I've been thinking about the junior doctors position.
According to The Guardian, after five years at medical school, junior doctors do a minimum of four years' further training to qualify as a GP, or flog their guts out for eight years to be a hospital consultant. So, after, say, 13 years they could become a consultant.
In this regard, I suppose they are, oddly, quite like footballers. Except footballers start their training at a much earlier age but unless they are precocious, still take around 13 years to reach - if they are very lucky and/or gifted - the holy grail of top-tier salaries and all the benefits that go with it.
So, back to doctors, the holy grail I suppose is becoming a consultant by their early 30s which will give them a six figure salary, the potential to earn huge overtime payments, a non-contributory pension based on the large salary, and perhaps the opportunity of extremely lucrative private work on the side. They will be made for life, just like footballers.
They are of course well aware of the risks. They may not make the grade (again like footballers but probably less likely). But in the meantime it is their choice to accept eight years of dross on fairly feeble pay. It's a gamble of course but the rewards can be great. Despite the bluster, how many of them are really going to throw all that potential away and resign?
As a side issue, as I understand it, junior doctors have the option of renting accommodation, which is managed on behalf of their trust and is in close proximity to their hospital. I've taken a random example of Poole Hospital which makes rooms available to doctors for £405.11 per month, inclusive of internet and all utilities. Much is made of the long hours junior doctors work but if you factor in the fact that they don't have the long commutes many other workers have, their hours are actually pretty similar to those of many wage slaves. The difference being in my case, I did it for 36 years not eight.
So, taking all things into account, I think they are not so badly off.
They go through five years at university subsidised by the government Come out of uni and start on a pretty decent wage If good enough they are in a position to earn quite a lot at a later date
Then they decide they don't like the hours because it is detrimental to patients' health so cancel 4000 operations so they can strike.
eh?
Quick Q&A to the Corbynisters:
Q: Are you a doctor? A: No, I am not a doctor Q: Do you read the Daily Mail? A: No, I do not read the Daily Mail Q: Not supporting the Junior Doctors makes you racist. A: That's not a question Q: Do you welcome the fact that we're going to have American style healthcare? A: Privatising parts of the NHS, if done correctly, does not equate to a wholesale dismantlement of the NHS
One must assume you are a Corbyn "ista" as you answered the questions yourself.
That'll be the George that is out-doing Gordon with his latest wheeze of demanding that local government pension funds invest at least 25% of their £210BN funds in government infrastructure programmes.
Sod whether they're viable and sod the fact that these are funded pensions!
So you would rather give your money to a fund manager who takes a nice cut while it loses 10% being speculated on market movements.
Why didn't local government pension managers provide the capital for PFI projects (infrastructure investment) thats giving the institutional investors a guaranteed return above inflation for the next 49 years.
Instead of the taxpayer funding profits of the banks and construction companies they would fund your pension, reduce NHS costs and reduce government borrowing.
I guess Osborne is doing it because people who think like you are in charge of managing your pension fund and can't work it out for themselves.
Private pension funds can't find enough infrastructure projects to invest in so would be happy if the dummies running LGPS continue to do so with their heads up their arse and your support.
The difference is that fund managers have a duty to try and get a return on your pension fund. It doesn't always work, but they have the flexibility to move funds and do what they can to get the best returns. That may sometimes be in government infrastructure programmes, but they aren't all money spinners are they @Dippenhall ?
You are now asking them to bet on what will work from the planning stage, with no guarantee and you are forcing them to hold 25% of the fund - approx £52BN - in these projects.
It isn't the government's money and it shouldn't be possible for them to demand you invest in what they want. They're giving no guaranteed returns on this.
@TelMc32 You obviously don't know what an infrastructure investment is. Its a government or local authority backed project. It's a not-for-profit project that benefits the nation that needs large capital expenditure. Pension funds sit on £billions of assets making profits for institutions instead of helping build the economy through infrastructure support. What would you rather have, a share of every £5 paid by motorists using the Dartford Crossing or being mugged by a fund manager. If you need a school built why don't you use the pension fund to provide the money and get a return that's fair for the pension fund and the taxpayer. Instead we ask a private contractor to do it and he does a deal with an investment bank for a tasty back hander that the bank finances from inflated interest charges included in the rip off repayment terms.
Fund managers have a duty have a 50:50 chance of beating the market. Pension funds have a duty to pay incomes over the next 100 years and security of income is more important than risking capital losses for short term gains. Infrastructure investments provide guaranteed revenue over a long period backed by the State, with no risk of capital loss or default. The bet is taken by the State (on behalf of taxpayers) not the pension fund. If you supplied money for a windfarm that was closed down because it was not economic you still get the interest on the loan that funded it and the tax payer picks up the loss, not you.
