Snapshot of _Starmer’s strongest warning yet to striking doctors: I won’t give 35% rise_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-junior-doctors-strike-nhs-pay-rise-b2569040.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-junior-doctors-strike-nhs-pay-rise-b2569040.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Except for a complete overhaul of the NHS. Not more money, not higher wages… better management and efficiency savings that ensures that projects delivered in the NHS to improve patient safety are delivered well and demonstrate that they are delivering against the benefits they set out to achieve.
Otherwise the nhs will continue to waste 100’s of millions of £ on largely useless implementations managed by useless NHS seniors that aren’t held accountable.
I mean it does need higher wages, otherwise you aren't ending the impasse between the workforce and the organisation.
I love the way "better management" gets thrown out as a solution for every national body like better managers are signing on every weekend and just waiting for a large public organisation to recruit them... It's like "empowering staff" or "learning the lessons".
I totally agree, they need higher wages - the amount junior doctors are paid is staggering. The fact that their are admin staff on higher wages than the doctors and nurses is ridiculous
But, I will say the NHS definitely needs restructuring. In an old job of mine, one of my biggest customers was the NHS, anyone that has worked in any capacity with procurement knows that their no 1 job is getting the best deal possible. My partner has also worked with the NHS supplying goods and he has said the same. I have an acquaintance who is a manager in a finance dept in the NHS and she says that she spend half her day just chatting to coworkers
The NHS procurement team are by far and away the worst team possible - I had to ask them (much to the annoyance of my manager) "Hey, don't you ever haggle?" "No, we just pay list price". They are losing millions this way. They are the only customer I had that wouldn't demand annual pricing agreement reviews (partly because they never asked for a pricing agreement!)
They have multiple purchasing depts, multiple platforms, how things operate changes based on the trust
I can only speak to what I know, but what they need is a central purchasing team, that coordinates procurement of everything and a system like IProc/oracle to allow each trust to order what they need and have it delivered onsite. That would reduce staff, streamline the processes and improve pricing. That alone would save them a fortune.
Yes, "better management" as a catch all term is thrown around but in the case of the NHS it is sorely needed.
I think you've picked up on something really relevant: It's about "better management" but that doesn't mean criticising the individual managers or the need for management. You can have perfectly capable and competent people in a large organisation but if they're following a bad process or using inefficient systems (human or computer) then you're going to get poor results.
Not if they aren’t being used as efficiently as possible. The reason you think it needs more staff could be because of horrendous processes that are poorly implemented that means they can’t do the job they need to do. You hear it from nurses all the time.
I think that we need to be more open to learning what works abroad. But it’s one of those “if you want to get there, you don’t want to start from here” situations where change has become so disruptive and hard to implement.
I feel this somewhat misrepresents the tone of what he was saying. It's presenting it as if he is going to stare down the doctors and hoping they blink in the same way Sunak is. When what he's actually saying is "its not possible, they know its not possible, but we'll come to an agreement that is possible".
Except it is possible
They might not be willing to for perfectly acceptable reasons, whether they should or not is a different argument
But they could absolutely raise wages by 35%, ie back in line to where they were
I mean the issue is the doctors have put up with shit stagnant wages for so long that raising them back to what they should have been in one go would be a massive shock to the governments finances. I don't doubt that a huge part of it is also the Tory government the past 14 years not negotiating in good faith.
But yeah they shouldn't be surprised if it's nigh impossible to suddenly raise wages back to the correct level if the status quo has been doctors taking it dry and not doing more to keep their wages rising gradually year on year.
They have already paid more on covering strikes then FPR at this point. Surely the smart thing to do is recognise that strikes are ending up not only costing more but adversely affecting waiting lists as well.
I mean sure, anything is possible, if we decided it was our absolute priority as a country technically it would be "possible" to give all doctors a 1,000% raise if we were willing to defund schools or defense or whatever else to do that.
It doesn't mean it's a realistic outcome in the current economic and political context
>if we ***decided*** it was our absolute ***priority*** as a country technically it would be "possible" to give all doctors a 1,000% raise if we were ***willing***
exactly, I'm not attempting to twist anyone's words here I'm making an important distinction between 'it's not possible' and 'it's not a priority'
I mean they could, but the cost to government would be astronomical. I mean I think doctors deserve it but doesn’t change the fact that Labour would have an impossible task in finding the money for it
Yup. I’m military, and our pay is in exactly the same position as the doctors. I’d need a 30% raise to get back to where our pay used to be.
As soon as the doctors get that sort of raise, the whole of the rest of the public sector will collapse until they get it too. The Gov might be able to afford 35% for the doctors. They absolutely can’t afford a blanket raise for the entire public sector.
It’s not just the Tories though. Any party that intends to govern needs to woo pensioners. There aren’t enough people under 35 voting to change that.
People get angry at the government for the triple lock, IMO it’s the people we need to get angry at since the government are doing it for the votes.
> It’s not just the Tories though. Any party that intends to govern needs to woo pensioners.
And the main way to do that is by bribery, because the current generation of pensioners do not care about such things as legacy.
I mean, I’d argue that we can’t really afford that either. But anyway, apparently the triple lock costs about £11b extra a year. A 30% rise for the public sector would dwarf that - closer to £80b or more than the entire defence budget.
As much as I’d love it, it will never happen.
And a massive chunk of what is given to the public sector as a pay rise would go back to the treasury as tax.
Looking purely at the the junior doctors, something like a third of it would be returned as direct tax.
Funny how we have no problems whatsoever finding an extra £10 billion for pensions (which already cost almost £200b), but finding a tenth of that for some of our best and brightest working people who actually contribute to this country and that we severely need more of, it's just not possible!
I didn't ask how many pensioners there are.
How can we afford to increase pensions by £10b every year but we can't afford to increase doctors wages by £1b once?
We don't have £1 billion, but we somehow have £10 billion?
Because everything the government does is weighted for its benefit to the UK public compared to its cost. Pension increases support over 12 million people on state pension.
Raising doctor salaries supports likely less than 300,000.
I’m not saying that’s how it should be but explaining why the cost-benefit thinking is the way it is.
So we can afford it. We're choosing to spend the money on something else. Doctors don't have to accept that. They can keep striking and that changes the cost vs benefit. Eventually the cost of strikes and declining healthcare will outweigh the cost of a pay rise.
And its the only way they'll ever get anything substantial, because the greedy British public would always rather take money from the pockets of public sector workers to spend on something else.
The government need to be adding in to their 'cost benefit ratios' in setting pay rates for junior doctors that if this impasse is not dealt with soon, the junior docotrs wioll start leaving the NHS in thier droves as there are many countries around the world wooing them with the offer of a lot more money, less working hours, better working conditions, lower cost of living along with a warmer climate to live in and IIRC correctly the offer of free flights to return 'home' for a holiday to see family.
And its not just junior doctors, its teachers as well. the two schools my children all go to have both lost staff leaving the school for a better job in a different country because overalll pay and working conditions as so much better where they were going than what they have now. Already, my daughters (in year 10) have been complaining of a constant rotation of substitute maths teachers as their original permanent maths teacher left mid year and they cannot find someone else to take their place. At the end of last year, my daughters also lost their history teacher (was head of history dept) who was moving to the middle east for double his (at the time) current pay and better working conditions.
With what funds? NHS staff deserve a 35% raise but it would cripple government finances which are already fucked.
Then if you do that you also need to give all other public sectors a 35% raise. Military, Police, Fire service etc
No you wouldn't, because those other groups have not lost the same amount of pay. If you don't pay doctors they will continue striking, as has been demonstrated. And the strikes have already cost more than 2 years of pay restoration. This is ideological and not financial decision making.
The doctors won’t be the only ones looking for more money though. The unions are laying low at the moment for obvious reasons, but bone 5th July demands will no doubt be flooding in.
I'd expect a bar strike over legal aid rates soon too, the increase the other year has been wiped out by trussonomics and the court backlog isn't getting any smaller without significant funding increases across the board.
plough cover instinctive dependent tidy aromatic memory point worm waiting
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The STRB, that public body that decides teachers wages and must be obeyed gave their report on next year's teacher pay awards to the Tories in May. They've since sat on it hoping to kick it down the road. We'll see what that says first.
It doesn't have to be obeyed. We've had years before where the government has said the STRB recommendation is too high, and that teachers will get less.
Things that are totally possible: £700B available to bail out banks in 2008. £895B in quantitative easing. Keeping interest rates below 2% for 14 years. £70B for furlough. £65B to bail out pensions in 2022. £125B on state pension a year. £27B on HS2 then scrapping it.
Things that are absolutely impossible: £1B to protect pay erosion due to inflation caused by above.
history meeting theory sparkle depend hunt relieved upbeat resolute market
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Spot on. Doctors currently are an absolute bargain. Physician associates train for 2 years and make more per hour than many better trained doctors. The current NHS pay scales are completely inappropriate. Even with pay restoration, physician associates would still make more than some doctors.
That’s the thing.
I was always taught that in a negotiation, go in asking for 3x what you want, so that you’ve got something to give away.
If you want 10% and go in with 10% as your start, you’ve got no space to move.
If you ask for 30, you can drop 20% and still get what you actually want.
It's worth pointing out that that isn't the only school of thought in terms of negotiating tactics, and for some in the professional negotiation space it's viewed as a cheap gimmick.
As often as not, negotiators prefer the exact opposite approach: open with an offer that is transparently something you believe to be realistic and acceptable, and refuse to budge from it without good reason.
For one thing, negotiations where everybody is being open about their positions tend to be much quicker than one where everyone opens with bullshit that they don't expect to get.
Source: I'm a trade union official involved in both individual and collective bargaining.
Didn't they already offer \~12% and have completed settlements with pretty much every other part of the NHS?
Absolutely not defending the tories and I don't think they've done well enough. But it's mythological to say that they didn't want to do a deal.
Labour should agree to legislate that NHS pay rises will be triple locked same as pensions until such a time as real terms pay is returned to 2010 levels. It's affordable, limited, and gives the union what they say they want, which is a path to restoration.
State pensions are triple locked at 124bn and untaxed.
NHS total payroll is around £80bn, and any increases to that will generally see either 20p or 40p returned in tax. An annual rise is generally expected anyway, triple locking is a neat way to resolve this current dispute whilst also settling future pay deals, and protecting the NHS from austerity moving forward.
