If you're not worried you should be !!

First topic message reminder :

The Government have drawn up a Trade union bill which will mean workers have to opt in rather than opt out to help fund the Labour party.....It's estimated funding will drop from 7.9 million a year to 1.9 million........Considering Labour gets most of it's funding from the Unions it will severely screw the main opposition over (Though they are doing a good job by themselves it has to be said)........added to the fact the Government are busily drawing up boundary changes that will make it nigh impossible for Labour to win a General election anytime soon.......Added to the fact 7/8 of the media are Tory backers including lately it seems the BBC....

They are busy lulling the sleepwalking Brits into a one party state.....

Looking at what has happened over the last five or so years........

* Legal aid cut....So only those that can afford it can seek redress.....

* Public sector pay rises capped at 1%...

* Child poverty increasing.....

* Food bank use gone through the roof..

* Benefits cut for the needy..

* Attempted hammering of low paid workers with tax credit culls...

* Tax breaks for the richest...

* Tribunals only if you've worked for a company two years or more....Yep If you're screwed over by the boss it's tough diddie..

* NHS is up the khyber......

If you don't like the way this Country is heading you have a problem.....

I'm lucky enough to be doing okay !!..........But if you aren't.....

If you're not worried you should be !!!!...

Ent wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It still points to the fact that, if the strike has sooooooo little impact, the neccessity of those junior doctors is undermined.  

Look at the difference when there's a tube driver strike.

My actual inference, is that the Drs are important and seriously needed and that the impact of their strike (especially the BMA mooted total down-tools) is greater than admitted to.

The tube drivers unions or tfl make no provisions for a strike, the NHS does as the impact would have slightly dofferent consequences as opposed to being late or not getting to work.

Juniors are in training, they are needed to be the consultants of the future. They provide a lot of service in the NHS compared to other health care systems.

The strikes have impact, just not on safety for the acutely unwell.

Good well articulated response, thank you.

Am still marginally in support of the JDs, hopefully this all gets resolved sensibly (less brutal effective pay changes but keeping the need for a more 24/7 NHS).

Can there be a resolution when Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron are threatening the nuclear option already.

They're basically saying "take the offer or we'll force it on you".

Pr4wn wrote:Can there be a resolution when Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron are threatening the nuclear option already.

They're basically saying "take the offer or we'll force it on you".

Really? Not sure I've heard either stress this. It's true, but it's generally been media that've pointed this out.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Can there be a resolution when Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron are threatening the nuclear option already.

They're basically saying "take the offer or we'll force it on you".

Really? Not sure I've heard either stress this. It's true, but it's generally been media that've pointed this out.

Indeed.

BMA has suspended the next strike, I understand, which I find very unlikely if Hunt & DC were indeed pressing the 'nuclear button'.

Hunt has definitely mentioned it and DC re-enforced it on Today on Monday.

Neither have said they are doing though, have they?

Nor have the BMA suggested such.

No, I never said they had. They've both threatened it, though.

But by threatening the nuclear option, the talks are a bit of a farce.

Not really.

Nice argument, well put.

Suggesting the imposition of the nuclear option is draconian. As I said above, it's basically "take what we're giving you, or else".

Except they haven't.

It is an option. It is now as it was 6 months ago 6 years ago etc etc. Ergo remains irrelevant until actually actioned or told it will be, which is hasn't.

From the Guardian:

"Speaking to the BBC, the health secretary said it was legal and still possible for the controversial new contract to be imposed without the agreement of the BMA. “I’d rather it didn’t come to that. I’d rather we agreed,” Hunt said. But, he added: “We have said that if we can’t solve this problem, we have to deliver our manifesto and as a last resort we would move to the nuclear option … But we really hope this doesn’t happen.”"

From the Telegraph:


"Asked if he would "impose" the new proposals, the Health Secretary said he may well take the "nuclear option" as a "last resort", as further discussions between the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Government continue today.


Mr Hunt told the BBC: "We have said that if we can’t solve this problem, we have to deliver our manifesto and as a last resort we would move to the nuclear option. But we really hope this doesn’t happen.” "

So basically he just reiterated a matter of fact that was already known. Reiterated and then repeatedly said it wasn't to be used and an amicable settlement was the desired option.

But still clearly threatened the nuclear option, as I stated.

Go on, keep trying.

Pr4wn wrote:Nice argument, well put.

Suggesting the imposition of the nuclear option is draconian. As I said above, it's basically "take what we're giving you, or else".

No. They're the employer, essentially. I'm not sure that pointing out conditions can be imposed is anything other than that, pointing it out. Any employer would do that in discussions like this when the other side are striking/threatening to. Come on.

Pr4wn wrote:...From the Telegraph:

"Asked if he would "impose" the new proposals, the Health Secretary said he may well take the "nuclear option" as a "last resort", as further discussions between the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Government continue today....

[My emphasis above] So, asked by an interviewer if imposition of terms was a possibility, he answered the question. I suppose he could have said, effectively, "No comment", but you aren't seriously suggesting that was going to happen are you?

The BMA are taking every opportunity to do their own PR and get their own position, as they see it, out there. I'm not sure what the problem is with Hunt reminding them that terms can be imposed. Maybe it'll focus people's minds somewhat?

Because reminding people you're trying to negotiate with that, if they don't play by the rules, you can just shoehorn in the contract anyway is destructive to any negotiation. To me, it just shows he's not taking these negotiations seriously. He knows what he wants and he's going to get it.

This all appears to be part of the larger Tory plan to privatise even more of the NHS.

What absolute drivel.