Doctors are repeating the mistakes of the miners strikes - Telegraph

I think this is mostly about pay and conditions, albeit with a degree of exaggeration and misdirection from both sides. I do also suspect that the leading ranks of the BMA (as well as some doctors) are quite enjoying a good old scrap with a Conservative government, and would cynically use the argument of "patient safety" if it furthered their ends.

I would be interested to know where you see room for compromise in these negotiations? For example; could these contracts be endured in the short term, provided that there was a commitment to recruit more medical staff (be they doctors, nurses, patient rehab e.t.c.)? Or is the removal of pay protection the ultimate sticking point in your view?

I don't understand though, I thought that pay was hardly going to be affected? I also don't understand the effort to conflate the two sides as having been acting similarly.

I'm also not sure I particularly understand this drive recently, both by the government and wings of the right wing media, especially the times, to paint doctors as some kind of Marxist militants? Does anybody actually believe this? That doctors are all left wing hippies and/ or marxists who are agitating for a fight with the government? Because doctors and the bma have such a history of industrial action and fighting with governments? Doctors are generally quite representative of the general population. There are greens, labour, Lib dems and tories. Even a few ukipers too. There are a LOT of tories amongst doctors.

I'm a doctor. Patient safety is already compromised currently. I've been at trusts where the accident and emergency middle grades (registrars) are not atls trained. They are all locums. That is disastrous. They cannot full the posts. Every single hospital around the country, especially dghs struggle terribly to fill on call rotas, even with locums. Basildon dgh, who have only just come out of special measures, have had to reduce the total number of doctors working on nights and increase all of their normal staffs night shifts because they cannot fill the rota. My current hospital has 4 gaps in the elderly care sho rota next rotation (as well as multiple registrar gaps). This is getting worse and worse and worse. We've been trying the best we can to cope but for so many reasons, this will make it worse. That I can assure you 100%. People can blithely accuse doctors as they want. They can think they're militant, lazy, greedy, whatever. That is the reality however and this contract will only make things worse.

And those who think it will be easy to just replace them with foreign doctors.... I would ask if it was that easy, why, with the severe problems we already have in staffing, this hasn't already happened? And why indeed many of the foreign doctors who come... End up leaving again?

I'm not sure tbh. I think from the very beginning, the contract was worse and always likely to be worse than it already is. The doctors contract and general condition have endured a good 10-20 years of getting worse, in terms of training, pay, perks etc. And I don't believe anything the tories have to say about the NHS after the past couple of years, so not really sure what they could say to convince me (or the majority of doctors) that this commitment would be honoured?

I'll be completely honest, I feel my (admittedly very long) post answered a lot of this and it's a bit difficult to take a bit out of the post without the rest but I'll answer anyway. We already have a 24/7 NHS. All junior doctors work nights and weekends. 99.7% of consultants do weekends. If that's what hunt us referring to, he's a lying idiot.
If he wants an elective weekend service, he will need to increase the funding of the NHS by 40% and increase the number of doctors and other staff by at least 20-30%.

I've already said for me, this isn't really about pay. It is about conditions, feeling appreciated for the job I do rather than attacked and ensuring patient safety.

Would I like more pay? Yes. Am I going to fight for that? No, I'm not that bothered by it. Am I going to be happy working more unsociable hours for less pay? Again, no I'm not. I'm not going to work this rota, it's not a rota compatible with a decent family life. Some doctors may agree to work more unsociable hours for more money, which is fair enough. I am more interested in doing a job where I actually occasionally get to see my family though. I don't think that's unreasonable and I don't think most people would agree to work longer, more unsociable hours, see their family less and for a severe payout, especially as, as I said in my previous post, the pay in real terms for Junior doctors has already decreased a lot.

The removal of pay protection is the cherry on the cake. You're focusing on pay and especially pay protection again when I've articulated that pay is not the primary issue here for many doctors.

They're also not going to get more nurses. Hospitals are again already struggling to fill nursing posts. The removal of nursing bursaries by the government is going to make it even harder to recruit home grown nurses to do the degree and the foreign recruitment is not enough for demand.