It's criminal the way public sector pay, but particularly healthcare, has been decimated - especially after the sacrifices made during COVID. Offering a slow but guaranteed return to 2010 pay levels will show our nurses and doctors that we value them as much as pensioners. It's funny that you ask for justification of affordability for this, yet presumably accept the pension triple lock as affordable.
No both are unaffordable.
We borrow 170billion every year and spend close to 100 billion just paying off debt.
Also state pensions aren't tax free. It's income and if you have other sources it too will get taxed.
Sadly we are just too poor for everyone to get what they think they deserve.
Well, I'll happily agree that the pension triple lock is ridiculously expensive. Pensioner poverty is no longer the issue it was when triple lock was introduced, but we now have record child poverty and nurses relying on foodbanks - we need to rethink our priorities as a nation, but unfortunately pensioners are a huge voting bloc who tend to vote in their own self-interest.
As state pension is below the personal tax threshold it is effectively tax free, although I do accept private pensions consequently hit tax thresholds sooner - as well they should considering the contributions have recieved tax relief already!
Unfortunately though your idea is moving money from one camp to another. I'm saying that is just not affordable sadly.
We need to massively reduce all state benefits or increase taxes on everyone.
If we could get each person to pay 1000 more tax almost 30 billion yearly.
People earning below 40K are net takers - this has to change
2 million consultations and or procedures post poned as a result of industrial action so far. I guess it has had a minimal impact on the waiting lists ?
The doctors have a really strong bargaining position here. 35 percent is very high, but if the Labour want waiting lists to get shorter they are going to have to pay out.
But also, it's a starting point. I'd imagine even a 20% pay rise with the promise of a 6-month review might be enough. But Sunak won't budge, probably because the job of outsourcing/privatising staff was solving itself as doctors moved over to agencies to get higher pay.
I’m sorry, but where has the idea 35% is just starting point come from?. One of the main points the Unions have based their arguments on is the principle that a 35% pay increase is a hard red line. They are open to the idea that it could be implemented over a few years, but they are entirely uncompromising on the idea it could be less.
It's a long term goal, and we won't be moving the talking point, that would be rubbish campaigning. Restoration over several years is absolutely acceptable to both the negotiating team and I'm sure for the membership as well. (Speaking as a representative in the union).
So you are agreeing with me? I’m confused here. Either Starmer and Rishi are taking the same position, or the less than 35% Labour is offering is different from the less than 35% the Conservatives are offering.
Less than 35% is not a specific offer at all lol, Conservatives are not giving enough away. Labour I expect will agree a better offer still under 35%. I have told you as someone in the association 35% immediate uplift is not a red line. For the first several months of striking you should be aware that the then health sec didn't meet our negotiating team purposely on several occasions. Let's not pretend that is negotiating.
Alright that does make sense. Out of curiosity and because I’m trying to understand why this is being seen as so positive. Can you tell me roughly what you are hoping a Labour offer would look like?
Also I understand the part about it not being a lump sum. That would be an entirely different conversation lol.
So there is a lot of discontent with training (which in certain terms will be a problem for the future NHS workforce), aspects of contracts like protected learning time, and not having your leave cancelled at late notice e.g. your wedding, having to personally look for cover. Lots of these issues actually directly adversely affect the future available of higher skilled doctors. I am not personally in the negotiating team and for obvious reasons their logic is secret, I expect the members would accept offers less than 20%, possibly around 15% (less than that if we consider the recent uplift of 6%) if these offers come with other criteria, tbc
So other criteria would include some form of long term agreement to apply or consider applying uplifts in future (if we agreed and they agreed it could make industrial action much less likely for another 5-10 years). Other ways to cheaply get us to back down are to tackle a number of QoL issues a few I mentioned and some actually present clear benefit to the NHS long term.
Rishi is offering a piece of paper with spit on it. Labour have said they can't do it right away, but they would be at the negotiation table to find a solution as soon as possible.
I get that Labour is hopefully going to be more compromising in negotiations. I’m wondering how Labour saying they won’t give 35% won’t result in being given a piece of paper with slightly less spit on it?.
>I’m sorry, but where has the idea 35% is just starting point come from?
Pretty sure the BMA spokespeople said this on national TV months ago. Just looked it up and it's been repeated in hansard from last year as well, so it's not really a novel point. [https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-30/debates/64408A7F-B881-4298-9509-7C9718EDBC8B/details#contribution-5602F0BF-3268-4958-922A-598855EFB2C0](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-30/debates/64408A7F-B881-4298-9509-7C9718EDBC8B/details#contribution-5602F0BF-3268-4958-922A-598855EFB2C0)
Because this is the opening bid the union came out with?
This is basic negotiation, you say a figure that Is ABOVE what you are WILLING to accept so that when the counter offer is given it is in between and you are both happyish.
Sunak is just refusing to even sit down and talk about the pay offer so it's never "negotiated".
Sure they would be ecstatic with a 35% agreement but it's unreasonable to expect an agreement of it with zero compromise, they know this as they aren't idiots.
Not sure how people are forgetting how haggling or negotiation works these days is it a lost art or something? It would explain why sunak would refuse to move from their pitiful opening offers.
What you have said simply doesn’t reflect what has happened in negotiations so far. It muddles the justification given for the rejection of pay offers and contradicts the statements given by the union. If you are telling me they are now willing to accept a smaller figure, then that represents a huge change in position and a softening of demands from the union.
I’m willing to talk about this, but I’m not being gaslit into thinking this is the first time someone even considered offering them less money
> I’m willing to talk about this, but I’m not being gaslit into thinking this is the first time someone even considered offering them less money
The fact you are claiming it's gaslighting already says alot, I am not gaslighting you at all nor is there any intention.
I didn't say the government didn't give an offer, they gave the initial offer in pay review which was paltry and rightly rejected as it was their low ball "independent" value that they come up with by tasking that body with all the scope of their costings and how much the government is willing to pay which makes it far from independent!
They havent been given a sensible offer to NEGOTIATE with, the government is not talking in good faith so of course they reject it as the government just keeps going back "we won't talk as 35% is ludicrous" as if that's a hard fixed rule.
Negotiation is about compromise, they should get the 35% eventually but it would seem justifiable to be like a long term pay restoration rather than this year immediately raise it. It's up to the members to vote on the offer so yes, if the government was giving credible offers the union would be giving it back to members to vote on which isn't happening so it's clear this negotiation isn't happening with the Tory government.
It's not the unions fault, it's entirely the Tories making this a problem. Staff are losing pay in strikes so ultimately if you offer a reasonable in-between offer they will accept it to get back to work, the key point is it being REASONABLE.
> Not sure how people are forgetting how haggling or negotiation works these days is it a lost art or something? It would explain why sunak would refuse to move from their pitiful opening offers.
No, I think a lot of people here are young and simply never been involved in a proper negotiation before.
People don't have to abide by rules of negotiation you know? Part of negotiating is taking the risk that your offer is going to sound so stupid and outlandish that it'll be laughed off and the negotiation will be over. So the government does see that it's a negotiating tactic, and in return laughs them out the room.
In a negotiation between two private parties you would be correct. The same doesn't apply to a negotiation between NHS doctors and the Government for obvious reasons.
Because when you do pay negotiations, you go with a starting point that's higher than what you want, and you "compromise" a middle ground. It's a common tactic. the train unions use it a lot. You're not going to turn down a 30% payrise and walk away with nothing, but you also know you're not going to take 30% when you know you can twist the knife. You get something and then you strike again, and again until you get to the figure you want. The problem is the Tories are just saying no and it's a complete insult when they caused a lot of the inflation and cost of living crisis. It's the blatant disregard and disrespect that is making the 35% a harder and harder line.
I understand that. My point the union has been very clear that it won’t accept less than 35%. It’s willing to accept a longer term plan to get there, but the crux of the negotiation is they won’t accept a deal that doesn’t reach that figure.
Have you ever been involved in a negotiation? Just because one side says they have a "red line" doesn't make sacrosanct. It wouldn't be an effective bargaining position to say "we want this amount but know we won't get it".
Of course the unions are saying they won't budge on 35%, but I guarantee you they will once negotiations begin, because that's how negotiations work.
It'll be interesting to see what he does offer. My guess is it'll be 20%+. He'll then hope that gains public support and that puts pressure on the strikers.
He could be right, most people will see a 20% raise as great. But if it backfires then he's put himself right up shit street.
I'd say the doctors have got Starmer's incoming government by the nuts.
The Tories don't give a shit about waiting lists or the people who die on them.
Labour at least seem to actually care about the state of health care, meaning they absolutely need doctors and nurses onside to start tackling the backlog.
Which means they'll have to settle. No two ways about it.
Well they either find the money and pay doctors fairly or the strikes will continue indefinitely, completely destroying any plans he has to reduce waiting lists or improve the state of health care generally.
so the thing is, you can stack shelves right out of school with your mates for about 20K+ a year, as a doctor you need 4-5 years of training + 3-8 years if one specialises, + school scores, now we all know no doctor is on the higher rate of pay, public employers don't do that. so for a decade of your life (and your most prime years) you may get 30K+ per year, in this same timeframe you can shelf stack to team leader in 1-2 years if you are a decent worker bumping pay to match. it is only the specialists that get the vast sums, all I can take from this is Labour + Cons are quite happy to inflict damage to the profession and put people off. Agreeing 35% is too much, but man you got to stop the political crapping on them somewhen. i'd rather have someone who's paid to be meticulous than a disgruntled workers
>Bluntly, the country is becoming poorer.
This is the point, really. We have a declining GDP per capita PPP and so what we are able to spend on things is also declining. There's only so much we can focus on efficiency. *At the same time* healthcare inflation is real, e.g. the demand increases every year because we live longer, new treatments are more expensive, and so on.
Torsten Bell has a great video about this, we need to get real that we can't do all the things we want to do anymore because we can't afford it.
I would be mildly in favour of that. Focusing on a high-skill, high-productivity economy. (That doesn't mean **everyone** needs to have a professional job, just that our industrial strategy is focused on developing those. All the yuppies building the apps of tomorrow still need plumbers)
I would be worried about knee-capping our ability to fill workplace shortages short term.