It's true pension funds don't invest in real assets that have development potential, they don't have the balls and leave it to the rich bastards to invest in real assets to develop and sell for a profit, which is how they became rich bastards. No rich bastard ever got rich giving his money to a fund manager. He knows a fund investment is just trying to sweat a mature corporate asset that's already been squeezed to death ( wages, taxes, bonuses, director salaries, fiddled income figures etc). The manager gets paid for moving it around between different corporates, not making you a profit. They would go out of business if they were paid by results.
Anyway, what are you worried about, poor investment returns simply means Local Government puts in more contributions and raises it from tax or is baled out by the State. Very little of your pension fund is "your" money anyway, it's tax payers money.
He may or may not be a good constituency MP but given his potentially compromised interests in the privatisation of the health service he should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
that piece sums up what I had feared about him. I wondered why he got to the position he has and why he's so determined to undermine the NHS. this tory government has so many jobs for the boys and look after friends mentality it's become endemic and no longer a surprise, even in this day and age.
Cant see the problem personally, hospitals should be able to work efficiently seven days a week people arn't less sick at a weekend, lots of people in other areas and in the NHS work saturdays and sundays already, as long as its fairly rotared and properly staffed I am pretty amazed it hasn't always happened.
I'm pretty amazed not more is made of the hours they have work. Even more amazed politicians think its not an issue. Most people, (I'm guessing), work contracted hours of between 35 to 45 ish but we have a strange mind set where doctors have to work, with the new contract, no more than 72! That cant be right, I wonder what they work in the rest of the EU where they have maximum work hours by law. Maybe they have more staff.
Cant see the problem personally, hospitals should be able to work efficiently seven days a week people arn't less sick at a weekend, lots of people in other areas and in the NHS work saturdays and sundays already, as long as its fairly rotared and properly staffed I am pretty amazed it hasn't always happened.
As the Spanish say, ' take what you want and pay for it, says god'. You want the system run on a 24/7 basis? Great. Sounds healthy. Who are going to work the extra hours, and where is the money to pay for it? Do the current doctors do more hours ( a lot of people would resent a 72 hour week anyway, and people who are tired make mistakes) or are you suggesting the government recruit more staff? So spending on the NHS goes up. Personally, I see money spent on this as a much better investment than buying bombs and dropping them in Syria, but the people of the UK voted in a government which takes the opposite view.
He may or may not be a good constituency MP but given his potentially compromised interests in the privatisation of the health service he should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
tthis tory government has so many jobs for the boys and look after friends mentality it's become endemic and no longer a surprise, even in this day and age.
Of course that NEVER happens with Labour does it? Oh no, hang on.
Charles Falconer. Nice little earner as a cabinet minister for Blair's old flatmate. Peerage to follow of course. Derry Irvine. Head of Chambers when Blair was a pupil barrister. Given a nice little number as Lord Chancellor when Blair elected. Didn't need a peerage - already had one.
Fast forward to the present:
Dianne Abbot: Corbyn's old lover. Totally inept but still gets a shadow cabinet role. John McDonnell: Managed Corbyn's Labour leadership bid, given a role as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer as a reward. Andrew Fisher: co-founded the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP), a body chaired by John McDonnell. Given a job as Head of Policy by Corbyn who has every confidence in him (despite his temporary ban from the Labour party for campaigning for another party [Class War] in the last election).
I don't think many of the posters on this thread have bothered to find out the facts of the docs grieviences, most are just quoting the press that pertains to their own political leanings! Sad really.
The only paper that tried not to is now going online only, says it all really Greenie...
He may or may not be a good constituency MP but given his potentially compromised interests in the privatisation of the health service he should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
tthis tory government has so many jobs for the boys and look after friends mentality it's become endemic and no longer a surprise, even in this day and age.
Of course that NEVER happens with Labour does it? Oh no, hang on.
Charles Falconer. Nice little earner as a cabinet minister for Blair's old flatmate. Peerage to follow of course. Derry Irvine. Head of Chambers when Blair was a pupil barrister. Given a nice little number as Lord Chancellor when Blair elected. Didn't need a peerage - already had one.
Fast forward to the present:
Dianne Abbot: Corbyn's old lover. Totally inept but still gets a shadow cabinet role. John McDonnell: Managed Corbyn's Labour leadership bid, given a role as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer as a reward. Andrew Fisher: co-founded the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP), a body chaired by John McDonnell. Given a job as Head of Policy by Corbyn who has every confidence in him (despite his temporary ban from the Labour party for campaigning for another party [Class War] in the last election).
Jobs for the boys and looking after friends eh?
Not wrong, but a whisper against a shout, let's be honest.
He may or may not be a good constituency MP but given his potentially compromised interests in the privatisation of the health service he should be nowhere near the Cabinet.
tthis tory government has so many jobs for the boys and look after friends mentality it's become endemic and no longer a surprise, even in this day and age.
