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?
Perhaps if a general election were fought on a single issue, that might be a valid comment.
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?
The rostering of junior doctors means that they have to work long and exhausting hours to cover all the hours that need to be covered by having too few doctors. The contract hours currently at a maximum of 91 hours per week are even to the most right wing views ludicrous. I doubt many get close to the 91 hours but many are close to or over 72 which is the new proposed maximum hours a junior doctor can work. I doubt many other occupations are expected to work consistently more than 60 (?) hours per week whilst maintaining a normal life and making life and death decisions. It has nothing to do with training per se. Although junior doctors numbers include new and relatively newly qualified the vast majority of junior doctors will be vastly experienced and been qualified many years. There are only so many consultant posts.
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?
Perhaps if a general election were fought on a single issue, that might be a valid comment.
So they were meantioned? And voted for? Damn democracy, not representing the people.
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
Ten years out of date with this view. Consultants are already very controlled by protocol and management. The days of them doing pretty much exactly what they wanted are long gone. I'm not saying that that's necessarily wrong.
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
Ten years out of date with this view. Consultants are already very controlled by protocol and management. The days of them doing pretty much exactly what they wanted are long gone. I'm not saying that that's necessarily wrong.
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
A year or so ago when the 'weekend' issue first arose a young doctor was interviewed on the radio. He generally agreed about the reduced availability of consultants and added that it was particularly senior consultants and this applied to Friday's as well. He explained the Friday issue was due to them wanting to move their day off (4 day working week) from, say, Tuesday (which they might be allowed as a junior) to Friday as they worked their way up the pecking order. He said this was only fair as many consultants have young families and they wanted a long weekend ! Bless !
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
Ten years out of date with this view. Consultants are already very controlled by protocol and management. The days of them doing pretty much exactly what they wanted are long gone. I'm not saying that that's necessarily wrong.
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
A year or so ago when the 'weekend' issue first arose a young doctor was interviewed on the radio. He generally agreed about the reduced availability of consultants and added that it was particularly senior consultants and this applied to Friday's as well. He explained the Friday issue was due to them wanting to move their day off (4 day working week) from, say, Tuesday (which they might be allowed as a junior) to Friday as they worked their way up the pecking order. He said this was only fair as many consultants have young families and they wanted a long weekend ! Bless !
Ten years out of date ? I don't think so.
If didn't say there wasn't reduced consultant availability at weekends. There is. They work Monday to Friday. I don't know any that work four day weeks unless of course they are part time. At weekends because of there not being enough consultants to cover seven day seamless service they work an on call rota. It's not ideal but it covers emergencies. It will of course depend on the discipline they specialise in. It is now common for elective surgery to happen at weekends. Emergency always has.
In reality what does this seven day service mean ? Do you suppose it means holding clinics on Saturdays and Sunday's ? I work in radiology. Routine CT and MR exams are now carried out on Saturdays. Would you expect a full complement of every NHS "job" to be exactly the same 24/7 ? I don't know what Hunt means. It's quite possible to achieve. Just needs more staff.
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
Ten years out of date with this view. Consultants are already very controlled by protocol and management. The days of them doing pretty much exactly what they wanted are long gone. I'm not saying that that's necessarily wrong.
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
A year or so ago when the 'weekend' issue first arose a young doctor was interviewed on the radio. He generally agreed about the reduced availability of consultants and added that it was particularly senior consultants and this applied to Friday's as well. He explained the Friday issue was due to them wanting to move their day off (4 day working week) from, say, Tuesday (which they might be allowed as a junior) to Friday as they worked their way up the pecking order. He said this was only fair as many consultants have young families and they wanted a long weekend ! Bless !
Ten years out of date ? I don't think so.
And the "qualification" of this one doctor as spokesman for a whole industry was?
Not necessarily saying he was wrong, but you have already made your mind up about it, so anyone who agrees with your opinion is going to convince you more than, say, a fellow poster in the same industry with a take on it that is different to yours...
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
Ten years out of date with this view. Consultants are already very controlled by protocol and management. The days of them doing pretty much exactly what they wanted are long gone. I'm not saying that that's necessarily wrong.
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
A year or so ago when the 'weekend' issue first arose a young doctor was interviewed on the radio. He generally agreed about the reduced availability of consultants and added that it was particularly senior consultants and this applied to Friday's as well. He explained the Friday issue was due to them wanting to move their day off (4 day working week) from, say, Tuesday (which they might be allowed as a junior) to Friday as they worked their way up the pecking order. He said this was only fair as many consultants have young families and they wanted a long weekend ! Bless !
Ten years out of date ? I don't think so.
And the "qualification" of this one doctor as spokesman for a whole industry was?
Not necessarily saying he was wrong, but you have already made your mind up about it, so anyone who agrees with your opinion is going to convince you more than, say, a fellow poster in the same industry with a take on it that is different to yours...
