RugbyRebels

Yep, that's a pretty worrying one.

Hunt being set up as the sacrificial lamb if he can't progress the junior doctor situation. Myself I think they either need to put in a deal the doctors will accept on both the money front and being able to deliver a funded service, or go back to the electorate and say we put a 24/7 pledge in our manifesto and we're unable to deliver on it.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Strong speech by May. I don't for a second believe any of it, but the centrist rhetoric was absolutely the right political choice if taken from the conservative perspective.

I can't believe that bloody Kuenssberg seems to be reading something into the centrist nature of the speech without actually noticing or commenting that Thatcher did exactly the same. She really is the worst political editor of the BBC in my lifetime.

Bad and annoying. Same thing I suppose.

Nope. I find Peston a bit annoying but he;s a top class journalist.

Digby wrote:Hunt being set up as the sacrificial lamb if he can't progress the junior doctor situation. Myself I think they either need to put in a deal the doctors will accept on both the money front and being able to deliver a funded service, or go back to the electorate and say we put a 24/7 pledge in our manifesto and we're unable to deliver on it.

Sacking Hunt would cost too much face for the government. Replacing him might have been a conciliatory move, but with the junior doctors rejecting the arbitrated agreement, I can't see the government backing down.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I can't believe that bloody Kuenssberg seems to be reading something into the centrist nature of the speech without actually noticing or commenting that Thatcher did exactly the same. She really is the worst political editor of the BBC in my lifetime.

Bad and annoying. Same thing I suppose.

Nope. I find Peston a bit annoying but he;s a top class journalist.

as in its annoying that she's bad, and she's annoying anyway.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I can't believe that bloody Kuenssberg seems to be reading something into the centrist nature of the speech without actually noticing or commenting that Thatcher did exactly the same. She really is the worst political editor of the BBC in my lifetime.

Bad and annoying. Same thing I suppose.

Nope. I find Peston a bit annoying but he;s a top class journalist.

He's a miserably bad economist, not that that's perhaps a bad thing or even a relevant thing. He's also a bit child like, in that it's his stories which are important rather than the story which is important, but I guess it's hardly unusual that journos argue over who gets the front page story and all think they warrant it.

canta_brian wrote:I see Johnson is now foreign secretary. Ww3 anyone?

It would be a help for that nice Mr.Fallon.

Digby wrote:Hunt being set up as the sacrificial lamb if he can't progress the junior doctor situation. Myself I think they either need to put in a deal the doctors will accept on both the money front and being able to deliver a funded service, or go back to the electorate and say we put a 24/7 pledge in our manifesto and we're unable to deliver on it.

If Hunt was competent, he'd resign. It's one of those throwaway phrases but I literally cannot understand how that man sleeps at night.
He's like a grim reaper. He must've be one of those kids, we all knew one, who for some inexplicable reason had books with pictures of dead and dying people in their bedroom. Or collected stuffed animals.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Hunt being set up as the sacrificial lamb if he can't progress the junior doctor situation. Myself I think they either need to put in a deal the doctors will accept on both the money front and being able to deliver a funded service, or go back to the electorate and say we put a 24/7 pledge in our manifesto and we're unable to deliver on it.

Sacking Hunt would cost too much face for the government. Replacing him might have been a conciliatory move, but with the junior doctors rejecting the arbitrated agreement, I can't see the government backing down.

You could well be right, but I don't want them to push a manifesto pledge for the sake of it. Better imo to go back to the electorate and say they've failed to deliver, and inform on what basis they'll continue to push if returned to office. That said in this instance we mayn't be miles off a deal.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Hunt being set up as the sacrificial lamb if he can't progress the junior doctor situation. Myself I think they either need to put in a deal the doctors will accept on both the money front and being able to deliver a funded service, or go back to the electorate and say we put a 24/7 pledge in our manifesto and we're unable to deliver on it.

Sacking Hunt would cost too much face for the government. Replacing him might have been a conciliatory move, but with the junior doctors rejecting the arbitrated agreement, I can't see the government backing down.

