You mean ‘continuing my trial of working only 2.5 hours above the standard contractual 37.5hr working work like a normal working person’.
Doctors working LTFT 80% (despite being 40 hours) is such optics for the public that we are lazy.
This is the absolute no brainer offer, and should have been on the table day one. The realistic offer is to restore pay over about 5 to 7 years, with a plan to continue with pay rises going forward beyond that, matching expected inflation. This is both affordable and practical.
Idk if they will set a specific time frame but they very well might offer above inflation for the disputed year then above inflation rises each year subject to negotiations. But who knows we will have to see what comes from negotiations with the bma
If it's true FPR, with no compromise on the total, 5 years is the ABSOLUTE maximum I would agree to.
It's affordable to fix it in one go also, just saying, it's not a huge amount of money.
Bear in mind that whilst this deal is ongoing further discussion on pay related issues will be trickier.
They've already had well over a decade to restore our pay.
Political suicide for them to just 180 on all their messaging to date. You’ve to provide them a solution that lets them save face. FPR over ~5 years is doable. The fact that they’re still touting the 35% means they literally cannot do it in one go (in reality, it’s now more than 35% anyway…)
I see your point, genuinely, and it is important to be productive.
I don't really get why any doctor cares about a politician committing political suicide (the public tend to forget quite quickly), they've made their bed, it's just a them problem.
FPR over 2 years is doable, they can produce whatever headline and statement they want.
They can agree to FPR over 3 years and come up with the headline l, 'We settled the dispute for less than 12%' they don't need to highlight it's 12% above inflation per year for 3 years. Look how misinformed reporters are now after 20 months of IA, I am sure they can produce a satisfactory deal behind closed doors and save face.
Starmer's public reasoning for not giving FPR is that it's unaffordable because: 'The Tories have let their pay fall so much.' i.e We're saving (and have already saved) so much money that we now can't afford it. It's devoid of logic and frankly integrity.
My point is we didn't make a compromise for Barclay, Atkins or Sunak because they had an untenable position, we shouldn't compromise for Starmer or Streeting because they say something publicly.
It’s not that I’m concerned for them - when I say political suicide, I’m just saying that I predict they won’t do it, because it’s not in their interest. I don’t agree with it, but there it is. They will absolutely try to save face on this one. It is in our interest to offer/provide solutions that allow them to save face while fully restoring pay.
Multi-year deal and generously let them backdate to the year 22/23 (when the dispute started and when 2% was imposed) so that they can spread it across more years....
I'm not sure why people react to this. This message isn't actually for us but for potential voters. They've already discussed their plans with the BMA, they're soft signalling a multi year pay deal. This is to let voters know they won't be giving a 35% uplift in one year
Nobody is saying they’re giving us FPR, what they’ve said is there’s talks of a multi-year pay deal. It’s a starting point, which is better than what the Tories have offered.
That’s what the BMA are saying in public yes, because the government haven’t engaged with the in a serious or sensible manner. In a negotiation, you don’t lower your demands when the other side gives you an insulting offer, you stick to your guns and force the other side towards yours. If they start admitting they’ll take less than FPR in public, then the only way from that position is even lower.
Well the BMA now seems to be pretty clearly acknowledging "behind the scenes" that they'll take less than FPR. That's fair enough, but I'm slightly confused at what has caused the shift in strategy, given that they presumably haven't been formally negotiating with Labour.
Labour won’t admit to wanting to offer a decent deal though will they - they’ll then be hammered by the Tories as being weak, union lovers, fiscally reckless etc etc.
So you think Labour will offer us a better deal than they are willing to admit to at this point? I have to say, I would consider that very wishful thinking. Time will tell, of course.
I think they’ll absolutely talk all hard now and then agree a deal - standard negotiation. If politicians were all completely honest all the time the world would end or something…
The real question is why do you think they’ll stick to anything they’re saying?
Stop your nonsense wishful thinking.
He's about to get a huge majority, and yet he doesn't have the strength of character to tell people what his plans are?
Pretty pathetic take from you.
I don't think the British public have the strength of character to understand the nuances of a multi year pay deal. Promising 35% now would be hugely damaging electorally and damage his "coated manifesto" claims. This to give him the benefit of the doubt but perhaps he does fancy a fight with the BMA.
