|
Post by number13 on Mar 5, 2021 15:19:43 GMT
And the same nursing union demands a 12.5% pay rise, which might somewhat dent their credibility. Why do that if not for pure politics, because it's obviously nothing to do with economic reality.
"A nurses' union has set up a £35m fund to prepare for possible strike action over a proposed 1% pay rise for NHS workers in England. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) called this "pitiful", arguing that its members should get 12.5% instead."
Ask for say, 3% or 4% as a negotiating starter and many people would feel very sympathetic I'm sure after 2020, even given the economic bill the country now has to pay. But 12.5% plus the threat of strikes looks like a trades-union playing politics with a Tory government, and not very well either.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 5, 2021 17:44:36 GMT
And the same nursing union demands a 12.5% pay rise, which might somewhat dent their credibility. Why do that if not for pure politics, because it's obviously nothing to do with economic reality.
"A nurses' union has set up a £35m fund to prepare for possible strike action over a proposed 1% pay rise for NHS workers in England. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) called this "pitiful", arguing that its members should get 12.5% instead."
Ask for say, 3% or 4% as a negotiating starter and many people would feel very sympathetic I'm sure after 2020, even given the economic bill the country now has to pay. But 12.5% plus the threat of strikes looks like a trades-union playing politics with a Tory government, and not very well either.
Perhaps under other circumstances, I might somewhat see that, but not this time. After everything NHS staff (and also frontline workers in general, if we want to go broader) have been put through in the last year (seeing death on a scale probably only equivalent to active servicemen in the Middle East; losing colleagues every day, having issues with resources; turning away patients for other vital treatments because covid was the priority; the tidal wave of constant abuse from scumbags and being accused of murder and cover ups; having their hospital be broken into by these loons who try to drag patients out of ICU beds), 12.5 seems like a bare minimum. And frankly, this is the tip of the iceberg: for months now, papers across the political spectrum have been running pieces about concerning numbers of medical staff who want to quit because they are psychologically broken by the pandemic.
If we're not creating incentives to stay and bettering their conditions, after everything, what does that really say about us?
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 5, 2021 18:19:09 GMT
But no money for nurses remember...
|
|
|
Post by Chakoteya on Mar 6, 2021 8:15:39 GMT
^^ Yeah, not even the 2% that was budgeted for originally...
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 6, 2021 10:52:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 6, 2021 13:40:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 6, 2021 15:40:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 11, 2021 8:23:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Mar 11, 2021 13:57:27 GMT
And the same nursing union demands a 12.5% pay rise, which might somewhat dent their credibility. Why do that if not for pure politics, because it's obviously nothing to do with economic reality.
"A nurses' union has set up a £35m fund to prepare for possible strike action over a proposed 1% pay rise for NHS workers in England. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) called this "pitiful", arguing that its members should get 12.5% instead."
Ask for say, 3% or 4% as a negotiating starter and many people would feel very sympathetic I'm sure after 2020, even given the economic bill the country now has to pay. But 12.5% plus the threat of strikes looks like a trades-union playing politics with a Tory government, and not very well either.
Perhaps under other circumstances, I might somewhat see that, but not this time. After everything NHS staff (and also frontline workers in general, if we want to go broader) have been put through in the last year (seeing death on a scale probably only equivalent to active servicemen in the Middle East; losing colleagues every day, having issues with resources; turning away patients for other vital treatments because covid was the priority; the tidal wave of constant abuse from scumbags and being accused of murder and cover ups; having their hospital be broken into by these loons who try to drag patients out of ICU beds), 12.5 seems like a bare minimum. And frankly, this is the tip of the iceberg: for months now, papers across the political spectrum have been running pieces about concerning numbers of medical staff who want to quit because they are psychologically broken by the pandemic.
If we're not creating incentives to stay and bettering their conditions, after everything, what does that really say about us? Sorry I missed your reply but I've read it now; better late than never. Fine, but (as I think your reply implies) it couldn't only be 12.5% for nurses, it would need to be for all NHS staff (at least). That would (if I have my sums right) cost £6-7bn per year for the NHS. For context, freezing the personal tax allowances for the next five years will bring in £8bn per year in five years time, not right away. Apply the 12.5% to all 'frontline workers' (does this mean only in the public sector?) and the cost will rise very considerably further. It can of course be met, it's simply a question of how much tax people are willing to pay to do so.
