UK Politics Thread II: Gladstone's Revenge

[Moctina]

If they were being asked to work 7 days a week, morning & night, then yes, they would have a case, and should demand public support- however, this is not the case. Rather, they are going on strike, putting lives at risk (selfishly,) to go against the Health Secretary, who is an elected Member of Parliament & a member of The Cabinet. Therefore, not only is strike action entirely unethical no matter the situation in this particular sector, but they are initiating it without a solid, public-approved cause.

You don't even read a selection of news outlets it seems, otherwise you'd be fully aware that the doctors have a wealth more public support than the Health Secretary.
Even though by the second strike more people polled believed that the doctors were "equally to blame" with the Health Secretary than they had before, more people still blamed Hunt over the doctors, and overall supported the strikes regardless.

Jeremy Hunt was elected to be an MP of wherever his constituency is. He was not elected by the people to any cabinet position, let alone that of Health Secretary. His appointing (let's not sugarcoat it) to that position was not uncontroversial, given how he was unpopular even as Culture Secretary before being shunted elsewhere in the cabinet for whatever reason.

74% (I believe?) support the strike. That is a majority- how many would be saying that if their operation was cancelled? Or if their mother, who needed an urgent surgery, had to wait another six months?

[Eastfield Lodge]

Striking is purely unethical, in particular in emergency services.
Police cannot strike. God forbid- the law & order system would be severely disrupted.
A major strike by Junior Doctors will cripple the NHS, which is under far too much pressure as it stands. If they were being asked to work 7 days a week, morning & night, then yes, they would have a case, and should demand public support- however, this is not the case. Rather, they are going on strike, putting lives at risk (selfishly,) to go against the Health Secretary, who is an elected Member of Parliament & a member of The Cabinet. Therefore, not only is strike action entirely unethical no matter the situation in this particular sector, but they are initiating it without a solid, public-approved cause.
As I said earlier, my mother trained in neurosurgery and became a doctor in the field after several long, hard years of training. She never worked for the NHS, and has always preferred the more lucrative world of private healthcare. If she, or her friends & colleagues, demanded an even higher wage, they would be told, pardon my French, to shove it. Admittedly, these people are not earning six-figure salaries- not yet. However, it is typical of many in this generation to demand everything be put on a plate for them. Work hard, tackle the high hours, the 'low' pay, until you reach a comfortable position, which, with hard work, you will. Children and families? Is it really a good idea to be having children & a family when you have such hours, when you are at an infant time in your career?
Safety?
How can the Unions claim they 'care about safety' when up to 100000 patients will be impacted by the next strike?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5492,d.ZGg
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... pc5vLwvLZw

Because there are no real safeguards to prevent hospitals making us work flat-out for 96 hours straight?

[Vassenor]

Did you actually read what I posted?

Obviously not, he edited it out of his reply and flatly ignored it.

It conflicts with his worldview.

Actually I think it went into my last post after their reply; I wasn't anticipating such a quick one and for it to take so long for me to dig that post out.

[The Nihilistic view]

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

why? Why not be like Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. They play a very limited international role but are not victims of world terrorism, are rich and have high standards of living. Imagine what we could invest in if we didn't spend 2% of GDP on defense. Sweden is bordered by Russia yet they only spend 1.34% of GDP on the military.

Responsibility pure and simple.

[Imperializt Russia]

You don't even read a selection of news outlets it seems, otherwise you'd be fully aware that the doctors have a wealth more public support than the Health Secretary.
Even though by the second strike more people polled believed that the doctors were "equally to blame" with the Health Secretary than they had before, more people still blamed Hunt over the doctors, and overall supported the strikes regardless.

Jeremy Hunt was elected to be an MP of wherever his constituency is. He was not elected by the people to any cabinet position, let alone that of Health Secretary. His appointing (let's not sugarcoat it) to that position was not uncontroversial, given how he was unpopular even as Culture Secretary before being shunted elsewhere in the cabinet for whatever reason.

74% (I believe?) support the strike. That is a majority- how many would be saying that if their operation was cancelled? Or if their mother, who needed an urgent surgery, had to wait another six months?

You and I differ in what we consider to be a "rational actor".

To you, self-interest is king. To me, a rational actor is a person with the minuscule amount of self-awareness necessary to understand that the world goes beyond them.
A rational actor accepts that a consequence of doctors taking drastic action, for there is no other option remaining, is that they may be inconvenienced.
Indeed, inconvenience is the entire point of strike action. It has no other direct purpose. If it did not cause inconvenience, it would have no impact, and no political effect.

[The Nihilistic view]

You don't even read a selection of news outlets it seems, otherwise you'd be fully aware that the doctors have a wealth more public support than the Health Secretary.
Even though by the second strike more people polled believed that the doctors were "equally to blame" with the Health Secretary than they had before, more people still blamed Hunt over the doctors, and overall supported the strikes regardless.

Jeremy Hunt was elected to be an MP of wherever his constituency is. He was not elected by the people to any cabinet position, let alone that of Health Secretary. His appointing (let's not sugarcoat it) to that position was not uncontroversial, given how he was unpopular even as Culture Secretary before being shunted elsewhere in the cabinet for whatever reason.

74% (I believe?) support the strike. That is a majority- how many would be saying that if their operation was cancelled? Or if their mother, who needed an urgent surgery, had to wait another six months?

With the current strike I think it is down to about 50% support with nearly 40% opposed. The 75% was before the last round.