Of course that NEVER happens with Labour does it? Oh no, hang on.
Charles Falconer. Nice little earner as a cabinet minister for Blair's old flatmate. Peerage to follow of course. Derry Irvine. Head of Chambers when Blair was a pupil barrister. Given a nice little number as Lord Chancellor when Blair elected. Didn't need a peerage - already had one.
Fast forward to the present:
Dianne Abbot: Corbyn's old lover. Totally inept but still gets a shadow cabinet role. John McDonnell: Managed Corbyn's Labour leadership bid, given a role as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer as a reward. Andrew Fisher: co-founded the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP), a body chaired by John McDonnell. Given a job as Head of Policy by Corbyn who has every confidence in him (despite his temporary ban from the Labour party for campaigning for another party [Class War] in the last election).
Jobs for the boys and looking after friends eh?
though Corbyn's choices of who he has in his shadow cabinet are at best debatable i was referring more to Hunts and Cameron's friends within other organisations. such as News corp. who as we found out during the election and since have been very useful to Cameron. as had Lord Rothermere of the daily mail.
the hacking scandal has been put on the back burner though another Levison enquiry hasn't been axed, just postponed and that the first enquiry's recommendations have not been met by the Cameron. instead Rebbeca Brooks is back at the helm of the publishing side and Cameron has still been meeting with her and Murdoch after the election.
then we have the information provided on the link above that shows Hunt was compromised while being culture secretary and is also compromised now he's health secretary.
Whilst agreeing at some level with the need to improve cover at weekend within the NHS (outside of the emergency sphere which by it's nature has to be 24/7). The current dispute will make little difference. If the government spin is correct (more money and less hours) how can this improve things? There is no mention of more doctors so if those there do less hours surely less work is done and there is no way the government is really going to put a contract in place to give more money for less work so they are being a little economical with the facts surely?
Alongside that adding doctors at weekend will make no difference unless you add more nurses, radiologists, midwives etc etc etc. Alongside that if you do not make sure the outside agencies of the NHS (care homes, district nurses) are able to cover those periods as well - which they are not, you will not clear any additional beds anyway.
So my question is simple if the government are saying junior doctors are doing less work for more money why are the doctors against it? Is the truth perhaps that this is not really what is being offered.
I've been thinking about the junior doctors position.
According to The Guardian, after five years at medical school, junior doctors do a minimum of four years' further training to qualify as a GP, or flog their guts out for eight years to be a hospital consultant. So, after, say, 13 years they could become a consultant.
In this regard, I suppose they are, oddly, quite like footballers. Except footballers start their training at a much earlier age but unless they are precocious, still take around 13 years to reach - if they are very lucky and/or gifted - the holy grail of top-tier salaries and all the benefits that go with it.
So, back to doctors, the holy grail I suppose is becoming a consultant by their early 30s which will give them a six figure salary, the potential to earn huge overtime payments, a non-contributory pension based on the large salary, and perhaps the opportunity of extremely lucrative private work on the side. They will be made for life, just like footballers.
They are of course well aware of the risks. They may not make the grade (again like footballers but probably less likely). But in the meantime it is their choice to accept eight years of dross on fairly feeble pay. It's a gamble of course but the rewards can be great. Despite the bluster, how many of them are really going to throw all that potential away and resign?
As a side issue, as I understand it, junior doctors have the option of renting accommodation, which is managed on behalf of their trust and is in close proximity to their hospital. I've taken a random example of Poole Hospital which makes rooms available to doctors for £405.11 per month, inclusive of internet and all utilities. Much is made of the long hours junior doctors work but if you factor in the fact that they don't have the long commutes many other workers have, their hours are actually pretty similar to those of many wage slaves. The difference being in my case, I did it for 36 years not eight.
So, taking all things into account, I think they are not so badly off.
Can I put a few things to bed here. Consultants do not all have six figure salaries. Consultants do not get overtime. Consultants do not have a NON contributory pension. Consultants are on call 24/7. Consultants Have huge responsibility. Literally life and death. The level of CPD never diminishes. I know a lot of consultants and believe me a bigger bunch of very very very clever clogs you couldn't find.
As for junior doctors. Your analogy with professional footballers is risible. You are talking about extremely hard working highly educated, dedicated working in an occupation where huge responsibility is expected despite currently not blinking an eyelid if they work 91 hours a week. Starting salary of £26k.
Yes it is a career that will eventually give a good standard of living but the personal cost can be very high. Let's compare that to lawyers and bankers. Both will earn far more and both will never have responsibility for life and death.
Many of the junior doctors I know are married with children. Do you really think that they live in poxy hospital rooms with a stroll to work.
You really need to pull your head out of your arse and blink. Feel free to flag this comment if you wish. I think (?) I can afford it.
