Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[BigMon]

Did you pop on a pair of these, Dixy?



FWIW I agree that waving 'socialist', UKIP, Monster Raving Looney, etc placards around does detract from what should be the focus of their argument but it doesn't mean their argument is incorrect.

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

One person's view, carefully selected.

It is carefully selected for relevance. MP, doctor and ex-health minister, having a say on the subject of this thread.
As for one person's view;

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/617535/tory-jerem...

Again, Conservative, doctor, with an opinion on the subject of this thread. And the link from a 'non-guardian' source.

This is why you are 'wrong on almost everything you post'. It's because that statement is followed by, quite obvious, explanation why you were wrong.

As for making the noise; ~70000 posts.

turbobloke said:

How does it alter slogans and chants which obviously embody Labour propaganda? It can't rewrite history or alter the motives of those involved.

'Save the .....' are emotional posters, used by very different people for very different causes. To brand them 'leftist' or 'Labour' is ranting.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Monday 23 November 12:32

[jjlynn27]

The Crack Fox said:

Dixy said:

turbobloke said:

It's pure propaganda, Labour style.

I give in and agree with you completely, all junior doctors are lazy money grabing socialist lefty labour supporters who are only doing this as a massive sulk because their party did not win the last election.

You win, now we are both wrong.

I know two junior doctors, both die-hard tories working their balls off, and a GP who is thoroughly UKIP.

FFS, can't we just pay these people what they're worth?

You are clearly wrong, as am I, as I know quite a few juniors, most of them who are Conservatives, some LD,not a single one that's Labour or UKIP, but I'm sure that there are some who are, as any normal person would expect. All of them do work stupid hours, and do stay longer to cover the shortfall in staff.

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

The Crack Fox said:

Dixy said:

turbobloke said:

It's pure propaganda, Labour style.

I give in and agree with you completely, all junior doctors are lazy money grabing socialist lefty labour supporters who are only doing this as a massive sulk because their party did not win the last election.

You win, now we are both wrong.

I know two junior doctors, both die-hard tories working their balls off, and a GP who is thoroughly UKIP.

FFS, can't we just pay these people what they're worth?

You are clearly wrong, as am I, as I know quite a few juniors, most of them who are Conservatives, some LD,not a single one that's Labour or UKIP, but I'm sure that there are some who are, as any normal person would expect. All of them do work stupid hours, and do stay longer to cover the shortfall in staff.

Knowing two Tory medics who work hard - irrelevant in removing the presence of political activism in the JD protests.

Putting a Tory MP in support of JDs' pay claim against political placards and slogans revealing political angle to the protest - totally different and irrelevant.

Sarcy false agreements - ho ho ho, Merry Christmas, have a prezzie or two showing the basis for considering the obvious political antipathy to a Conservative government is obvious, and the politicised union approach is equally obvious.





This is blatantly political, no doubt about it.

No amount of irrelevant points or infantile jibes can change reality.

ETA take your pic(k)

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 23 November 14:19

[BigMon]

turbobloke said:

Knowing two Tory medics who work hard - irrelevant in removing the presence of political activism in the JD protests.

Putting a Tory MP in support of JDs' pay claim against political placards and slogans revealing political angle to the protest - totally different and irrelevant.

Sarcy false agreements - ho ho ho, Merry Christmas, have a prezzie or two showing the basis for considering the obvious political antipathy to a Conservative government is obvious, and the politicised union approach is equally obvious.
This is blatantly political, no doubt about it.

No amount of irrelevant points or infantile jibes can change reality.

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 23 November 14:19

Are you saying the junior doctors are only protesting against the changes because it's the Tories who are trying to implement them?

[mph1977]

BigMon said:

Are you saying the junior doctors are only protesting against the changes because it's the Tories who are trying to implement them?

becasue they are being egged into it by certain factions - quite probably

look how all Blairs disasterous changes came in fairly easily becasue the Labour leaning staff side orgs , the NUS and the agitators were not applying pressure ...

[BigMon]

mph1977 said:

becasue they are being egged into it by certain factions - quite probably

look how all Blairs disasterous changes came in fairly easily becasue the Labour leaning staff side orgs , the NUS and the agitators were not applying pressure ...

So how do you explain all the Conservative voting doctors (numerous examples in this thread) who are against it?

[crankedup]

Posters who seem to think that this is politically motivated! I have seen zero evidence that would substantiate such a claim.

[wolves_wanderer]

turbobloke said:

jjlynn27 said:

The Crack Fox said:

Dixy said:

turbobloke said:

It's pure propaganda, Labour style.

I give in and agree with you completely, all junior doctors are lazy money grabing socialist lefty labour supporters who are only doing this as a massive sulk because their party did not win the last election.

You win, now we are both wrong.

I know two junior doctors, both die-hard tories working their balls off, and a GP who is thoroughly UKIP.

FFS, can't we just pay these people what they're worth?

You are clearly wrong, as am I, as I know quite a few juniors, most of them who are Conservatives, some LD,not a single one that's Labour or UKIP, but I'm sure that there are some who are, as any normal person would expect. All of them do work stupid hours, and do stay longer to cover the shortfall in staff.

Knowing two Tory medics who work hard - irrelevant in removing the presence of political activism in the JD protests.

Putting a Tory MP in support of JDs' pay claim against political placards and slogans revealing political angle to the protest - totally different and irrelevant.