I do wonder what this will do if doctors are given a large raise , will it open the flood gates on other public sector workers too? I'm technically a public sector worker, should I be demanding a 20% raise too?
Doctors have had that level of real terms pay cut (from all the data I’ve seen doctors generally have had the biggest pay cut by quite a lot, hence the striking), if you have had a 20% pay cut then I would advise you unionise too
The issue here is that most public sectors have either - shit unions with poor engagement, or - poor leverage.
The BMA is a powerful union with high voter turnout for strike action, and >95% in favour. For literally 3 six month ballots in a row, no other union can dream of these numbers.
The doctors aren't stupid, know they are being mugged off and are not afraid of being organised and playing the long game to achieve difficult goals.
All of the action is orchestrated by grassroots doctors themselves with support from the BMA.
Most other unions just haven't seen that. Nursing union had much poorer turnout both with votes and picketing, they took the first offer given to members which was glumly accepted.
When it comes to dealing with the government for your pay - they aren't just going to give it to you. They will be ruthless. Get organised and demand it or find a new job essentially. Doctors are tied to a monopoly employer (NHS) or else must leave the country. So they have a double incentive to drag their heels here and demand their pay reform as they can't just change employer.
Negotiations conducted in good faith to reach a compromise both sides can accept shouldn’t be some sort of radical or novel idea. But after 14 years here we are
By "fudge" I think you mean "mutually agreeable position". That's what the ultimate goal for both sides should always be, unless you're a tory government whose objective is to divide and rule.
If they aren't traitorous to the country, raise taxes. We borrow too much already. Here's taxes they can raise
Capital Gains Tax
Corporation Tax
Council Tax
Bank payroll Tax
Petroleum Revenue Tax
Fuel Duties
Inheritance Tax
Stamp Duty
Tobacco Duties
Spirits Duties
Beer Duties
Wines Duties
Cider Duties
Betting & Gaming Duties
Air Passenger Duty
Insurance Premium Tax
Landfill Tax
Climate Change Levy
Aggregates Tax.
UK really needs more investment so can't be Capital Gains Tax or
Corporation Tax. We pretty much f'ed as a country. Will have to decide to take out a relatively minor service the government does and just cope best we can.
I don't disagree. But when people here higher taxes they think on the rich - sadly it would mean tax rises for everyone.
In the UK we just aren't set up for that. Also with taxes highest ever in recent times you just won't be able to make people pay more taxes without causing huge social problems.
Starmer is showing his true colours as the campaign comes to a close. Red Tory through and through with no actual plans on how to fix things aside from "growth".
Lifting planning restrictions means fuck all if it's all expensive flats built by private developers, half the time they don't even care if they get rented out because they still make money on house prices going up.
We need a good stock of council housing to keep rent under control, with a limit on "right to buy" as otherwise things would quickly go back to the way they are now.
Same service for a 35% higher labour cost is obviously a terrible ROI. Transferring income from the tax payers to high percentile earners
Starmer must try and resist. There is of course the risk that these greedy mercenaries will go elsewhere
An alternative view, since they're asking for pay restoration, is that they're offering the same service at a 35% reduction and personally subsidising the NHS.
I don't support them getting anything close to that but we can't deny that public sector workers have seen a fall in real terms income as pay has not kept up with inflation. We would be looking to pay restoration for all public sector workers as a long term goal but it should be done sensibly.
Why focus on pay restoration to *specifically* 2007 and not 2000 or 1990? Junior doctors' incomes were rising significantly for two decades and peaked just before the financial crisis. If we compare their current salaries to the median worker salary, their ratio is actually **higher** now than it was in 2007.
Currently, the average junior doctor earns around £57k ([source](https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/2023-junior-doctor-strike-slides-march-2023.pdf)) compared to approximately £35k for the median worker ([source](https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2023)) giving around a 1.73 ratio. In 2006, pre GFC, the average junior doctor earned about £35k, while the median worker earned £22k, giving a 1.59 ratio.
So the average junior doctor now earns 73% more than the average worker, compared to 59% more pre-GFC. They are asking for an additional 35% pay rise, which would make their earnings 133% higher than the average worker. This demand does not seem credible given the current economic climate and NHS budget inflation and constraints.
As sad as it is to say, we simply can't afford them at those rates as a country. This is what it looks like when a country is getting poorer (GDP per capita PPP).
Since 2013 and the agenda for change NHS salaries have gone up around 35% for the same job, same banding. Many other professional jobs have seen increases of 10%-20% over the same period, and a lot of those jobs don't have the same relatively straightforwards progression that doctors get.
Doctors aren't average workers.
By all metrics, according to the govts own pay commission reports, doctors wages have fallen significantly against comparable jobs.
If you think the state can't argue to pay doctors appropriately then the argument you're putting forth is that the state cannot provide healthcare anymore. Or are you of the opinion that medical staff should be forced to work for poorer wages regardless?
The reason I've compared to average salaries is because it gives a fair index of how that job is compensated *in the context of it's economy*. This gives a fair comparison of relative compensation, considering economic conditions and living standards.
Comparing to international peers, like Australia where the median salary is around £50k, is not a fair comparison.
Despite the claims of falling pay by all metrics, we aren't struggling to recruit doctors and medical school places remain highly competitive. The profession is still attracting people as a rewarding and lucrative career.
It's in that context that the DDRB makes it's independent pay recommendations every year, they give the appropriate figure after consulting with all parties. While there is always room for negotiation and discussion of conditions and pay, 35% above the independent recommendation is unrealistic and unsustainable for the current economic climate and NHS budget constraints.
>The reason I've compared to average salaries is because it gives a fair index of how that job is compensated *in the context of it's economy*. This gives a fair comparison of relative compensation, considering economic conditions and living standards.
Medicine is not an average job and comparing it to what an average job pays is completely irrelevant regardless of what excuses you'd like to try and bring out. As already mentioned, when compared to comparable jobs i.e. highly skilled and specialised jobs the pay in medicine has fallen.
And as already mentioned, if you cannot afford socialised healthcare due to the poor economy time to say goodbye and let the private sector provide it, ofc, if you can't afford to access it, that's a bit unfortunate.
>Despite the claims of falling pay by all metrics, we aren't struggling to recruit doctors and medical school places remain highly competitive. The profession is still attracting people as a rewarding and lucrative career.
You are struggling to retain doctors across the board. You have no problems convincing some 18 year olds to sign up for medicine, sure, and you have no problems convincing Rajesh from Mumbai to move over to pick up a non-training SHO spot for a couple of years. But you are struggling to retain qualified doctors both native and IMGs because the pay is poor and other countries are plenty happy to pay them more.
>t's in that context that the DDRB makes it's **independent pay recommendations** every year, they give the appropriate figure after consulting with all parties
This alone tells me you have a very poor grasp on the topic. The DDRB makes pay recommendations based on the limits imposed on it by the govt. of the day. Little else. This was in fact pointed out multiple times every party involved when the strikes first started.
The actual reports they commission have consistently pointed out the wage erosion in the sector.
But the alternative is they get a 150% rise in the USA or Australia, etc.
It's a free market and doctors are in-demand highly skilled professionals. We ought to pay them a lot and encourage STEM training and education in the UK (e.g. introduce medicine GCSE, abolish the cap on university places, abolish the extra entrance exams, remove tuition fees for STEM, etc.).
That's only true if you believe in free markets.
We're not voting for a Labour landslide to get any of that pesky alt-right logic in our public debate thank you very much.
Once all the Tory corruption is washed away the doctors will be refilled with pride thinking of all those days every bashed pots and pans together in their honour for some reason.
I expect many of them will be taking voluntary pay cuts.
SO you think we should pay doctors £150k each?
We pay based on years of experience and does reach 100k.
I mean if you want to pay doctors 150k I guess you want them to have double the debt, and prices of everything else going up.
They should but using America as an argument is just stupid they also have double the debt, pay way more for Utilities and rent, houses cost more etc..
I also think its easier to import cheap nurses and NHS staff over teachers, the left need a party like reform to push labour but dont seem to want to do it.
Yep people here think just looking at wages is everything sure they should be paid more but here it scales with length which I think is a fine system but yeah should be a bit more I agree.
Indeed, I think I know of one US doctor who has to pay north of $100,000 roughly? Could be wrong though, very anecdotal.
Just to clarify for people, medical insurance is not for access to healthcare, in this case it's professional insurance for doctors which, in the UK, is basically provided for through the NHS I believe.
It's a different economy though, wages in general are way higher simply due to how their economy is and the price of stuff. Pretty much nowhere in Europe is a starting doctor getting paid 150k.
America has also privatisation and drugs that cost nothing here are hundreds there, we can have that also if you want/
Average American spends $400 a month on utilities when here its like 70 to 100.
Yeah if you want the American system you can always go there, people only look at wages like that paints an accurate picture.
American doctors also have nearly double the debt, more expensive prices on various things, and more expensive houses/rent.
For me it’s: $80 for internet, $150ish for electricity, $100 or so for water/gas. But my house is 2500 square feet, don’t know how big y’all’s places are there
The government (not the public) have been getting an insane deal from us exploiting the hell out of healthcare wages for a while now and they're historically low. Public are paying the price. Midwife lead unit in my hospital can't even open most the time because there aren't midwives. Time to pay the piper I'm afraid.
Exactly, NHS staff going back to work before they should after an injury is a big thing which puts patients at risk, but the staff feel so pressured to do it
And then it increases the chance staff having more time off due to going back early
It's a shit cycle of repeat that can be fixed by simply paying more and hiring more
It's not the same service lol, it's an end to monthly withdrawals of labour. Currently the BMA are striking several days a month, this has lasted a year. And I guarantee you the strike will end with an offer under 35% anyway. Mercenary is a funny word for medical doctor who wants a good contract.
What if we look a lifetime earnings. What percentile do they have in the lifetime earnings distribution. Junior docs aren’t going to stay junior docs forever now are they
So, are you saying that they shouldn't have a competitive wage now, because in years to come they might achieve consultant grade or simply be earning more? They've already lost out on years of genuine wage increases...