They go through five years at university subsidised by the government Come out of uni and start on a pretty decent wage If good enough they are in a position to earn quite a lot at a later date
Then they decide they don't like the hours because it is detrimental to patients' health so cancel 4000 operations so they can strike.
eh?
Quick Q&A to the Corbynisters:
Q: Are you a doctor? A: No, I am not a doctor Q: Do you read the Daily Mail? A: No, I do not read the Daily Mail Q: Not supporting the Junior Doctors makes you racist. A: That's not a question Q: Do you welcome the fact that we're going to have American style healthcare? A: Privatising parts of the NHS, if done correctly, does not equate to a wholesale dismantlement of the NHS
Hunt describing the BMA as "militant" in yesterday's interview in Newsnight was a surrealist high point, so far beyond parody as to need a whole new art form to ridicule. And yet some organisms still parrot out this Daily Mail/Daily Express/Rupert Murdoch drivel, supporting Hunt's moronic stand.
Hunt wearing an NHS lapel badge actually made me sick up in my mouth.
Good luck getting urgent hospital treatment free at the point of delivery if/when Hunt gets his way. We are assuming of course that Hunt actually wants a mass emigration of expensively domestically trained and qualified physicians voting with their feet and taking their labour and skills to Wales, Scotland, Ulster and further afield where fair remuneration and working conditions await. Relatives of my in-laws took their expensively domestically funded medical skills half way around the world for the want of sane working conditions and none of their family blames them at all for doing so. 20 years later they can still barely comprehend the difference in their quality of life in Perth (Aus) than they had here, taking into account how much more expensive everything is there than here they are no better off financially. Hunt has dug his heals in and they have called his bluff - we ordinary Englishmen lose. He keeps banging on about the "BMA refuses to negotiate" without explaining where he has 'negotiated'. I don't suppose he has to cos he'll get sacked over this (with the sickening severance package all failed cabinet bootlickers get) only to be appointed to another brown nose inner sanctum position after a derisory interval.
For the avoidance of doubt I voted Labour once, in a safe labour seat, as protest against the BNP's then policy of standing candidates against non-white incumbent MP's but I've never voted for anybody or anything faintly socialist before or since. Hunt and his tory cronies are wrong on this, as wrong as wrong can be. I'll take the word of qualified physicians over gravy train supping tory party reptiles every time. Even if the junior doctors have us over a barrel so effing what, we have no alternative. We'll find out in due course who ultimately is pulling Hunt's strings when they take over the privatised healthcare provision and he takes up his non-exec directorship.
The current bun leader contends that the junior doctors, led by militants are striking for more pay. Surely even the most knuckle dragging white van man might see through that.
The current bun leader contends that the junior doctors, led by militants are striking for more pay. Surely even the most knuckle dragging white van man might see through that.
I know, a 16.5% payrise and less hours.. AND they are paid the same rate to work on a Saturday!!!!
It's Dickensian.
That's a very selective view of the new contract, and why should anyone have to work weekends at the same rate as a normal work day? I certainly don't (I refuse to work Saturday unless it's time and a half and Sunday unless it's double time). There was a time when every working man, woman and child was expected to work seven days a week with no holidays. Fortunately, thanks largely to the activities of the Trades Union, we got to the point where workers got Saturday and Sunday off or at least got renumerated with extra pay for having to work those days. Now that is being eroded more and more.
I know, a 16.5% payrise and less hours.. AND they are paid the same rate to work on a Saturday!!!!
It's Dickensian.
That's a very selective view of the new contract, and why should anyone have to work weekends at the same rate as a normal work day? I certainly don't (I refuse to work Saturday unless it's time and a half and Sunday unless it's double time). There was a time when every working man, woman and child was expected to work seven days a week with no holidays. Fortunately, thanks largely to the activities of the Trades Union, we got to the point where workers got Saturday and Sunday off or at least got renumerated with extra pay for having to work those days. Now that is being eroded more and more.
Spot on. I don't get overtime, nor do I get asked to work weekends. My old head of department encouraged staff to work only their contracted hours and if you had to work more on a regular basis, either you wasn't working effectively or more resources/staff were needed.
Or as like to say, if you can't do it in 5 I ain't doing it in 7.
That'll be the George that is out-doing Gordon with his latest wheeze of demanding that local government pension funds invest at least 25% of their £210BN funds in government infrastructure programmes.
Sod whether they're viable and sod the fact that these are funded pensions!
So you would rather give your money to a fund manager who takes a nice cut while it loses 10% being speculated on market movements.
Why didn't local government pension managers provide the capital for PFI projects (infrastructure investment) thats giving the institutional investors a guaranteed return above inflation for the next 49 years.
Instead of the taxpayer funding profits of the banks and construction companies they would fund your pension, reduce NHS costs and reduce government borrowing.