You could well be right, but I don't want them to push a manifesto pledge for the sake of it. Better imo to go back to the electorate and say they've failed to deliver, and inform on what basis they'll continue to push if returned to office. That said in this instance we mayn't be miles off a deal.

They had a deal, which was acceptable to the BMA, but the doctors seem to want to keep going. At this stage the government have no choice but to impose it because they can have no confidence that any agreement will actually stick. they can also claim the high ground by saying that the BMA thought it was satisfactory. How can the BMA campaign against a deal that they said was adequate without losing face.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Sacking Hunt would cost too much face for the government. Replacing him might have been a conciliatory move, but with the junior doctors rejecting the arbitrated agreement, I can't see the government backing down.

You could well be right, but I don't want them to push a manifesto pledge for the sake of it. Better imo to go back to the electorate and say they've failed to deliver, and inform on what basis they'll continue to push if returned to office. That said in this instance we mayn't be miles off a deal.

They had a deal, which was acceptable to the BMA, but the doctors seem to want to keep going. At this stage the government have no choice but to impose it because they can have no confidence that any agreement will actually stick. they can also claim the high ground by saying that the BMA thought it was satisfactory. How can the BMA campaign against a deal that they said was adequate without losing face.

This only sounds to me like the BMA needs new leadership

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
You could well be right, but I don't want them to push a manifesto pledge for the sake of it. Better imo to go back to the electorate and say they've failed to deliver, and inform on what basis they'll continue to push if returned to office. That said in this instance we mayn't be miles off a deal.

They had a deal, which was acceptable to the BMA, but the doctors seem to want to keep going. At this stage the government have no choice but to impose it because they can have no confidence that any agreement will actually stick. they can also claim the high ground by saying that the BMA thought it was satisfactory. How can the BMA campaign against a deal that they said was adequate without losing face.

This only sounds to me like the BMA needs new leadership

I think one person resigned. From HMG;s perspective it doesn't much matter since they can't be sure that anything they do will kill the dispute short of caving entirely when there's not much money about.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
You could well be right, but I don't want them to push a manifesto pledge for the sake of it. Better imo to go back to the electorate and say they've failed to deliver, and inform on what basis they'll continue to push if returned to office. That said in this instance we mayn't be miles off a deal.

They had a deal, which was acceptable to the BMA, but the doctors seem to want to keep going. At this stage the government have no choice but to impose it because they can have no confidence that any agreement will actually stick. they can also claim the high ground by saying that the BMA thought it was satisfactory. How can the BMA campaign against a deal that they said was adequate without losing face.

This only sounds to me like the BMA needs new leadership

The no confidence resolutions against Hunt are numerous. It's farcical that he's holding on.
He's there to do some prep' work before the Jewish-Yank healthcare industry rip it apart,......and we all know it.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: They had a deal, which was acceptable to the BMA, but the doctors seem to want to keep going. At this stage the government have no choice but to impose it because they can have no confidence that any agreement will actually stick. they can also claim the high ground by saying that the BMA thought it was satisfactory. How can the BMA campaign against a deal that they said was adequate without losing face.

This only sounds to me like the BMA needs new leadership

I think one person resigned. From HMG;s perspective it doesn't much matter since they can't be sure that anything they do will kill the dispute short of caving entirely when there's not much money about.

If there's not enough money to get the deal done then there's not enough money. So nuts to their manifesto pledge.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
This only sounds to me like the BMA needs new leadership

I think one person resigned. From HMG;s perspective it doesn't much matter since they can't be sure that anything they do will kill the dispute short of caving entirely when there's not much money about.

If there's not enough money to get the deal done then there's not enough money. So nuts to their manifesto pledge.

How can there be 'not enough money'? The issuer of the money can't run out of it.

So there clearly some ideological issue.

I'm with the doctors on this one. I think it is fair to say that they are a fairly intelligent well informed group and if they say that this deal does nothing for patients then I tend to believe them.

Add to this the shonky stats that the government has put in the public domain to support their argument and I wouldn't be in a hurry to accept any agreement either.

canta_brian wrote:I'm with the doctors on this one. I think it is fair to say that they are a fairly intelligent well informed group and if they say that this deal does nothing for patients then I tend to believe them.

