Meanwhile more than a thousand driving examiners are to strike for two days next week at another Department for Transport agency, the DVSA, over workloads.
It's what happens when people vote in an incompetent government.
As opposed to the alternative at the time? They were soooo much better, weren't they? PS, its the DVSA management, not minister who are to blame for the farce there.
I mean, I don't recall hoards of ordinary people who handle post dropping like flies from COVID because they 'handle post' (or other items) every day. Perhaps their 'workload' woul;d be far less had they gone back to work in their offices like most people in similar circumstances in the rest of the UK - sans civil servants who like exercising on their peleton bikes.
I'm sure they'll be many people glad of a job who could take the place of the 'workers' at the Swansea HQ, better still, move it to a part of England that needs employment.
|
|
I don't think its possible to carry out a driving test while sat in an office, which is what this is about.
Why the fact we still have 40,000+ cases each and every day isn't making news is beyond me. A friend's 15 year old daughter is in hospital with it, fit as a butchers dog, no underlying conditions, they have been told to expect a long journey ahead, if she comes out of hospital breathing.
|
|
"Why the fact we still have 40,000+ cases each and every day isn't making news is beyond me."
Well it does make the BBC News every day and I guess most people pay little attention because if you've been double jabbed and otherwise reasonably healthy, catching it isn't likely to have any serious consequences. The vast majority of hospital admissions are for those who can't be jabbed for medical reasons or where the jab may not be effective, the young who are yet to get round to it (but IMO should) or the stupid.
Edited by Chris M on 15/10/2021 at 17:53
|
|
|
I don't think its possible to carry out a driving test while sat in an office, which is what this is about.
Why the fact we still have 40,000+ cases each and every day isn't making news is beyond me. A friend's 15 year old daughter is in hospital with it, fit as a butchers dog, no underlying conditions, they have been told to expect a long journey ahead, if she comes out of hospital breathing.
I thought that it was the staff working for the Swansea office (I've already seen news reports to that effect) that are in dispute - besides, the driving testers are presumably contractually obliged to work X hours a day, so they cannot be 'foirced' to work more without some extra pay or holiday time in lieu. If they had worked in the private sector, then they would likely have to work some extra non-paid hours gratis.
They should be thankful they have a job at all.
40k 'cases' does not mean 40k people very sick or hospitalised. Giving an example of how bad someone you know is is hardly a representative sample either. Things could not continue to go on as they were in the first few weeks/months of the pandemic ad-infinitum.
Unfortunately - as has always been the case, some people who appear to be otherwise perfectly healthy will die from X or Y over the course of a year - we cannot eradicate death. We, in my view, cannot use the case of such people to justify how much of the public sector (and still a reasonable amount of the private sector) is 'working' (or not) at the moment, given all we would be doing is making the future situation worse and worse.
|
|
|
|
As opposed to the alternative at the time? They were soooo much better, weren't they? PS, its the DVSA management, not minister who are to blame for the farce there.
I mean, I don't recall hoards of ordinary people who handle post dropping like flies from COVID because they 'handle post' (or other items) every day. Perhaps their 'workload' woul;d be far less had they gone back to work in their offices like most people in similar circumstances in the rest of the UK - sans civil servants who like exercising on their peleton bikes.
I'm sure they'll be many people glad of a job who could take the place of the 'workers' at the Swansea HQ, better still, move it to a part of England that needs employment.
Andy I'm afraid you're on fact free rant here. Ministers ARE responsible, although apart from Lord Carington I'm not sure anybody since Sir Thomas Dugdale in 1954 has actually done so.
Minister from Johnson downwards are explicitly forcing staff back into offices whether they're safe or not. They and their spin doctors are also responsible for putting the 'Peloton' nonsense in the public eye.
The issue at Swansea is, at root, around the site itself. Built in the seventies in multi storey blocks and heavily dependent on lifts it's more or less impossible to staff in a way that complies with safe working post covid. In the era it was built lots of staff in grades of HEO and above had cellular offices for one, two or three people. Now they're occupied by teams of 6+. Pre pandemic it was a petri dish for colds, flu, winter vomiting virus and everything else that does the rounds.
There are still massive numbers of people in the private sector from City law firms down to banking and insurance where home and/or hybrid working looks like being he long term norm. Just look at Central London on a Friday.
It was placed in Swansea precisely because of that areas loss of traditional jobs. If it were re-located elsewhere then no doubt it would be on new, or at least modern, buildings which for fit for a 21st century working model.
Its postroom is one of the largest operations of its type in the world.
|
As opposed to the alternative at the time? They were soooo much better, weren't they? PS, its the DVSA management, not minister who are to blame for the farce there.
I mean, I don't recall hoards of ordinary people who handle post dropping like flies from COVID because they 'handle post' (or other items) every day. Perhaps their 'workload' woul;d be far less had they gone back to work in their offices like most people in similar circumstances in the rest of the UK - sans civil servants who like exercising on their peleton bikes.
I'm sure they'll be many people glad of a job who could take the place of the 'workers' at the Swansea HQ, better still, move it to a part of England that needs employment.
Andy I'm afraid you're on fact free rant here.
In your opinion. Characterising it as a 'rant' is no better than your religious-like defense of the public sector failures that occur on a daily basis.
Ministers ARE responsible, although apart from Lord Carington I'm not sure anybody since Sir Thomas Dugdale in 1954 has actually done so.
Ministers are ultimately responsible, but there are a large number of middle-ranking and senior civil servants directly responsible for the day-to-day running of such organisations who a) shouldn't be absolved of responsbility, which IMHO you always do (blaming ministers and a 'lack of money most often), when 9 times out of ten it is poor day-t0day management that is to blame for such issues.
If it was just minister fault, why do middle-ranked and senior civil servants need to be 'amongst the best and brightest', when in effect all ministers need are yes men and women of at best, average intelligence, just to do their bidding, becaus ethey don't make any operational decisions of their own?
Minister from Johnson downwards are explicitly forcing staff back into offices whether they're safe or not. They and their spin doctors are also responsible for putting the 'Peloton' nonsense in the public eye.
No - it was a senior civil servant who quipped either when interviewed or at some committee hearing that they rather enjoyed being at home and using their peleton. The media then picked it up and ran with it. Nothing to do with spin doctors, as much as (presumably) the Guardian may believe.
Ministers are not 'forcing' staff back into their offices - in fact, many in the media and many of us ordinary people are angry at why they are not.
The private sector has been going back to their offices with relatively minimal changes in operations (mainly small, common-sense changes) and with little to no impact on COVID infections or deaths, but as usual, the public sector appears to have no brain and (depsite being 'the best and brightest') wants to wait for ministers to do X or Y, then (as the medical and teaching unions have done) say no (with no basis to back it up other than they can).
Apparently some unions think that iof their members are paid more, it makes them safer. I remember the BMA a few years ago up in arms about junior doctors long hours because of 'safety concerns', but then finding it just fine if their members had a big pay rise.