I guess Osborne is doing it because people who think like you are in charge of managing your pension fund and can't work it out for themselves.
Private pension funds can't find enough infrastructure projects to invest in so would be happy if the dummies running LGPS continue to do so with their heads up their arse and your support.
The difference is that fund managers have a duty to try and get a return on your pension fund. It doesn't always work, but they have the flexibility to move funds and do what they can to get the best returns. That may sometimes be in government infrastructure programmes, but they aren't all money spinners are they @Dippenhall ?
You are now asking them to bet on what will work from the planning stage, with no guarantee and you are forcing them to hold 25% of the fund - approx £52BN - in these projects.
It isn't the government's money and it shouldn't be possible for them to demand you invest in what they want. They're giving no guaranteed returns on this.
@TelMc32 You obviously don't know what an infrastructure investment is. Its a government or local authority backed project. It's a not-for-profit project that benefits the nation that needs large capital expenditure. Pension funds sit on £billions of assets making profits for institutions instead of helping build the economy through infrastructure support. What would you rather have, a share of every £5 paid by motorists using the Dartford Crossing or being mugged by a fund manager. If you need a school built why don't you use the pension fund to provide the money and get a return that's fair for the pension fund and the taxpayer. Instead we ask a private contractor to do it and he does a deal with an investment bank for a tasty back hander that the bank finances from inflated interest charges included in the rip off repayment terms.
Fund managers have a duty have a 50:50 chance of beating the market. Pension funds have a duty to pay incomes over the next 100 years and security of income is more important than risking capital losses for short term gains. Infrastructure investments provide guaranteed revenue over a long period backed by the State, with no risk of capital loss or default. The bet is taken by the State (on behalf of taxpayers) not the pension fund. If you supplied money for a windfarm that was closed down because it was not economic you still get the interest on the loan that funded it and the tax payer picks up the loss, not you.
It's true pension funds don't invest in real assets that have development potential, they don't have the balls and leave it to the rich bastards to invest in real assets to develop and sell for a profit, which is how they became rich bastards. No rich bastard ever got rich giving his money to a fund manager. He knows a fund investment is just trying to sweat a mature corporate asset that's already been squeezed to death ( wages, taxes, bonuses, director salaries, fiddled income figures etc). The manager gets paid for moving it around between different corporates, not making you a profit. They would go out of business if they were paid by results.
Anyway, what are you worried about, poor investment returns simply means Local Government puts in more contributions and raises it from tax or is baled out by the State. Very little of your pension fund is "your" money anyway, it's tax payers money.
Actually, I do. My point was that this is being imposed and that isn't right. It is not the governments/our money. It is a personally funded pension scheme and it is being compulsorily hijacked to a huge level.
There are good parts. Consolidating into 6 wealth funds should save millions in fees.
I agree that funds could get more involved in long term infrastructure investments. They have the potential to provide the long term returns that a pension fund wants. Raising fund involvement in infrastructure from the current sub-1% level could be a beneficial game changer for hospitals, schools, roads, rail. They would accept long term, but lower returns than the "rich bastards" who want high, quick returns and screw you Joe Public.
You mention the Dartford Bridge and how good it would be if they had invested there and were getting a share of the £5 crossing fee. The problem there is that the original plan was for the bridge to be free after it was paid for. Would that have been a good long-term investment at the time? No.
Would backing Boris's cable car..definitely not! There are plenty of government "vanity" projects and LGP shouldn't be forced to invest in these just to "reach the 25% level".
I think it should be encouraged, but not imposed and not saying that a minimum of 25% is required. I am not a local government worker, so this doesn't affect me, but will he stop here?
We detract from the thread...Hunt is another politician trying to impose his will, rather than do his job and represent the people, who happen to include junior doctors, and work through the concerns. His position is untenable and he will never have the confidence of the health service. He needs to go and someone with fresh eyes and a willingness to work together brought in.
It is interesting is it not that Hunt is Virginia Bottomley's cousin. She was the member for South West Surrey, he is now the member for South West Surrey, she was Minister for Health, he is Minister for health. Hunt was at Oxford with Cameron and Boris. Like others he has also been shown up for overclaiming Parliamentary expenses.
I wouldn't describe Jeremy Hunt as the Conservatives answer to Dennis Skinner.
That'll be the George that is out-doing Gordon with his latest wheeze of demanding that local government pension funds invest at least 25% of their £210BN funds in government infrastructure programmes.
Sod whether they're viable and sod the fact that these are funded pensions!
So you would rather give your money to a fund manager who takes a nice cut while it loses 10% being speculated on market movements.
Why didn't local government pension managers provide the capital for PFI projects (infrastructure investment) thats giving the institutional investors a guaranteed return above inflation for the next 49 years.
Instead of the taxpayer funding profits of the banks and construction companies they would fund your pension, reduce NHS costs and reduce government borrowing.