Add to this the shonky stats that the government has put in the public domain to support their argument and I wouldn't be in a hurry to accept any agreement either.

I'm a bit split on the doctors' concerns, their worry about work life balance is reasonable so too it being an enforced change, their concern about the financial package on offer less so, but where I really have a problem with the proposals is it in essence takes the same assets and throws them at a much bigger work challenge. If the government wants to go 24/7 then fine but don't try to stretch the assets you've got in such fashion, fund additional assets, and not just the doctors.

I'd also say if the government truly thinks any doctor doesn't understand the proposal on offer that doctor should be fired as not being up to the job on the basis of intelligence. Really that the doctors don't agree with the government isn't the same as they don't understand them.

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I'm with the doctors on this one. I think it is fair to say that they are a fairly intelligent well informed group and if they say that this deal does nothing for patients then I tend to believe them.

Add to this the shonky stats that the government has put in the public domain to support their argument and I wouldn't be in a hurry to accept any agreement either.

I'd also say if the government truly thinks any doctor doesn't understand the proposal on offer that doctor should be fired as not being up to the job on the basis of intelligence. Really that the doctors don't agree with the government isn't the same as they don't understand them.

Is this bit about the stats? I don't think the government ever expected the doctors to buy them, rather they were intended for public consumption to legitimise their plans and try and make the doctors look unreasonable if they didn't sign up.

I once had to spend a month in a UK hospital (better now, thanks for asking). Seemed to me the weekends allowed the hospital to draw breath ready for the next week. Lots of cleaning would get done of things that weren't practical to do in the week with clinics happening. Running a 7 day a week service would necessitate a capacity in the system to do this sort of job in the midst of ongoing work. I don't think that capacity will ever exist mainly because the NHS is in fact extremely efficient at delivering health care.

So, back on topic, I think Hunt may be being made to either clean up his own mess, or being made the hate figurehead of this government policy, rather than changing and having 2 hate figures.

canta_brian wrote:I'm with the doctors on this one. I think it is fair to say that they are a fairly intelligent well informed group and if they say that this deal does nothing for patients then I tend to believe them.

Add to this the shonky stats that the government has put in the public domain to support their argument and I wouldn't be in a hurry to accept any agreement either.

As someone whose in a profession that's recently had to negotiate with the Doctors I have every sympathy with their arguments about work life balance and money. I have less sympathy with the accusation that the government made up the stats in order to claim there is a weekend effect because:
1. They were drawing on independent studies
2. There clearly is a weekend effect, the issue is knowing what's causing it.

It is extremely unlikely to be a lack of junior doctors which causes the weekend effect and much more likely to be a lack of consultants. However the idea that you can't use the same resources better to cover a longer period is just weird. That's not a claim that no extra resources are needed, it's just saying that it's unlikely that the managers at the NHS hospitals have already got their rotaing perfect.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I'm with the doctors on this one. I think it is fair to say that they are a fairly intelligent well informed group and if they say that this deal does nothing for patients then I tend to believe them.

Add to this the shonky stats that the government has put in the public domain to support their argument and I wouldn't be in a hurry to accept any agreement either.

As someone whose in a profession that's recently had to negotiate with the Doctors I have every sympathy with their arguments about work life balance and money. I have less sympathy with the accusation that the government made up the stats in order to claim there is a weekend effect because:
1. They were drawing on independent studies
2. There clearly is a weekend effect, the issue is knowing what's causing it.

It is extremely unlikely to be a lack of junior doctors which causes the weekend effect and much more likely to be a lack of consultants. However the idea that you can't use the same resources better to cover a longer period is just weird. That's not a claim that no extra resources are needed, it's just saying that it's unlikely that the managers at the NHS hospitals have already got their rotaing perfect.

I thought we all understood that the cause of the so called weekend effect was the lack of routine admissions (where people rarely die) on the weekend. If you only look at emergency admissions the weekday stats are the same as weekends.