This is just them playing politics (again) - only this time with the nation as a whole. They should be ashamed.
The issue at Swansea is, at root, around the site itself. Built in the seventies in multi storey blocks and heavily dependent on lifts it's more or less impossible to staff in a way that complies with safe working post covid. In the era it was built lots of staff in grades of HEO and above had cellular offices for one, two or three people. Now they're occupied by teams of 6+. Pre pandemic it was a petri dish for colds, flu, winter vomiting virus and everything else that does the rounds.
Given all the furore about vaccinations, why should this present a problem? Funny how things were 'so' bad that for years, staff never left for other jobs, or had new staff joining when they must've known about such 'problems'.
I do recall a few years ago when a certain other party had been in power over a 13 year period, spending oodles of taxpayer money and more and yet no new building was found. Why was that? Surely the staff there would've had a really sympathetic ear and money was so 'abundent' back then.
There are still massive numbers of people in the private sector from City law firms down to banking and insurance where home and/or hybrid working looks like being he long term norm. Just look at Central London on a Friday.
Friday (morning) has historically been a quiet day for travel to London. As a frequent commuter myself over the years, I can attest to this by personal experience. It is much the same on the roads even well outside London going towards the capital, because many people take Friday off or have a half day to take a long weekend holiday, or (as I've done a few times) used the half day to pack for a proper longer holiday.
I recently travelled to London to meet up with an old work colleague and the Kings Cross-St. Pancras area was heaving, far more than I thought it would be for pandemic times.
Yes, a good number of people are still working from home, either completely or partly, but many (like my colleague) have been working 'half and half' and gradually getting back to full office working over the past months.
You're probably right that some people will likely continue to only work at home or in part for the forseeable future, but from the experiences I've heard about, it's increasingly not sustainable for most (normally) office-based workers, especially those who work in teams and/or who's workplace cannot afford the additional IT required to support home working on a long-term basis.
I know as an engineer -confirmed by my old colleague - that for many professions, being able to interract in person with colleagues is essential, and not being able to do so has a large detrimental impact on the staff (especially the younger, inexperienced staff who benefit significantly from the in-person training and mentoring), the quality or work and productivity, as well as increased costs.
Ironically (something that I'd bet that the public sector won't stand for) is that some workplaces have been reducing salaries temporarily for home workers to offset the gains in not paying for travel against extra IT support, which is understandable.
The only way for workplace working to resure is for all sides to be reasonable. Unfortunately large swathes of the Public Sector are not being so, and ministers - despite what you may say to the contrary (they are 'recommending', not forcing) - are being too soft and capitulating to their unreasonable demands.
It was placed in Swansea precisely because of that areas loss of traditional jobs. If it were re-located elsewhere then no doubt it would be on new, or at least modern, buildings which for fit for a 21st century working model.
I presume that it isn't the only office or semi-industrial building in the area, nor is Swansea completely full up and has no space left for new buildings. You don't just move a group of people (or keep them there) to work in a building that (if you're correct about it) is unsuitable.
Does the building have space for a ventilation, heating and A/C system? Having cellular offices is no barrier to decent ventilation, etc. In fact, it's often better, because staff can get things done wihout all the noise and disrpution from working in an open-plan office. I found that the best layouts are ones where offices are for between 6-20 people for a team, plus cellular offices for managers, who often need the added quiet and privacy for obvious reasons.
Most office complexes can be remodelled internally to suit the needs of the workforce. There's also no reason why regional offices could not be used or started up - even if this was on a temporary basis whilst larger building changes were undertaken. I've personally worked on such refurbs (often 1950s, 60s and 70s buildings), including some for public sector organisations, so it can be done.
Its postroom is one of the largest operations of its type in the world.
Never mind the quality, feel the width springs to mind. And they often still get a lot wrong, as is demonstrated on the letters page of many a newspaper on a weekly basis (which shows how incompetent the DVSA management is).
Odd how large firms can manage to set up (and at a reasonable cost) such operations and run them smoothly in a short time, but public sector ones still think it's the 1960s or 70s. Again, this is, in my view, a management problem. Ministers are supposed to take advice from 'expert' civil servant, but my belief is that too many are nothing of the sort and more likely to be 'Sir Humphrey' types - long-standing, yes, experts, no.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 17/10/2021 at 18:29
|
|
Andy, you have comprehensively hit all the nails on their heads!
|
Andy, you have comprehensively hit all the nails on their heads!
No he has not, just another rant with next to no facts.
I'm not going to respond line by line but a few points need answering.
There are Middle ranking and Senior staff in both DVLA and DfT. Sure they deal with the day to day stuff but if they fail big time Minsters (a) act and (b) take responsibility. Never mind where submissions are made saying we need X - usually investment - and the Treasury won't come up with the cash.
Directions for Civil Servants to return to their desks most certainly ARE coming from Ministers. The PM made it abundantly clear last year what he expected and I doubt that's changed. Patel has certainly had it made clear to the Home Office that staff are expected to return.
I'm sure some parts of the private sector have returned to work; in those areas where it is necessary. Others like banking, finance, and Law have not. There are regular reports in the Law Society Gazette of firms both large and small doing various mixes of home and hybrid working. Yes, Friday was always quieter than Tue-Thur but Mid City London - Holborn and eastwards towards the City is near deserted.
Both public and private employers will have areas of activity where people need to be on site and together and others where they've found that home working is MORE productive as staff are not stressed by travel.
Who are the employees returning en-masse and what exactly are the minimal changes you mention?
We've got new trainees at work and ideally they would be in the office where they can watch/listen to those of us with experience handle calls. On the other hand we've had others, trained in lockdown, who've learned by listening in remotely and taking advantage of the fact we record calls for training.
Being vaccinated means you're less likely you get seriously ill or die of Covid. It does not prevent transmission including by asymptomatic carriers. We still have to be careful, as witnessed by scientists calling for Plan B now.
I've worked in any number of government buildings. Ancient like the Royal Courts of Justice and modern like 102 Petty France - previously Home Office St Anne's Gate.
What's now the LSE New Academic Building on KIngsway was built between the wars for The Public Trustee. It as possible, becuase of floor and ceiling voids, to flood cable it. Air conditioning other than in a discrete computer suite was not do-able at reasonable cost.
I must look inside now it's partly open to the public but I think the modernisation involved near demolition of the interior.
Our local council moved to new premises because it was cheaper to build new and sell the old site than adapt a concrete slab structure put up when the authority was created in1974.
|
|
Apparently a considered, point-by-point rebuttal is now considered 'a rant' by Bromptonaut.
Note how none of the points I repeated raised have been answered by him. I saw a (for once) balanced episode of the CH4 series 'Dispatches' about the parlous state of the NHS.
Whilst some may indeed be attributed to a lack of money over many decades and an over-reliance on targets, much of the programme showed how poor management and a culture of it being 'for the workforce' (especially the bloated management level) and not the users - the patients.