Again, I'll repeat the point that I and others such as cheesy have been making on this thread. I think most of the staff in the NHS are conscientious. Most of us work hard and have the best interests of our patients at heart. Most of us will stay late (and often do) to look after patients. You can believe that or think we're mostly lefty, money grabbing louts. Either way, we are all normal people. And the crux of that is that we function like normal people. Make the conditions unattractive, the contract unattractive, the pay unattractive, demonise us in the media and you may find that hospitals struggle to fill posts in both doctor and nursing rotas (which happens on a pretty much daily basis in most hospitals around the hospital and despite the incredibly high percentage of foreign doctors and nurses).

Eventually, you may have to ask yourself whether to help retention and recruitment, it may be a good idea to improve rather than worsen conditions?
 
If Hunt had agreed to pay premiums for Saturdays (wasn't that the sticking point ?) would the dispute have been settled?
 
Excellent point.

It's really bizarre when you think about it. The ideology of a party like the Tories is (to an extent) that it's completely normal for people to want to earn more, since in a capitalistic society earning more and more money is generally an indicator of success. But when doctors do it...suddenly they're being unreasonable, because it's inconvenient for the Tories to pay doctors more.

As @SteveJ said, the Tories are kind of treating doctors like they're both vocational workers, expected to simply be happy to work for the NHS because it's something they love doing, while also treating them like standard workers in that they're tinkering with their wages/hours etc.
 
Well, let's face it, if unions donated to the Tories instead of Labour then this dispute wouldn't have even happened.
 
Killing people, assuming they are irreplaceable, and being on the wrong side of history.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...eating-the-mistakes-of-the-miners-strike.html
The big thing about this is that back in the day Maggie could buy coal from Poland cheaper than we could dig it out of the ground. What are we going to do if they break Doctors travel to Poland for treatment? Yes I know they mention using automated machines but as someone who programs and maintains robots I wouldn't want one operating on me without professional backup.
 
NHS criticised for rise in number of managers

30th March 2016

The number of managers employed by the NHS has risen by more than six percent in the last year, outstripping the overall rise in the health service workforce of under two percent.

Doctors leaders expressed "surprise" at the increasing number of managers and senior managers at a financially difficult time for the health service.

The latest NHS workforce figures from the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) show that between 2014 and 2015 the number of managers increased by 6.5% to 20,300.

The number of senior managers increased by 5.3% to 9,260.

Dr Mark Porter, chair of council at the British Medical Association, said: "Many NHS managers do a good job for the NHS in difficult circumstances, but it is surprising that when many areas of the NHS are suffering from unfilled posts and staff shortages, the number of managers is beginning to increase again."

The figures also show that the number of full time equivalent (FTE) staff in the health service in England has increased by 1.8% since 2014.

There were 1.05 million FTE staff working for NHS hospital and community health services in England in 2015, compared to 1.03 million in 2014.

Dr Porter added: "The reported rise in staffing levels of barely 2% is insignificant given what the NHS needs when it is facing rapidly increasing patient demand, especially from an ageing population with complex health needs that requires expanding support in the community and in hospitals.

"Many bodies, including the Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Midwives, have reported under staffing in their specialities that is already having a damaging impact on patient care.

"These figures show little evidence of the huge expansion in the workforce that is needed to deliver the Government's current uncosted and vague plan to increase the NHS's capacity through its so-called seven-day service proposal."

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "There are 5,000 fewer managers in the NHS since 2010, saving the taxpayer £300 million.

"At the same time, there are 10,600 more nurses on our wards, 50,000 nurses currently in training and our changes to student funding will create up to 10,000 more training places by the end of this parliament."

PA

£30 billion - the predicted budget shortfall facing the health service by 2020

£10 billion - extra pledged by George Osborne to help plug the gap, £6 billion of which will be delivered in 2016, particularly to mental health services

£22 billion - health managers expected to make efficiency savings of this amount or more by 2020

£15 billion - unnamed NHS officials say this is a more likely savings target by 2020

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/nhs-criticised-for-rise-in-number-of-managers/



Figures which can't but reflect poorly upon Jeremy Hunt and his department, particularly so in light of this ongoing dispute.
 
Last edited:
995323_10156819433760457_3241512347274237724_n.jpg


The new contract came out today.

I've written some very long posts in this thread so I'll keep this one short.

This is an excerpt from the contract. Just let that sink in for a second.
 
995323_10156819433760457_3241512347274237724_n.jpg

The new contract came out today.

I've written some very long posts in this thread so I'll keep this one short.

This is an excerpt from the contract. Just let that sink in for a second.
"Whilst this may disadvantage lone parents (who are disproportionately female)... this may actually benefit other women, for example where individuals have partners".

