The independent pay review body (DDRB) isn’t actually independent (look at who decides the appointments and sets the constraints) and their advice has been ignored several times over the last decade.
I’ve heard this a number of times and I don’t agree with this take. Are we saying that their decisions are not independent? Their whole remit is to decide what is fair based on the constraints. Suddenly saying they have constraints is meaningless. They’ve come to a decision based on the situation at the time. As far as I know the government have accepted their recommendations in full this year.
The Conservatives have dug themselves a huge hole by failing to maintain public services
Yeah I don’t disagree with this. Past actions have come up a cropper. But that doesn’t justify a 35% pay rise.
As far as the doctors go, when is a good time for them to seek recourse? There never is one.
I don’t think anyone is saying they shouldn’t seek recourse. Who is saying that? People are just rightly questioning whether this is the right way to go about it? Here’s a starter for ten. What if they had said “In a cost of living crisis with high inflation we demand 15% increase and guaranteed increase in numbers of doctors plus extra paid for training yearly to help the burnout and an uplift in junior doctor’s hourly wages”. I don’t think people would have questioned that as a starting position but they’ve completely overshot here. It’s actually put people off supporting them.
I don’t see this going away any time soon. And all the while our economy suffers. Having good access to healthcare is part of what makes us competitive - it gets people back into the economy and active, directly or indirectly.
It’s worth actually reading a DDRB report to see what I mean by constraints. They contain phrases like:
“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST) wrote to us to say that the last Spending Review budgeted for 1 per cent average basic pay awards, but that the Government recognised that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skill shortage, more flexibility may be required.”
Make of that what you will (2018 report).
As for how to go about it, I don’t know whether to favour one approach over the other. What I can see is that the government doesn’t appear to be inclined to do any actual negotiation (new strike dates are out - are they at the table yet?) and continues to burn through its credibility - the “we’re all in this together” and ensuing “jam tomorrow” of austerity of over a decade ago is yet to materialise; the government has shown that it cannot deliver.
Would the doctors find the way forwards easier by changing the demand? Or does potentially accepting less today carry vibes of “jam tomorrow” that’ll never come?
I’ve looked at the FT figures. I don’t see any of this going away soon. If the “brain drain” continues to pick up pace we will all be much worse off.
I’ve heard this a number of times and I don’t agree with this take. Are we saying that their decisions are not independent? Their whole remit is to decide what is fair based on the constraints. Suddenly saying they have constraints is meaningless. They’ve come to a decision based on the situation at the time. As far as I know the government have accepted their recommendations in full this year.
Yeah I don’t disagree with this. Past actions have come up a cropper. But that doesn’t justify a 35% pay rise.
I don’t think anyone is saying they shouldn’t seek recourse. Who is saying that? People are just rightly questioning whether this is the right way to go about it? Here’s a starter for ten. What if they had said “In a cost of living crisis with high inflation we demand 15% increase and guaranteed increase in numbers of doctors plus extra paid for training yearly to help the burnout and an uplift in junior doctor’s hourly wages”. I don’t think people would have questioned that as a starting position but they’ve completely overshot here. It’s actually put people off supporting them.
This is the real tragedy of it all.
It’s worth actually reading a DDRB report to see what I mean by constraints. They contain phrases like:
“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST) wrote to us to say that the last Spending Review budgeted for 1 per cent average basic pay awards, but that the Government recognised that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skill shortage, more flexibility may be required.”
Make of that what you will (2018 report).
As for how to go about it, I don’t know whether to favour one approach over the other. What I can see is that the government doesn’t appear to be inclined to do any actual negotiation (new strike dates are out - are they at the table yet?) and continues to burn through its credibility - the “we’re all in this together” and ensuing “jam tomorrow” of austerity of over a decade ago is yet to materialise; the government has shown that it cannot deliver.
Would the doctors find the way forwards easier by changing the demand? Or does potentially accepting less today carry vibes of “jam tomorrow” that’ll never come?
I’ve looked at the FT figures. I don’t see any of this going away soon. If the “brain drain” continues to pick up pace we will all be much worse off.