I'm afraid you are the one who has already made up their mind.
I didn't say the doctor was a spokesperson. However, he did come across very well and considered. It was what he said at the end, perhaps not realising what he was saying, that was quite worrying.
I said it was when the death rate at weekends first came to light, the morning when the report was published I think, so I didn't have an opinion on it then.
I thought junior doctors were just those in training. So anyone below a consultant is junior doctor?
Yes, the term Junior or Trainee Consultant would get a smaller sympathy vote, though.
Strange comment. It's like saying every policeman is a trainee chief constable. Unbelievable Jeff
I am sure you will agree it's a pretty stupid title to give to such a wide range of experience. Junior would normally be applied to the very early years of experience at work, perhaps two or three. Calling them junior consultants would be equally misleading for those early years but more appropriate after that.
This junior doctor/career dogmatic politician en passe is indeed a tricky thing to unravel. I was at my local hospital recently to collect an elderly relative after his long awaited, quality of life transforming, minor surgical procedure. The poor old codger was lengthily delayed while his discharge paperwork was first found and then processed. I repaired to the onsite Starbucks for a beverage while I waited. While there I was scrolling through Google on my Apple iphone and looking up Take That(!) merch on Amazon (for my niece honest). It really is hard to think of ways in which the treasury could raise more taxes to better resource healthcare for our ageing population. It almost feels like answers should be staring us in the face, or at least obvious to the relevant officials in, say, 11 Downing St, cos our appointed ministers would naturally have me old uncle's best interests at heart, wouldn't they? The £6.80 for 65 minutes in the car park is a good start, mind.
I thought junior doctors were just those in training. So anyone below a consultant is junior doctor?
Yes, the term Junior or Trainee Consultant would get a smaller sympathy vote, though.
Strange comment. It's like saying every policeman is a trainee chief constable. Unbelievable Jeff
I am sure you will agree it's a pretty stupid title to give to such a wide range of experience. Junior would normally be applied to the very early years of experience at work, perhaps two or three. Calling them junior consultants would be equally misleading for those early years but more appropriate after that.
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
Ten years out of date with this view. Consultants are already very controlled by protocol and management. The days of them doing pretty much exactly what they wanted are long gone. I'm not saying that that's necessarily wrong.
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
A year or so ago when the 'weekend' issue first arose a young doctor was interviewed on the radio. He generally agreed about the reduced availability of consultants and added that it was particularly senior consultants and this applied to Friday's as well. He explained the Friday issue was due to them wanting to move their day off (4 day working week) from, say, Tuesday (which they might be allowed as a junior) to Friday as they worked their way up the pecking order. He said this was only fair as many consultants have young families and they wanted a long weekend ! Bless !
Ten years out of date ? I don't think so.
And the "qualification" of this one doctor as spokesman for a whole industry was?
Not necessarily saying he was wrong, but you have already made your mind up about it, so anyone who agrees with your opinion is going to convince you more than, say, a fellow poster in the same industry with a take on it that is different to yours...
I'm afraid you are the one who has already made up their mind.
I didn't say the doctor was a spokesperson. However, he did come across very well and considered. It was what he said at the end, perhaps not realising what he was saying, that was quite worrying.
I said it was when the death rate at weekends first came to light, the morning when the report was published I think, so I didn't have an opinion on it then.
You used his quote as if it were the ultimate opinion on the matter Hex, there was no "Not necessarily saying he was wrong" as I was swift to put in my response.
Random intervention ....... some years ago ( just prior to the Olympics) I had lunch with Jeremy Hunt. I found him to be reserved , quiet , steely ,friendly though non engaging. My work means I engage with politicians from all parties. My experience is that there in all parties there are politicians I can do business with. There are those who are great local champions for their constituencies. I work with an MP on the far right of the Conservative party and a Labour member on the left of the party. Both great local MP's. I also have experience of very weak MP's from both parties. I say this to contextualize JH from my perspective.
There are a group of MP's who are in parliament by dint of the backgrounds, their establishment credentials. JH is one of those. 4th cousin to the queen , can trace a line back to the throne ( albeit some time ago) . I resent more than anything this group. Their representation is largely based on privilege and advantage. They sustain their influence by unfairly stacking the deck so that they retain power.
Will he be proved right on current issues in the longer term - who knows. What appears to be un-challengeable, is that he has made a pigs ear of this deal , this negotiation , this reform.
I thought it was because Joe Public voted for them to be their MP.
Hardly likely to not be selected by his local Conservative party with his background and always in a safe Tory seat. Hardly living on the political edge.
I think the current dispute is mostly about the medical profession protecting it's controlling position than anything else. Consultants are effectively in control and they want to keep it that way. The BMA is the Consultant's union first and foremost and they are using junior doctors as cannon fodder to protect their working patterns - once the juniors work 7 days a week as a matter of course then consultants will be forced to follow.