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I'm with the doctors on this one. I think it is fair to say that they are a fairly intelligent well informed group and if they say that this deal does nothing for patients then I tend to believe them.

Add to this the shonky stats that the government has put in the public domain to support their argument and I wouldn't be in a hurry to accept any agreement either.

As someone whose in a profession that's recently had to negotiate with the Doctors I have every sympathy with their arguments about work life balance and money. I have less sympathy with the accusation that the government made up the stats in order to claim there is a weekend effect because:
1. They were drawing on independent studies
2. There clearly is a weekend effect, the issue is knowing what's causing it.

It is extremely unlikely to be a lack of junior doctors which causes the weekend effect and much more likely to be a lack of consultants. However the idea that you can't use the same resources better to cover a longer period is just weird. That's not a claim that no extra resources are needed, it's just saying that it's unlikely that the managers at the NHS hospitals have already got their rotaing perfect.

I thought we all understood that the cause of the so called weekend effect was the lack of routine admissions (where people rarely die) on the weekend. If you only look at emergency admissions the weekday stats are the same as weekends.

Actually I don't believe that's really true. For example stroke sees a weekend effect and no one is sitting around saying "I think I'll wait until Monday until I go in with my stroke". If there's a study which says that all serious admissions show no weekend effect then I've yet to hear about it. BBC R4s More or Less (a stats programme) has been tracking the weekend effect arguments so I'd be surprised if they hadn't picked it up.

Oh my.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: As someone whose in a profession that's recently had to negotiate with the Doctors I have every sympathy with their arguments about work life balance and money. I have less sympathy with the accusation that the government made up the stats in order to claim there is a weekend effect because:
1. They were drawing on independent studies
2. There clearly is a weekend effect, the issue is knowing what's causing it.

It is extremely unlikely to be a lack of junior doctors which causes the weekend effect and much more likely to be a lack of consultants. However the idea that you can't use the same resources better to cover a longer period is just weird. That's not a claim that no extra resources are needed, it's just saying that it's unlikely that the managers at the NHS hospitals have already got their rotaing perfect.

I thought we all understood that the cause of the so called weekend effect was the lack of routine admissions (where people rarely die) on the weekend. If you only look at emergency admissions the weekday stats are the same as weekends.

Actually I don't believe that's really true. For example stroke sees a weekend effect and no one is sitting around saying "I think I'll wait until Monday until I go in with my stroke". If there's a study which says that all serious admissions show no weekend effect then I've yet to hear about it. BBC R4s More or Less (a stats programme) has been tracking the weekend effect arguments so I'd be surprised if they hadn't picked it up.

Science is not like law, facts are facts. The mentioned study was robust and conclusive. Only an idiot would 'not believe' it.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote: I thought we all understood that the cause of the so called weekend effect was the lack of routine admissions (where people rarely die) on the weekend. If you only look at emergency admissions the weekday stats are the same as weekends.

Actually I don't believe that's really true. For example stroke sees a weekend effect and no one is sitting around saying "I think I'll wait until Monday until I go in with my stroke". If there's a study which says that all serious admissions show no weekend effect then I've yet to hear about it. BBC R4s More or Less (a stats programme) has been tracking the weekend effect arguments so I'd be surprised if they hadn't picked it up.

Science is not like law, facts are facts. The mentioned study was robust and conclusive. Only an idiot would 'not believe' it.

You seem to have misunderstood me. There have been a number of studies on the weekend effect, some of which say that there is an effect, some of which say that there may be some explanations for the effect. I am unaware of any study which says that emergency admissions can account for the entire effect and have used stroke admissions as an example. If you can point me to such a study I'll be delighted to read it but I don't think there is one.

I don't think you really need to read a study to understand that when using percentages you have to compare like with like.

Edit. And I don't for a minute think you don't understand that.

canta_brian wrote:I don't think you really need to read a study to understand that when using percentages you have to compare like with like.

Edit. And I don't for a minute think you don't understand that.

Well of course I understand it, which is why i talked about stroke. I assume there isn't a study which says that emergency admissions accounts for the whole effect judging by your answer then, but if there is please do direct me to it.