Sarcy false agreements - ho ho ho, Merry Christmas, have a prezzie or two showing the basis for considering the obvious political antipathy to a Conservative government is obvious, and the politicised union approach is equally obvious.





This is blatantly political, no doubt about it.

No amount of irrelevant points or infantile jibes can change reality.

ETA take your pic(k)

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 23 November 14:19

Showing pictures of a few people on a protest - equally irrelevant by those standards.

Unless of course all 98% who voted for industrial action are in the picture?

[mph1977]

BigMon said:

So how do you explain all the Conservative voting doctors (numerous examples in this thread) who are against it?

becasue they are being told by the agitators that it will hit them in their wallets and/or they will be back doing the dangerous hours in days of yore ...

[crankedup]

mph1977 said:

BigMon said:

So how do you explain all the Conservative voting doctors (numerous examples in this thread) who are against it?

becasue they are being told by the agitators that it will hit them in their wallets and/or they will be back doing the dangerous hours in days of yore ...

Like these Doctors haven't got the brains to be able to work out for themselves exactly how proposed contracts will affect their T&C. Are you Mr J.Hunt?

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

I give in and agree with you completely, all junior doctors are lazy money grabing socialist lefty labour supporters who are only doing this as a massive sulk because their party did not win the last election.

You win, now we are both wrong.

Nice sarcasm, but you failed to answer, what / who does the NHS need saving from?

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

As you are you to yours however irrelevant for this thread they might be.

You may deem it to be irrelevant but with other people spouting ignorant rhetoric about the need to 'save the NHS', it's quite clear that the discussion is now much wider than the original thread title.

Unless of course you want to admonish that poster too (who actually started the thread in the first place)...??

HTH

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

Knowing two Tory medics who work hard - irrelevant in removing the presence of political activism in the JD protests.

Putting a Tory MP in support of JDs' pay claim against political placards and slogans revealing political angle to the protest - totally different and irrelevant.

And wrong again. Putting opinion of someone who works as a doctor, knows about what they have to deal with and explains reasons quite clearly. On the other hand you found few placards out of thousands that have anything to do with 'political angle'. As before you are not looking rationally at the picture as a whole, but doing the same things as with research and 'weasel' words.
Yes, opinion of a Tory MP, on topic is irrelevant but finding few placards is relevant.

turbobloke said:

Sarcy false agreements - ho ho ho, Merry Christmas, have a prezzie or two showing the basis for considering the obvious political antipathy to a Conservative government is obvious, and the politicised union approach is equally obvious.

turbobloke said:

No amount of irrelevant points or infantile jibes can change reality.

Indeed.

The questions, relevant to this topic, still stand. I would be very surprised if you don't try to dodge them again.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

Nice sarcasm, but you failed to answer, what / who does the NHS need saving from?

I'm not going to speak for Dixy, but it does need saving from Hunt or anyone who thinks that it can provide full on service without additional resources. Now, can you answer the question how can you have increase of 15% and 11% be both cost neutral all other params being the same. When done with that, where are you going to find additional doctors to cover the shortfall caused by reducing hours, when you already have acute shortages with some positions not filed for yonks.

[IanA2]

I suppose this is just more left wing nonsense:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue...

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

I'm not going to speak for Dixy, but it does need saving from Hunt or anyone who thinks that it can provide full on service without additional resources. Now, can you answer the question how can you have increase of 15% and 11% be both cost neutral all other params being the same. When done with that, where are you going to find additional doctors to cover the shortfall caused by reducing hours, when you already have acute shortages with some positions not filed for yonks.

It's already been explained to you how incurring massive pension liabilities (which aren't fully valued by the public sector) is a poor use of taxpayer's funds.

Making the pensions more sustainable (across the public sector) could free up money that could be used to support spending - on the NHS - for example.

However, the priority is to change what the NHS does (and can realistically do) given the changing demographics and a finite supply of money.

It should be clear to all (ignoring the political rhetoric) that continuing to throw money at the problem isn't a viable solution, despite what some might choose to claim.

[sidicks]

IanA2 said:

I suppose this is just more left wing nonsense:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue...

So the answer is more spending, despite spending having risen 180% in the last 15 years?

Just out of interest, where is this money going to come from?

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

It's already been explained to you how incurring massive pension liabilities (which aren't fully valued by the public sector) is a poor use of taxpayer's funds.

Making the pensions more sustainable (across the public sector) could free up money that could be used to support spending - on the NHS - for example.

However, the priority is to change what the NHS does (and can realistically do) given the changing demographics and a finite supply of money.

It should be clear to all (ignoring the political rhetoric) that continuing to throw money at the problem isn't a viable solution, despite what some might choose to claim.

We've done pensions to death. These changes are coming to force from next August. The questions, once again, how can you have both 15% and 11% as cost neutral. And where are you going to find doctors to fill gaps left by reducing existing hours.

[vonuber]

sidicks said:

So the answer is more spending, despite spending having risen 180% in the last 15 years?

Just out of interest, where is this money going to come from?

Funny really, they seem to be able to suddenly find extra money for things like bombing foreign lands or whatever crisis suddenly comes up and threatens to make them look bad or would provide a photo opportunity for Cameron to appear on the news looking concerned.
We've supposedly got the 5th or so largest economy in the world with a relatively small population. It shouldn't be this difficult.