Ten years out of date with this view. Consultants are already very controlled by protocol and management. The days of them doing pretty much exactly what they wanted are long gone. I'm not saying that that's necessarily wrong.
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
True regarding consultants to some extent, however many still seem to be able to "slip away" when more lucrative private work beacons. Also true to say that Junior doctors had it just as hard twenty years ago if not harder, for far less money, and far more responsibility as they were pretty much left to get on with it whilst their consultant was at home waiting by the phone at night and at weekends. What has changed now drastically is the sheer volume of patients. That results in doctors having to spend less time with each patient and more mistakes being made. But Junior doctors can be helped greatly by efficient nursing staff, sadly from my experience, this is where the system is failing dreadfully. Good surgery can be wasted by poor aftercare, wound management, checking drips are running, giving drugs in a timely manner etc. My mother experienced all this and more yet again last week for the umpteenth time in the last ten years. Fortunately a porter came to her rescue and refused to take her for a scan until her fresh wound was covered with a dressing. Some of the things I heard astounded me, such as them forgetting to give her pain killers post op. When it was pointed out the response was, "I'll do it when I come back from having my tea". One hour later, still no pain killers. I could go on and on, but no point, appalling nursing care.
They are literally carrying out the will of 24.4% of the people.
That's the 36.9% share of the vote on a 66.1% turnout.
Don't get me wrong. I understand what you are saying, but the electorate voted on a range of issues and not all who voted Conservative would have agreed with all of the policies. Likewise, some who didn't will approve of this.
Parroting that "it was in the manifesto" doesn't actually add anything to the discussion though.
Random intervention ....... some years ago ( just prior to the Olympics) I had lunch with Jeremy Hunt. I found him to be reserved , quiet , steely ,friendly though non engaging. My work means I engage with politicians from all parties. My experience is that there in all parties there are politicians I can do business with. There are those who are great local champions for their constituencies. I work with an MP on the far right of the Conservative party and a Labour member on the left of the party. Both great local MP's. I also have experience of very weak MP's from both parties. I say this to contextualize JH from my perspective.
There are a group of MP's who are in parliament by dint of the backgrounds, their establishment credentials. JH is one of those. 4th cousin to the queen , can trace a line back to the throne ( albeit some time ago) . I resent more than anything this group. Their representation is largely based on privilege and advantage. They sustain their influence by unfairly stacking the deck so that they retain power.
Will he be proved right on current issues in the longer term - who knows. What appears to be un-challengeable, is that he has made a pigs ear of this deal , this negotiation , this reform.
He can't be all bad he was instrumental in Waverley BC refunding me a contested parking ticket. He lives locally, seen him shopping with his kids in Sainsburys, meets local businesses and can't say he's a bad constituency MP. He set up his own business and made money, so let's slag him off as a toff whose only objective is to privatise the NHS and get a job with BUPA.
Like all public sector strikes, where they pretend it's about protecting the public, it's a strike about pay organised by their trade union providing all the necessary spin to obscure the fact.
I haven't heard anyone suggest JH is asking for more patients to be treated, or working more hours, just full services over seven days rather than five. Whether deaths are because of weekend rostering or not, it should be a seven day a week service without any difference in what services are available. Overtime opportunities being cut is the only issue that I can detect is causing an impasse.
Doctors deserve every respect for having to work their nuts off, but unless I am being completely misled by what I've heard said on both sides, the only doctors to lose out are those who volunteered to work their nuts off over the weekend for overtime who can't work their nuts off and earn as much during the week. They are not complaining about working their nuts off though, doctors accept it goes with the job, and hours continue to be restricted.
Why don't doctors just come out and admit why they are pissed off instead of all the bullshit. JH is criticised for failing to negotiate a deal without preventing the doctors being pissed off. Not sure how he could avoid it given the resistance to any change in the first place.
If the patients interests had been to the fore the doctors and their union would have long ago come out on strike in favour of a seven day a week fully operational service with more resources. Doctors have failed to put their interests secondary to the interests of the NHS in my view.
He can't be all bad he was instrumental in Waverley BC refunding me a contested parking ticket. He lives locally, seen him shopping with his kids in Sainsburys, meets local businesses and can't say he's a bad constituency MP. He set up his own business and made money, so let's slag him off as a toff whose only objective is to privatise the NHS and get a job with BUPA.
If you read the link that was provided earlier, the business he set up was one which was given a lucrative monopoly contract by his cousin, the former Health Secretary, Virginia Bottomley. Having quit politics she instead joined the British Council which, I'm sure purely coincidentally, decided that her cousin's company was the logical choice to supply the British Council. She's now a director of and lobbyist for BUPA. I wonder if she knows anyone who might be of use to a large supplier of health services?