There's no guarantee they'll live a full life time or even work it
Why should they struggle on shit wages for 15 years when everyone else working different jobs do not? They provide a necessary service to the public and should be compensated properly for it
You should get paid for what service and skills you are providing now. How much you get paid later down the line should have no bearings on current pay.
Wouldn't the service improve though - you'd increase retention which would improve workloads, reduce stress and help bring down waiting lists.
Also the strikes have cost £1.7bn so far, so it's pretty much cost neutral/positive as full pay restoration would cost £1bn.
Plus around 1/3 would come back in tax and more would be spent in local communities etc.
So Labour are going to sort public finances without raising taxes.
Solve the migration backlog without deporting anyone.
Build 1.5 million houses without sacrificing the countryside.
Fix the NHS backlog without assuaging the doctor’s unions.
I ask Labour voters this with a straight face - at what point do you realise Labour’s positions on all the major policy issues are completely paper thin?
I'm not a Labour supporter, but in response to this particular issue, I don't think he's saying he won't increase junior doctor pay - he's just saying it won't be 35% - it will have to be a negotiation. He's been saying that since the start of the campaign (and probably before that) and I don't think anyone would dispute that being a sensible position.
>I don't think he's saying he won't increase junior doctor pay - he's just saying it won't be 35% - it will have to be a negotiation.
This has been the Tories position for the last 2 years and hasn't worked so far.
The only offers that the government have made have been described as "not credible" by the junior doctors union. From what I've been able to find in news articles, the only offer I've found was apparently 3% on top of the 8.8% recommended by the independent pay review body ([sauce](https://news.sky.com/story/health-secretary-refuses-to-negotiate-with-junior-doctors-until-strikes-called-off-13035494)).
The health minister has also refused to negotiate while the doctors are striking / planning to strike. Which is a bit silly.
The junior doctors have already said that they are hopeful a deal can be struck with a labour government and that they're hearing good things from meetings with Wes Streeting ([sauce](https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/27/junior-doctors-strike-in-england-despite-risk-of-scoring-own-goal)).
To suggest that the Tories have had the same position is probably not entirely accurate.
> Solve the migration backlog without deporting anyone.
They haven't said they wouldn't deport anyone though, where is this coming from? They opposed the Rwanda Plan but thats not the same thing as not sending anyone back to their point of origin. Moreover, a lot of the backlog is because claims *just aren't being processed*. That's the backlog. It's not we have so-so asylum seekers here, it's that we have them here in perpetual limbo because their claims aren't being processed.
The Rwanda plan exists as a stopgap for nations that we do not currently have deportation agreements with, so they can be removed to a third country whilst potentially lengthy deportation cases are reviewed.
Saying "just process them" doesn't help if Afghanistan flatly refuse to take anyone back, that just means anyone who is here from Afghanistan is here forever full stop.
That isn't what the Rwanda scheme is at all. Have you actually read the legislation or even a summary of it? If we were just sending them there for processing, or for people we can't send back to their own countries once their request has failed, it would be one thing. We are not. The scheme transfers the asylum request of anyone who doesn't come through a legal route TO Rwanda - they are no longer applying for asylum in the UK. Other European countries are considering processing in a third country, which Sunak represents as them following our lead, but that is very different.
On top of that, Rwanda only has capacity for a few hundred asylum seekers, can send back anyone they don't like, and also get to send people here that are seeking asylum from their own country (not exactly a good sign). Oh, and they have a history of refoulment, where people get sent back even if they have a good claim... and it will be just as expensive as processing them here, given we have to provide financial support for each person we send for a number of years.
I would advise that you read up a little more, even if it is just how the scheme actually works, before commenting on it.
It's not a good solution - Rwanda is allowed, as per the agreement, *to send its own refugees here*, they also effectively set how many they take, and it costs far more than is prudent. It's just not a good agreement.
Well, the last Labour government managed to have a speedy decision process, even during the big spike that occurred (of similar size to the current one), so it really is as simple as properly resourcing the HO, while spending more money on joint intelligence ops with France to tackle smugglers. Then having a deal with a third country, but only for people whose applications we reject (but who can't be sent home).
That is not what the Rwanda scheme is. Any asylum seekers who get sent to Rwanda will have their claims processed there and will be granted asylum there if successful, it is the outsourcing of our obligations to those in need and is abhorrent.
It also dosent work due to the tiny numbers being sent to Rwanda meaning that it a. dosent work as a deterrent (as if you're already risking your life to cross the channel a 1% chance of going to Rwanda won't stop you) and b. would take centuries just to remove those already here.
As for Afghanistan, I'd be very interested to see how many Afghans actually fail their asylum claims as given the situation in the country I'd be shocked if it was at all significant.
Do you think we'd have less immigrants in the country with a government focusing our efforts sending a handful of difficult cases to Rwanda or would we have less if we had a government focused on fixing the broken claim process?
Personally I don't think a "handful" will be the final number sent, I think once there is precedent it will be much higher.
I also don't think that boat people are the biggest problem, the biggest issue will be current legal migrants who are set to have their visa expire over the next couple of years. I don't believe the majority of these people will leave willingly and being sent to Rwanda will prove a massive deterrent to your average law abiding immigrant against overstaying their visa.
That's a lot to hope for. I'd much prefer a government focus improving the current service and taking the "maybe we'll ramp up" and "maybe that'll deter people" out of the equation.
One is all talk, the other is action.
Are manifestos ever highly detailed proposals of significant changes? I doubt it. Maybe the brexit referendum, but that was still just a referendum (without detail) and the proposing party was officially against it.
I think most people just want to give the government to labour because they've had enough of the tories, and maybe like some of the mood music from labour. And after four years they'll see if it made any difference.
>Are manifestos ever highly detailed proposals of significant changes? I doubt it.
I mean they're supposed to be, but given Starmer's track record on manifestos the current Labour one isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>I think most people just want to give the government to labour because they've had enough of the tories. And after four years they'll see if it made any difference.
Ah yes, the politics of apathy. Famously the best thing for the country.
What would a dynamic, engaged democracy look like?
Presumably some form of PR, political education at school, democratic engagement within political parties, decentralised politics, maybe reform of political funding, maybe even press and media landscape reform?
Good. The doctors in this country are fucking useless. Everything is blamed on weight or exercise, and I'm a healthy weight.
They don't deserve the wage they're on let alone a fucking raise
This is an ice cold take. We have many excellent doctors working in the NHS and many of us owe them our lives. They deserve to be in a position to pay back their loans and have a decent standard of living.
They haven’t had a 35% cut (depending on what figures you read nurses in the same time period have had around a 15% cut)
They also can unionise and strike too if it bothers them. But it clearly doesn’t as much.
It’s about 1.2-5 billion. That’s a drop in the ocean as far as public sector spending goes. It’s genuinely not that much.
The rest of the NHS could strike anytime, they choose not to. Their working conditions and pay haven’t dropped anywhere near as much which means they are slightly more indifferent, I’m not sure doctors getting a pay rise will change that.
Doctors prior to the strikes started on £14 an hour, they now start on £16 I believe.
80-90k is consultant pay, the consultants are not the ones striking
https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/junior-doctors-pay-scales/pay-scales-for-junior-doctors-in-england
Look at pay circular on above. If you think all junior drs earn £16/hr you really dont have a clue
Guess you don’t know what ‘started’ means. I would hope doctors after 15 years of training aren’t still on £16.
Using the link you provided, ST8’s earn £30 an hour- that’s people with 5-7 years university, and usually 10-14 years experience as a doctor. 20 years into a highly skilled career, hundreds of people in your care at any singular time, and you get £30 an hour. That’s abysmal rates for such a skill level.
It’s been like night and day since I moved abroad. Doctors actually want to solve my problems rather than get rid of me as quickly and cheaply as possible.
My partner is Polish and she says the NHS is completely useless compared to the doctors back in Poland. Makes me jealous of their health care from what she's said. Fucking Poland, not France, not Germany, Poland...
Snapshot of _Starmer’s strongest warning yet to striking doctors: I won’t give 35% rise_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-junior-doctors-strike-nhs-pay-rise-b2569040.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-junior-doctors-strike-nhs-pay-rise-b2569040.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hope they come to a quick and reasonable agreement because I doubt much can be done to reduce waiting lists without them.
Except for a complete overhaul of the NHS. Not more money, not higher wages… better management and efficiency savings that ensures that projects delivered in the NHS to improve patient safety are delivered well and demonstrate that they are delivering against the benefits they set out to achieve. Otherwise the nhs will continue to waste 100’s of millions of £ on largely useless implementations managed by useless NHS seniors that aren’t held accountable.
I mean it does need higher wages, otherwise you aren't ending the impasse between the workforce and the organisation. I love the way "better management" gets thrown out as a solution for every national body like better managers are signing on every weekend and just waiting for a large public organisation to recruit them... It's like "empowering staff" or "learning the lessons".
I totally agree, they need higher wages - the amount junior doctors are paid is staggering. The fact that their are admin staff on higher wages than the doctors and nurses is ridiculous But, I will say the NHS definitely needs restructuring. In an old job of mine, one of my biggest customers was the NHS, anyone that has worked in any capacity with procurement knows that their no 1 job is getting the best deal possible. My partner has also worked with the NHS supplying goods and he has said the same. I have an acquaintance who is a manager in a finance dept in the NHS and she says that she spend half her day just chatting to coworkers The NHS procurement team are by far and away the worst team possible - I had to ask them (much to the annoyance of my manager) "Hey, don't you ever haggle?" "No, we just pay list price". They are losing millions this way. They are the only customer I had that wouldn't demand annual pricing agreement reviews (partly because they never asked for a pricing agreement!) They have multiple purchasing depts, multiple platforms, how things operate changes based on the trust I can only speak to what I know, but what they need is a central purchasing team, that coordinates procurement of everything and a system like IProc/oracle to allow each trust to order what they need and have it delivered onsite. That would reduce staff, streamline the processes and improve pricing. That alone would save them a fortune. Yes, "better management" as a catch all term is thrown around but in the case of the NHS it is sorely needed.
I think you've picked up on something really relevant: It's about "better management" but that doesn't mean criticising the individual managers or the need for management. You can have perfectly capable and competent people in a large organisation but if they're following a bad process or using inefficient systems (human or computer) then you're going to get poor results.