I guess that's all ok then. :lol:
 
I fail to understand why the Tories have picked this fight.

Their NHS reforms, you can almost always argue either way. But what is the point in this. What is the point in forcing doctors to take a pay cut. Long term, short term. Why.
 
Portuguese NHS is probably one of the few things that our country excels at, it's something we don't feel behind at all in relation to the richer countries in Europe. It has a very sturdy structure, incredible coverage, and some indicators like child death rate would make more developed nations embarrassed. In vaccination, we're arguably top of the world in terms of coverage. It's a health system that not only has most of the top-of-the-notch stuff, but also excels at primary care, probably the best area to excel at in terms of cost-effectiveness for the whole system.

Though I don't know it first-hand, most of what I read about the NHS makes me think it's seen in the UK a bit like in Portugal. A cornerstone of society, available to all, with quality. I believe health of the people in general translates to health of the society and is a public good - not just for infectious diseases - so am a staunch defender of public health systems.

Why the Tory government seems to be picking on the doctors? Well, we've seen that around here with our Tory equivalents as well. My suspicion - and it's a mere suspicion, but shared by many, and with pieces of empirical evidence scattered around - is that, like in plenty of other areas, they're not too fond of the public good. Financing it requires a baseline level of high taxation that they will never be able to get rid of. But possibly more important than that, it's the amount of potential business that a public health sector "steals" from private enterprise. There is immense money to be made in countries like Portugal or the UK. They just need to slowly dismantle the NHS. Slowly, because if done quickly people won't accept it.

Specifically in Portugal, as I don't know the UK reality, the amount of private hospitals that have been created around here, and the massive increase in revenues they had, despite we being in economic stagnation for over a decade, is scary. Most of them are owned or operated by very few huge groups. Most doctors with their small private offices lost business though, few people can still afford the luxury of a private consultation so most opt for the public sector. So how can the bigger hospitals thrive, with much more complex and expensive services? Partly, is the public workers special health-plan that gives them that huge slice of business. I find it a bit silly, in a country that prides itself in the NHS, that the government assigns its employees a plan based on deals with private institutions. The other part, is the commitment of the state to provide excellent healthcare to anyone, even when the NHS doesn't have the means. This means, for example, that if the waiting list for a given surgery exceeds "x" months (depending on the kind of procedure), they will give you a blank cheque to have the procedure in private institutions and pay for it. With a NHS that is degrading quickly, this is more and more of the money going directly from the taxpayer to the private providers. It also slowly changes the perception of people of the NHS as being as extreme quality, and will push (the ones who can afford it) people into private plans and hence more private business.

Whether this is a deliberate and masterminded plan of destroying the NHS, or just a "natural" result of small ideological steps by right-wing governments, the truth is that the result is pretty favourable for the types of interests tory-like governments typically defend, so it's not surprising that they do this.
 
Last edited:
End result a couple of decades down-the-line will be a residual and terrible NHS that will serve the poor, whilst the well-off and better will all be served by private healthcare. It's dire :(
 
End result a couple of decades down-the-line will be a residual and terrible NHS that will serve the poor, whilst the well-off and better will all be served by private healthcare. It's dire :(
That could well be the end game. The minimum level of care possible for the majority, to reduce the cost for the minority to as little as possible.
 
If voters want a better NHS they must be prepared to do two things which they are likely not very keen on: get fit, and pay more in taxes.

Th attempted introduction of these new contracts has been flawed from the start, that goes without saying, however the NHS would be even more poorly financed had Labour won the election last May. Ironically, it was the Lib Dems who produced the most respectable proposals on healthcare, with fewer gimmicks and ambiguity when compared to the main two parties (even UKIP committed a specific amount toward social care).
 
If voters want a better NHS they must be prepared to do two things which they are likely not very keen on: get fit, and pay more in taxes.

Th attempted introduction of these new contracts has been flawed from the start, that goes without saying, however the NHS would be even more poorly financed had Labour won the election last May. Ironically, it was the Lib Dems who produced the most respectable proposals on healthcare, with fewer gimmicks and ambiguity when compared to the main two parties (even UKIP committed a specific amount toward social care).

Yep. The percent of GDP spent on the NHS isn't that high in comparison to other European countries.

