and the doctors' strike, but I'm afraid your post is the biggest pile of unsupported, spittle-flecked garbage I've ever read. It is honestly a candidate for the worst post I've read in 7+ years on FoxesTalk.

 

Some quick questions:

- If "you can't overstate labour activism in the NHS", how come the last junior doctors' strike was in 1975?

- If it's just Corbynites with their own agenda, how come 98% of junior doctors voted for the strike? Are they really that dim, that brainwashed by Corbyn - when the rest of the nation isn't?

- If "the service is getting worse and worse", shouldn't this Govt have done something about it over the past 6 years? 

- You quote £100k+ salaries for GPs, but how much do junior doctors earn?

- If high salaries for GPs in private practice can be used to justify changes in pay & conditions for NHS junior doctors, can high salaries at arms companies be used to justify changes to the pay & conditions of squaddies?

- You say that junior doctors "don't want to accept the responsibilities for which they are employed". So how many hours per week do these lazy sods work? 10? 15? I bet they never work overtime, eh? What are their absenteeism rates?

- Is the BMA a "Labour-backing trade union"? It's not even affiliated to the TUC, never mind the Labour Party, is it?

- You link to the site of the "International Marxist Tendency" as evidence of the "ideology" behind the strike....Does that mean that I could link to the BNP as evidence of the ideology behind Tory Eurosceptics? 

 

You seem to see junior doctors as idlers and Marxist radicals inspired or brainwashed by Corbyn and hell-bent on conflict. I thought they were mostly from conventional backgrounds and motivated by vocation or career - and were striking for the first time in 40 years.

 

I'm more concerned about Leicester market being taken over by the Monster Raving Loony Party, led by a bonkers would-be Enoch Powell. 

 

Seriously, I really miss MooseBreath. He was a right-winger able to argue a decent case - something now sorely missing (Webbo & MattP have their good moments, but I see you've repped Thracian's post, Matt?! WTF?!).

I might stick to football and comedy threads in future, the standard in here is getting so low. Hats off, Thracian, that's some of the most worthless garbage I've ever read! 

[Guest MattP]

Just about to go out but quickly (and I always rep Thrac's post's if I see them, he's one of my favourite posters, I don't agree with everything he says but certainly most, a lot of people do that sort of thing, you always get a rep from Rincey whatever goes up)

 

The BMA has came across as quite militant and I'll grab the link to the Times article when I can find it over the weekend of a run down on some of the people at the top of the organisation, all sorts of marxists and leftists who have managed to work their way into the top level who have made numerous anti austerity/anti-Tory comments and have links to all sorts of hard left groups. The picket lines on the news were full of Socialist Workers banners yesterday, if that's not being backed by militants then I don't really know what is.

 

We shouldn't exactly trust the BMA blindly anyway, these people were against the creation of the NHS, they said that would be "bad for patients" in 1948 - I doubt many would say they got that right now.

 

As I say my overall feeling on this is sadness, I don't think either side has covered themselves in glory and I think it's pretty terrible it has got to this when some much had been agreed, from what I'm reading though (and going from what Andrew Neil is saying) the BMA would have advised Doctors to sign this if the pay conditions are met, that to me seems very strange for a dispute that was never about money.

[Rincewind]

Rather than post the same thing but not as well put the rep is an agreement.

[Alf Bentley]

Just about to go out but quickly (and I always rep Thrac's post's if I see them, he's one of my favourite posters, I don't agree with everything he says but certainly most, a lot of people do that sort of thing, you always get a rep from Rincey whatever goes up)

 

The BMA has came across as quite militant and I'll grab the link to the Times article when I can find it over the weekend of a run down on some of the people at the top of the organisation, all sorts of marxists and leftists who have managed to work their way into the top level who have made numerous anti austerity/anti-Tory comments and have links to all sorts of hard left groups. The picket lines on the news were full of Socialist Workers banners yesterday, if that's not being backed by militants then I don't really know what is.

 

We shouldn't exactly trust the BMA blindly anyway, these people were against the creation of the NHS, they said that would be "bad for patients" in 1948 - I doubt many would say they got that right now.

 

As I say my overall feeling on this is sadness, I don't think either side has covered themselves in glory and I think it's pretty terrible it has got to this when some much had been agreed, from what I'm reading though (and going from what Andrew Neil is saying) the BMA would have advised Doctors to sign this if the pay conditions are met, that to me seems very strange for a dispute that was never about money.

 

 

We shouldn't trust anyone blindly: not the BMA and not the Conservative Govt (not Labour either). 

 

Yes, I'm sure that you can find stuff in the Murdoch press to smear particular union officials with. Some accusations might even be true and relevant. Likewise, it would be easy for me to smear members of the Tory Govt. I don't like that approach, though. Did 98% of the junior doctors vote for strike action because they've suddenly converted en masse to the SWP or been hoodwinked by Corbyn and far left militants? Of course not.

 

Since at least the 70s, the SWP goons have handed out Socialist Worker placards at any vaguely suitable demonstration/picket. At best, it has provided them with a trickle of gullible supporters. Most people holding an SWP placard do it out of convenience & to support their particular cause, not the SWP. In the same way, LCFC fans wearing a replica shirt do so to support the club, not to advertise King Power. The KP logo is coincidental. I wouldn't hold an SWP placard as I don't support them and find them devious, but you'd have to be very stupid to believe that many doctors are SWP supporters. I know that you're not stupid, so assume that it is just your usual drip, drip, drip of distortions, smears and dishonest right-wing propaganda.

 

So, a few hard left militants actively support the doctors' strike? So what? Farage will be a leading figure in the EU "out" campaign, which will also be supported by a lot of serious racists. That doesn't make it accurate to suggest it is all run by Farage or to describe it as "a campaign backed by racists", in the way that you and Thracian seek to smear the doctors by association with hard left militants. 

 

There are serious issues here.

- Is the hospital death rate 15% higher at weekends due to lower standards of care or because people admitted at weekends tend to be in a poorer condition?

- How many hours will doctors be expected to work, how safe will that be and how will it be monitored?

- If there does need to be more weekend working, aren't the doctors being reasonable in wanting some compensation for that or has the idea of the weekend been completely abolished? Would you agree to work regular Saturdays for little extra cash?

 

Anecdote: My Mum was admitted on a Saturday to a hyper-acute stroke ward. She got excellent care, started to improve and was transferred to a lower-intensity stroke ward 48 hours later. During the week on that ward, she again got good care, including physio and speech therapy, to which she responded well. The following weekend, staffing and monitoring levels were noticeably lower, with no physio or speech therapy; even so, her condition had improved enough that a meeting was planned for the Tuesday (2 days later) for her to leave the stroke ward for a rehab unit to tackle her partial paralysis. Instead, on the Sunday, she had another stroke and died. 14 months later, I may finally be on the verge of finding out exactly what happened as no monitoring equipment appeared to be attached on the day she died and an "on-call team" dealt with her fatal stroke. Indeed the NHS is NOT in great shape. Partly under-resourcing in a difficult financial climate, partly cumbersome, inflexible procedures?

 

So, you will see that I'm not some "typical gullible lefty" thinking the NHS is perfect or that extra weekend cover is not required. On the contrary, I suspect such extra cover is needed, but needs to be organised so that doctors are working a safe number of hours and are appropriately rewarded for working unsociable hours. I've not crunched the numbers on the deal, obviously, but am more inclined to believe the doctors, when 98% vote for strike action for the first time in 40 years, than a government that is actively seeking to cut spending and pursue austerity economics.

 

I've had enough of this now. It makes me too angry, having to deal with dishonest right-wing propagandists and purveyors of smears like you and Thracian. I'm out of here.

[Bryn]

As I say, and I've been firmly on the opposite side of the argument to Matt and such, at this point my personal feeling is we need to run the numbers again with the latest offer and see what comes out. I voted for strike action based on where we were 3 months ago and need to reassess.

When we initially voted for strike action there were numerous concerns which I've detailed before (and largely been ignored). It sounds as though progress was made on many of them and I want to see precisely what.

The Government has acted shambolically in these negotiations and I think bashing the BMA is lazy. They have an overwhelming mandate and a duty to protect the interest of its members, especially when the interest of its members and of patients runs parallel. But, I don't necessarily disagree with Matt that it's a shame it fell down over one issue of pay.

My fundamental view is that the NHS grinds on largely because it's staff go above and beyond and the Government has done nothing to change things that actually will benefit the NHS and instead are attacking the staff who are keeping it going and certainly have nothing to do with obstructing a weekend service (we work weekends already, the idea we don't is ludicrous. I work 1 in 2 and I ****ing deserve my pay for it). Their lies and wilful misinterpretation of evidence is negligent and there is a growing body of admittedly low tier evidence that it has caused direct patient harm. We need to fight on to protect ourselves and other NHS staff, but we have a duty to be certain at this point that the deal offered was is worthy of further strikes and not merely protest and discussion.

[Strokes]

I'd be more than happy if they privatised the NHS, I think it's shambles as it is.

[MPH]

I'd be more than happy if they privatised the NHS, I think it's shambles as it is.

 

I think the NHS is a good concept BUT it has to be funded properly and you have to cut out a lot of the bureaucracy and red tape.There are way too many managers. We dont seem to be capable of doing any of that, And that isnt aimed at any particular government - both are guilty , in the past, of cutting funding and trying to make savings. But make no mistake, in England we pay for the healthcare system even  if its seen as being 'free'. Just from petrol alone

 From 23 March 2011 the UK duty rate for the road fuels unleaded petrol, diesel, biodiesel and bioethanol is £0.5795 per litre (£2.63 per imperial gallon or £2.19 per U.S. gallon). Value Added Tax at 20% is also charged on the price of the fuel and on the duty

 

 

So the tax alone on fuel is more than double the TOTAL COST of fuel alone in the U.S. Plus you add the VAT of 20% on most other products ( in North Carolina the sales Tax is 8%) as well as the National Insurance contributions you make in England.... Plus the higher tax rate for the Average worker compared to the U.S...

 

 

 

It does Beg the question, Why isnt the NHS netter funded?

[Guest MattP]

If you are going to accuse me of dishonestly Alf then at least provide a reason why, you can throw that accusation around but my opinion on this is formed by what I've seen and read; quoting numbers means little, the doctors seem to act on advice of the BMA as they are entitled to, you are starting to sound like one of the Corbynistas when you talk about smears and the Murdoch press, we heard the same nonsense 6 months ago, it wasn't that Miliband was totally shit that didn't get him elected, it was the smears and lies of the Murdoch press that's failed to recognise the wonderful qualities and statesmanlike statue of Ed.

You had absolutely no problem smearing Farage and UKIP last year, you had no problem smearing the out campaign just last week resorting to an argument trying to claim they were talking about nig nogs etc when no one had mentioned anything like that tone of language, The Times has a right to report the truth, truth is never smear.

[Guest MattP]

This piece sums up how I and I imagine a lot of people feel. (And yes I'm sorry it contains more smear from the Murdoch press)

Medicine is an arduous vocation. Its practitioners are highly qualified and rightly expect not only public esteem but decent pay and working conditions. Yet morale among England’s 55,000 junior doctors is low. Despite this, Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, is right to impose new conditions on junior doctors to ensure the NHS is adequately staffed at weekends. The government has shown flexibility in negotiations. Sadly, the British Medical Association (BMA) has not. It has resorted to unnecessary strike action.

The BMA maintains the dispute is about patient safety. It in fact centres on the more prosaic issue of pay for overtime and weekends. Under the new contract, junior doctors will receive a rise in basic pay of 13.5 per cent. At a time of zero inflation, that is a substantial rise. The quid pro quo is a reduction in other elements of pay and a revision in what is counted as unsociable working hours.

The coalition government drafted plans for a new contract for junior doctors in England in 2012, to replace what it considered to be outdated arrangements drawn up in the 1990s. Agreement between the NHS and the junior doctors has been thwarted, however, by the issue of Saturday pay. Mr Hunt seeks to reduce the costs of operating the service at weekends. To that end, he wants doctors’ work on Saturdays to be paid at the same rates as weekdays, so that more doctors can be available on hospital wards at weekends.

Polls show public support for the junior doctors, who feel, with some justification, that their work is not sufficiently recognised. The junior doctors themselves overwhelmingly back the BMA’s stand. Though it is right for the government to require an expansion of provision to provide a seven-day health service, Mr Hunt has not shown great diplomatic skill in responding to the doctors’ concerns.

Mortality rates at weekends are substantially higher than during the week. The reason the coverage at weekends is patchy, however, is not that junior doctors refuse to work then. They already work regularly at weekends and Mr Hunt should have acknowledged this at the start of the dispute. Yet the BMA must acknowledge patients’ need for a proper seven-day service, and the government’s concessions to meet doctors’ concerns of being overworked. Instead the BMA has insisted on further strike action when negotiations were progressing.

The reason talks have ultimately broken down is that the BMA has overplayed its hand. Every healthcare system in the industrialised world needs to ration scarce resources more tightly. The NHS is no exception. Demands on the health service are growing. This is partly due to the aging of the population but mainly because the range of treatments has expanded. Patients in the 21st century expect not just to receive medical care in a taxpayer-funded service but to be treated promptly and in modern facilities.

It is irresponsible of the BMA to exploit public sympathy for the NHS in order to insinuate that Mr Hunt is ruthlessly denying it resources. The government is making available an extra £8 billion a year throughout this parliament. Doctors will not be prevented from earning overtime under a new contract, but the hours in which they will be eligible for these payments will be reduced. The doctors may have public sympathy but they cannot dictate the allocation of taxpayer funds.

[Bryn]

The UK spends one of the lowest proportions of GDP on healthcare and investment in the NHS is rising well below inflation.

If he's so concerned about the function (rather than trying to divide and conquer the NHS as he is so transparently doing) why is he not actually addressing any of the issues that make it grind to a halt? Proper investment in social and mental health services to prevent bed blocking and inappropriate ED attendances being one of the best examples. Why are we spending millions on managers who hold meetings about meetings about outlining outlines for clinical care, who are nowhere to be seen when the going gets tough and who take no clinical responsibility for the errors made trying to adhere to silly arbitrary targets like the 4 hour ED window?

[Guest MattP]

I don't have the figures on me but an extra 8 billion a year into the NHS cannot be below inflation surely?

I don't think anyone will disagree with you regarding managers though, the organisation clearly has far too many and it's something that needs serious reform.

For a start off inflation is around zero!

[Charl91]

The BMA maintains the dispute is about patient safety. It in fact centres on the more prosaic issue of pay for overtime and weekends. Under the new contract, junior doctors will receive a rise in basic pay of 13.5 per cent. At a time of zero inflation, that is a substantial rise. The quid pro quo is a reduction in other elements of pay and a revision in what is counted as unsociable working hours.

 

 

 

I hate this figure that's being trotted out, because it's dishonest.

 

In reality, how much of a "rise" are they getting? Because from what I understand, in actual terms it's essentially a pay-cut.

[Webbo]

I hate this figure that's being trotted out, because it's dishonest.

 

In reality, how much of a "rise" are they getting? Because from what I understand, in actual terms it's essentially a pay-cut.

Most will be better off.

[Bryn]

So much better off the Government are protecting our pay for a limited time in the hope we forget we will end up on less money for more antisocial hours and **** future generations over?

[Webbo]

So much better off the Government are protecting our pay for a limited time in the hope we forget we will end up on less money for more antisocial hours and **** future generations over?

I thought you already did antisocial hours?

 

As for rejecting a deal because of what might hypothetically happen in the future, you could say the same about any deal. What's the point of negotiating at all?

[Bryn]

That's not hypothetical, that's written into the contract.

I mean "more" in the sense of an increased amount of antisocial hours, not "more antisocial than the hours we work now".

I reiterate at this point that I feel we doctors at this point need to take a breath and reassess the evidence before taking further strikes; if the only remaining issue is truly Saturday pay, I have no intention of voting for strikes for that alone.

[Strokes]

What would be your opinion if it were labour proposing these new terms rather than the tories? It all seems to be politically motivated to me.

[Guest MattP]

That's not hypothetical, that's written into the contract.

I mean "more" in the sense of an increased amount of antisocial hours, not "more antisocial than the hours we work now".

I reiterate at this point that I feel we doctors at this point need to take a breath and reassess the evidence before taking further strikes; if the only remaining issue is truly Saturday pay, I have no intention of voting for strikes for that alone.

 

Good to hear that, one of the dopes on Radio 4 this morning from the BMA seemed to think you were all now preparing for a guerilla war with the government.

[leicsmac]

What would be your opinion if it were labour proposing these new terms rather than the tories? It all seems to be politically motivated to me.

 

And the way that Hunt and the rest of the Tories are choosing to deal with the NHS (as they have in the past) isn't politically motivated?

 

There are pretty big ideological differences on both sides.