Rather reminded me of the DVSA. With all due respect, Brompt, I think you worked too long/close to the action to be able to take a dispationate, indpendent view of both the end-user or those, like me, who often worked alongside civil servants on capital works projects who, as an outsider, could see the many failings of many such public sector organsations.
It isn't just (or even mainly) about a lack of money or government policy. It's changing a culture in our entire public sector that has built up since WWII. We now see NHS GP unions advocating stirke action because they don't want to see patients in person, and yet in most other European nations, they have done so throughout the pandemic, with no fuss, no difference in GP death rates, no extra pay, no bonus for just turning up and working as before.
Private sector firms - at local level, just adapted to the situation. The problem is that so much of the Public Sector just stops the minute a new situation happens, and expects ministers just to resolve every such problem. Why do you think I made the point that why have all those middle and senior managers if all they do is blindly implement complex technical policies from ministers? They may as well employ 6th Form students at a far cheaper cost.
You also did not answer the questions I put about why, given all the money sloshing around from 1997 to 2007 did the DVSA not move buildings to one that was suitable and 'safe', or why we only heard about this after the Tories got into office? I don't recall you ever previously bringing this 'urgent' matter to our attention, given how much time you've had since you left the civil service what, 8 years ago?
In my view, governement ministers cannot just take the fall every time some major bodge-up happens in the civil service, mainly because they'd run out of MPs within a month or so, and because, as that Dispatches programme showed, most of the fault is much further down the chain, something that often they cannot do anything about without the consent of the staff themselves, which, given the way the unions and culture works, is nigh on impossible.
Notice how whenever people - including politicians - say why don't we take the best or large chunks of how X or Y country that has been shown to work far better in some part of their civil service or public-private version of service delivery, the public sector unions and many staff close ranks and shut it all down - including by striking.
They know they'd lose their power base - and likely much of their income (why belong to a union if your workplace experience is good?) if things were done properly.
|
It isn't just (or even mainly) about a lack of money or government policy. It's changing a culture in our entire public sector that has built up since WWII. We now see NHS GP unions advocating stirke action because they don't want to see patients in person, and yet in most other European nations, they have done so throughout the pandemic, with no fuss, no difference in GP death rates, no extra pay, no bonus for just turning up and working as before.
It's a bit more complicated then that....
|
It isn't just (or even mainly) about a lack of money or government policy. It's changing a culture in our entire public sector that has built up since WWII. We now see NHS GP unions advocating stirke action because they don't want to see patients in person, and yet in most other European nations, they have done so throughout the pandemic, with no fuss, no difference in GP death rates, no extra pay, no bonus for just turning up and working as before.
It's a bit more complicated then that....
Ah, I see. I certainly believe that with no evidence to back it up...
|
It's a bit more complicated then that....
Ah, I see. I certainly believe that with no evidence to back it up...
Ok. The threat of industrial action is not about face to face appointments as such but rather the way in which Sajid Javid has weighed into a 'controversy' largely fomented by parts of the mainstream media.
I don't know whether it's true that other country's GP or equivalent service continued to operate normally face to face in the pandemic. It's difficult to see how ours could have done while lockdown, social distancing etc was at its peak. Waiting rooms are petri dishes at the best of times.
Our GP has used a telephone triage system for well over 10 years. Everybody who says they need a Doctor, excepting those serious enough to be to told to come down now or phone 999, gets a call back. If you need a face to face appointment you get one though it may be with a nurse. If it's something straightforward or recurrent then they'll prescribe based on the phone call. I've a few recurrent conditions for which they're happy to re-prescribe pain killers or anti-biotics
The UK is short of GPs. There's a bulge of nearly 30% of the profession (RCGP figures) approaching or beyond retirement. Governments of both stripes have done little to encourage recruitment or to address factors pushing recruits away from General Practice. GPs are not employees of the state. Practices are partnerships contracted to provide a service.
The reality is that before the pandemic approx 20% of GP consultations were by phone and/or video. Given the facilities offered by modern technology and the productivity gain they make available by sorting the simple/repetitive stuff that seems to be a trend to encourage. Indeed I'm fairly sure previous health secretaries have encouraged this trend.
It would be reasonable to treat the further growth of remote consultation during the pandemic as an opportunity rather than a threat and build on it. Ministers could support and encourage that.
Instead Javid has leaped on a bandwagon promoted by various organs of the popular/populist media and presented this as a crisis of reluctant and lazy GPs. Some money has been offered for locums but he's also threatened to name/shame practices not offering a face to face consultation to every patient who wants one. It's that threat, and not the issue of appointments themselves that has resulted in the BMA suggesting industrial action.
The other common message is where are the locums to come from? There are not enough to go around as it is.
.
|
|
Looks like a U-turn is imminent.
"In private talks on Wednesday, NHS England told the BMA there were no longer any plans to publish monthly “league table” data showing what proportion of surgery appointments occur in person or virtually. Separate plans to create specific targets for what proportion of appointments must be conducted in person have also been abandoned. An NHS source claimed “naming and shaming” GPs had never been part of the plans."
|
Looks like a U-turn is imminent.
"In private talks on Wednesday, NHS England told the BMA there were no longer any plans to publish monthly “league table” data showing what proportion of surgery appointments occur in person or virtually. Separate plans to create specific targets for what proportion of appointments must be conducted in person have also been abandoned. An NHS source claimed “naming and shaming” GPs had never been part of the plans."
Well, well well. Ooodathortit. Minister introduced to reality.
Javid, unlike Patel, is bright enough to actually recognise reality and act accordingly.
|
It's a bit more complicated then that....
Ah, I see. I certainly believe that with no evidence to back it up...
Ok. The threat of industrial action is not about face to face appointments as such but rather the way in which Sajid Javid has weighed into a 'controversy' largely fomented by parts of the mainstream media.
That's not true - they already were set against this months ago - when Matt Hancock was still Health Secretary. The only difference was that the government said that GPs must see patients in person when requested by the patient. The BMA already threatened to take it further before when it was brought up.
No evidence given as to why - and because Javid 'hurt their feelings' ain't gonna cut it.
I don't know whether it's true that other country's GP or equivalent service continued to operate normally face to face in the pandemic. It's difficult to see how ours could have done while lockdown, social distancing etc was at its peak. Waiting rooms are petri dishes at the best of times.
It appears that Germany and many other European nations managed perfectly well doing this - and during periods of lockdown. I would also say - given the mounting evidence to support it, that this is also why lockdown didn't work either.
All it did is push back the diagnosis and treatment of many millions of people - many of which may now likely die of whatever they have, and in far, far greater numbers (though probably over a longer period) than COVID will ever do as the primary (or even secondary) cause of death.
If waiting rooms are a 'petri dish', then why was Germany and other well-managed (at a local and regional level) public health systems not awash with COVID cases acquired via patient visits to GP surgeries and hospitals? Because they are far better managed, not because of money.