The flagging economic productivity of the U.K. is an issue here as well. Even if we spent the same percentage of GDP as France, Germany, Netherlands (or even the USA which spends a far higher % on public healthcare than we do, albeit presumably less efficiently) we would still lag behind in spend per capita.

I would trust the NHS in Labour's hands though. I don't have that trust at the moment.
 
Another petition here. Signed quite a few today, ever since I came across them.

Consider a vote of No Confidence in Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121152
What a crock. I don't think the student who started that understands the workings of government. We democratically elected them in and all that. Will be interesting to see if Hunt loses his seat the next election though.
 
Yep. The percent of GDP spent on the NHS isn't that high in comparison to other European countries.

The flagging economic productivity of the U.K. is an issue here as well. Even if we spent the same percentage of GDP as France, Germany, Netherlands (or even the USA which spends a far higher % on public healthcare than we do, albeit presumably less efficiently) we would still lag behind in spend per capita.

I would trust the NHS in Labour's hands though. I don't have that trust at the moment.
Successive governments have wasted billions with failed policies. Would you trust Labour to find the funding for the wads it would chuck at the problem though?
Nick's right. We're a nation of fat, ageing bastards and have to take some responsibility. The retirement age has had to rise, healthcare is understandably under scrutiny.
 
If voters want a better NHS they must be prepared to do two things which they are likely not very keen on: get fit, and pay more in taxes.

Th attempted introduction of these new contracts has been flawed from the start, that goes without saying, however the NHS would be even more poorly financed had Labour won the election last May. Ironically, it was the Lib Dems who produced the most respectable proposals on healthcare, with fewer gimmicks and ambiguity when compared to the main two parties (even UKIP committed a specific amount toward social care).

We already had a sensational NHS. It wasn't perfect but then again, no healthcare system is.

What is happening now is that the NHS is becoming worse.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/03/08/...nt-massacred-nhs-just-two-years-image-tweets/

I think I already shared this in this thread but those are shocking statistics. We are not simply haemorrhaging money into the NHS, we don't particularly overspend as a percentage of our GDP compared to most other similar nations.

In fact:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator...api_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc

We spend less than the US, Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Canada, Dermark, Japan, Greece, New Zealand, Sweden, Portugal, Brazil, Norway, Australia and Finland on healthcare as a percentage of our GDP (as well as, shamefully, many many other countries).

http://juniordoctorblog.com/2016/01/05/its-the-spin-that-wins/

I actually believe that our percentage has gone down since then, sliding us further down the table.

Despite this, our outcomes as a healthcare service compare very favourably to others worldwide.



I'm not particularly political for any specific party (though I personally am left leaning I guess) but I don't really see how you can say the Tories have funded the NHS better than Labour would have (who themselves have messed up various bits of the NHS).

I don't think the Tories care one jot for the long term future of the NHS.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/08/this-nhs-crisis-is-not-economic-its-political

Another article on the funding of the NHS.
 
What a crock. I don't think the student who started that understands the workings of government. We democratically elected them in and all that. Will be interesting to see if Hunt loses his seat the next election though.

Firstly, how do you know the person who started the petition is a student? Is that a way to try to make the person who started it appear like an inexperienced, idealistic buffoon?

Secondly, he is not exactly calling for armed uprising against the Conservative government is he?

Thirdly, we did not elect Hunt to the current post, nor I think did most people elect the Conservatives with the aim of doing what they are.

And finally, we do not operate a 5 year carte blanche dictatorshop with elections at the end of it.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-leaked-report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Messenger

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...cretary-doctor?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Messenger

Another couple of articles. I apolgosie for a series of long, probably boring and maybe preachy sounding posts.

I just really do genuinely believe we are seeing a real falling apart of the thing that I think we should be most proud of as British people and the public either aren't aware or don't want to know. It makes me seriously sad.
 
"Whilst this may disadvantage lone parents (who are disproportionately female)... this may actually benefit other women, for example where individuals have partners".

I guess that's all ok then. :lol:

Discrimination is actually mentioned in the contract? Cray cray.

Its appalling isn't it? To actually write that in the contract? The mind boggles.
 
Portuguese NHS is probably one of the few things that our country excels at, it's something we don't feel behind at all in relation to the richer countries in Europe. It has a very sturdy structure, incredible coverage, and some indicators like child death rate would make more developed nations embarrassed. In vaccination, we're arguably top of the world in terms of coverage. It's a health system that not only has most of the top-of-the-notch stuff, but also excels at primary care, probably the best area to excel at in terms of cost-effectiveness for the whole system.

