Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Well that's quite a strong statement from the junior doctors:

Junior doctors row: 98% vote in favour of strikes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34859860
Junior doctors in England have overwhelmingly voted in favour of going on strike in their dispute with ministers over a new contract.

Some 98% voted in favour of a full strike and 99% in favour of action just short of a full strike.

The first walk-out will start on 1 December with another two dates earmarked for later in the month.

The British Medical Association said it was "inevitable" disruption would be caused to patients.

The action is likely to lead to the cancelling and rescheduling of thousands of routine appointments, tests and operations with the NHS forced to prioritise emergency cases.

BMA leaders said they regretted this, but added ministers had left them no choice because the contract was "unsafe".

The union has asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) to get involved to offer independent arbitration - something the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which normally stays out of politics, has said it supports.

The dates for industrial action are:

  • 08:00 GMT 1 December to 08:00 GMT 2 December (junior doctors to staff emergency care)
  • 08:00 GMT to 17:00 8 December (full strike)
  • 08:00 GMT to 17:00 16 December (full strike)
The BMA balloted just over 37,700 members - over two-thirds of the workforce - and 76% took part in the ballot.
Click to expand...
 
I'm looking forward to having my nose amputated by HelfCare4U when I break my leg.
 
Cheesy said:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...orne-considers-axeing-student-nurse-bursaries

At a time when the NHS is already in a difficult situation. Are the Tories actively trying to destroy it?
Click to expand...

From the article:

Universities UK and the Council of Deans of Health, which speaks for university faculties in nursing and midwifery, have been pressing the Treasury to axe bursaries. They have argued that doing so could lead to an increase in the number of trainee nurses because the existing public funding of them puts an artificial cap on how many can be trained, because HEE commissions a set number of training places each year from British universities.

They claim that the huge demand to study nursing – there are between five and 10 applicants for each of the 20,000 places a year – means switching to student loans would not lead to a fall in trainees. “The overdemand for places is so great that [the Treasury thinks] it will be relatively easy to land,” said a source familiar with its thinking.

Universities have also complained that they lose money because the amount HEE pays them for each student nursing place is 8%-12% less than it costs them to provide courses, which run for much more of the year than most degree courses and so are more expensive to put on.

The Department of Health is thought to be relaxed about replacing bursaries with loans because it is concerned that too many publicly funded student nurses do not go on to enter the profession after graduating.

Dame Jessica Corner, chair of the Council of Deans of Health, last month criticised the existing system of funding nurses as “fragile and vulnerable” to pressures affecting the NHS. Nursing students also suffered “quite a lot of hardship” because the bursaries were “relatively underfunded” compared with undergraduates who relied on student loans, she said.

The RCN is also concerned that bursaries leave many student nurses with too little money to live on.
Click to expand...

So it may be that student nurses benefit from the change, whether such an outcome is the overriding motivation or not.

Considering the scandals that have blighted the NHS in recent decades, the reduction in inspections and quality control could prove to be the more newsworthy cut in the years ahead (seemingly the Guardian didn't think it headline material).


Which isn't to say that Osborne's cuts haven't lacked coherency in the past, a problem which is exemplified all too well by the following story IMO:

Royal Navy to get 450 more sailors in defence review

The Royal Navy will be given 450 more sailors in next week’s defence review, less than a quarter the number admirals had lobbied for, the Telegraph can disclose.

The Government’s six-month-long Strategic Defence and Security Review will include plans for the extra crew after the Navy said it needed hundreds more sailors to man its new aircraft carriers.

Defence chiefs and ministers are expected to continue haggling over the defence spending plans throughout the weekend, before the long-awaited review is unveiled by David Cameron on Monday afternoon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...o-get-450-more-sailors-in-defence-review.html
Click to expand...

And yet the Government has made 1,000s of trained personnel redundant since 2010.
 
Last edited:
Only one poll etc, but otherwise PANIC

 
rcoobc said:
Thats expected to save money though, funnily enough.
Click to expand...