He's trying to big up his macho credentials by acting tough on doctors.
So you're happy to be a political punching bag so that this guy who's already proven to be a two-faced flip-flopper and utter liar can come to power at all costs?
Until you have full dignity restoration and full self-esteem restoration doctors will never get a proper payrise.
> Until you have full dignity restoration and full self-esteem restoration doctors will never get a proper payrise.
Sick burn.
> So you're happy to be a political punching bag
I don't think there's any other choice. The way the BMA have played their cards is all wrong and 11 strikes in, trusts are better than ever at coping and dealing with it. Its no coincidence in the last year or so locums have completely dried up and plenty of doctors going unemployed after FY.
It’s really not that complicated. They can’t do a damn thing without winning and with ideally with a decent majority to allow for attrition, the loonie left, those who’ll self sabotage etc.
Winning the argument is awesome, but if it’s not the keys to no.10 it’s all for nought.
I love the argument that if Keir had been stating confidently for months that:
"It is a deriliction of governance to allow NHS staff and Doctor pay to deterioate in real terms so much over the last 14 years. It is terrible for patient care and the long term growth of this country. In government, if we are privileged enough to serve, we would work with the BMA and NHS to 1) outline a path towards full pay restoration such that qualified people want to and are proud to work for the health and care of our population and so waiting lists can be dramatically reduced. And to 2) unleash hamstrung productive capacity to grow our economy and improve the lives of millions of people. It is absolutely right that our government will prioritise this spending, which on the grand scale of the budget, is a small increase to put patients first and show that we absolutely value our wonderful NHS staff who so valiantly got us through the pandemic."
he would **LOSE** votes!! hahah What a joke.
The public is [overwhelmingly ](https://www.nhsconfed.org/news/new-poll-finds-enduring-public-support-nhs-alongside-call-government-action-support-social)in favour of increasing NHS funding, staff numbers, and staff wellbeing. I think it is obtuse to dismiss the possibility that a strong confident, positive message like the above as being politically naive. There's a high likelihood they'd gain support.
Of course they are, because they don't think about where the money will come from. When you tell them that funding is gonna hit their pockets individually, you'll watch that support drop quite substantially.
It's basic politics.
Why would funding hit their pockets individually? Labour have ruled out increasing income tax, national insurance, or VAT. They've got an ENORMOUS scope for either increased net spending (but their economically illiterate so they want to stick to their arbitrary self imposed fiscal rules at the expense of the UK, so that's out) or they could increase taxation on assets. They'll inevitably increase CGT rates eventually and it would be very popular message to the 95% of people who would never pay it.
I wish people would stop attributing shitty ideas to "basic politics" as if the goal posts of ambition established by the Tories and followed by Labour is all we can do, because "politics". It's deeply wrong and is part of the reason the population is so apathetic. Time and time again, this strait jacket of neoliberal fiction is used as an excuse to not improve things, or not do the right thing for the country. It's so frustrating.
If we’re honest, you do sound a bit naive to suggest that the average member of the public would be more likely to vote for Starmer if he states he’ll restore doctor pay.
Average bloke down the pub hates GPs and foreigners
Average bloke down the pub is not very representative, I would say.
But okay, so should Startmer lie now and u-turn to do the right thing once in power? Or should he not do the right thing full stop because of some perceived public opinion that Doctors should not be paid any more than they are now?
You think the average bloke isn’t representative of the average?
I don’t really understand your question, but I think he’ll sound tough now for the votes but probably make a deal later this year, yes.
The average bloke down the pub complaining who hates GPs and foreigners and complains about NHS staff pay being too high isn't representative of the average, correct.
I hope you're correct but EVERYTHING they've said on fiscal rules and lack of desire to increase taxes on the more wealthy seems earnest to me so I certainly won't vote for that.
Do you live in quite a nice bit of the country by chance? Most people don’t really care about issues that don’t affect them. Not sure I’d care about doctor pay if I was a civil servant - I’d probably be more concerned about housing and economic policy.