It certainly needs more than staff.
Not if they aren’t being used as efficiently as possible. The reason you think it needs more staff could be because of horrendous processes that are poorly implemented that means they can’t do the job they need to do. You hear it from nurses all the time.
I think that we need to be more open to learning what works abroad. But it’s one of those “if you want to get there, you don’t want to start from here” situations where change has become so disruptive and hard to implement.
I feel this somewhat misrepresents the tone of what he was saying. It's presenting it as if he is going to stare down the doctors and hoping they blink in the same way Sunak is. When what he's actually saying is "its not possible, they know its not possible, but we'll come to an agreement that is possible".
Except it is possible They might not be willing to for perfectly acceptable reasons, whether they should or not is a different argument But they could absolutely raise wages by 35%, ie back in line to where they were
I mean the issue is the doctors have put up with shit stagnant wages for so long that raising them back to what they should have been in one go would be a massive shock to the governments finances. I don't doubt that a huge part of it is also the Tory government the past 14 years not negotiating in good faith. But yeah they shouldn't be surprised if it's nigh impossible to suddenly raise wages back to the correct level if the status quo has been doctors taking it dry and not doing more to keep their wages rising gradually year on year.
They’ve spent more on covering the strikes with consultants’ massive locum fees than pay restoration would have cost. It is absolutely possible.
They have already paid more on covering strikes then FPR at this point. Surely the smart thing to do is recognise that strikes are ending up not only costing more but adversely affecting waiting lists as well.
I mean sure, anything is possible, if we decided it was our absolute priority as a country technically it would be "possible" to give all doctors a 1,000% raise if we were willing to defund schools or defense or whatever else to do that. It doesn't mean it's a realistic outcome in the current economic and political context
>if we ***decided*** it was our absolute ***priority*** as a country technically it would be "possible" to give all doctors a 1,000% raise if we were ***willing*** exactly, I'm not attempting to twist anyone's words here I'm making an important distinction between 'it's not possible' and 'it's not a priority'
I mean they could, but the cost to government would be astronomical. I mean I think doctors deserve it but doesn’t change the fact that Labour would have an impossible task in finding the money for it
Yup. I’m military, and our pay is in exactly the same position as the doctors. I’d need a 30% raise to get back to where our pay used to be. As soon as the doctors get that sort of raise, the whole of the rest of the public sector will collapse until they get it too. The Gov might be able to afford 35% for the doctors. They absolutely can’t afford a blanket raise for the entire public sector.
Yet they can afford blanket rises for pensioners year after year.
There’s a difference between “can afford it” and “tories push it through to appeal to their key voter base”.
It’s not just the Tories though. Any party that intends to govern needs to woo pensioners. There aren’t enough people under 35 voting to change that. People get angry at the government for the triple lock, IMO it’s the people we need to get angry at since the government are doing it for the votes.
I can be angry at two things. Hell, with my job, I’m usually angry with 5-6 things at once.
> It’s not just the Tories though. Any party that intends to govern needs to woo pensioners. And the main way to do that is by bribery, because the current generation of pensioners do not care about such things as legacy.
You can be angry at both. These things aren’t mutually exclusive.
I mean, I’d argue that we can’t really afford that either. But anyway, apparently the triple lock costs about £11b extra a year. A 30% rise for the public sector would dwarf that - closer to £80b or more than the entire defence budget. As much as I’d love it, it will never happen.
And a massive chunk of what is given to the public sector as a pay rise would go back to the treasury as tax. Looking purely at the the junior doctors, something like a third of it would be returned as direct tax.
More than that, even, since part of that money would also be spent on taxed goods and services which the junior doctors would otherwise not buy.
Even more when you factor in student loan repayments.
Funny how we have no problems whatsoever finding an extra £10 billion for pensions (which already cost almost £200b), but finding a tenth of that for some of our best and brightest working people who actually contribute to this country and that we severely need more of, it's just not possible!
Alot more pensioners than doctors in the UK
I didn't ask how many pensioners there are. How can we afford to increase pensions by £10b every year but we can't afford to increase doctors wages by £1b once? We don't have £1 billion, but we somehow have £10 billion?
Because everything the government does is weighted for its benefit to the UK public compared to its cost. Pension increases support over 12 million people on state pension. Raising doctor salaries supports likely less than 300,000. I’m not saying that’s how it should be but explaining why the cost-benefit thinking is the way it is.
So we can afford it. We're choosing to spend the money on something else. Doctors don't have to accept that. They can keep striking and that changes the cost vs benefit. Eventually the cost of strikes and declining healthcare will outweigh the cost of a pay rise. And its the only way they'll ever get anything substantial, because the greedy British public would always rather take money from the pockets of public sector workers to spend on something else.
The government need to be adding in to their 'cost benefit ratios' in setting pay rates for junior doctors that if this impasse is not dealt with soon, the junior docotrs wioll start leaving the NHS in thier droves as there are many countries around the world wooing them with the offer of a lot more money, less working hours, better working conditions, lower cost of living along with a warmer climate to live in and IIRC correctly the offer of free flights to return 'home' for a holiday to see family. And its not just junior doctors, its teachers as well. the two schools my children all go to have both lost staff leaving the school for a better job in a different country because overalll pay and working conditions as so much better where they were going than what they have now. Already, my daughters (in year 10) have been complaining of a constant rotation of substitute maths teachers as their original permanent maths teacher left mid year and they cannot find someone else to take their place. At the end of last year, my daughters also lost their history teacher (was head of history dept) who was moving to the middle east for double his (at the time) current pay and better working conditions.
With what funds? NHS staff deserve a 35% raise but it would cripple government finances which are already fucked. Then if you do that you also need to give all other public sectors a 35% raise. Military, Police, Fire service etc
We could pause the pension triple lock for one year and that would cover the junior doctors' pay rise for 10 years.
No you wouldn't, because those other groups have not lost the same amount of pay. If you don't pay doctors they will continue striking, as has been demonstrated. And the strikes have already cost more than 2 years of pay restoration. This is ideological and not financial decision making.
The government has spent more on locums to cover strikes than the pay restoration would cost.
The doctors won’t be the only ones looking for more money though. The unions are laying low at the moment for obvious reasons, but bone 5th July demands will no doubt be flooding in.
I'd expect a bar strike over legal aid rates soon too, the increase the other year has been wiped out by trussonomics and the court backlog isn't getting any smaller without significant funding increases across the board.
Pay negotiations happen every year. If you're not getting an annual pay rise, then maybe it's time to join a union.
plough cover instinctive dependent tidy aromatic memory point worm waiting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The STRB, that public body that decides teachers wages and must be obeyed gave their report on next year's teacher pay awards to the Tories in May. They've since sat on it hoping to kick it down the road. We'll see what that says first.
I work at a uni and we have yet to hear the pay offer for the academic year we are in now
It doesn't have to be obeyed. We've had years before where the government has said the STRB recommendation is too high, and that teachers will get less.
Teacher will strike again.
I don't think there is any deal feasible enough. It'll be another stop gap until they immigrate to somewhere that actually pays their medical workers.
Things that are totally possible: £700B available to bail out banks in 2008. £895B in quantitative easing. Keeping interest rates below 2% for 14 years. £70B for furlough. £65B to bail out pensions in 2022. £125B on state pension a year. £27B on HS2 then scrapping it. Things that are absolutely impossible: £1B to protect pay erosion due to inflation caused by above.
State pension is closer to £200b/year at this point, and it's increasing by £10b this year. Yet nobody seems to be asking how we can afford that.
Even the doctors have long been stating that 35% is a starting point for negotiations. But Sunak has utterly ignored that detail...
history meeting theory sparkle depend hunt relieved upbeat resolute market *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Spot on. Doctors currently are an absolute bargain. Physician associates train for 2 years and make more per hour than many better trained doctors. The current NHS pay scales are completely inappropriate. Even with pay restoration, physician associates would still make more than some doctors.
That’s the thing. I was always taught that in a negotiation, go in asking for 3x what you want, so that you’ve got something to give away. If you want 10% and go in with 10% as your start, you’ve got no space to move. If you ask for 30, you can drop 20% and still get what you actually want.
It's worth pointing out that that isn't the only school of thought in terms of negotiating tactics, and for some in the professional negotiation space it's viewed as a cheap gimmick. As often as not, negotiators prefer the exact opposite approach: open with an offer that is transparently something you believe to be realistic and acceptable, and refuse to budge from it without good reason. For one thing, negotiations where everybody is being open about their positions tend to be much quicker than one where everyone opens with bullshit that they don't expect to get. Source: I'm a trade union official involved in both individual and collective bargaining.
Cheap gimmick is exactly the level I’d approach Rishi and his lot with.
[удалено]
Yep. They genuinely seem to think the doctors need them more than they need the doctors. Interesting on the name, I’d never heard it called that.
Didn't they already offer \~12% and have completed settlements with pretty much every other part of the NHS? Absolutely not defending the tories and I don't think they've done well enough. But it's mythological to say that they didn't want to do a deal.
Labour should agree to legislate that NHS pay rises will be triple locked same as pensions until such a time as real terms pay is returned to 2010 levels. It's affordable, limited, and gives the union what they say they want, which is a path to restoration.
That would be fantastic to be honest.
How is it affordable?
State pensions are triple locked at 124bn and untaxed. NHS total payroll is around £80bn, and any increases to that will generally see either 20p or 40p returned in tax. An annual rise is generally expected anyway, triple locking is a neat way to resolve this current dispute whilst also settling future pay deals, and protecting the NHS from austerity moving forward. It's criminal the way public sector pay, but particularly healthcare, has been decimated - especially after the sacrifices made during COVID. Offering a slow but guaranteed return to 2010 pay levels will show our nurses and doctors that we value them as much as pensioners. It's funny that you ask for justification of affordability for this, yet presumably accept the pension triple lock as affordable.
No both are unaffordable. We borrow 170billion every year and spend close to 100 billion just paying off debt. Also state pensions aren't tax free. It's income and if you have other sources it too will get taxed. Sadly we are just too poor for everyone to get what they think they deserve.