Our GP has used a telephone triage system for well over 10 years. Everybody who says they need a Doctor, excepting those serious enough to be to told to come down now or phone 999, gets a call back. If you need a face to face appointment you get one though it may be with a nurse. If it's something straightforward or recurrent then they'll prescribe based on the phone call. I've a few recurrent conditions for which they're happy to re-prescribe pain killers or anti-biotics
Triage is one thing - gate-keeping and using receptionists - 99.99% of whom know diddly about medicine - to put off patitents from coming in at all, is another, and one that many GP surgeries, including of friends and family, as well as my own - now use.
The problem, as has been demonstrated in letters to many newspapers (not just the Telegraph), is that, as usual, good practice in some GP surgeries is hardly ever diseminated to others - not because of high level government policy (or lack thereof), but because those at local/regions/national level in manegerial psositions in the NHS are more interested in turf wars, justifying their position, padering to the woke agenda/politics and 'activity', mostly because they don't want good practice to do them out of a job or where they might be found out as useless jobsworths with agendas contrary to the good of those (the patients, not the staff) they are PAID to serve.
The UK is short of GPs. There's a bulge of nearly 30% of the profession (RCGP figures) approaching or beyond retirement. Governments of both stripes have done little to encourage recruitment or to address factors pushing recruits away from General Practice. GPs are not employees of the state. Practices are partnerships contracted to provide a service.
Perhaps if the huge numbers of useless/agenda-driven managers, including all the woke 'diversity' roles were scaked and less but far better skilled people took up posts and not wasted untold £Bns on worthless schemes, staff and buildings, etc more GPs and nurses might be afforded, preferably UK-born ones so we don't keep importing people from aborad who need more housing, food, energy, etc and who would otherwise be of more use to their country of origin (often poor and in far more need of medical professionals than the UK).
It was the Blair administration (yes, continued by subsequent Tory ones, but only because GPs would strike if they went back to the old system/pay) gave everything and more to GPs back in the eraly 2000s - huge pay, autonomy, no after hours visits, huge pay for locum work (more on that later). At the same time, they encouraged less mena dn more women to become GPs, realising full well that many women don't want full-working life careers and who either go to part time status by their mid 30s or never return after having children.
As a result, the very expensive training is wasted because it only provides about 10 years of use on many occasions and means more have to be trained up or imported to provide the same level of care just in normal hours. I noticed this at my local surgery from when I moved to the area, where part time GPs (and far more women) became the norm, but being able to see one (and the same one) was nigh on impossible. Surgeries are now often run to suit the staff, not the client (patients).
Similarly, the encouragement by NHS trust managers (despite ministers saying no) to use agency staff without question - most of whom are just ordinary staff off shift - to fill in at ridiculously hourly rates of pay is a joke.
Working in medicine as a doctor (at hospitals or GP surgeries) or nurses used to be a vocation, with them understanding that it meant longer hours than most other professions (at least 'official' hours, as many in my profession will atest to), in return for certain status in the community and perks associated with housing and being looked after generally.
It appears now just to be 'another job' and mostly about the money, at least to those who represent them in the unions. How often do we read snotty letters from militant GPs (there are other on the other side of the argument, notbaly older or recently retired ones) having a go at patients for 'bothering them', and attitude sadly I and members of my own family have witnessed many times.
The reality is that before the pandemic approx 20% of GP consultations were by phone and/or video. Given the facilities offered by modern technology and the productivity gain they make available by sorting the simple/repetitive stuff that seems to be a trend to encourage. Indeed I'm fairly sure previous health secretaries have encouraged this trend.
The problem is not that modern technology shouldn't be used, but that it is being used to keep patients from seeing GPs at all, even when both are fully vaccinated or fully recoved (and thus have better immunity to) from COVID.
Many cases have been highlighted in the media - sadly to say mostly by people writing into newspapers, not (aside from a few) journalists doing their jobs (they are more likely to be taking the government shilling or from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to type their [IMHO] propaganda) of instance of them or close friends/relatives/spouses becoming terminally ill because their GP surgery receptionist put them off/told them they had weeks to wait to 'see' their GP or that the GP wouldn't see them in person, which for many diseases is the only way they can accurately diagnose by actually being able to phyiscally check the patient or pick up visual clues that a poor-quality webcam (noting many people, especially the poor, don't have one, many OAPs don't have or know how to use a computer etc).
Mis-diagnosis has apparently been commonplace throughout the pandemic. I'm sure many of us would have no problem in using online/phone consultations for things that obviously don't need an in-person visit, but the situation at the moment isn't that.
It would be reasonable to treat the further growth of remote consultation during the pandemic as an opportunity rather than a threat and build on it. Ministers could support and encourage that.
Why? All that SHOULD be done is that consultations should done as per the needs of each case, for the benefit of the patient, and frankly, as the BMA have shown now, as before (with the junior doctors' hour issue where they said it would be solved [not safety as they originally said] by a nice big pay bump) as ALL about money, power and politics.
Their continental equivalent appear to be far more concilliatory and team players, mainly because they aren't hand-in-glove with one political party where (IMHO) their goal often appears to be ejecting the Tories from office by any means.
Instead Javid has leaped on a bandwagon promoted by various organs of the popular/populist media and presented this as a crisis of reluctant and lazy GPs.
Are you accusing the many letter-writers (as well as many of us) documenting real instances of this gate-keeping partisan liars? Mr Javid is only trying to resolve the situation in the face of a trade union that seems imply GPs don't particularly care about patients.
No-one is saying that ALL GPS are like this, but it appears a LOT are, and many are not pushing back on their trade union to be far more helpful, rather than pewrenially calling for more more to be poured down the NHS sink hole.
Some money has been offered for locums but he's also threatened to name/shame practices not offering a face to face consultation to every patient who wants one. It's that threat, and not the issue of appointments themselves that has resulted in the BMA suggesting industrial action.
Perhaps minister are at the end of their tether. Maybe GPs should look to replacing thei union bosses, assuming they don't agree with their blatantly militant approach - who made threats to ministers FIRST.
The other common message is where are the locums to come from? There are not enough to go around as it is.
I answered this question above.
Note that similar issues and union/staff militancy seemingly occur across the Public Sector, including the DVSA/DLVA. Why is it that good ideas and teamwork to solve problems alweasy have to come from ministers or the public or are paid for with huge sums to bribe staff to come up with them via 'extra pay'?
As a professional myself, I was always expected as part of my job description to use my initiative to do this on a constant basis. I suspect so does the vast majority of other professionals and most staff in ordinary jobs. It not only shows initiative but showcases a person for possible advancement (whether technical or managerial), and if it improves productivity, safety or the work environment generally, then everyone benefits.
Why doesn't the Public Sector, especially the NHS do this? So rarely do they actually 'learn lessons' (despite PR staff saying so after things go badly wrong [often only because they got caught]) or disseminate good practice to all?
I think you know why, but whether you admit to this is another matter. Being an outsider looking in has many benefits over an insider, who perhaps is wedded to the 'practices' of the system.
|
It would be reasonable to treat the further growth of remote consultation during the pandemic as an opportunity rather than a threat and build on it. Ministers could support and encourage that.