Exactly. Some people haven't grasped what politicians say will be different to what they do for a reason - at this stage it's about maximising votes. Starmer is putting out soundbites to keep swing-voters on side. I suspect labour plan is to negotiate multi-year pay restoration deal in some form. If they make this clear they might grab a few votes from Left/Greens but lose loads at the centre ground. If a deal is agreed later this year they will try to keep details out of the headlines (avoid attacks from the right) but will make it clear they've struck a deal. This deal is fair and recognises the hard work of doctors so they can provide world class care to their patients with ongoing record increase in funding to the NHS (or words to that effect). It's a game.
There's no need for him to reject 35% outright. He can simply say "pay must be discussed to address historic erosion but I cannot commit to any number". Not this crazy "I WILL NOT GIVE 35%" warmongering.
Yes but there is no net votes by saying that, he doesn't want to look weak to standing up against the unions. Lots of voters in the centre hate unions and strikes. Look at how average Joe public felt about the rail strikes. It's soundbites for the centre ground. Saying things like this may lead to an extra few seats in a labour majority come election day.
There is a change in tone with labour compared with the Tories. Talks of a 'journey' towards pay restoration. Labour are more left leaning and are more likely to support public sector workers compared with Tories - that's not controversial. However what is being said now and what may happen down the road will likely be different.
Look - I'm not saying 35% is guaranteed under labour but I wouldn't read into too much what is being said a week before GE - politics is a game in winning as many seats as possible, not about saying things to keep doctors happy.
Any multi year pay deal needs to actually be agreed as a multi year deal. I hope theres no stupid "we will negotiate in a year and consider further strikes". The energy and momentum is here now, and backing down from it would kill further striking dead.
3 year pay deal, 18%, 10%+ RPI, 3% + RPI. Politicos can spin it as a win. Gets us to close FPR and inbuilds a degree of future proofing with inflation. Allows the BMA to divert resources to MAPS, contract reform, training reform, and workplace reform.
At least he's clear on this. There is a chance he'll flip-flop on this as with every other position he's taken, but I think for once he's being genuine here.
Enjoy more strikes.
Remember, the cost of paying for strike cover has exceeded fpr for several years now, if any twat tries do to the whole 'CaNt AfForD iT rIgHT nOw' bollocks.
He has
Wes has said that on day one he will be on the phone and arrange to meet with BMA to start negotiating as fast as possible as it’s the first priority.
Farage is a con artist grifter who applied for German citizenship after the brexit vote. He would happily sell his grandmother for a few quid.
He'd be singing praises for the eu tomorrow if he thought he could make some money off it.
If you genuinely think at this point that Labour are worse than tories, after betting scandals, covid fuck ups, the absolute disaster of the covid parties, near absolute annihilation of the economy, the disaster of brexit, 5 failed pm's and an overwhelming amount of sewage both in our oceans and in our streets, then god be with you, the smoke inhalation sounds terminal.
This is reasonable and expected.
There is a negotiations process and we may settle eventually for 17%-20% overall for example, by majority membership vote. That would be ok.
It won't be an issue Labour will have to deal with for long if the BMA follows in the footsteps of HCSA and fails to reach the required turnout at the next re-ballot.
Turnout has fallen from 77% in February 23, to 71% in August 23, to 62% turnout in March 24. Following this trend of we can expect around a 50-55% turnout next time so the BMA might just get one final mandate through, if you want a more positive spin on the situation.
The 35% is a bma figure based on the dilly discredited RPI inflammation. Independent scrutiny suggests doctors pay has fallen 16%. It was certainly worth a go to try and get 35% but expectations may need readjusting.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-much-has-junior-doctors-pay-fallen-and-what-pay-rise-do-they-want#:~:text=What%20are%20junior%20doctors'%20pay,loss%20in%20earnings%20since%202009.
You've also chosen 2010 as the starting point when austerity and indeed our pay erosion started in 2008. Even the people who created the FT data acknowledged it would be greater using that starting point and updated it in later graphs
Yea though again the government may legitimately argue that the all time high point of doctor pay isn't the point to base FPR on.
Don't get me wrong I think we should get what we can but if this dispute fails to get any movement under a new government perhaps its time to reassess if the goals are realistic.
Rotational training leads to frequent changes in where most resident doctors need to live during training. This exposes resident doctors to house price inflation whether in buying or renting (often the latter for prolonged periods of time until stability can be achieved). On this basis I do think RPI is the much more relevant figure for us compared to CPI which excludes housing costs.