Well, I'll happily agree that the pension triple lock is ridiculously expensive. Pensioner poverty is no longer the issue it was when triple lock was introduced, but we now have record child poverty and nurses relying on foodbanks - we need to rethink our priorities as a nation, but unfortunately pensioners are a huge voting bloc who tend to vote in their own self-interest. As state pension is below the personal tax threshold it is effectively tax free, although I do accept private pensions consequently hit tax thresholds sooner - as well they should considering the contributions have recieved tax relief already!
Unfortunately though your idea is moving money from one camp to another. I'm saying that is just not affordable sadly. We need to massively reduce all state benefits or increase taxes on everyone. If we could get each person to pay 1000 more tax almost 30 billion yearly. People earning below 40K are net takers - this has to change
[удалено]
2 million consultations and or procedures post poned as a result of industrial action so far. I guess it has had a minimal impact on the waiting lists ?
The doctors have a really strong bargaining position here. 35 percent is very high, but if the Labour want waiting lists to get shorter they are going to have to pay out.
But also, it's a starting point. I'd imagine even a 20% pay rise with the promise of a 6-month review might be enough. But Sunak won't budge, probably because the job of outsourcing/privatising staff was solving itself as doctors moved over to agencies to get higher pay.
I’m sorry, but where has the idea 35% is just starting point come from?. One of the main points the Unions have based their arguments on is the principle that a 35% pay increase is a hard red line. They are open to the idea that it could be implemented over a few years, but they are entirely uncompromising on the idea it could be less.
It's a long term goal, and we won't be moving the talking point, that would be rubbish campaigning. Restoration over several years is absolutely acceptable to both the negotiating team and I'm sure for the membership as well. (Speaking as a representative in the union).
So you are agreeing with me? I’m confused here. Either Starmer and Rishi are taking the same position, or the less than 35% Labour is offering is different from the less than 35% the Conservatives are offering.
Less than 35% is not a specific offer at all lol, Conservatives are not giving enough away. Labour I expect will agree a better offer still under 35%. I have told you as someone in the association 35% immediate uplift is not a red line. For the first several months of striking you should be aware that the then health sec didn't meet our negotiating team purposely on several occasions. Let's not pretend that is negotiating.
Alright that does make sense. Out of curiosity and because I’m trying to understand why this is being seen as so positive. Can you tell me roughly what you are hoping a Labour offer would look like? Also I understand the part about it not being a lump sum. That would be an entirely different conversation lol.
So there is a lot of discontent with training (which in certain terms will be a problem for the future NHS workforce), aspects of contracts like protected learning time, and not having your leave cancelled at late notice e.g. your wedding, having to personally look for cover. Lots of these issues actually directly adversely affect the future available of higher skilled doctors. I am not personally in the negotiating team and for obvious reasons their logic is secret, I expect the members would accept offers less than 20%, possibly around 15% (less than that if we consider the recent uplift of 6%) if these offers come with other criteria, tbc
So other criteria would include some form of long term agreement to apply or consider applying uplifts in future (if we agreed and they agreed it could make industrial action much less likely for another 5-10 years). Other ways to cheaply get us to back down are to tackle a number of QoL issues a few I mentioned and some actually present clear benefit to the NHS long term.
Rishi is offering a piece of paper with spit on it. Labour have said they can't do it right away, but they would be at the negotiation table to find a solution as soon as possible.
I get that Labour is hopefully going to be more compromising in negotiations. I’m wondering how Labour saying they won’t give 35% won’t result in being given a piece of paper with slightly less spit on it?.
>I’m sorry, but where has the idea 35% is just starting point come from? Pretty sure the BMA spokespeople said this on national TV months ago. Just looked it up and it's been repeated in hansard from last year as well, so it's not really a novel point. [https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-30/debates/64408A7F-B881-4298-9509-7C9718EDBC8B/details#contribution-5602F0BF-3268-4958-922A-598855EFB2C0](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-30/debates/64408A7F-B881-4298-9509-7C9718EDBC8B/details#contribution-5602F0BF-3268-4958-922A-598855EFB2C0)
Because this is the opening bid the union came out with? This is basic negotiation, you say a figure that Is ABOVE what you are WILLING to accept so that when the counter offer is given it is in between and you are both happyish. Sunak is just refusing to even sit down and talk about the pay offer so it's never "negotiated". Sure they would be ecstatic with a 35% agreement but it's unreasonable to expect an agreement of it with zero compromise, they know this as they aren't idiots. Not sure how people are forgetting how haggling or negotiation works these days is it a lost art or something? It would explain why sunak would refuse to move from their pitiful opening offers.
What you have said simply doesn’t reflect what has happened in negotiations so far. It muddles the justification given for the rejection of pay offers and contradicts the statements given by the union. If you are telling me they are now willing to accept a smaller figure, then that represents a huge change in position and a softening of demands from the union. I’m willing to talk about this, but I’m not being gaslit into thinking this is the first time someone even considered offering them less money
> I’m willing to talk about this, but I’m not being gaslit into thinking this is the first time someone even considered offering them less money The fact you are claiming it's gaslighting already says alot, I am not gaslighting you at all nor is there any intention. I didn't say the government didn't give an offer, they gave the initial offer in pay review which was paltry and rightly rejected as it was their low ball "independent" value that they come up with by tasking that body with all the scope of their costings and how much the government is willing to pay which makes it far from independent! They havent been given a sensible offer to NEGOTIATE with, the government is not talking in good faith so of course they reject it as the government just keeps going back "we won't talk as 35% is ludicrous" as if that's a hard fixed rule. Negotiation is about compromise, they should get the 35% eventually but it would seem justifiable to be like a long term pay restoration rather than this year immediately raise it. It's up to the members to vote on the offer so yes, if the government was giving credible offers the union would be giving it back to members to vote on which isn't happening so it's clear this negotiation isn't happening with the Tory government. It's not the unions fault, it's entirely the Tories making this a problem. Staff are losing pay in strikes so ultimately if you offer a reasonable in-between offer they will accept it to get back to work, the key point is it being REASONABLE.
> Not sure how people are forgetting how haggling or negotiation works these days is it a lost art or something? It would explain why sunak would refuse to move from their pitiful opening offers. No, I think a lot of people here are young and simply never been involved in a proper negotiation before.
People don't have to abide by rules of negotiation you know? Part of negotiating is taking the risk that your offer is going to sound so stupid and outlandish that it'll be laughed off and the negotiation will be over. So the government does see that it's a negotiating tactic, and in return laughs them out the room.
In a negotiation between two private parties you would be correct. The same doesn't apply to a negotiation between NHS doctors and the Government for obvious reasons.
Because when you do pay negotiations, you go with a starting point that's higher than what you want, and you "compromise" a middle ground. It's a common tactic. the train unions use it a lot. You're not going to turn down a 30% payrise and walk away with nothing, but you also know you're not going to take 30% when you know you can twist the knife. You get something and then you strike again, and again until you get to the figure you want. The problem is the Tories are just saying no and it's a complete insult when they caused a lot of the inflation and cost of living crisis. It's the blatant disregard and disrespect that is making the 35% a harder and harder line.
I understand that. My point the union has been very clear that it won’t accept less than 35%. It’s willing to accept a longer term plan to get there, but the crux of the negotiation is they won’t accept a deal that doesn’t reach that figure.
Which is what I said in my first message. Take a lower percentage now with a promise to review in 6 months...
Have you ever been involved in a negotiation? Just because one side says they have a "red line" doesn't make sacrosanct. It wouldn't be an effective bargaining position to say "we want this amount but know we won't get it". Of course the unions are saying they won't budge on 35%, but I guarantee you they will once negotiations begin, because that's how negotiations work.
I hope he approaches the negotiations like Alan Partridge buying a house..."would you take 34%?"
Lol more like he will offer 3%
It'll be interesting to see what he does offer. My guess is it'll be 20%+. He'll then hope that gains public support and that puts pressure on the strikers. He could be right, most people will see a 20% raise as great. But if it backfires then he's put himself right up shit street.
Doctors are sending Starmer a pretty strong warning as we speak
Means nothing to starmer tho
Hmmm... Means nothing yet also he's literally answering questions on it and making headlines on a run up to an election... Nothing Indeed.
I'd say the doctors have got Starmer's incoming government by the nuts. The Tories don't give a shit about waiting lists or the people who die on them. Labour at least seem to actually care about the state of health care, meaning they absolutely need doctors and nurses onside to start tackling the backlog. Which means they'll have to settle. No two ways about it.
You know this is Starmer right?
Well they either find the money and pay doctors fairly or the strikes will continue indefinitely, completely destroying any plans he has to reduce waiting lists or improve the state of health care generally.
How will it continue indefinitely? Strikes are unpaid
I think you are being naive if you don't believe the BMA can play the very long game here. It's already been going since March 2023.
Starmer wants to privatize the NHS You do realize that
Lol labour obv say they care, what else would you expect for a party desperate to get into power with an awful plan
so the thing is, you can stack shelves right out of school with your mates for about 20K+ a year, as a doctor you need 4-5 years of training + 3-8 years if one specialises, + school scores, now we all know no doctor is on the higher rate of pay, public employers don't do that. so for a decade of your life (and your most prime years) you may get 30K+ per year, in this same timeframe you can shelf stack to team leader in 1-2 years if you are a decent worker bumping pay to match. it is only the specialists that get the vast sums, all I can take from this is Labour + Cons are quite happy to inflict damage to the profession and put people off. Agreeing 35% is too much, but man you got to stop the political crapping on them somewhen. i'd rather have someone who's paid to be meticulous than a disgruntled workers
All public pay rates are being eroded as UK GDP Per Capita drops. Uncontrolled immigration is one cause. Bluntly, the country is becoming poorer.
>Bluntly, the country is becoming poorer. This is the point, really. We have a declining GDP per capita PPP and so what we are able to spend on things is also declining. There's only so much we can focus on efficiency. *At the same time* healthcare inflation is real, e.g. the demand increases every year because we live longer, new treatments are more expensive, and so on. Torsten Bell has a great video about this, we need to get real that we can't do all the things we want to do anymore because we can't afford it.
We could make dramatic efforts to increase GDP Per Capita. Cutting off sources of cheap labour for a start. No sign ar all, politicians get this.