Though I don't know it first-hand, most of what I read about the NHS makes me think it's seen in the UK a bit like in Portugal. A cornerstone of society, available to all, with quality. I believe health of the people in general translates to health of the society and is a public good - not just for infectious diseases - so am a staunch defender of public health systems.

Why the Tory government seems to be picking on the doctors? Well, we've seen that around here with our Tory equivalents as well. My suspicion - and it's a mere suspicion, but shared by many, and with pieces of empirical evidence scattered around - is that, like in plenty of other areas, they're not too fond of the public good. Financing it requires a baseline level of high taxation that they will never be able to get rid of. But possibly more important than that, it's the amount of potential business that a public health sector "steals" from private enterprise. There is immense money to be made in countries like Portugal or the UK. They just need to slowly dismantle the NHS. Slowly, because if done quickly people won't accept it.

Specifically in Portugal, as I don't know the UK reality, the amount of private hospitals that have been created around here, and the massive increase in revenues they had, despite we being in economic stagnation for over a decade, is scary. Most of them are owned or operated by very few huge groups. Most doctors with their small private offices lost business though, few people can still afford the luxury of a private consultation so most opt for the public sector. So how can the bigger hospitals thrive, with much more complex and expensive services? Partly, is the public workers special health-plan that gives them that huge slice of business. I find it a bit silly, in a country that prides itself in the NHS, that the government assigns its employees a plan based on deals with private institutions. The other part, is the commitment of the state to provide excellent healthcare to anyone, even when the NHS doesn't have the means. This means, for example, that if the waiting list for a given surgery exceeds "x" months (depending on the kind of procedure), they will give you a blank cheque to have the procedure in private institutions and pay for it. With a NHS that is degrading quickly, this is more and more of the money going directly from the taxpayer to the private providers. It also slowly changes the perception of people of the NHS as being as extreme quality, and will push (the ones who can afford it) people into private plans and hence more private business.

Whether this is a deliberate and masterminded plan of destroying the NHS, or just a "natural" result of small ideological steps by right-wing governments, the truth is that the result is pretty favourable for the types of interests tory-like governments typically defend, so it's not surprising that they do this.

Great post Arruda and completely agree. They've already privatised a lot of services without the public being aware at all. Often with poor outcomes:

http://www.somersetcountygazette.co...osting_taxpayers_tens_of_thousands_of_pounds/
 
I would trust the NHS in Labour's hands though. I don't have that trust at the moment.

How much of that reaction is an emotional one though, or something borne out of the party's role in the NHS' founding?

Labour threw a lot of money at healthcare over thirteen years, but how much of it was spent well? When they came to power my local area had two struggling hospitals and two hard-pressed A&E units; when they left it still had two struggling hospitals, but one one A&E centre. Then there were the large scale projects involving an increasingly burdensome PFI, a cost we are felling to this day. It remained a system of great contrasts: i remember back in 2001 or so that i had reason to be referred for an MRI, and a procedure which might have taken 20-30minse elsewhere, saw me entombed for closer to 90.
 
Its appalling isn't it? To actually write that in the contract? The mind boggles.
Surely that in itself gives you justifiable reasons for rejection does it not? (Plus that sentence is far too long and needs rewriting in plain, straightforward English before there is any agreement. Gibberish like that allows them to much room for manoeuvre in the future.)
 
Last edited:
We already had a sensational NHS. It wasn't perfect but then again, no healthcare system is.

What we had was a postcode lottery, a health system saddled with PFI, a botched computerisation and its ensuing cost overruns, as well as mention multiple scandals (from Mid Staffs to maternity care generally).

Rightly, health funding was increased, but Labour wasted billions of taxpayers money and failed patients into the bargain. So we swap one form incompetence for another.


I'm not particularly political for any specific party (though I personally am left leaning I guess) but I don't really see how you can say the Tories have funded the NHS better than Labour would have.

What were the respective parties' pledges when voters walked tot he ballot box on the 7th of May last year?


Great post Arruda and completely agree. They've already privatised a lot of services without the public being aware at all. Often with poor outcomes:

http://www.somersetcountygazette.co...osting_taxpayers_tens_of_thousands_of_pounds/

Perhaps you can elaborate further as to who "they" are? I collect that you are accusing central government, yet it would appear that the hospital itself was responsible for instigating the move.
 