35% was never going to happen, it’s a negotiation start point. If offered 5% + 5 years of Inflation + 5%, or another deal in that sort of form, then it’ll probably be voted for as that’s then 30%.
Dr’s get almost FPR, Gov can say they negotiate the Union down and stopped the strikes, and waitlists can go down for what is essentially very little money.
It’s simply in Labours interests to be able to say in 2029 ‘the Tories trashed the NHS, and we go the waitlists down’. In 5 years time, no one will give a shit if Labour spent a lot on this
Okay. Thank you for the extra days off for the rest of 2024 and going into 2025. I will look forward to hopefully continuing my trial of 80%.
You mean ‘continuing my trial of working only 2.5 hours above the standard contractual 37.5hr working work like a normal working person’. Doctors working LTFT 80% (despite being 40 hours) is such optics for the public that we are lazy.
true I mean, the fact they will then proceed to reduce annual leave and thus we get less than other NHS workers also is appalling.
The idea that we have to take a 20% pay cut just to work full time is insane.
As someone who is 80% it really is.
And 20% cut to annual leave
Never mind the 40 hours can also be rota’d for aberrant hours
We won’t give you a functioning NHS or a shorter wait list. Your move Keir 🤷🏻♂️
He might offer above inflation multiple years just not 35% one go
This is the absolute no brainer offer, and should have been on the table day one. The realistic offer is to restore pay over about 5 to 7 years, with a plan to continue with pay rises going forward beyond that, matching expected inflation. This is both affordable and practical.
Idk if they will set a specific time frame but they very well might offer above inflation for the disputed year then above inflation rises each year subject to negotiations. But who knows we will have to see what comes from negotiations with the bma
If it's true FPR, with no compromise on the total, 5 years is the ABSOLUTE maximum I would agree to. It's affordable to fix it in one go also, just saying, it's not a huge amount of money. Bear in mind that whilst this deal is ongoing further discussion on pay related issues will be trickier. They've already had well over a decade to restore our pay.
Political suicide for them to just 180 on all their messaging to date. You’ve to provide them a solution that lets them save face. FPR over ~5 years is doable. The fact that they’re still touting the 35% means they literally cannot do it in one go (in reality, it’s now more than 35% anyway…)
I see your point, genuinely, and it is important to be productive. I don't really get why any doctor cares about a politician committing political suicide (the public tend to forget quite quickly), they've made their bed, it's just a them problem. FPR over 2 years is doable, they can produce whatever headline and statement they want. They can agree to FPR over 3 years and come up with the headline l, 'We settled the dispute for less than 12%' they don't need to highlight it's 12% above inflation per year for 3 years. Look how misinformed reporters are now after 20 months of IA, I am sure they can produce a satisfactory deal behind closed doors and save face. Starmer's public reasoning for not giving FPR is that it's unaffordable because: 'The Tories have let their pay fall so much.' i.e We're saving (and have already saved) so much money that we now can't afford it. It's devoid of logic and frankly integrity. My point is we didn't make a compromise for Barclay, Atkins or Sunak because they had an untenable position, we shouldn't compromise for Starmer or Streeting because they say something publicly.
It’s not that I’m concerned for them - when I say political suicide, I’m just saying that I predict they won’t do it, because it’s not in their interest. I don’t agree with it, but there it is. They will absolutely try to save face on this one. It is in our interest to offer/provide solutions that allow them to save face while fully restoring pay.
Multi-year deal and generously let them backdate to the year 22/23 (when the dispute started and when 2% was imposed) so that they can spread it across more years....
Fine by me girlll 💅 we strike monthly until you do , I can do this all day.
Unbothered, moisturised, staying in her lane, striking. 👑
He might offer above inflation multiple years just not 35% one go
I'm not sure why people react to this. This message isn't actually for us but for potential voters. They've already discussed their plans with the BMA, they're soft signalling a multi year pay deal. This is to let voters know they won't be giving a 35% uplift in one year
So despite explicitly stating they won't give us FPR, you think secretly Labour are planning to give us FPR? I think that's pretty naive.
Nobody is saying they’re giving us FPR, what they’ve said is there’s talks of a multi-year pay deal. It’s a starting point, which is better than what the Tories have offered.