I guess Osborne is doing it because people who think like you are in charge of managing your pension fund and can't work it out for themselves.
Private pension funds can't find enough infrastructure projects to invest in so would be happy if the dummies running LGPS continue to do so with their heads up their arse and your support.
The difference is that fund managers have a duty to try and get a return on your pension fund. It doesn't always work, but they have the flexibility to move funds and do what they can to get the best returns. That may sometimes be in government infrastructure programmes, but they aren't all money spinners are they @Dippenhall ?
You are now asking them to bet on what will work from the planning stage, with no guarantee and you are forcing them to hold 25% of the fund - approx £52BN - in these projects.
It isn't the government's money and it shouldn't be possible for them to demand you invest in what they want. They're giving no guaranteed returns on this.
@TelMc32 You obviously don't know what an infrastructure investment is. Its a government or local authority backed project. It's a not-for-profit project that benefits the nation that needs large capital expenditure. Pension funds sit on £billions of assets making profits for institutions instead of helping build the economy through infrastructure support. What would you rather have, a share of every £5 paid by motorists using the Dartford Crossing or being mugged by a fund manager. If you need a school built why don't you use the pension fund to provide the money and get a return that's fair for the pension fund and the taxpayer. Instead we ask a private contractor to do it and he does a deal with an investment bank for a tasty back hander that the bank finances from inflated interest charges included in the rip off repayment terms.
Fund managers have a duty have a 50:50 chance of beating the market. Pension funds have a duty to pay incomes over the next 100 years and security of income is more important than risking capital losses for short term gains. Infrastructure investments provide guaranteed revenue over a long period backed by the State, with no risk of capital loss or default. The bet is taken by the State (on behalf of taxpayers) not the pension fund. If you supplied money for a windfarm that was closed down because it was not economic you still get the interest on the loan that funded it and the tax payer picks up the loss, not you.
It's true pension funds don't invest in real assets that have development potential, they don't have the balls and leave it to the rich bastards to invest in real assets to develop and sell for a profit, which is how they became rich bastards. No rich bastard ever got rich giving his money to a fund manager. He knows a fund investment is just trying to sweat a mature corporate asset that's already been squeezed to death ( wages, taxes, bonuses, director salaries, fiddled income figures etc). The manager gets paid for moving it around between different corporates, not making you a profit. They would go out of business if they were paid by results.
Anyway, what are you worried about, poor investment returns simply means Local Government puts in more contributions and raises it from tax or is baled out by the State. Very little of your pension fund is "your" money anyway, it's tax payers money.
We detract from the thread...Hunt is another politician trying to impose his will, rather than do his job and represent the people, who happen to include junior doctors, and work through the concerns. His position is untenable and he will never have the confidence of the health service. He needs to go and someone with fresh eyes and a willingness to work together brought in.
These reforms were not mentioned in their manifesto?
Too many people, not enough resources, leading to extreme apathy and demoralisation amongst staff, it's what happens when you overpopulate a country, and was the reason why my wife and I quit the NHS. Long gone are the days when a GP knew his patients personally, and their medical history, without even having to refer to their notes. Or could spend 1/2 an hour with them getting to the bottom of their problems. Gone are the days when you could make, and get, an appointment the same day, or get a scan the same or next day. All these things are not only possible where I live, but my wife is experiencing them every day with my mother in law who we brought over to live with us last year. Contrast this to my poor Mum in Romford who has been unable to swallow any solid food for four years. Who couldn't even get to see her consultant in that time. Who was repeatedly sent round and round in circles, having needless investigations and getting absolutely no where. Who repeatedly got referred to the wrong dept, wasting yet another six months each time. Who's notes got lost numerous times. All this for the sake of an half an hour, fairly minor operation which she finally had done last Monday. How did she finally manage to get it done? Because I came back and went ballistic at her Consultant, at the appointments dept and at her GP. If you're over 80 in the Romford area and don't have an advocate who knows what they are talking about, good luck, oh and avoid the Queens hospital at all costs.
The plan is to render the NHS unmanageable and allow standards to slide so much that the public perception of the NHS changes from what it is now to a situation where people shrug and say it's not working. Guess what comes next. Fat juicy profits from selling off the good bits and leaving the non profit making bits to the taxpayer.
Where did you see this 'plan'? Would like to read that document.
I think we all agree that this has been handled badly by the government and imposing a contract on someone is not very good practice but surely I should expect to have the same survival rate if something happens to me on a Sunday as happens on a Tuesday?
SHG , I know you work for the nhs , quick question about their hours although not sure if you would know the answer. Workingthem 90 odd hours a week is that just for reasons of cover as not enough of them or is that if they were reduced to a normal 35-45 hour week it would take too long to actually train them to required standard?
