Doctors are Revolting

Or to be more precise, striking.

The members of the British Medical Association are going to provide only emergency care on the 21st June 2012.

The dispute is about pensions.

79% of GPs, 84% of hospital consultants and 92% of junior doctors voted in favour.

Let see what they currently earn as basic salary’s :-

" 
In the most junior hospital trainee post (Foundation Year 1) the basic starting salary is £22,412. This increases in Foundation Year 2 to £27,798. For a doctor in specialist training the basic starting salary is £29,705. If the doctor is contracted to work more than 40 hours and/or to work outside 7am-7pm Monday to Friday, they will receive an additional supplement which will normally be between 20% and 50% of basic salary. This supplement is based on the extra hours worked above a 40 hour standard working week and the intensity of the work.

Doctors in the new speciality doctor grade earn between £36,807 and £70,126.Consultants can earn a basic salary of between £74,504 and £100,446 per year, dependent on length of service. Local and national clinical excellence awards may be awarded subject to meeting the necessary criteria.

Many general practitioners (GPs) are self employed and hold contracts, either on their own or as part of a partnership, with their local primary care trust (PCT). The profit of GPs varies according to the services they provide for their patients and the way they choose to provide these services.

Salaried GPs employed directly by PCTs earn between £53,781 to £81,158, dependent on, among other factors, length of service and experience. "

Source NHS website here.

As for their pensions.The average hospital consultant retiring now will enjoy a pension of £48,000 a year and a lump sum of over £140,000.  Among public sector pensions being paid out, doctors account for two thirds of the top 1% of pay outs.

The average male GP retiring at 60 receives £46,600 annually, dwarfing the public sector average of £1,400. Source here.

And what are the new proposals that are so terrible ?

Under the proposals, all NHS staff will be required to work until the state pension age (rising to 68 by 2046) until they can draw a full pension, 60 for those covered by 1995 scheme and 65 for the 2008 scheme. Contributions increased from 1 April 2012 by 2.4% for doctors earning over £48,983 and by 1.5% for those doctors earning £26,558 – £48,982.

So If I understand rightly Doctors are being asked to pay more and work longer. Dear Doctor please let me be the first to welcome you to the real world !

and can I point out that your paid too much in the first place ? have a read of this excellent article here.

And of course we have not even mentioned doctors and consultants earnings from private work, drug companies etc .

Doctors, your being greedy and the fact that you are willing to let people suffer for that greed makes me despise you.

The Doctors are revolting, in every sense of the word.

Let Them Eat Cake

So the government has done a U-Turn on the  " pasty tax " and VAT on static caravans.

Explained as " listening " to genuine concerns but viewed as cynics as a way of increasing coalition popularity.

To me it just seems incredibly weak behaviour.

The treasury needs every penny it can get. I don’t particularly agree that these additional taxes were the fairest or best way to obtain additional revenue so am not sad to see the changes.

What I am sad to see is no other changes to compensate for the lost revenue.

We either need the money or we don’t !

And while I'm ranting, how come this was not announced in parliament ?

As the markets watch and wait, do you think they view or leaders as being made of the right stuff ?

Final point, when I heard the news I could not help but think of Marie Antoinette


and the attributed quote " let them eat cake " in response to seeing starving peasants.

I don’t know why.

No Fault Dismissal

It may be a few days since the details of the Beecroft Report became available but it takes the writer a few days to digest and form an opinion.

I have of course had the benefit of commentary from the usual suspects. yet I have still find anybody whose analysis is the same as mine.

There are lots of recommendations in the report but the stand out one is " No Fault Dismissal "

Its worth reading the whole report but to summarise the most contentious point, an employer would be able to sack an employee giving no reason at any time. The employee would be entitled to compensation from the employer based on a statutory formula akin to redundancy.

The  logic for the recommendation is that sometimes employers get " stuck " with an employee that is no longer performing in their job and its an expensive and difficult process for the employer to do anything about it. Disproportionately expensive for small businesses.

The 2nd supporting arm of this recommendation is that if employers can dismiss at will they are more likely to hire and this will improve the economy. This is premise is supported by the Institute of Directors as reported here.