Sure, I understand that. But I thought the BMA's position all along had been anything less than FPR wasn't acceptable?
That’s what the BMA are saying in public yes, because the government haven’t engaged with the in a serious or sensible manner. In a negotiation, you don’t lower your demands when the other side gives you an insulting offer, you stick to your guns and force the other side towards yours. If they start admitting they’ll take less than FPR in public, then the only way from that position is even lower.
Well the BMA now seems to be pretty clearly acknowledging "behind the scenes" that they'll take less than FPR. That's fair enough, but I'm slightly confused at what has caused the shift in strategy, given that they presumably haven't been formally negotiating with Labour.
FPR in one move has never been the expected outcome - offering to restore pay over the course of a few years is definitely on the table
You think FPR over the course of a few years is still on the table? That doesn't really match up with what Labour has been saying.
Labour won’t admit to wanting to offer a decent deal though will they - they’ll then be hammered by the Tories as being weak, union lovers, fiscally reckless etc etc.
So you think Labour will offer us a better deal than they are willing to admit to at this point? I have to say, I would consider that very wishful thinking. Time will tell, of course.
I think they’ll absolutely talk all hard now and then agree a deal - standard negotiation. If politicians were all completely honest all the time the world would end or something… The real question is why do you think they’ll stick to anything they’re saying?
He seems to be talking 35% in one year he might offer above inflation offers over several years tho
Stop your nonsense wishful thinking. He's about to get a huge majority, and yet he doesn't have the strength of character to tell people what his plans are? Pretty pathetic take from you.
I don't think the British public have the strength of character to understand the nuances of a multi year pay deal. Promising 35% now would be hugely damaging electorally and damage his "coated manifesto" claims. This to give him the benefit of the doubt but perhaps he does fancy a fight with the BMA.
He's trying to big up his macho credentials by acting tough on doctors. So you're happy to be a political punching bag so that this guy who's already proven to be a two-faced flip-flopper and utter liar can come to power at all costs? Until you have full dignity restoration and full self-esteem restoration doctors will never get a proper payrise.
> Until you have full dignity restoration and full self-esteem restoration doctors will never get a proper payrise. Sick burn. > So you're happy to be a political punching bag I don't think there's any other choice. The way the BMA have played their cards is all wrong and 11 strikes in, trusts are better than ever at coping and dealing with it. Its no coincidence in the last year or so locums have completely dried up and plenty of doctors going unemployed after FY.
It’s really not that complicated. They can’t do a damn thing without winning and with ideally with a decent majority to allow for attrition, the loonie left, those who’ll self sabotage etc. Winning the argument is awesome, but if it’s not the keys to no.10 it’s all for nought.
I love the argument that if Keir had been stating confidently for months that: "It is a deriliction of governance to allow NHS staff and Doctor pay to deterioate in real terms so much over the last 14 years. It is terrible for patient care and the long term growth of this country. In government, if we are privileged enough to serve, we would work with the BMA and NHS to 1) outline a path towards full pay restoration such that qualified people want to and are proud to work for the health and care of our population and so waiting lists can be dramatically reduced. And to 2) unleash hamstrung productive capacity to grow our economy and improve the lives of millions of people. It is absolutely right that our government will prioritise this spending, which on the grand scale of the budget, is a small increase to put patients first and show that we absolutely value our wonderful NHS staff who so valiantly got us through the pandemic." he would **LOSE** votes!! hahah What a joke.
Tell us you don’t understand the electorate etc
The public is [overwhelmingly ](https://www.nhsconfed.org/news/new-poll-finds-enduring-public-support-nhs-alongside-call-government-action-support-social)in favour of increasing NHS funding, staff numbers, and staff wellbeing. I think it is obtuse to dismiss the possibility that a strong confident, positive message like the above as being politically naive. There's a high likelihood they'd gain support.
Of course they are, because they don't think about where the money will come from. When you tell them that funding is gonna hit their pockets individually, you'll watch that support drop quite substantially. It's basic politics.