The solution for NHS funding I personally favour is to completely depoliticise funding via a specific NHS income tax to fully fund the service (including all pay.) I don't normally like the idea of hypothecated taxes but the NHS is unique both for what it does and what it could usefully spend.
To make it directly funded and the funding approved by the users of the service (all of us), different funding levels would be proposed by an expert panel and then the peoples' choice made by a sample referendum. The idea would be that a large enough sample of the population to be truly representative would be selected and a postal ballot take place, showing what each proposed tax level would fund and what it would cost per year for a variety of household income levels. (The sample would be smaller than one might assume, 10000 people nationally would probably be sufficient - opinion polls of that scale are generally considered to be accurate.) Naturally there would be an administrative cost for doing this, but as a fraction of the whole NHS budget it would be miniscule and once established, the process would probably be no slower than the current rounds of negotiations.
And it would remove politics from the NHS. It's true we live in a Parliamentary representative democracy and for most things that works quite well imo, but the NHS is different. Most people think of it as 'ours' in a way they don't for schools, roads, etc. even though they are just as much 'ours'. With direct democracy for the NHS, people would get, quite literally, the service they had paid for and everyone would know it. If funding was felt to be insufficient, go round the process again.
Our NHS, paid for by us (as now) and funded at a level set by us. How the total budget was used (including pay levels), would be strictly an internal matter for the medical and managerial staff to decide. No politicians.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 15, 2021 14:30:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 15, 2021 16:51:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Chakoteya on Mar 15, 2021 17:28:22 GMT
And then spare a thought for the police who will be expected to be able to interpret and enforce it if it passes in its present form... poor sods.
Fingers crossed their Lordships get involved and start creating havoc with amendments.
Mind you, I'm still not sure how the police can hope to protect all women walking home from work at night as some are demanding - there aren't enough of them to be able to escort each and every one of us.
Or do we just lock up all the men or cut their g**lies off in the hope of finally getting the few evil sexist wannabe r@pists off the streets?
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 15, 2021 18:46:54 GMT
And then spare a thought for the police who will be expected to be able to interpret and enforce it if it passes in its present form... poor sods.
Fingers crossed their Lordships get involved and start creating havoc with amendments.
Mind you, I'm still not sure how the police can hope to protect all women walking home from work at night as some are demanding - there aren't enough of them to be able to escort each and every one of us.
Or do we just lock up all the men or cut their g**lies off in the hope of finally getting the few evil sexist wannabe r@pists off the streets?
All I'll say is the police have made it a lot harder to sympathise after their massive cock up at the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 15, 2021 21:46:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 22, 2021 16:46:10 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on Mar 23, 2021 10:13:10 GMT
I am at a loss on this one. The reports accepts she did mislead Parliament but did not breach the ministerial code because it was a "genuine failure of recollection and was not deliberate"
I'm not her greatest fan nor the SNP's, so admittedly I am possibly biased and partisan, but short of James Hamilton being a mind reader or Nicola Sturgeon taking a lie detector test how on earth can Mr Hamilton possibly know whether or not it was a "genuine failure of recollection and was not deliberate"? He has simply accepted her (unverifiable) explanation at face value.
|
|
|
Post by Chakoteya on Mar 23, 2021 12:04:28 GMT
Job creation at Porton Down...? (or wherever we build them)
Or - we'll announce something crazy amazing, but don't worry, it'll just be another Boris Garden Bridge or Thames Estuary Airport - never actually happen. Changing the number on paper doesn't mean actual warheads being build.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 25, 2021 8:03:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 26, 2021 1:39:26 GMT
Yep, this guy has completely cracked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 2:03:10 GMT
Yep, this guy has completely cracked. The message about sliding into some very nasty political ideologies, mental health, job loss and the country being run by unelected officials is absolutely on point though. Not the sign of anyone "cracked". Yet it'll now just be the "Pint of milk" speech given the incredibly odd way he chose to frame his attacks. He's got exactly the right targets - and exactly the wrong weapons to fire with. On Wednesdays when I can see PMQs and then First Minister's Questions after it, it never fails to amaze me how much waffling BULLSH*T is used in Westminister. It makes it all the more impactful when someone does cut to the chase and be direct. Sadly we get too many "pints of milk" who seem to have good intentions but dress everything up in florid crap.
|
|