The government has now entered into a consultation phase and will then decide as to whether the recommendations have merit and should become law.

What a load of bollocks's.

There is a problem but not as described.

It is perfectly possible to dismiss an under performing employee. You have to follow best practice/contract terms. Generally,  you identify problems and required action to improve to the employee ( and if you have any sense, offer additional help/training ), then if no improvement a warning is issued, then a written warning, then a final warning and finally dismissal.

The process is stressful for everybody but does not have to be protracted.

The problem is what happens during or afterwards. The danger for the employer is that the employee will quit and claim constructive dismissal or afterwards claim unfair/wrongful dismissal. This will generally lead to a claim before an Employment Tribunal. This is what employers are scared of and employees know it.

Generally speaking ( and there are exceptions ) there are no awards for costs in the Employment Tribunal. So if a claim is made then regardless of its merits and outcome there is no risk to the loser of a financial penalty. This is fuelled by the availability of specialist employment lawyers who will act on ex employees behalf on a " No win , No fee " basis.

So in effect a dismissed employee has nothing to lose by bringing a claim in front of an Employment Tribunal. And that’s the problem.

It is cheaper for an employer to pay off a frivolous employment claim than employ a lawyer to defend it !

No fault dismissal is not required. What is required is the introduction of costs into the Employment Tribunal system. If employers are going to lose then then it is sensible for them to settle fairly and quickly. If an ex employee is going to lose then less claims will be made.

No ones statutory rights are affected.

As for the ideas that no fault dismissal will deregulate the labour market and deregulation will improve the number of people being employed, again, I say Bollocks !

A new employee does not get statutory employment rights until they have completed 2 years employment. Broadly speaking they can be dismissed at any point for no reason up to 2 years. If you are an employer and cannot workout whether an employee is any good within 2 years then frankly your in the wrong job !

However some of the recommendations in the report do make sense ie pensions and small business for instance.

My final comment re No fault Dismissal is that if your female or in a relationship, be scared ! I quote :-

" However the current list of reasons why an employee can claim unfair dismissal regardless of how long they have been employed (which are basically not related to the employee’s ability to do the job but rather a list of unacceptable reasons, largely related to union activity, why an employer might unreasonably wish to dismiss an otherwise well-performing employee) would remain in place. So too would the right of the employer to follow the current unfair dismissal process, which would often have a lower cost.

The concept of no fault dismissal specifically applies to ANYONE. Read the report !

So if your pregnant you can be dismissed. You protection against this is limited to the paragraph above. The report is totally silent on what the position of pregnant employees if a no fault dismissal law was available to employers.

Scary or what ? Remember the government is considering whether to implement this !

Twonk of the Day Is ?

Most definitely twonk of the day is Chloe Smith MP  ( @chloesmithmp ) who just happens to be Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

Appearing on Newsnight last night to comment on Christine Legardes IMF report on the state of the UK economy, our minister appeared along side Rachel Reeves ( @Rachelreevesmp ) the labour Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

You can see the episode on Iplayer here.

So why twonk of the day ?

Firstly there was a major gaff by Chloe in that she describes the government success of reducing the debt of the UK. Clearly this wrong as the debt is going up !
What the minister meant was reduction of the  deficit ! For an explanation of the difference see here.

However, under the pressure of live news a slip of the tongue can be excused and does not qualify for twonk status.

But it became clear during the interviews that our minister had made it a condition of appearing on the programme that she would not debate directly with her fellow MP.

Chloe, this wins you my Twonk of the day award !

Why the hell would you not debate ? Why Why Why ?

Your a government minister and you are not willing to allow another MP ask you a question in public ? Do you lack conviction ? Do you lack knowledge ?

You then compound your failure to act in an accountable way by stating in reply that you would be happy to debate Rachel Reeves any time ! Apparently not ! according to newsnight.

Minister, you may be brilliant at you job for all I know, but when you appear in an official capacity you have no rights whatsoever to lay down conditions re interview. To do so simply destroys the public’s trust in our politicians, government and your own personal integrity.  