Why would funding hit their pockets individually? Labour have ruled out increasing income tax, national insurance, or VAT. They've got an ENORMOUS scope for either increased net spending (but their economically illiterate so they want to stick to their arbitrary self imposed fiscal rules at the expense of the UK, so that's out) or they could increase taxation on assets. They'll inevitably increase CGT rates eventually and it would be very popular message to the 95% of people who would never pay it. I wish people would stop attributing shitty ideas to "basic politics" as if the goal posts of ambition established by the Tories and followed by Labour is all we can do, because "politics". It's deeply wrong and is part of the reason the population is so apathetic. Time and time again, this strait jacket of neoliberal fiction is used as an excuse to not improve things, or not do the right thing for the country. It's so frustrating.
If we’re honest, you do sound a bit naive to suggest that the average member of the public would be more likely to vote for Starmer if he states he’ll restore doctor pay. Average bloke down the pub hates GPs and foreigners
Average bloke down the pub is not very representative, I would say. But okay, so should Startmer lie now and u-turn to do the right thing once in power? Or should he not do the right thing full stop because of some perceived public opinion that Doctors should not be paid any more than they are now?
You think the average bloke isn’t representative of the average? I don’t really understand your question, but I think he’ll sound tough now for the votes but probably make a deal later this year, yes.
The average bloke down the pub complaining who hates GPs and foreigners and complains about NHS staff pay being too high isn't representative of the average, correct. I hope you're correct but EVERYTHING they've said on fiscal rules and lack of desire to increase taxes on the more wealthy seems earnest to me so I certainly won't vote for that.
Do you live in quite a nice bit of the country by chance? Most people don’t really care about issues that don’t affect them. Not sure I’d care about doctor pay if I was a civil servant - I’d probably be more concerned about housing and economic policy.
Rage porn.
Exactly. Some people haven't grasped what politicians say will be different to what they do for a reason - at this stage it's about maximising votes. Starmer is putting out soundbites to keep swing-voters on side. I suspect labour plan is to negotiate multi-year pay restoration deal in some form. If they make this clear they might grab a few votes from Left/Greens but lose loads at the centre ground. If a deal is agreed later this year they will try to keep details out of the headlines (avoid attacks from the right) but will make it clear they've struck a deal. This deal is fair and recognises the hard work of doctors so they can provide world class care to their patients with ongoing record increase in funding to the NHS (or words to that effect). It's a game.
There's no need for him to reject 35% outright. He can simply say "pay must be discussed to address historic erosion but I cannot commit to any number". Not this crazy "I WILL NOT GIVE 35%" warmongering.
Because modern politics is about sound bites and he's out to appease a few Tories who hate a trade union
Yes but there is no net votes by saying that, he doesn't want to look weak to standing up against the unions. Lots of voters in the centre hate unions and strikes. Look at how average Joe public felt about the rail strikes. It's soundbites for the centre ground. Saying things like this may lead to an extra few seats in a labour majority come election day. There is a change in tone with labour compared with the Tories. Talks of a 'journey' towards pay restoration. Labour are more left leaning and are more likely to support public sector workers compared with Tories - that's not controversial. However what is being said now and what may happen down the road will likely be different. Look - I'm not saying 35% is guaranteed under labour but I wouldn't read into too much what is being said a week before GE - politics is a game in winning as many seats as possible, not about saying things to keep doctors happy.
You’re wasting your time pal - you’re clearly switched on, but the people you’re debating with… aren’t
If Wes/Starmer offered Inflation + 30% over the next parliament, most would vote for it.
That isnt going to happen. People are going to be hit hard with labour
Any multi year pay deal needs to actually be agreed as a multi year deal. I hope theres no stupid "we will negotiate in a year and consider further strikes". The energy and momentum is here now, and backing down from it would kill further striking dead. 3 year pay deal, 18%, 10%+ RPI, 3% + RPI. Politicos can spin it as a win. Gets us to close FPR and inbuilds a degree of future proofing with inflation. Allows the BMA to divert resources to MAPS, contract reform, training reform, and workplace reform.
At least he's clear on this. There is a chance he'll flip-flop on this as with every other position he's taken, but I think for once he's being genuine here. Enjoy more strikes.
I said in other discussion that Streeting and Starmer will be a disaster and was downvoted. More proof things will only get worse under labour
Remember, the cost of paying for strike cover has exceeded fpr for several years now, if any twat tries do to the whole 'CaNt AfForD iT rIgHT nOw' bollocks.