Why? All that SHOULD be done is that consultations should done as per the needs of each case, for the benefit of the patient, and frankly, as the BMA have shown now, as before (with the junior doctors' hour issue where they said it would be solved [not safety as they originally said] by a nice big pay bump) as ALL about money, power and politics.
Why do you think MPs should not support GPs doing more remote consultations? For a lot of people they are easier and more convenient. Having the option is great for those that want one - that does not mean people that want to need to see a GP face to face can't or won't be seen.
|
It would be reasonable to treat the further growth of remote consultation during the pandemic as an opportunity rather than a threat and build on it. Ministers could support and encourage that.
Why? All that SHOULD be done is that consultations should done as per the needs of each case, for the benefit of the patient, and frankly, as the BMA have shown now, as before (with the junior doctors' hour issue where they said it would be solved [not safety as they originally said] by a nice big pay bump) as ALL about money, power and politics.
Why do you think MPs should not support GPs doing more remote consultations? For a lot of people they are easier and more convenient. Having the option is great for those that want one - that does not mean people that want to need to see a GP face to face can't or won't be seen.
That's disengenuous - I and many (Tory) MPs are supporting patients who WANT in person consultations but who are being forced to either have telephone or web-based ones or, as in many circumstances, being told 'no' to any by the surgery receptionist or told they will have to wait weeks even though that person has no medical training to triage them.
No choice in the matter. If a patient wants a remote consultation, that's fine, though the GP should in every case assess the need of the patient, as it may require in-person consultation.
I and those MPs referred to have no issue with what used to happen, though this 'gatekeeping' has slowly rolled in - though ONLY on poorly-run surgeries - for a few years now. If other surgeries can provide the service that their patients want, why can't the rest? They are all paid the same for their work?
|
That's disengenuous - I and many (Tory) MPs are supporting patients who WANT in person consultations but who are being forced to either have telephone or web-based ones or, as in many circumstances, being told 'no' to any by the surgery receptionist or told they will have to wait weeks even though that person has no medical training to triage them.
No choice in the matter. If a patient wants a remote consultation, that's fine, though the GP should in every case assess the need of the patient, as it may require in-person consultation.
I and those MPs referred to have no issue with what used to happen, though this 'gatekeeping' has slowly rolled in - though ONLY on poorly-run surgeries - for a few years now. If other surgeries can provide the service that their patients want, why can't the rest? They are all paid the same for their work?
Whatever the reasons, and they go back many years, we are short of GPs and therefore short of appointments. Telephone or video increases throughput. I don't think it's right that valuable F2F appointments can be hoovered up by the demanding who WANT one. Their allocation should be a matter of discussion with the Doctor who should have the right to say no. Otherwise those who NEED F2F are squeezed out.
Does basic triage need the full gamut of a GP's knowledge or can it be done by properly trained staff? Surely that's exactly what Ambulance control rooms do?
If there are more egregious practices and gate keeping then the NHS Commissioners should be on it. I suspect though that some cannot cope. The money's the same in a well staffed practice in a nice suburb as in the city centre with all it's complications; the performance yardstick has to take account of reality.
|
|
I quite like the idea of remote consultations that can be fitted in during the busy day and avoiding all the germs in the waiting room. F2F should be available for those that prefer or it's more appropriate.
Plenty of scope for technology to smooth out some of the peaks and troughs too. If one practice has some available slots due to cancellations etc. then these could be offered to a different practice where there is the opposite. Maybe the medical records are not accessible from a different practice.
|
|
The theory on how doctors surgeries should be run is all well and good but it fails at the first hurdle in many in that you just cannot get through on the phone or if booking on line then those slots are denied to those who phone. There is also the debate of the Mon-Fri working practice which means that if you need medical assistance then it is a casualty job. The tax paying public have been badly let down over many years and it is not getting better. Queues of ambulances waiting outside casualty is the norm and patients waiting hours for an ambulance is common even to instances of patients lying on pavements for hours at a time
|
|
"Queues of ambulances waiting outside casualty is the norm..."
Is that really the case - i.e. that it is normal for there to be queues of ambulances at casualty departments? Yes, there have been well-publicised cases of it happening - but is it the norm? I fairly frequently attend a large-ish hospital and I've never seen a queue of ambulances there. That's only one hospital, of course. I pass another once a week - no queues there either. So that's two.
"... and patients waiting hours for an ambulance is common even to instances of patients lying on pavements for hours at a time"
Common? There have been a few attention-grabbing stories in the tabloids, that's all.
|
I quite like the idea of remote consultations that can be fitted in during the busy day and avoiding all the germs in the waiting room. F2F should be available for those that prefer or it's more appropriate.
I've consulted our GP practice more times this week then in the last 12months; ie twice.
Both times I started on line using a system called Engage Consult to describe my symptoms etc.
First, Monday, was back pain. Recurrence of a problem I've occasionally suffered with for 25years. Usually starts with something going ping but this time just muscles around my pelvis in spasm. Explained that previously I've had 30mg Codeine and a muscle relaxant.
Dr phoned and discussed symptoms including checking no effect on toilet habits - apparently you can have real trouble with bowels or urinary tract with trapped nerves etc.
Codeine etc prescribed.
LAst week I had a throat infection which seemed to clear up but affected my nasal spaces and turned into Sinusitis. Really painful in small hours of today. This time I was called in too see a 'Nurse Practitioner' who thoroughly explored my symptoms, checked temperature and pulse etc. Discussed prognosis and prescribed (1) steroidal nasal spray (2) antibiotics in case it spread to both sides of my face. Only one side suggests probability it's viral so antibiotic not indicated.
All worked perfectly well and although I've had a F2F encounter it wasn't a Doctor.
|
That's disengenuous - I and many (Tory) MPs are supporting patients who WANT in person consultations but who are being forced to either have telephone or web-based ones or, as in many circumstances, being told 'no' to any by the surgery receptionist or told they will have to wait weeks even though that person has no medical training to triage them.
No choice in the matter. If a patient wants a remote consultation, that's fine, though the GP should in every case assess the need of the patient, as it may require in-person consultation.
I and those MPs referred to have no issue with what used to happen, though this 'gatekeeping' has slowly rolled in - though ONLY on poorly-run surgeries - for a few years now. If other surgeries can provide the service that their patients want, why can't the rest? They are all paid the same for their work?
Whatever the reasons, and they go back many years, we are short of GPs and therefore short of appointments. Telephone or video increases throughput. I don't think it's right that valuable F2F appointments can be hoovered up by the demanding who WANT one. Their allocation should be a matter of discussion with the Doctor who should have the right to say no. Otherwise those who NEED F2F are squeezed out.
Much of the 'shortage' is due to the encouragement of women to be doctors at the expense of full-time careerist men, especially GPs, with no pushback on them having huge amounts of taxpayer money to train them for years that effectively goes to waste once the either go part time or never return after having a child in their mid 20s - late 30s.