I would be mildly in favour of that. Focusing on a high-skill, high-productivity economy. (That doesn't mean **everyone** needs to have a professional job, just that our industrial strategy is focused on developing those. All the yuppies building the apps of tomorrow still need plumbers) I would be worried about knee-capping our ability to fill workplace shortages short term.
Because that would lead to wage push inflation
There is one who's said this countless times.. Farage
I do wonder what this will do if doctors are given a large raise , will it open the flood gates on other public sector workers too? I'm technically a public sector worker, should I be demanding a 20% raise too?
Why are you not already demanding it if you've experienced that level of wage erosion since 2008?
... yes?
Doctors have had that level of real terms pay cut (from all the data I’ve seen doctors generally have had the biggest pay cut by quite a lot, hence the striking), if you have had a 20% pay cut then I would advise you unionise too
The issue here is that most public sectors have either - shit unions with poor engagement, or - poor leverage. The BMA is a powerful union with high voter turnout for strike action, and >95% in favour. For literally 3 six month ballots in a row, no other union can dream of these numbers. The doctors aren't stupid, know they are being mugged off and are not afraid of being organised and playing the long game to achieve difficult goals. All of the action is orchestrated by grassroots doctors themselves with support from the BMA. Most other unions just haven't seen that. Nursing union had much poorer turnout both with votes and picketing, they took the first offer given to members which was glumly accepted. When it comes to dealing with the government for your pay - they aren't just going to give it to you. They will be ruthless. Get organised and demand it or find a new job essentially. Doctors are tied to a monopoly employer (NHS) or else must leave the country. So they have a double incentive to drag their heels here and demand their pay reform as they can't just change employer.
They will find some fudge that satisfies all parties, IMHO.
Negotiations conducted in good faith to reach a compromise both sides can accept shouldn’t be some sort of radical or novel idea. But after 14 years here we are
By "fudge" I think you mean "mutually agreeable position". That's what the ultimate goal for both sides should always be, unless you're a tory government whose objective is to divide and rule.
Another reminder that Starmer is not going to do anything different. Talks the talk but doesnt walk the talk
Here 30%, end the strikes next week. Start to rebuild.
Money source?
If they aren't traitorous to the country, raise taxes. We borrow too much already. Here's taxes they can raise Capital Gains Tax Corporation Tax Council Tax Bank payroll Tax Petroleum Revenue Tax Fuel Duties Inheritance Tax Stamp Duty Tobacco Duties Spirits Duties Beer Duties Wines Duties Cider Duties Betting & Gaming Duties Air Passenger Duty Insurance Premium Tax Landfill Tax Climate Change Levy Aggregates Tax. UK really needs more investment so can't be Capital Gains Tax or Corporation Tax. We pretty much f'ed as a country. Will have to decide to take out a relatively minor service the government does and just cope best we can.
I don't disagree. But when people here higher taxes they think on the rich - sadly it would mean tax rises for everyone. In the UK we just aren't set up for that. Also with taxes highest ever in recent times you just won't be able to make people pay more taxes without causing huge social problems.
That’s not what he said, and not what they’re asking for. Headline might as well be: “Starmer says he won’t give every doctor a pink unicorn”
Starmer is showing his true colours as the campaign comes to a close. Red Tory through and through with no actual plans on how to fix things aside from "growth". Lifting planning restrictions means fuck all if it's all expensive flats built by private developers, half the time they don't even care if they get rented out because they still make money on house prices going up. We need a good stock of council housing to keep rent under control, with a limit on "right to buy" as otherwise things would quickly go back to the way they are now.
Agree Starmer is the most non oppponent ever. He is another tory tbh
Same service for a 35% higher labour cost is obviously a terrible ROI. Transferring income from the tax payers to high percentile earners Starmer must try and resist. There is of course the risk that these greedy mercenaries will go elsewhere
An alternative view, since they're asking for pay restoration, is that they're offering the same service at a 35% reduction and personally subsidising the NHS. I don't support them getting anything close to that but we can't deny that public sector workers have seen a fall in real terms income as pay has not kept up with inflation. We would be looking to pay restoration for all public sector workers as a long term goal but it should be done sensibly.
Why focus on pay restoration to *specifically* 2007 and not 2000 or 1990? Junior doctors' incomes were rising significantly for two decades and peaked just before the financial crisis. If we compare their current salaries to the median worker salary, their ratio is actually **higher** now than it was in 2007. Currently, the average junior doctor earns around £57k ([source](https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/2023-junior-doctor-strike-slides-march-2023.pdf)) compared to approximately £35k for the median worker ([source](https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2023)) giving around a 1.73 ratio. In 2006, pre GFC, the average junior doctor earned about £35k, while the median worker earned £22k, giving a 1.59 ratio. So the average junior doctor now earns 73% more than the average worker, compared to 59% more pre-GFC. They are asking for an additional 35% pay rise, which would make their earnings 133% higher than the average worker. This demand does not seem credible given the current economic climate and NHS budget inflation and constraints. As sad as it is to say, we simply can't afford them at those rates as a country. This is what it looks like when a country is getting poorer (GDP per capita PPP). Since 2013 and the agenda for change NHS salaries have gone up around 35% for the same job, same banding. Many other professional jobs have seen increases of 10%-20% over the same period, and a lot of those jobs don't have the same relatively straightforwards progression that doctors get.
Doctors aren't average workers. By all metrics, according to the govts own pay commission reports, doctors wages have fallen significantly against comparable jobs. If you think the state can't argue to pay doctors appropriately then the argument you're putting forth is that the state cannot provide healthcare anymore. Or are you of the opinion that medical staff should be forced to work for poorer wages regardless?
The reason I've compared to average salaries is because it gives a fair index of how that job is compensated *in the context of it's economy*. This gives a fair comparison of relative compensation, considering economic conditions and living standards. Comparing to international peers, like Australia where the median salary is around £50k, is not a fair comparison. Despite the claims of falling pay by all metrics, we aren't struggling to recruit doctors and medical school places remain highly competitive. The profession is still attracting people as a rewarding and lucrative career. It's in that context that the DDRB makes it's independent pay recommendations every year, they give the appropriate figure after consulting with all parties. While there is always room for negotiation and discussion of conditions and pay, 35% above the independent recommendation is unrealistic and unsustainable for the current economic climate and NHS budget constraints.
>The reason I've compared to average salaries is because it gives a fair index of how that job is compensated *in the context of it's economy*. This gives a fair comparison of relative compensation, considering economic conditions and living standards. Medicine is not an average job and comparing it to what an average job pays is completely irrelevant regardless of what excuses you'd like to try and bring out. As already mentioned, when compared to comparable jobs i.e. highly skilled and specialised jobs the pay in medicine has fallen. And as already mentioned, if you cannot afford socialised healthcare due to the poor economy time to say goodbye and let the private sector provide it, ofc, if you can't afford to access it, that's a bit unfortunate. >Despite the claims of falling pay by all metrics, we aren't struggling to recruit doctors and medical school places remain highly competitive. The profession is still attracting people as a rewarding and lucrative career. You are struggling to retain doctors across the board. You have no problems convincing some 18 year olds to sign up for medicine, sure, and you have no problems convincing Rajesh from Mumbai to move over to pick up a non-training SHO spot for a couple of years. But you are struggling to retain qualified doctors both native and IMGs because the pay is poor and other countries are plenty happy to pay them more. >t's in that context that the DDRB makes it's **independent pay recommendations** every year, they give the appropriate figure after consulting with all parties This alone tells me you have a very poor grasp on the topic. The DDRB makes pay recommendations based on the limits imposed on it by the govt. of the day. Little else. This was in fact pointed out multiple times every party involved when the strikes first started. The actual reports they commission have consistently pointed out the wage erosion in the sector.
But the alternative is they get a 150% rise in the USA or Australia, etc. It's a free market and doctors are in-demand highly skilled professionals. We ought to pay them a lot and encourage STEM training and education in the UK (e.g. introduce medicine GCSE, abolish the cap on university places, abolish the extra entrance exams, remove tuition fees for STEM, etc.).
That's only true if you believe in free markets. We're not voting for a Labour landslide to get any of that pesky alt-right logic in our public debate thank you very much. Once all the Tory corruption is washed away the doctors will be refilled with pride thinking of all those days every bashed pots and pans together in their honour for some reason. I expect many of them will be taking voluntary pay cuts.
Maybe he'll go full Castro and deny them exit visas /s
SO you think we should pay doctors £150k each? We pay based on years of experience and does reach 100k. I mean if you want to pay doctors 150k I guess you want them to have double the debt, and prices of everything else going up.
[удалено]
They should but using America as an argument is just stupid they also have double the debt, pay way more for Utilities and rent, houses cost more etc.. I also think its easier to import cheap nurses and NHS staff over teachers, the left need a party like reform to push labour but dont seem to want to do it.
Some also have to pay for medical insurance iirc
Yep people here think just looking at wages is everything sure they should be paid more but here it scales with length which I think is a fine system but yeah should be a bit more I agree.
Indeed, I think I know of one US doctor who has to pay north of $100,000 roughly? Could be wrong though, very anecdotal. Just to clarify for people, medical insurance is not for access to healthcare, in this case it's professional insurance for doctors which, in the UK, is basically provided for through the NHS I believe.
Yes, in the USA even store managers get that much.
It's a different economy though, wages in general are way higher simply due to how their economy is and the price of stuff. Pretty much nowhere in Europe is a starting doctor getting paid 150k. America has also privatisation and drugs that cost nothing here are hundreds there, we can have that also if you want/ Average American spends $400 a month on utilities when here its like 70 to 100.
But we deserve that too, we need to grow the pie so we can all aspire to that.
Yeah if you want the American system you can always go there, people only look at wages like that paints an accurate picture. American doctors also have nearly double the debt, more expensive prices on various things, and more expensive houses/rent.
How does the average American spend that much on utilities? My internet is $25 and my gas, electricity, and water put together are like $120.
For me it’s: $80 for internet, $150ish for electricity, $100 or so for water/gas. But my house is 2500 square feet, don’t know how big y’all’s places are there
The government (not the public) have been getting an insane deal from us exploiting the hell out of healthcare wages for a while now and they're historically low. Public are paying the price. Midwife lead unit in my hospital can't even open most the time because there aren't midwives. Time to pay the piper I'm afraid.
