?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Mallory's dilemma



That's a pretty misleading title; Theresa May doesn't have a dilemma as such.  She has a very specific problem. The far right  contingent in her party feel their power now and neither she nor anyone else rabies-free among the party elders can control them. The frothers want Brexit asap, and they feel strong enough to push her hard for it, so hard that for all her tough frowns and her Thatcher MKII image-attempts, she has given in,and intimated a date she probably can't back down from, with no assurances of any kind from the EU about an interim deal or indeed anything.

The FT says it's politics over the National Interest, and to some extent it surely will be, though the idea of protecting the country from a growing and specifically inane nationalism is probably true as well.  There is a threat of a chunk of the Conservative party splitting away and going to Ukip. I'm pretty sure that this last announcement was born out of desperation,for all the cheers it got her among party members. May is doing it because she sees no choice,  and hopes Business Tories will wait it out to make their money back on de-regulated industries, a privatised health service, low corporate taxes and all the other little sweeteners that may  arise from a more 'streamlined,' economy if a new age of austerity kicks in. I read a comment somewhere that the wise thing to do is to get every penny and stick it in a secure currency like the Swiss Franc. I don't know enough about money to be sure. If it all goes belly up, is the Swiss franc so much safer than anything else?

Leaving the money aside for a while,  the wretched woman has announced that British soldiers in conflict zones will not be bound by the European Court of Human Rights rules. Can there be anything more disgusting? She calls legal claims against soldiers 'vexatious.'  I bet they are. She wants British soldiers to know their government is behind them, a respect that would be more adequately shown by sending them into battle with the best training and equipment, looking after the families left behind, helping them through post conflict trauma/illness /disability, and giving them financial help when they need it. Having served his country faithfully and well, David Clapson, ( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/david-clapson-benefit-sanctions-death-government-policies ) dying with less than a fiver in his bank account and no food in his belly would doubtless have been cheered to know he was safe from vexatious claims.

And to add to the general hideousness, Jeremy Hunt wants to replace 'foreign doctors' with 'home-grown talent,' in the NHS. Once trained, he says, these doctors will be fined if they leave the country within 4 years. So that's a real magnet. 7 years training for a GP, 10 for a consultant, only to have fewer rights than anybody else. Then Amber Rudd announces her desire to clamp down on foreign students and to ensure that foreigners aren't doing jobs that Brits could do.She wants companies to list the proportion of foreigners they employ. What's her next move? Forcing them to wear badges?

Friends talk about emigrating;  one close chum looks very set to take the plunge and forge a new life in Berlin. But most talk, few move. It is not so easy for many.

I have guests coming this weekend, so it may not be possible for me to attend the Cable Street marchhttp://cablestreet80.org.uk/
I'm going to try though.

Our far right know better than to wear uniforms today. But they have a power Mosley would have begged for.

Comments

( 14 comments — Leave a comment )
semyaza
Oct. 5th, 2016 08:45 pm (UTC)
It's difficult to suddenly acquire 'home-grown talent'. If it were easy, we wouldn't be recruiting so many doctors from South Africa and Russia. The problem here is that even if you recruit them, you can't make them stay where you need them. In the case of the UK, I don't see how a fine would prevent a doctor from taking a much more lucrative job in the US.
smokingboot
Oct. 5th, 2016 10:42 pm (UTC)
They will be talented by dint of being of stout British stock, of course, what else does one need? As to fines not working, well no,not alone... but with the addition of restricted rights, shame at failing the fatherland and, if all else fails, iron fetters across their treacherous limbs they'll change their minds.

It may be the beginning of a whole new black market industry, smuggling doctors out of England.

There has never been a more ridiculous time in UK politics.
semyaza
Oct. 5th, 2016 11:06 pm (UTC)
They won't change their minds. They'll go abroad as they've always done. Nurses, too. By 'talent' I wasn't thinking so much of their genetic origins as the difficulties in motivating people to decide on a career in medicine (especially since an NHS career is nothing to look forward to), giving them a thorough grounding in the sciences while they're at school, and then providing them with funding and university places. That can't be done overnight and even if you can do it, which is difficult with an ever-expanding population of patients, you'll still need to hire from abroad until you have your first batch of graduates. And they might very well decide that the US is a better place to get their education given that UK universities have been slipping in the rankings, and they'll be gone before you can even attempt to restrict their rights.
smokingboot
Oct. 5th, 2016 11:17 pm (UTC)
You have hit the nail square on the head.

No rational person would attribute such 'talent' to genetic origins, though judging from Hunt's claims he must think Anglo-Saxon DNA will make up for the infrastructural and logistical weaknesses you point out.



semyaza
Oct. 6th, 2016 12:40 am (UTC)
Canada is turning out a lot of doctors these days and many Canadians who take their medical degrees abroad come back to Canada. We also recruit from overseas. Competition for residencies is very high. A doctor may be required to practice in a rural area for a certain number of years after she completes her residency but most don't stay there which means that in some places - and this is one of them - there's a revolving door. In our case, I don't see the solution. The country's too big with too many isolated areas. But generally speaking - you keep doctors by making the system attractive to them.

The more immigrants you have, the less likely it is that any of your doctors will have A-S DNA.
smokingboot
Oct. 6th, 2016 06:59 am (UTC)
I don't see why foreign doctors, or foreign anybody, is a problem anywhere. A lack of doctors is indeed an issue but Hunt forgets how unattractive he was trying to make the system for them... This is just thundering stupidity. More thundering stupidity.

I couldn't give a monkey's behind about A-S DNA.
semyaza
Oct. 6th, 2016 07:34 am (UTC)
I don't care where a doctor has his training as long as he's well-trained although doctors trained elsewhere may have a different approach to treatment. I don't believe that hiring abroad is always a good idea but I'll spare you my reasons.

I have Viking DNA so can't comment on the merits of Anglo-Saxon DNA.
smokingboot
Oct. 6th, 2016 08:57 am (UTC)
It's likely, that I have Viking DNA. And I must admit, I feel myself fighting the urge to don a horned helmet, and go bury my battle-axe in the door of Westminster palace.
benicek
Oct. 7th, 2016 09:01 am (UTC)
For the first time this year there were unfilled medical school places in the UK, so the home-grown pool is now shrinking thanks to Tory policies.
semyaza
Oct. 7th, 2016 09:08 am (UTC)
They need to make medicine a desirable profession - for "home-grown" talent and for doctors and students from other countries - rather than attacking the problem arse-backwards.
benicek
Oct. 7th, 2016 09:29 am (UTC)
Same with nursing. They need to pay the market rate, but a free market of labour in the public sector is the last thing they want.
smokingboot
Oct. 7th, 2016 10:27 am (UTC)
My suspicion is that a working thriving NHS is the very last thing they want long term. But for now, humouring xenophobes is of higher priority. If they get the next election covered they'll go back to finding reasons why the NHS must be replaced changed.
benicek
Oct. 7th, 2016 10:51 am (UTC)
After a decade of being a nurse, trade unionist and more recently a CQC inspector-assistant, I have reached a similar conclusion. A weak NHS is preferable to them, and unfilled shifts save lots of money and keep the NHS as cheap as possible, but not so weak that it disappears. The NHS carries the burden of emergency, high risk and free chronic care which insurance companies and private operators don't want to get entangled with. It also supplies trained and experienced staff. It's the workhorse upon which the private sector rides.
smokingboot
Oct. 8th, 2016 06:54 am (UTC)
I can see that. It hadn't occurred to me that they might want a skeleton service rather than remove it completely. Interesting.
( 14 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

default
smokingboot
smokingboot

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com