Last edited:
If you are worried about a post code lottery moving decision making as to what treatments are funded to a local level will guarantee that happens
 
Labour being shit at running the NHS and the Tories being even worse (albeit cheaper) is not a reason to give up on improving the NHS. It's a reason to hold all the right wing nutters we've had in charge for the last 20+ years to account and vote for someone else.

Nihilism is not the way to run a successful country.
 
Firstly, how do you know the person who started the petition is a student? Is that a way to try to make the person who started it appear like an inexperienced, idealistic buffoon?

Secondly, he is not exactly calling for armed uprising against the Conservative government is he?

Thirdly, we did not elect Hunt to the current post, nor I think did most people elect the Conservatives with the aim of doing what they are.

And finally, we do not operate a 5 year carte blanche dictatorshop with elections at the end of it.
Fai enough it's trying to draw attention that is concerning many, but the majority of England vote Tory. Concerns me that given the rabid bias in the left and right wing press, a lot are clearly 'signing' it ideologically against the Tories, not because they understand the pros and cons of the proposals.
 
The crock is Hunt...he'll go the same way as my nightmare Osborne.
I guess we all remember what the poll tax did to Thatcher, salmonella to Eggwina and Railtrack to Stephen Byers etc...
 
Labour being shit at running the NHS and the Tories being even worse (albeit cheaper) is not a reason to give up on improving the NHS. It's a reason to hold all the right wing nutters we've had in charge for the last 20+ years to account and vote for someone else.

Nihilism is not the way to run a successful country.

Very true. The fact that Labour would've probably been very shit at running the NHS doesn't change my opinion of Hunt and the Tories current manipulation one bit.
 
we need a revolution over there. burn the right wingers on a bonfire.

It's not that they're right wing - it's that they're mindlessly pro-American, pro-privatisation and militaristic / nationalistic. And I strongly suspect most of them don't even know why they're like that, they're just remarkably stupid and bad at analysing the world.

Take Osborne, I'm all for running a country without a deficit, I think anyone who genuinely believes that the world economy will keep on growing forever and we should all just constantly borrow money, is nuts. However, austerity doesn't mean that you have to blindly take decisions you think Thatcher might have liked without looking at the facts. One thing Thatcher was, that these feckwits are very much not, was a scientist (albeit a fecking mad one in her later years). Things like denationalising a failing railway was the only solution she could see to the horrendous politicisation of the railway's management - it might not have been the best system but it was the best one she could see at the time.

Osborne on the other hand has cut the budgets for such things as education & research, renewable energy, social care, while heavily subsidising declining industries such as oil and (controversially considering I work in it!) the automotive sector. He's also keen on selling off public assets at below market value, capitulating to the demands of the same financial institutions who ran riot pre-financial crisis, and buddying up to much more ruthless and competent régimes abroad e.g. China who will happily shaft him at the first opportunity. This will all inevitably result in a failing economy, it's pretty bloody obvious!

So he's basically just flailing around in the dark hoping that the kinds of things his parents might have done in the same situation will magically work out this time around, without actually understanding any of the consequences and how the world is a bit different now.

This was actually something mentioned by the chairman of Shell UK recently at the IMechE, that he was worried about how little understanding there was in the government of science, industry and economics. He said basic concepts such as that power plants could take more than a couple of years to build depending on the technology, are met with completely blank looks. When you look at Parliament, out of 650 or so MPs, I think there's some ludicrously small number (perhaps 10 or 20?) who have a science degree!

How can you hope to understand a rapidly changing economy and society, support high tech products and industries and generally just adapt to the world if you've all come from the same educational, and normally social, background?

I genuinely don't believe most of them are bad people. I do believe most of them are spectacularly foolish.
 
it was tongue in cheek.

but honestly. People still have not figured out what privatisation means??

FFS. it mean maximising profitability. Do you think that is going to improve health care?

The solution is investing in health care specific funds. Not a blanket tax. That is how they get away saying it is inefficient.

But if you don't vote these people out, well you deserve what you get.
 
Not sure what is being privatised here?
 
Healthcare shouldn't be about right and left, or even public and private for that matter, or not as people tend to frame the discussion. I expect that at least some of you will have had a reasonable amount of experience of private hospitals here in the UK, do you not think that there are aspects which the NHS could benefit from implementing?