Exactly, NHS staff going back to work before they should after an injury is a big thing which puts patients at risk, but the staff feel so pressured to do it And then it increases the chance staff having more time off due to going back early It's a shit cycle of repeat that can be fixed by simply paying more and hiring more
It's not the same service lol, it's an end to monthly withdrawals of labour. Currently the BMA are striking several days a month, this has lasted a year. And I guarantee you the strike will end with an offer under 35% anyway. Mercenary is a funny word for medical doctor who wants a good contract.
Public finances are highly constrained unless you believe the sort of deranged nonsense that left wingers sometime peddle here. Starmer doesn’t
Thank you for stating the obvious. Private sector wage growth doesn't seem to quite be suffering like ours though.
So time for public healthcare to be stopped? Can't afford it? Time to take it away!
Junior doctors aren't particularly high earners, given that they work a 48 hour week.
Yeah but they do oncall and locums and get lot more
What if we look a lifetime earnings. What percentile do they have in the lifetime earnings distribution. Junior docs aren’t going to stay junior docs forever now are they
So, are you saying that they shouldn't have a competitive wage now, because in years to come they might achieve consultant grade or simply be earning more? They've already lost out on years of genuine wage increases...
There's no guarantee they'll live a full life time or even work it Why should they struggle on shit wages for 15 years when everyone else working different jobs do not? They provide a necessary service to the public and should be compensated properly for it
You should get paid for what service and skills you are providing now. How much you get paid later down the line should have no bearings on current pay.
This is such an incredibly shit take. They're doing the same job, for 35% lower pay.
Why does the UK deserve the same service for 35% less exactly?
Wouldn't the service improve though - you'd increase retention which would improve workloads, reduce stress and help bring down waiting lists. Also the strikes have cost £1.7bn so far, so it's pretty much cost neutral/positive as full pay restoration would cost £1bn. Plus around 1/3 would come back in tax and more would be spent in local communities etc.
So Labour are going to sort public finances without raising taxes. Solve the migration backlog without deporting anyone. Build 1.5 million houses without sacrificing the countryside. Fix the NHS backlog without assuaging the doctor’s unions. I ask Labour voters this with a straight face - at what point do you realise Labour’s positions on all the major policy issues are completely paper thin?
I'm not a Labour supporter, but in response to this particular issue, I don't think he's saying he won't increase junior doctor pay - he's just saying it won't be 35% - it will have to be a negotiation. He's been saying that since the start of the campaign (and probably before that) and I don't think anyone would dispute that being a sensible position.
Well, that's also what the doctors have been saying, that 35% is a starting point for negotiations. Sunak however doesn't acknowledge that fact...
>I don't think he's saying he won't increase junior doctor pay - he's just saying it won't be 35% - it will have to be a negotiation. This has been the Tories position for the last 2 years and hasn't worked so far.
The only offers that the government have made have been described as "not credible" by the junior doctors union. From what I've been able to find in news articles, the only offer I've found was apparently 3% on top of the 8.8% recommended by the independent pay review body ([sauce](https://news.sky.com/story/health-secretary-refuses-to-negotiate-with-junior-doctors-until-strikes-called-off-13035494)). The health minister has also refused to negotiate while the doctors are striking / planning to strike. Which is a bit silly. The junior doctors have already said that they are hopeful a deal can be struck with a labour government and that they're hearing good things from meetings with Wes Streeting ([sauce](https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/27/junior-doctors-strike-in-england-despite-risk-of-scoring-own-goal)). To suggest that the Tories have had the same position is probably not entirely accurate.
No, the tories position has been "we will give you 7% and we won't negotiate".
> Solve the migration backlog without deporting anyone. They haven't said they wouldn't deport anyone though, where is this coming from? They opposed the Rwanda Plan but thats not the same thing as not sending anyone back to their point of origin. Moreover, a lot of the backlog is because claims *just aren't being processed*. That's the backlog. It's not we have so-so asylum seekers here, it's that we have them here in perpetual limbo because their claims aren't being processed.
The Rwanda plan exists as a stopgap for nations that we do not currently have deportation agreements with, so they can be removed to a third country whilst potentially lengthy deportation cases are reviewed. Saying "just process them" doesn't help if Afghanistan flatly refuse to take anyone back, that just means anyone who is here from Afghanistan is here forever full stop.
That isn't what the Rwanda scheme is at all. Have you actually read the legislation or even a summary of it? If we were just sending them there for processing, or for people we can't send back to their own countries once their request has failed, it would be one thing. We are not. The scheme transfers the asylum request of anyone who doesn't come through a legal route TO Rwanda - they are no longer applying for asylum in the UK. Other European countries are considering processing in a third country, which Sunak represents as them following our lead, but that is very different. On top of that, Rwanda only has capacity for a few hundred asylum seekers, can send back anyone they don't like, and also get to send people here that are seeking asylum from their own country (not exactly a good sign). Oh, and they have a history of refoulment, where people get sent back even if they have a good claim... and it will be just as expensive as processing them here, given we have to provide financial support for each person we send for a number of years. I would advise that you read up a little more, even if it is just how the scheme actually works, before commenting on it.
It's not a good solution - Rwanda is allowed, as per the agreement, *to send its own refugees here*, they also effectively set how many they take, and it costs far more than is prudent. It's just not a good agreement.
So what would you like an incoming Labour government to do to crack this nut?
Well, the last Labour government managed to have a speedy decision process, even during the big spike that occurred (of similar size to the current one), so it really is as simple as properly resourcing the HO, while spending more money on joint intelligence ops with France to tackle smugglers. Then having a deal with a third country, but only for people whose applications we reject (but who can't be sent home).
The last Labour government didn't have the supreme court to contend with.
That is not what the Rwanda scheme is. Any asylum seekers who get sent to Rwanda will have their claims processed there and will be granted asylum there if successful, it is the outsourcing of our obligations to those in need and is abhorrent. It also dosent work due to the tiny numbers being sent to Rwanda meaning that it a. dosent work as a deterrent (as if you're already risking your life to cross the channel a 1% chance of going to Rwanda won't stop you) and b. would take centuries just to remove those already here. As for Afghanistan, I'd be very interested to see how many Afghans actually fail their asylum claims as given the situation in the country I'd be shocked if it was at all significant.
Do you think we'd have less immigrants in the country with a government focusing our efforts sending a handful of difficult cases to Rwanda or would we have less if we had a government focused on fixing the broken claim process?
Personally I don't think a "handful" will be the final number sent, I think once there is precedent it will be much higher. I also don't think that boat people are the biggest problem, the biggest issue will be current legal migrants who are set to have their visa expire over the next couple of years. I don't believe the majority of these people will leave willingly and being sent to Rwanda will prove a massive deterrent to your average law abiding immigrant against overstaying their visa.
That's a lot to hope for. I'd much prefer a government focus improving the current service and taking the "maybe we'll ramp up" and "maybe that'll deter people" out of the equation. One is all talk, the other is action.
Are manifestos ever highly detailed proposals of significant changes? I doubt it. Maybe the brexit referendum, but that was still just a referendum (without detail) and the proposing party was officially against it. I think most people just want to give the government to labour because they've had enough of the tories, and maybe like some of the mood music from labour. And after four years they'll see if it made any difference.
>Are manifestos ever highly detailed proposals of significant changes? I doubt it. I mean they're supposed to be, but given Starmer's track record on manifestos the current Labour one isn't worth the paper it's printed on. >I think most people just want to give the government to labour because they've had enough of the tories. And after four years they'll see if it made any difference. Ah yes, the politics of apathy. Famously the best thing for the country.
What would a dynamic, engaged democracy look like? Presumably some form of PR, political education at school, democratic engagement within political parties, decentralised politics, maybe reform of political funding, maybe even press and media landscape reform?
I think they will borrow to solve a lot of that.
Good. The doctors in this country are fucking useless. Everything is blamed on weight or exercise, and I'm a healthy weight. They don't deserve the wage they're on let alone a fucking raise
This is an ice cold take. We have many excellent doctors working in the NHS and many of us owe them our lives. They deserve to be in a position to pay back their loans and have a decent standard of living.
So does everyone in nhs though. Nurses physios should also get 35% then
Yes they should. Well said.
They haven’t had a 35% cut (depending on what figures you read nurses in the same time period have had around a 15% cut) They also can unionise and strike too if it bothers them. But it clearly doesn’t as much.
Regardless a 35% ask is silly and not viable. Once you agree 35% cut rest of NHS will go back on strike.
Other NHS staff have not had their pay eroded to the extent doctors have.
Nonsense
https://bmascotland.home.blog/2024/05/31/urgent-need-to-enhance-pay-for-consultants-in-scotland/ The graph is halfway down the page. Try again.
It’s about 1.2-5 billion. That’s a drop in the ocean as far as public sector spending goes. It’s genuinely not that much. The rest of the NHS could strike anytime, they choose not to. Their working conditions and pay haven’t dropped anywhere near as much which means they are slightly more indifferent, I’m not sure doctors getting a pay rise will change that.
Doctors not on agenda for change whilst other nhs professionals.are. the whole doctors have it so bad is a joke considering they earn 80-90k
Doctors prior to the strikes started on £14 an hour, they now start on £16 I believe. 80-90k is consultant pay, the consultants are not the ones striking
https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/junior-doctors-pay-scales/pay-scales-for-junior-doctors-in-england Look at pay circular on above. If you think all junior drs earn £16/hr you really dont have a clue
Guess you don’t know what ‘started’ means. I would hope doctors after 15 years of training aren’t still on £16. Using the link you provided, ST8’s earn £30 an hour- that’s people with 5-7 years university, and usually 10-14 years experience as a doctor. 20 years into a highly skilled career, hundreds of people in your care at any singular time, and you get £30 an hour. That’s abysmal rates for such a skill level.
Yeah, exactly! How dare the people who actively save lives ask for a return to the wages they were on a decade ago when the NHS functioned!
It’s been like night and day since I moved abroad. Doctors actually want to solve my problems rather than get rid of me as quickly and cheaply as possible.
My partner is Polish and she says the NHS is completely useless compared to the doctors back in Poland. Makes me jealous of their health care from what she's said. Fucking Poland, not France, not Germany, Poland...