My local surgery literally stopped the early morning 'emergency' surgery about 5 years ago, never to return. The GPs suddenly did not just all leave, but they WERE allowed to go part time without consequence.
Does basic triage need the full gamut of a GP's knowledge or can it be done by properly trained staff? Surely that's exactly what Ambulance control rooms do?
The difference is that they presumably don't use a glorified secretary (who likely has no medical training or insufficient to make such determinations) to triage.
If there are more egregious practices and gate keeping then the NHS Commissioners should be on it. I suspect though that some cannot cope. The money's the same in a well staffed practice in a nice suburb as in the city centre with all it's complications; the performance yardstick has to take account of reality.
From the (many) instances I've read of both good and bad (GP and work) practices, they occur in both inner-city, suburb/small town or tiny rural GP practices, all over the UK.
Money rarely is the reason for the issue or good practice - it is the quality of how the place is managed and the commitment (i.e. their jobs are a lifetime vocation and being paid £100k+ is not foremost in the mind). Ironically, many small town/rural practices have less money thrown at them because, as I'm sure you're aware, the NHS is mostly funded by numbers and activity, not need or quality of service.
It is also about the middle-ranked management of NHS commissioning groups/regions and hospital Trusts that are either completely incompetent and/or deliberately not learning from and institiuting/disceminating best practice and stamping out the bad practices.
|
|
Much of the 'shortage' is due to the encouragement of women to be doctors at the expense of full-time careerist men, especially GPs, with no pushback on them having huge amounts of taxpayer money to train them for years that effectively goes to waste once the either go part time or never return after having a child in their mid 20s - late 30s.
My local surgery literally stopped the early morning 'emergency' surgery about 5 years ago, never to return. The GPs suddenly did not just all leave, but they WERE allowed to go part time without consequence.
Breathtaking sexism their Andy. A woman's place is in the kitchen, nursery or bedroom eh?
Apart from a proportionate reduction in pay what consequence should follow going part time?
The difference is that they presumably don't use a glorified secretary (who likely has no medical training or insufficient to make such determinations) to triage.
If Ambulance staff can be trained to triage then so can surgery staff. The 'secretary' allusion looks a bit sexist too.
|
Much of the 'shortage' is due to the encouragement of women to be doctors at the expense of full-time careerist men, especially GPs, with no pushback on them having huge amounts of taxpayer money to train them for years that effectively goes to waste once the either go part time or never return after having a child in their mid 20s - late 30s.
Andy, are you in fact Mr Chumley Warner?
Mr Chumley Warner
Would they not simply bring in another GP to cover the other half of the part time hours?
|
Much of the 'shortage' is due to the encouragement of women to be doctors at the expense of full-time careerist men, especially GPs, with no pushback on them having huge amounts of taxpayer money to train them for years that effectively goes to waste once the either go part time or never return after having a child in their mid 20s - late 30s.
Andy, are you in fact Mr Chumley Warner?
Mr Chumley Warner
No. Are you Alan Partridge? :-)
Would they not simply bring in another GP to cover the other half of the part time hours?
How about not discouraging men to work in STEM, including medicine, who are many times more likely to work in that field throughout their working life rather than going part time as many women do once child No.1 comes along.
Note that bringing in another GP to cover for the part-timer means that person also has to be trained at vast expense, amongst several issues.
|
|
It is not only the young female GPs who go part time, it is now common throughout the profession. A lot to do with the penalties regarding maximising their pensions but also I believe that some earning £100k plus can well have a good life on the pro rata 3 day week and good luck to them. Not a job I would care to do rewarding in some respects other than financially but dealing with very sick people in general must be depressing
|
but dealing with very sick people in general must be depressing
That will come down to an individuals personality...having sick people and helping them to be well again can't be all bad.
|
Much of the 'shortage' is due to the encouragement of women to be doctors at the expense of full-time careerist men, especially GPs, with no pushback on them having huge amounts of taxpayer money to train them for years that effectively goes to waste once the either go part time or never return after having a child in their mid 20s - late 30s.
Andy, are you in fact Mr Chumley Warner?
Mr Chumley Warner
No. Are you Alan Partridge? :-)
Would they not simply bring in another GP to cover the other half of the part time hours?
How about not discouraging men to work in STEM, including medicine, who are many times more likely to work in that field throughout their working life rather than going part time as many women do once child No.1 comes along.
Note that bringing in another GP to cover for the part-timer means that person also has to be trained at vast expense, amongst several issues.
In what way are men being discouraged to work in STEM?
|
How about not discouraging men to work in STEM, including medicine, who are many times more likely to work in that field throughout their working life rather than going part time as many women do once child No.1 comes along.
Note that bringing in another GP to cover for the part-timer means that person also has to be trained at vast expense, amongst several issues.
As already asked, why/how are men discouraged from STEM? If anything I thought we had the opposite problem - how to attract girls/women to STEM subjects.
Appointing/training men rather then women on account of issues around bearing/rearing children has been unlawful for donkeys' years.
Are you seriously suggesting we should wind the clocks back?
A job share between two trained people means that both are justifying their training and that their professional knowledge CPD etc are ready for them to resume full time work when circumstances permit.
|
How about not discouraging men to work in STEM, including medicine, who are many times more likely to work in that field throughout their working life rather than going part time as many women do once child No.1 comes along.
Note that bringing in another GP to cover for the part-timer means that person also has to be trained at vast expense, amongst several issues.
As already asked, why/how are men discouraged from STEM? If anything I thought we had the opposite problem - how to attract girls/women to STEM subjects.
Appointing/training men rather then women on account of issues around bearing/rearing children has been unlawful for donkeys' years.
Are you seriously suggesting we should wind the clocks back?
I'm syaing that we shouldn't just encourage women and enforce rules for 'diversity' at the expense of being able to provide a high quality service - whatever the job. It's patently evident that many women leave medicine in the 20s and 30s to start a family, often never returning or only part time, meaning the huge cost (and it IS huge) of training them is mostly gone to waste.
This has NOTHING to do with being discriminatory against women or anyone else, but being realistic. Some engineering firms I've worked at have made sure that young people know they will have to pay back all funding for uni training paid for by the firm if they just up sticks and leave after a relatively short time (admitedly its when they are poached by a rival for better money, but the general principle applies).
I would have no problem in all medical students learning to be doctors (and to some [ a lesser] extent, nurses, as it's easier to return as it is less academic) to make sure they would have to pay back a portion of their training fees is they leave the profession early unless due to some long-term illness or other unforseen issue.
Being 'progressive' i.e. 'moving forward' for the sake of it has obviously not been beneficial. Having quotas is not benficial, nor is pushing men away from STEM (particularly medicne and especially General Practice*) and university in general - which is the case (60%+ going are now women)
Many of these professions were previously vocations, meaning people did them for the love of the career, NOT the money. Now it is often just a stepping stone on the path to something else, thus all that training, and thus huge amounts of money and physical resources early on gets wasted.
A job share between two trained people means that both are justifying their training and that their professional knowledge CPD etc are ready for them to resume full time work when circumstances permit.