Well, if you believe the government numbers, and they keep using that plane for at least 12 years without another refurbishment or upgrade, and the costs of charters don't drop over time.

And if you discount the future expenditure it's even longer before it pays for itself.
 
Is there a Pmq's tomorrow?
Will be interesting if there is as you would expect Syria and possibly Tridents cost / defence spending in general (after the defence review) to be two main topics but as Corbyn is perceived to be on the wrong side of the popular opinion on both it will be interesting to see if he uses it as an opportunity to get his opinion over (or at least try to) Or if he shys away and takes a different line.
As a side point I wonder if there will be heckles of socialism with an I pad?
 
Barring the unforeseeable, tomorrow is all about the Autumn Statement.

Osborne being the man he is, i'm not sure that there's a great deal of wriggle room open to him (beyond the leaks and rumours we've heard about). Bringing forward three-quarters of the £8bn increase to NHS funding will certainly grab some headlines, but as is all too often the case the devil will be in the detail. Many eyes shall be directed toward the Home Office, and whether recent IS attacks have have eased the cuts on the police. From a personal standpoint, i will be interested to see how the environment and science budgets fair, the latter having been ring-fenced these past five years.
 
Last edited:
I would guess so. And Nick, you can bet whatever Osborne does it will involve finding some extra money now at the cost of having to spend twice as much in future. That's what long term plan means to his lot.
 
Just looking at the BBC's examples of how the tax/benefit changes would affect families overall position if not changed in this review. Poor families hit hugely whilst those on above average incomes actually gain. Very reminiscent of poll tax for me, ostensibly about fairness, but in practice a major redistribution of wealth away from the poor. Osborne will change his plans today, but it's clear where his heart lies.
 
712 said:
Just looking at the BBC's examples of how the tax/benefit changes would affect families overall position if not changed in this review. Poor families hit hugely whilst those on above average incomes actually gain. Very reminiscent of poll tax for me, ostensibly about fairness, but in practice a major redistribution of wealth away from the poor. Osborne will change his plans today, but it's clear where his heart lies.
Click to expand...
This is what the country wants. But yeah I agree with you although I'm starting to lose any sympathy, I mean what do people expect from a party called The Conservatives, their called it for a reason.
 
Sweet Square said:
what do people expect from a party called The Conservatives, their called it for a reason.
Click to expand...

The Guardian said:
Osborne will announce big cuts in spending for the police, social care, local government, further education, renewable energy and welfare
Click to expand...

Same old, same old. And yet people voted for this appalling bunch.
 
So he's having to request permission to break his own artificial welfare cap meant to trap Labour :lol:

I'd be funny if it this didn't put May or Boris closer to power :nervous:
 
Cheesy said:
Tax credits being scrapped. Thank feck.
Click to expand...

Why should single/childless working people have to be taxed in order to subsidise families to such an extent?

People should pay for their own damn kids.
 
Osborne's been enjoying himself throughout this speech, he's even found time to lob a custard pie over Hadrian's Wall.
 
rednev said:
Why should single/childless working people have to be taxed in order to subsidise families to such an extent?

People should pay for their own damn kids.
Click to expand...

The cut would've been massive for many families - no doubt the living wage rise by 2020 would help to neuter it to an extent, but the loss of such a massive subsidy would've undoubtedly harmed many struggling families.

Of course, if the Tories wanted to take the approach that taxing single/childless working people to subsidise families is unfair then that's fine, but they lied about it considering it wasn't specifically alluded to in their mainfesto, and tried to deceive voters. Glad they've been put in their place over it.
 
Did anyone follow today's PMQs by the way? A reporter made reference to a question of Corbyn's about domestic violence, Cameron's response sounded rather...clumsy to say the least.
 
rednev said:
Why should single/childless working people have to be taxed in order to subsidise families to such an extent?

People should pay for their own damn kids.
Click to expand...

Do you think your taxes were going to go down to be fair?

We don't utilise many things we may taxes on, are you suggesting we scrap them all as it's unfair?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.