[Moctina]

74% (I believe?) support the strike. That is a majority- how many would be saying that if their operation was cancelled? Or if their mother, who needed an urgent surgery, had to wait another six months?

With the current strike I think it is down to about 50% support with nearly 40% opposed. The 75% was before the last round.

Really?
Well, there we are. As soon as people realise the strike will damage the NHS they paid for and expect to work for them, they change their views.

[Vassenor]

With the current strike I think it is down to about 50% support with nearly 40% opposed. The 75% was before the last round.

Really?
Well, there we are. As soon as people realise the strike will damage the NHS they paid for and expect to work for them, they change their views.

As opposed to the government damaging the NHS they paid for and expect to work for them.

[Geilinor]

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

why? Why not be like Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. They play a very limited international role but are not victims of world terrorism, are rich and have high standards of living. Imagine what we could invest in if we didn't spend 2% of GDP on defense. Sweden is bordered by Russia yet they only spend 1.34% of GDP on the military.

Nordic countries aren't immune to terrorist incidents. Breivik still counts as terrorism even though he was home grown.

[Moctina]

http://uk.isidewith.com/results/2270734025
Not massively surprising.

[Salandriagado]

In the latter part of the 1980s, Switzerland spent 1.6% of GDP on defence.

Considering that its military was entirely self-defensive, and it had to spend nothing at all on a navy (and its airforce was incredibly useless; Switzerland kept Hawker Hunters in the 1990s), this is still more than most European countries today spend.

It also did not have to spend money on foreign bases or nuclear weapons, as the UK does.

Not quite, actually.

[Vassenor]

OK, now I'm going to say the spiel about what life as a JD is like from an actual JD is being ignored.

[The Nihilistic view]

OK, now I'm going to say the spiel about what life as a JD is like from an actual JD is being ignored.

THERE'S ONLY ONE JD, ONE JOHN DORIAN!

[The Archregimancy]

Make Britain Canadian...For the First Time!

Were Bonar Law and Beaverbrook not enough for you?

I'll have you know that I've been to Rexton, New Brunswick - Bonar Law's birthplace - and I've been keeping an eye on the evil Canadian masterplan for world domination ever since.

Canada may present itself as a nice, polite country that wants to be everyone's friend, but I know what those dastardly Canucks are really up to.

[Napkiraly]

Make Britain Canadian...For the First Time!

Were Bonar Law and Beaverbrook not enough for you?

I'll have you know that I've been to Rexton, New Brunswick - Bonar Law's birthplace - and I've been keeping an eye on the evil Canadian masterplan for world domination ever since.

Canada may present itself as a nice, polite country that wants to be everyone's friend, but I know what those dastardly Canucks are really up to.

Oh, I know that Bonar was born in Canada. But he wasn't a Canadian citizen, so technically I'd be the first Canadian citizen PM in British history.

One day, you'll all be sorry.

[The Nihilistic view]

Hey look some non EU news!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36121463

[Eastfield Lodge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36123014

Come on, let her come and speak.

[Vassenor]

So even though she agrees with them they still want to keep her out.

Huh.

[United Kingdom of Kent]

Hey look some non EU news!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36121463

God, that's just going to open a door to a whole lot of problems.

[Valaran]

Hey look some non EU news!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36121463

This might be a good thing; I'm not sure about the potential for abuse it has (ie, if the army is constantly concerned about lawsuits, they may reduce the quality of training). I'm not sure this would actually happen though, and in the cases of actual negligence, it makes sense.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hey look some non EU news!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36121463

This might be a good thing; I'm not sure about the potential for abuse it has (ie, if the army is constantly concerned about lawsuits, they may reduce the quality of training). I'm not sure this would actually happen though, and in the cases of actual negligence, it makes sense.

If the training is given in a manner so negligent as to directly result on multiple deaths on single exercises, it's clearly not of a sufficient quality.

[Moctina]

I was just reading The Sunday Times, who have published their rich list for the UK & Ireland.
As always, exceptionally informative, and interesting. So many wealthy individuals in retail, property & finance, to name but a few. Proof of how well this country is doing now.

[Imperializt Russia]

Hey look some non EU news!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36121463

God, that's just going to open a door to a whole lot of problems.

Well I don't see how, since the implication is this only opens the MoD to prosecution for criminal neglect over deaths. I'm sure one could make a slippery slope argument that it will lead to criminal neglect charges over other complaints such as injury.

One would argue that if an injury is sustained during properly-supervised training, then it is not negligence. The occurrence of injury is not immediately due to negligence.

[Valaran]

This might be a good thing; I'm not sure about the potential for abuse it has (ie, if the army is constantly concerned about lawsuits, they may reduce the quality of training). I'm not sure this would actually happen though, and in the cases of actual negligence, it makes sense.

If the training is given in a manner so negligent as to directly result on multiple deaths on single exercises, it's clearly not of a sufficient quality.

Its not that segment of training I'm concerned with. That's clear-cut, not everything will be, and the military may err too great on the side of caution. i did qualify that I didn't think this was likely.

[Imperializt Russia]

I was just reading The Sunday Times, who have published their rich list for the UK & Ireland.
As always, exceptionally informative, and interesting. So many wealthy individuals in retail, property & finance, to name but a few. Proof of how well this country is doing now.

I'm pretty sure most of the country has become consistently worse off or otherwise not seen significant benefit in the last few decades, though the absolute richest have continued to accrue wealth.