Why should Prisoners be Denied the Vote ?

I think I might be alone on this one, but I think prisoners SHOULD be allowed to vote.

Deep down within me it just does not seem right that we have a society that locks people up and then stops them from any participation in the democratic method of choosing how our society is run. I'm sure that how despots and dictators behave i.e. lock up your opponents.

I'm being a bit extreme but what are risks to our society by allowing 80,000 extra people exercise their vote, Will society crumble ? or would allowing prisoners to engage in the vote perhaps add to the chances of a prisoner rehabilitating and become more aware of how a society operates.

Prison is for 2 things, safety of the public and punishment. Is loss of liberty not enough punishment ? Does removing the vote add anything to the severity of punishment ?

Removing the vote from prisoners simply distances them from the rest of us and does nothing to prevent any of us from being a victim of crime.

Care in the Community

This week is Dementia Awareness Week. Have a look at :-

and check out, the excellent Alzheimers Society website.

I was going to write about this subject anyway but today it has extra poignancy for me.

As I have commented before, my father has severe dementia and it is something we have lived with for at least 7 years. I am his registered carer but my father currently resides at a NHS run facility.

Trying to get appropriate care for my father since his diagnosis has been one of the most time consuming, stressful and at times futile things we have ever been through.

Some of the highlights include been my father being lost by Heartlands hospital and him wandering the streets of Birmingham for 48 hours whilst myself and the police searched for him. This actually happened twice ! One of his nursing homes throwing him out and just ringing an ambulance and telling me after the event. etc, etc. In and out of hospital because there was no where else for him to go etc etc.

My father has been for the last 2 years been cared for at an NHS facility which has provided a high standard of care and stability and its been a blessed relief.

Last week I was asked to come in and take part in a " care review ". I attended this weekend and now know it is highly likely he is going to be thrown out of his current facility.

I was presented with a deputy ward manager who went through a standard questionnaire designed to access my fathers care requirements based on his mental health. I understand that a physical health module will also be completed but I'm apparently not required for that one.

The questionnaire had approx 8 questions with multiple choice criteria and answers designed to access his condition and nursing requirements. Ranking each requirement from non to low, to moderate all the way to high. There is then a section for the accessor to write a narrative re each answer.

Through out this process which lasted approximately 20 minutes ( most of which was me asking questions ) it became apparent that what was happening was an assessment was beening done as to whether my fathers health requirements were severe enough for him to remain under his current care regime. At no point was this told to me upfront , I had to tease the information out by deliberate blunt questioning. Nor I am apparently going to be given a copy of the completed ( with assessors written comments ) questionnaire. I have to ask for this in writing and it may or may not be available to me. Finally I was asked to sign nothing and it was clear that my attendance was out of politeness and not a mandatory part of the process.

My questioning illicited  the fact that the remit of facility has changed ( no notice to me at any point ) and they are now only supposed to care for the most " challenging cases ". As my fathers condition has now worsened  to the extent that he can no longer walk, is incontinent, has no idea who or where he is, who I am and generally he is so feeble that he cannot cause a fuss ie he is  deteriorating to becoming a vegetable, this no longer presents a challenge for specially trained nurses, any type of nursing will be sufficient.

It is highly likely that my fathers care will be passed from the NHS to my local social services.

So once again my fathers care appears to be a in a state of flux and my stress levels are rising. The process will apparently take months and I have no faith whatsoever in my local authorities social services dept. Thankfully I have not had to deal with them for several years but last time they were pathetic in their efforts. I hope for my fathers sake and mine that they have improved.

Its time for a proper serious debate about the challenges of an ageing population
and dementia. How we as a society are going to care for, support and fund a coherent care package that provides us all with a quality of life and care that we would wish for ourselves. Everybody knows this so I say to our politicians, GET ON WITH IT !

Matthew Offord is Twonk of the Day

Matthew Offord ( @HendonMP ) wins the Twonk of the day award.

Mr Offord has a majority of 107, and apparently was once mistaken by Flashman  for being his waiter. 