While not condoning strikes of any kind,can we really blame the nhs strikers when everyday we see pictures of grinning nhs bosses supping champagne,earning 6 figure salaries, and in general are useless.Eliminate these parasites,stop treating foreigners for free,stop paying over the odds for drugs,stop employing outside consultants(medway spent 1.5m}stop paying ridiculous sums for agency staff,stop cocking up operations avoiding vast compensation ,stop calling staff names and then firing them once again avoiding vast sums in fees and compo,and we might just have the money to pay the front liners what they are worth.
Comments
According to The Guardian, after five years at medical school, junior doctors do a minimum of four years' further training to qualify as a GP, or flog their guts out for eight years to be a hospital consultant.
So, after, say, 13 years they could become a consultant.
In this regard, I suppose they are, oddly, quite like footballers. Except footballers start their training at a much earlier age but unless they are precocious, still take around 13 years to reach - if they are very lucky and/or gifted - the holy grail of top-tier salaries and all the benefits that go with it.
So, back to doctors, the holy grail I suppose is becoming a consultant by their early 30s which will give them a six figure salary, the potential to earn huge overtime payments, a non-contributory pension based on the large salary, and perhaps the opportunity of extremely lucrative private work on the side.
They will be made for life, just like footballers.
They are of course well aware of the risks. They may not make the grade (again like footballers but probably less likely). But in the meantime it is their choice to accept eight years of dross on fairly feeble pay. It's a gamble of course but the rewards can be great. Despite the bluster, how many of them are really going to throw all that potential away and resign?
As a side issue, as I understand it, junior doctors have the option of renting accommodation, which is managed on behalf of their trust and is in close proximity to their hospital. I've taken a random example of Poole Hospital which makes rooms available to doctors for £405.11 per month, inclusive of internet and all utilities. Much is made of the long hours junior doctors work but if you factor in the fact that they don't have the long commutes many other workers have, their hours are actually pretty similar to those of many wage slaves. The difference being in my case, I did it for 36 years not eight.
So, taking all things into account, I think they are not so badly off.
Fund managers
have a dutyhave a 50:50 chance of beating the market. Pension funds have a duty to pay incomes over the next 100 years and security of income is more important than risking capital losses for short term gains. Infrastructure investments provide guaranteed revenue over a long period backed by the State, with no risk of capital loss or default. The bet is taken by the State (on behalf of taxpayers) not the pension fund. If you supplied money for a windfarm that was closed down because it was not economic you still get the interest on the loan that funded it and the tax payer picks up the loss, not you.It's true pension funds don't invest in real assets that have development potential, they don't have the balls and leave it to the rich bastards to invest in real assets to develop and sell for a profit, which is how they became rich bastards. No rich bastard ever got rich giving his money to a fund manager. He knows a fund investment is just trying to sweat a mature corporate asset that's already been squeezed to death ( wages, taxes, bonuses, director salaries, fiddled income figures etc). The manager gets paid for moving it around between different corporates, not making you a profit. They would go out of business if they were paid by results.
Anyway, what are you worried about, poor investment returns simply means Local Government puts in more contributions and raises it from tax or is baled out by the State. Very little of your pension fund is "your" money anyway, it's tax payers money.
Most people, (I'm guessing), work contracted hours of between 35 to 45 ish but we have a strange mind set where doctors have to work, with the new contract, no more than 72!
That cant be right, I wonder what they work in the rest of the EU where they have maximum work hours by law. Maybe they have more staff.
Charles Falconer. Nice little earner as a cabinet minister for Blair's old flatmate. Peerage to follow of course.
Derry Irvine. Head of Chambers when Blair was a pupil barrister. Given a nice little number as Lord Chancellor when Blair elected. Didn't need a peerage - already had one.
Fast forward to the present:
Dianne Abbot: Corbyn's old lover. Totally inept but still gets a shadow cabinet role.
John McDonnell: Managed Corbyn's Labour leadership bid, given a role as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer as a reward.
Andrew Fisher: co-founded the Left Economics Advisory Panel (LEAP), a body chaired by John McDonnell. Given a job as Head of Policy by Corbyn who has every confidence in him (despite his temporary ban from the Labour party for campaigning for another party [Class War] in the last election).
Jobs for the boys and looking after friends eh?
the hacking scandal has been put on the back burner though another Levison enquiry hasn't been axed, just postponed and that the first enquiry's recommendations have not been met by the Cameron. instead Rebbeca Brooks is back at the helm of the publishing side and Cameron has still been meeting with her and Murdoch after the election.
then we have the information provided on the link above that shows Hunt was compromised while being culture secretary and is also compromised now he's health secretary.
Alongside that adding doctors at weekend will make no difference unless you add more nurses, radiologists, midwives etc etc etc. Alongside that if you do not make sure the outside agencies of the NHS (care homes, district nurses) are able to cover those periods as well - which they are not, you will not clear any additional beds anyway.
