Perhaps it would be clearer to say that as the matter may go to court
he could have an understandable reluctance to share his case (or
damage his case) before required to.
As to his power to influence the contracts trusts offer, it would
appear de facto substantial, AND the BMA would also wish to see
national standard contracts - not negotiations with each individual trust.
Neither of these observations alters that fact that what he's doing
is wrong, but I have little doubt a Blair or Brown government could
very easily have gone down the same route.
I do however miss Norman Lamb's input - not perfect but one of the
best health ministers in my lifetime, not because of his politics but
because of knowledge and commitment.
What would be great to see is a well argued and academic debunking of
paper like the one below.
http://www.reform.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Reform_who_cares_the_future_of_general_practice.pdf
That is the backdrop of thinking against which General Practice and
indeed medical practice is operating.
Not helpful, written by children as if was just a game, and confusing
a few worthwhile aims with some all too tarnished means.
J
At 15:05 19/04/2016, you wrote:
>Not sub-judice as the date for trial has not been set, which is the start of
>proceedings for the purpose of the rules in civil cases.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Bradley
>Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:12 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Hunt in today's Grauniad
>
>What's going on and being done to Junior Doctors is indeed wrong but
>
>a) The matter may be sub-judice, which even if not a legal bar to discussion
>in this situation might explain a certain reluctance
>b) The normal assumption would be that the NEW contracts an employer can
>offer are, so long as lawful in themselves, at the employer's discretion.
>
>His capacity to change the GP contract arises out of anomalies and in some
>senses is far more worrying.
>
>All that said I think he is being politically unwise and managerially
>bonkers in alienating a whole generation of doctors at the stage of their
>careers when it is easiest for them emigrate, change course etc. The
>manifesto pledge to run a 7 day NHS was not a pledge to that at the expense
>of other people's safety, family life, or pockets. If it was a pledge it
>should be fully funded and fully staffed so that people can see their
>partners and children and not be financially abused for working at the most
>difficult time with the most acutely ill and high risk patients.
>
>However General Practice may have nearly as much responsibility as the Civil
>Service and SoS Hunt. If we hadn't shown repeatedly that doctors can be so
>easily pushed around then he wouldn't even have tried this. Junior docs are
>in very large measure the GPs of the future, and if GPs won't ever stand up
>for themselves why believe Junior Docs would do any different.
>
>He is wrong but we need to do better, not just for ourselves but for our
>patients and future patients.
>
>J
>
>At 06:55 19/04/2016, you wrote:
>
> >"Hunt was asked by four MPs yesterday to identify the basis of his
> >power to impose the contract, but did not do so, simply insisting that
> >the secretary of state does have that power and we are using it correctly."
> >
> >
> >That gives me direct echoes of the South African chief of Secret Police
> >stonewalling an enquiry, when being asked what provided his powers to
> >beat torture and kill simply repeating over and over "I have those powers".
> >
> >If the argument has dropped to having powers to do anything he can get
> >away with then the argument tends to point to rougher means of dispute.
> >
> >It isn't a good way to run any country, and England hasn't been there
> >for a long time.
> >
> >
> >A
|