But two people means two paid-for training, but only doing the job of one person, and their combined wages are likely to be higher as well, as some of the other costs associated with their employment. Medicine never has lent itself to part-time work.
I know that this 'model' you put forward certainly does NOT work for the vast, majority of engineering, because continuity of the client-employee model is not kept, because dealing with two people for the same project (similarly dealing with two doctors on diagnosis and treatment) is a far from ideal way foward. A jobshare should be for a tiny fraction and over a limited time - not making up a reasonable percentage of the workforce in a profession that shouldn't be a money-pit.
The problem is that we only needed extra doctors etc because, frankly, those in charge of the system did not manage it well and those at governmental level decided it was a good idea to let in 10M people (plus all those illegally) over the past 20 years, who themselves now need services provided for them.
This cannot continue, for many reasons. Badly run institutions and poor policy for education and training is just making the situation worse over the long term.
|
The problem is that we only needed extra doctors etc because, frankly, those in charge of the system did not manage it well and those at governmental level decided it was a good idea to let in 10M people (plus all those illegally) over the past 20 years, who themselves now need services provided for them.
Every essay you post on here helps to build a clearer picture of you. Sadly it is one which is not very appealing.
|
The problem is that we only needed extra doctors etc because, frankly, those in charge of the system did not manage it well and those at governmental level decided it was a good idea to let in 10M people (plus all those illegally) over the past 20 years, who themselves now need services provided for them.
Every essay you post on here helps to build a clearer picture of you. Sadly it is one which is not very appealing.
Well, one could say the same about yourself, only intervening to seemingly continue a personal grudge match because someone designed to disagree with your world view.
You and Brompt appear to have quite a bit in common - perhaps you'd like to joining him arguing with all and sundry over on C4P or CC? I mean, it's not as though you're adding anything to this thread debate, is it, sir?
|
nor is pushing men away from STEM
You've still not said in what way men are being discouraged entering STEM jobs. Is it why you don't working on the field anymore?
|
nor is pushing men away from STEM
You've still not said in what way men are being discouraged entering STEM jobs. Is it why you don't working on the field anymore?
A word here from Dr youngrovergirl, via myself. It's not just female Docs...
She is 54, was paid 48 hours, usually doing 56..ish.
Has reduced to 40 becuase of clinic overloads, running late (extra unpaid hours) as have lots of her colleagues. Males as well !!! Is it ok to fit 3or 4 extra patients into a clinic where each consultation is 40 minutes, and so overun 2 hours. to work 12.5 hours without a proper meal break?
Why on earth do people think that Doctors cannot have a family life or adequate rest.
Why on earth should doctors be expected to give up a day off for £175.. IF they can persuade payroll to pay it without a major fight.
A wile back, called in to replace someone on a sunday afternoo with little notice, then 2 months fight to get authorisation to get paid then a 2 month wait (if lucky) for it to actually appear...
Plus the attempted pressure (putting it kindly) to work off days.
Rant over.
|
I'm syaing that we shouldn't just encourage women and enforce rules for 'diversity' at the expense of being able to provide a high quality service - whatever the job. It's patently evident that many women leave medicine in the 20s and 30s to start a family, often never returning or only part time, meaning the huge cost (and it IS huge) of training them is mostly gone to waste.
Where is this patent evidence of women leaving the medical profession in their twenties/thirties and never returning? Given a GP training is 5 (or 6) + 3 + 3 years they're barely qualified at 30. My Daughter's father in law was that age before joining his first practice. Sure some will take extended Maternity and then part time. Why though is it different to other professions where many return full time with formal or informal childcare?
Or resume full time when the youngest starts school?
This has NOTHING to do with being discriminatory against women or anyone else, but being realistic.
That's the same realism that's seen a string of employers in the banking/finance etc taken to the cleaners at the Employment Tribunal for sacking or constructively dismissing expectant and new Mothers.
Paying back training or type ratings is endemic in the airline industry; it's not a good effect,
I would have no problem in all medical students learning to be doctors (and to some [ a lesser] extent, nurses, as it's easier to return as it is less academic
What does this even mean? Medical and Nursing degrees are completely different.
Being 'progressive' i.e. 'moving forward' for the sake of it has obviously not been beneficial. Having quotas is not benficial, nor is pushing men away from STEM (particularly medicne and especially General Practice*) and university in general - which is the case (60%+ going are now women)
Quotas?
Evidence please
Many of these professions were previously vocations, meaning people did them for the love of the career, NOT the money. Now it is often just a stepping stone on the path to something else, thus all that training, and thus huge amounts of money and physical resources early on gets wasted.
Stepping stone to what else?
Evidence please.
But two people means two paid-for training, but only doing the job of one person, and their combined wages are likely to be higher as well, as some of the other costs associated with their employment. Medicine never has lent itself to part-time work.
Training people who can only do part time, or only want to do part time, is a basic overhead. You cannot compel people who cannot do full time to do do anyway.
Offering part time and flexibility is the only way to get even the present, albeit inadequate, level of cover for GP posts. Sajid Javid has had to admit this week that, yet again, promises to recruit thousands of extra GPs will not be met.
I'm a part time Benefit Adviser; my training took weeks and cost thousands, only two of five on the team were ever full time. One of them has now dropped Mondays. It works for the staff and the employer.
The bit I've bolded is, in one of my favourite phrases, nonsense on stilts.
I know that this 'model' you put forward certainly does NOT work for the vast, majority of engineering, because continuity of the client-employee model is not kept, because dealing with two people for the same project (similarly dealing with two doctors on diagnosis and treatment) is a far from ideal way foward. A jobshare should be for a tiny fraction and over a limited time - not making up a reasonable percentage of the workforce in a profession that shouldn't be a money-pit.
More fact free assertion. Frankly if UK Engineering PLC is too conservative or hidebound to accept things like job shares, applying practical solutions to continuity of the client-employee model, then it will die.
The problem is that we only needed extra doctors etc because, frankly, those in charge of the system did not manage it well and those at governmental level decided it was a good idea to let in 10M people (plus all those illegally) over the past 20 years, who themselves now need services provided for them.
I can only adopt Misar's answer to this diatribe. We've known since the start of the century that we HAD to employ migrants to keep the economy moving. Your numbers for both legals and illegals are way off reality but they're known knowns that government can, should and indeed was under obligation to, deal with.
This cannot continue, for many reasons. Badly run institutions and poor policy for education and training is just making the situation worse over the long term.
Whatever.
Bur please can you explain your assertions about STEM?
|
|
In all the discussion re number of GPs etc nothing has been said about the consistent decline in the number of hospital beds which must have a direct affect on the whole chain of how the NHS is managed, GPs have nothing to do with bed management but the lack of beds is now often the prime excuse for delays in patient treatment and must fall on GPs seeing the same patient over and over and trying to expedite a procedure for them. You then have a problem with beds when they are full to capacity and patients cannot be admitted from casualty. In my opinion things seem to have got a lot worse in the last 10 years and the fire fighting continues. The pandemic has only served to break the system and no matter how much money is thrown at it things will not get any better until the mentality of the public sector is changed. Nobody has the courage to do this and tax payers money is going down the drain and the current situation is a disgrace to the UK
|
|
What a shame that you don't satisfactorily answer my questions but change the subject or question the questions. Sadly, quite expected.