Comments
I thought junior doctors were just those in training. So anyone below a consultant is junior doctor?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/14/junior-doctors-jeremy-hunt-conservatives-event-fareham
It's not as straightforward as some think. Spreading the same number of staff over seven days in a seamless NHS won't work. More doctors needed and other staff groups barely manage now.
Ten years out of date ? I don't think so.
In reality what does this seven day service mean ? Do you suppose it means holding clinics on Saturdays and Sunday's ? I work in radiology. Routine CT and MR exams are now carried out on Saturdays. Would you expect a full complement of every NHS "job" to be exactly the same 24/7 ? I don't know what Hunt means. It's quite possible to achieve. Just needs more staff.
Unbelievable Jeff
Not necessarily saying he was wrong, but you have already made your mind up about it, so anyone who agrees with your opinion is going to convince you more than, say, a fellow poster in the same industry with a take on it that is different to yours...
I didn't say the doctor was a spokesperson. However, he did come across very well and considered. It was what he said at the end, perhaps not realising what he was saying, that was quite worrying.
I said it was when the death rate at weekends first came to light, the morning when the report was published I think, so I didn't have an opinion on it then.
I was at my local hospital recently to collect an elderly relative after his long awaited, quality of life transforming, minor surgical procedure. The poor old codger was lengthily delayed while his discharge paperwork was first found and then processed. I repaired to the onsite Starbucks for a beverage while I waited. While there I was scrolling through Google on my Apple iphone and looking up Take That(!) merch on Amazon (for my niece honest). It really is hard to think of ways in which the treasury could raise more taxes to better resource healthcare for our ageing population. It almost feels like answers should be staring us in the face, or at least obvious to the relevant officials in, say, 11 Downing St, cos our appointed ministers would naturally have me old uncle's best interests at heart, wouldn't they? The £6.80 for 65 minutes in the car park is a good start, mind.
There are a group of MP's who are in parliament by dint of the backgrounds, their establishment credentials. JH is one of those. 4th cousin to the queen , can trace a line back to the throne ( albeit some time ago) . I resent more than anything this group. Their representation is largely based on privilege and advantage. They sustain their influence by unfairly stacking the deck so that they retain power.
Will he be proved right on current issues in the longer term - who knows. What appears to be un-challengeable, is that he has made a pigs ear of this deal , this negotiation , this reform.
Also true to say that Junior doctors had it just as hard twenty years ago if not harder, for far less money, and far more responsibility as they were pretty much left to get on with it whilst their consultant was at home waiting by the phone at night and at weekends.
What has changed now drastically is the sheer volume of patients. That results in doctors having to spend less time with each patient and more mistakes being made. But Junior doctors can be helped greatly by efficient nursing staff, sadly from my experience, this is where the system is failing dreadfully. Good surgery can be wasted by poor aftercare, wound management, checking drips are running, giving drugs in a timely manner etc. My mother experienced all this and more yet again last week for the umpteenth time in the last ten years. Fortunately a porter came to her rescue and refused to take her for a scan until her fresh wound was covered with a dressing. Some of the things I heard astounded me, such as them forgetting to give her pain killers post op. When it was pointed out the response was, "I'll do it when I come back from having my tea". One hour later, still no pain killers. I could go on and on, but no point, appalling nursing care.
They are literally carrying out the will of the people.
Don't get me wrong. I understand what you are saying, but the electorate voted on a range of issues and not all who voted Conservative would have agreed with all of the policies. Likewise, some who didn't will approve of this.
Parroting that "it was in the manifesto" doesn't actually add anything to the discussion though.
Like all public sector strikes, where they pretend it's about protecting the public, it's a strike about pay organised by their trade union providing all the necessary spin to obscure the fact.
I haven't heard anyone suggest JH is asking for more patients to be treated, or working more hours, just full services over seven days rather than five. Whether deaths are because of weekend rostering or not, it should be a seven day a week service without any difference in what services are available. Overtime opportunities being cut is the only issue that I can detect is causing an impasse.
Doctors deserve every respect for having to work their nuts off, but unless I am being completely misled by what I've heard said on both sides, the only doctors to lose out are those who volunteered to work their nuts off over the weekend for overtime who can't work their nuts off and earn as much during the week. They are not complaining about working their nuts off though, doctors accept it goes with the job, and hours continue to be restricted.
Why don't doctors just come out and admit why they are pissed off instead of all the bullshit. JH is criticised for failing to negotiate a deal without preventing the doctors being pissed off. Not sure how he could avoid it given the resistance to any change in the first place.
If the patients interests had been to the fore the doctors and their union would have long ago come out on strike in favour of a seven day a week fully operational service with more resources. Doctors have failed to put their interests secondary to the interests of the NHS in my view.