So my question is simple if the government are saying junior doctors are doing less work for more money why are the doctors against it? Is the truth perhaps that this is not really what is being offered.
Can I put a few things to bed here. Consultants do not all have six figure salaries. Consultants do not get overtime. Consultants do not have a NON contributory pension. Consultants are on call 24/7. Consultants Have huge responsibility. Literally life and death. The level of CPD never diminishes. I know a lot of consultants and believe me a bigger bunch of very very very clever clogs you couldn't find.
As for junior doctors. Your analogy with professional footballers is risible. You are talking about extremely hard working highly educated, dedicated working in an occupation where huge responsibility is expected despite currently not blinking an eyelid if they work 91 hours a week. Starting salary of £26k.
Yes it is a career that will eventually give a good standard of living but the personal cost can be very high. Let's compare that to lawyers and bankers. Both will earn far more and both will never have responsibility for life and death.
Many of the junior doctors I know are married with children. Do you really think that they live in poxy hospital rooms with a stroll to work.
You really need to pull your head out of your arse and blink. Feel free to flag this comment if you wish. I think (?) I can afford it.
And yet some organisms still parrot out this Daily Mail/Daily Express/Rupert Murdoch drivel, supporting Hunt's moronic stand.
Hunt wearing an NHS lapel badge actually made me sick up in my mouth.
Good luck getting urgent hospital treatment free at the point of delivery if/when Hunt gets his way. We are assuming of course that Hunt actually wants a mass emigration of expensively domestically trained and qualified physicians voting with their feet and taking their labour and skills to Wales, Scotland, Ulster and further afield where fair remuneration and working conditions await. Relatives of my in-laws took their expensively domestically funded medical skills half way around the world for the want of sane working conditions and none of their family blames them at all for doing so. 20 years later they can still barely comprehend the difference in their quality of life in Perth (Aus) than they had here, taking into account how much more expensive everything is there than here they are no better off financially.
Hunt has dug his heals in and they have called his bluff - we ordinary Englishmen lose. He keeps banging on about the "BMA refuses to negotiate" without explaining where he has 'negotiated'. I don't suppose he has to cos he'll get sacked over this (with the sickening severance package all failed cabinet bootlickers get) only to be appointed to another brown nose inner sanctum position after a derisory interval.
For the avoidance of doubt I voted Labour once, in a safe labour seat, as protest against the BNP's then policy of standing candidates against non-white incumbent MP's but I've never voted for anybody or anything faintly socialist before or since. Hunt and his tory cronies are wrong on this, as wrong as wrong can be. I'll take the word of qualified physicians over gravy train supping tory party reptiles every time. Even if the junior doctors have us over a barrel so effing what, we have no alternative. We'll find out in due course who ultimately is pulling Hunt's strings when they take over the privatised healthcare provision and he takes up his non-exec directorship.
He didn't sound at all apologetic. Almost makes me think he did it on purpose.
My old head of department encouraged staff to work only their contracted hours and if you had to work more on a regular basis, either you wasn't working effectively or more resources/staff were needed.
Or as like to say, if you can't do it in 5 I ain't doing it in 7.
There are good parts. Consolidating into 6 wealth funds should save millions in fees.
I agree that funds could get more involved in long term infrastructure investments. They have the potential to provide the long term returns that a pension fund wants. Raising fund involvement in infrastructure from the current sub-1% level could be a beneficial game changer for hospitals, schools, roads, rail. They would accept long term, but lower returns than the "rich bastards" who want high, quick returns and screw you Joe Public.
You mention the Dartford Bridge and how good it would be if they had invested there and were getting a share of the £5 crossing fee. The problem there is that the original plan was for the bridge to be free after it was paid for. Would that have been a good long-term investment at the time? No.
Would backing Boris's cable car..definitely not! There are plenty of government "vanity" projects and LGP shouldn't be forced to invest in these just to "reach the 25% level".
I think it should be encouraged, but not imposed and not saying that a minimum of 25% is required. I am not a local government worker, so this doesn't affect me, but will he stop here?
We detract from the thread...Hunt is another politician trying to impose his will, rather than do his job and represent the people, who happen to include junior doctors, and work through the concerns. His position is untenable and he will never have the confidence of the health service. He needs to go and someone with fresh eyes and a willingness to work together brought in.
I wouldn't describe Jeremy Hunt as the Conservatives answer to Dennis Skinner.
I have something to say about this topic
Guardianistas
Cockwombles of the highest order
Margaret Thatcher
Would like to read that document.
I think we all agree that this has been handled badly by the government and imposing a contract on someone is not very good practice but surely I should expect to have the same survival rate if something happens to me on a Sunday as happens on a Tuesday?