As I said before, part-time working can never work across the board across every sector. Continuity of the person you're dealing with is often very important, and clients don't just do projects on Wed-Fri just because you only work those days. It is frankly unprofessional.
Job shares have previously been a temporary 'solution' to when someone cannot work full time because of some emergency or other short-ish term issue that means they cannot always be at work.
In some lines of work, often those that require lesser skill bases and/or do not need continuity of client-employee, such arrngements can be permanent where full time working is not attractive to employees.
The problem is that we're encouraging people to do this across the board, which is reducing the efficiency and quality of output whilst putting up costs, whilst at the same time having a big impact on the birth rate of UK-born people and family life, as well as many professions.
The way you descibe things as going is a 'managing decline' one, given no up and coming competitor (i.e. not 'Western' nations who are similarly on the slide) does what you describe, and yet they continue to rapidly improve and yet have no deleterious effects on the family.
Making welfare overly generous and, as we've seen this past 18 months (and not just in the UK) making it easy not to work and live off 'the state' (future citizens' taxes) whilst doing nothing at home or, as in the case of many civil servants (like from the DVSA/DVLA) doing a poor job in comparison to before (and that's saying something) means that we're currently in terminal decline - thanks to policies you advocate.
Cheers!
|
What a shame that you don't satisfactorily answer my questions but change the subject or question the questions. Sadly, quite expected.
Still waiting on your answer to my question...pot/kettle?
|
What a shame that you don't satisfactorily answer my questions but change the subject or question the questions. Sadly, quite expected.
Still waiting on your answer to my question...pot/kettle?
Nope. - you first. A-ha!
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+partridge
|
|
Nope. - you first. A-ha!
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+partridge
The answer sought was to your assertion about STEM.
|
Nope. - you first. A-ha!
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+partridge
The answer sought was to your assertion about STEM.
Avoiding my questions by asking one of your own is a classic leftist tactic of avoiding an embarrassing truth or question that can't be answered because it cuts through their 'arguments' and policies.
|
What a shame that you don't satisfactorily answer my questions but change the subject or question the questions. Sadly, quite expected.
Still waiting on your answer to my question...pot/kettle?
Nope. - you first. A-ha!
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+partridge
No, I'm not Alan Partride...I will now await your reply...
|
What a shame that you don't satisfactorily answer my questions but change the subject or question the questions. Sadly, quite expected.
Still waiting on your answer to my question...pot/kettle?
Nope. - you first. A-ha!
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+partridge
No, I'm not Alan Partride...I will now await your reply...
Partride? I thought you always went 'full' Ride?
|
What a shame that you don't satisfactorily answer my questions but change the subject or question the questions. Sadly, quite expected.
Still waiting on your answer to my question...pot/kettle?
Nope. - you first. A-ha!
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+partridge
No, I'm not Alan Partride...I will now await your reply...
Partride? I thought you always went 'full' Ride?
If you don't want to answer or have a discussion then why bother posting in the first place? Your constant evading of questions is very MP like - have you ever thought to stand?
|
If you don't want to answer or have a discussion then why bother posting in the first place? Your constant evading of questions is very MP like - have you ever thought to stand?
To persuade others to accept his distorted view of the world. He has no interest in facts or other opinions unless they support his fantasies.
|
If you don't want to answer or have a discussion then why bother posting in the first place? Your constant evading of questions is very MP like - have you ever thought to stand?
To persuade others to accept his distorted view of the world. He has no interest in facts or other opinions unless they support his fantasies.
Another 'amazing' contribution. You appear to just come here to get into personal arguments with those you disagree with on politics. When was the last time you actually discussed anything motoring-related in a rational manner?
BTW - you need to preface the above with 'in your opinion'. I was the one asking the questions, which you lot seem to keep evading. Asking a question to a question or just dismissing them is precisely what you accuse me of.
|
What a shame that you don't satisfactorily answer my questions but change the subject or question the questions. Sadly, quite expected.
Still waiting on your answer to my question...pot/kettle?
Nope. - you first. A-ha!
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alan+partridge
No, I'm not Alan Partride...I will now await your reply...
Partride? I thought you always went 'full' Ride?
If you don't want to answer or have a discussion then why bother posting in the first place? Your constant evading of questions is very MP like - have you ever thought to stand?
You're a fine one to talk, given the number is disingenuous comments from those on the other side of the argument. I gave up my career in Construction precisely becauseI had serious ethical problems with what I was increasingly being told to do - including lying.
Being an MP is the last thing I'd want to do, given what most of those there over the last 30+ years have got up to. I value ethics and honesty very highly. I'm not sure if some here could truthfully say the same.
|
|
Andy, just a polite reminder but are you able to explain the facts behind your assertion at 14:48 on 01-11-21 viz:
How about not discouraging men to work in STEM, including medicine,
|
You're a fine one to talk, given the number is disingenuous comments from those on the other side of the argument. I gave up my career in Construction precisely becauseI had serious ethical problems with what I was increasingly being told to do - including lying.
Being an MP is the last thing I'd want to do, given what most of those there over the last 30+ years have got up to. I value ethics and honesty very highly. I'm not sure if some here could truthfully say the same.
Shame you don't value answering straight questions with straight answers.
|
|
|
|
<< It's what happens when people vote in an incompetent government. >>
The dispiriting thing is that as the real-life disadvantages of Brexit continue to appear, the 'incompetent government' referred to above will shrug it all off as being a consequence of Covid - and when that no longer holds water they will just say 'well, you voted for it, you just accept it; not our fault'.
Politicians.
|
|
Governments always blame that which they can argue is beyond their control, rather than accept responsibility. Brexit and Covid are good excuses. (less the former!).
Governments and ministers make overall policy and strategy, but rely on delegating the day to day. DVSA employs around 4600 people a small part of Grant Shapps empire which includes HS2, rail, road networks, DVLA, air travel etc.
The chief executive of DVSA is paid around £130k, no doubt supported by several well paid colleagues. He should be held accountable for the performance of his department.
Blaming ministers for the shortcomings of senior, well paid public servants really is just a cheap shot. It is a way of expressing a political viewpoint or personal frustration, not a rational or fair judgement. Whether I agree with your politics is irrelevant.
It is a bit like blaming the Chairman of the FA for the draw against Hungary last week,on the basis that the FA board appointed Gareth Southgate as England manager, who selected the team, which included Harry Kane, who didn't score.
Harry Kane (apologies to him) is a class player who happened not to play well on the night. This is not a reason to blame the Chairman of the FA unless repeated failures by the team leads one to doubt the ability of the FA in appointng the manager.
|
|
|
|
|