 One of Mr Offord's constituents wrote asking for his support for same sex marriage and detailed below is the response he received.

I do not support same sex marriage and neither does Manuel Matthew Offord but our reasons are different. I do not support the institution of marriage at all.

Here his response :-

"Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding Same Sex Marriage.

My own position is that I will not be voting for legislation that extends marriage for same-sex couples. Having waited many years to get married I acknowledge the value the commitment brings. It is my strong personal, moral and religious belief that the institution of marriage is to provide the foundation of a stable relationship in which those two people of the opposite sex procreate and raise a child. That is physically not possible for same-sex couples so I don't see the  point of introducing a law to allow this. I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration, in order that they receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples but not marriage.

To many this might seem like a trivial matter, particularly since the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004 means that same sex couple already enjoy the same rights that married couple do. However the institution of marriage is woven into the fabric of our nation - it affects our courts, inheritance rights and even our schools. And it is the effect on our schools, children and teachers that is worrying so many. Close to 100,000 people have signed the one man, one woman equals marriage petition.

In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about "the importance of marriage". If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school. So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? It is simply inconceivable in today's world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views. Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor. Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years. And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

I do not believe that same sex marriage would serve to enhance British society or its values.

Yours sincerely,

MATTHEW OFFORD MP
Member of Parliament for Hendon
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

 Manuel Matthew Offord's arguments are so weak for the position he is adopting and that’s why he wins the Twonk award. Here's the letter again with my comments add in red .

"Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding Same Sex Marriage.

My own position is that I will not be voting for legislation that extends marriage for same-sex couples. ( Hurrah ! but only if your willing to ban all marriage ) Having waited many years to get married ( err why is that relevant ? ) I acknowledge the value the commitment brings ( to who ? ). It is my strong personal, moral and religious belief that the institution of marriage is to provide the foundation of a stable relationship in which those two people of the opposite sex procreate and raise a child ( Not sure everybody thinks like this ? I'm sure love is supposed to come in there somewhere in the 21st century, Are you also saying if you don’t want children there is no need to marry ? I'm pretty sure you can also procreate outside marriage, I’m also sure you can have a " stable " relationship without marrying.). That is physically not possible for same-sex couples so I don't see the  point of introducing a law to allow this ( a bit of a porkie here, adoption and sperm donors seem to pass you by. So if I follow your logic couples that cannot conceive should divorce ? and if your an adoptive parent you should be denied marriage ?) . I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration, in order that they receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples but not marriage ( not equality for all then ? ).

To many this might seem like a trivial matter ( condescending ), particularly since the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004 means that same sex couple already enjoy the same rights that married couple do. However the institution of marriage is woven into the fabric of our nation - it affects our courts, inheritance rights and even our schools. And it is the effect on our schools, children and teachers that is worrying so many ( really ? any evidence on this ?). Close to 100,000 people have signed the one man, one woman equals marriage petition. ( whilst factually correct surely this relates to you majority more than to the strength of argument )

In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about "the importance of marriage" ( I didn’t know this, but I pose the question as to why marriage is so important ? ). If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school ( Yes and your problem with that is ? ). So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? ( they should be prosecuted as their views should not impede the education of their child ) It is simply inconceivable in today's world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views ( thats the point isnt it ? Its called progress). Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor ( as they should be ! as such institutions exist for the education of all children not just theirs). Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years ( 2000 years ago a marriage was about property and indeed the female being property, slavery was also OK along with rape within marriage , check this out). And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? ( their teachers and a good teacher is agnostic to their personal beliefs, how else is religion taught ? can a devout catholic not teach Judaism ? Can a atheist not teach morals ? )  Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? ( Hope so ! )These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

I do not believe that same sex marriage would serve to enhance British society or its values. ( So I must conclude that you believe that same sex marriage is at best neutral to our society, or indeed, at worst, detrimental ? Other than some bigoted people being upset you have offered no coherent reason not to support same sex marriage, which is a failure of accountability on your part )

Yours sincerely,

MATTHEW OFFORD MP
Member of Parliament for Hendon
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA