briantrumpet
Timewaster
Just in case anyway was under the misapprehension that Glasman isn't stark staring bonkers.
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
bobzmyunkle
Veteran
Not sure I understand this. Aren't the training places for doctors the NHS needs?
The prime minister has given the British Medical Association (BMA) 48 hours to call off the six-day doctor strike in England after Easter or face losing 1,000 extra training places.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c23909pge35o
Last summer there were 30,000 applicants for around 10,000 jobs, although some of those were doctors applying from abroad.
The prime minister has given the British Medical Association (BMA) 48 hours to call off the six-day doctor strike in England after Easter or face losing 1,000 extra training places.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c23909pge35o
Last summer there were 30,000 applicants for around 10,000 jobs, although some of those were doctors applying from abroad.
Last edited:
Pblakeney
Legendary Member
As I understand it there is a gap between places needing filled, and places being funded. I could be wrong.
eg our village and the next one are expanding at a rate where both will join and become one reasonable sized town. There are no plans for a GP surgery and the ones that do exist in neighbouring towns are being downsized. Obviously the ones that exist are over subscribed.
Last edited:
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Cirrus
Well-Known Member
One of the issues is Foundation year 2 doctors finishing with no specialist training places available, thus creating a bottleneck.
We may need GPs and other specialists and we now have lots of Resident Doctors but not enough specialist training places to bridge the gap.
Some FY2 doctors are locuming, some are looking for FY3 placements and some are taking time out or leaving the profession (or sodding off to Australia etc)
First Aspect
Legendary Member
One of the other issues is pay. It's always pay. They are still banging on about a pre 2008 peak, and arguing a pay erosion of plentypercent using a higher inflation calculation than all other employers.
They have not got the memos about the GFC, COVID or WW3.
bobzmyunkle
Veteran
Sounds like you're trying to deflect from the current conversation. Do we need more specialists? If so, why is Starmer threatening to withdraw the training places?
First Aspect
Legendary Member
I'm having the conversation it is really about.
When a union representative talks about "pay and conditions" it's always about pay. The conditions part tends to be the deflection.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
Weren't the additional places, and the change in the speed of pay progression, particularly the deal that the Union rejected?
Put another way, they were offered changes in pay and conditions, rejected the pay part of it, and want to keep the conditions part while renegotiating the pay.
Don't know about you, but if I was faced with that negotiation I'd tell them to piss off as well.
bobzmyunkle
Veteran
Restricting the number of specialist Doctors available to the NHS affects us all.
I'd hope for something a bit more constructive. But surely it's possible to tell them to piss off and still have the extra training places.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
Well the union called off negotiations without letting the members vote on the deal. Do they have carte blanche to act like children?
Pross
Veteran
Exactly, a lot of the Unions in public sector jobs have realised that asking openly for more money isn't popular so they dress their dispute up as being related to something else such as pensions, working conditions or the favourite in the rail sector 'safety' but at the heart of it the dispute is nearly always about pay. As I've said before, it's a bizarre argument that you want your pay to be based on an index linked version of what you perceive it was a long time before you ever started training for the job (in many cases they are harping back to a time when they hadn't even started secondary school).
Psamathe
Legendary Member
I agree.
To me the training places component to the Resident Drs "negotiations" is more about them identifying a shortcoming in NHS training policy and long term future staffing plans.
We either need to train the additional medical staff these places would help provide or we don't. It should not need to become part of a pay settlement negotiation and even more not the part of threats to avoid industrial action.
That we might also need additional training places for trainee GPs does not mean we don't need additional specialist training so maybe the current industrial action has indirectly highlighted another shortcoming in the Government's provision of training?
Starmer is being stupid (again), trying to play politics badly and as a result NHS (and thus everybody) will suffer long term.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
It all costs money and is therefore interrelated.
In addition, the union messaging regarding training places is not really about the national need for additional specialists in the NHS, but on resident doctor career progression.
If they made it more about the greater good than their pay, there might be a bit more sympathy.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
It is beginning to appear that planning for staff training, career progression and remuneration are done exclusively by Government and Union(s), in the NHS, what do the senior management in the NHS actually do?, other than promise “lessons will be learned” when things go wrong?