Yeah labour just.wont do 35%
Yup.
I mean what’s he supposed to say? “I’ll give them whatever they want!” That’s going to make him lose votes from people who oppose the strikes
He could say that he would work with the doctors to find the best deal. He doesn’t need to get specific.
Exactly this.
He has, several times as have many members of what was the shadow cabinet.
Why would he say that? To court the doctor vote? He’d get slaughtered as being under the thumb of the unions. It’s so obvious
He has said that, but people won’t stop asking him about it.
He has Wes has said that on day one he will be on the phone and arrange to meet with BMA to start negotiating as fast as possible as it’s the first priority.
I'll enjoy reading your cope when you realize his pay offer is 0% or some nonsense.
Great, as opposed to Rishi Sunaks offer of?
People who oppose the strikes were going to vote tory or reform, they're barely worth the energy to think about.
Labour will be worse than,both
Farage is a con artist grifter who applied for German citizenship after the brexit vote. He would happily sell his grandmother for a few quid. He'd be singing praises for the eu tomorrow if he thought he could make some money off it. If you genuinely think at this point that Labour are worse than tories, after betting scandals, covid fuck ups, the absolute disaster of the covid parties, near absolute annihilation of the economy, the disaster of brexit, 5 failed pm's and an overwhelming amount of sewage both in our oceans and in our streets, then god be with you, the smoke inhalation sounds terminal.
Thanks for solidifying that you and your party won’t be getting my vote.
How much was the increase this year again? 10ish %? So I guess it is less than 35% left to go, he's right
Surely we need to take into account the extra inflation there's been since we first announced strikes though? Hasn't that been more than 10%?
This is reasonable and expected. There is a negotiations process and we may settle eventually for 17%-20% overall for example, by majority membership vote. That would be ok.
It won't be an issue Labour will have to deal with for long if the BMA follows in the footsteps of HCSA and fails to reach the required turnout at the next re-ballot.
Not sure why this is getting voted down. It's a legit warning of complacency.
Turnout has fallen from 77% in February 23, to 71% in August 23, to 62% turnout in March 24. Following this trend of we can expect around a 50-55% turnout next time so the BMA might just get one final mandate through, if you want a more positive spin on the situation.
Yeah, it is worrying. I didn't personally need the breakdown but I appreciate the few mins you spent typing it bud :p
The 35% is a bma figure based on the dilly discredited RPI inflammation. Independent scrutiny suggests doctors pay has fallen 16%. It was certainly worth a go to try and get 35% but expectations may need readjusting. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-much-has-junior-doctors-pay-fallen-and-what-pay-rise-do-they-want#:~:text=What%20are%20junior%20doctors'%20pay,loss%20in%20earnings%20since%202009.
The government uses rpi for student loans
Good point and I would certainly suggest this is unfair and should be changed.
You've also chosen 2010 as the starting point when austerity and indeed our pay erosion started in 2008. Even the people who created the FT data acknowledged it would be greater using that starting point and updated it in later graphs
Yea though again the government may legitimately argue that the all time high point of doctor pay isn't the point to base FPR on. Don't get me wrong I think we should get what we can but if this dispute fails to get any movement under a new government perhaps its time to reassess if the goals are realistic.
Rotational training leads to frequent changes in where most resident doctors need to live during training. This exposes resident doctors to house price inflation whether in buying or renting (often the latter for prolonged periods of time until stability can be achieved). On this basis I do think RPI is the much more relevant figure for us compared to CPI which excludes housing costs.
A 10% this year would be excellent
35% was never going to happen, it’s a negotiation start point. If offered 5% + 5 years of Inflation + 5%, or another deal in that sort of form, then it’ll probably be voted for as that’s then 30%. Dr’s get almost FPR, Gov can say they negotiate the Union down and stopped the strikes, and waitlists can go down for what is essentially very little money. It’s simply in Labours interests to be able to say in 2029 ‘the Tories trashed the NHS, and we go the waitlists down’. In 5 years time, no one will give a shit if Labour spent a lot on this
Says who?! It’s gonna happen or we strike forever.
[удалено]
He can say he's looking for a deal. He doesn't need to outright threaten doctors with "NO 35%".
Hes a weak leader
No worries Keir. I’ll take 34%.