Skip to main content

Chancellor meddling in NHS pay process. BMA reaction to budget



Commenting on the statements on public sector pay in today’s Budget, Dr Mark Porter, Chair of BMA Council, said:

“We’re concerned that the Chancellor is seeking to meddle in NHS pay processes. As MPs noted this week, pay restraint cannot be seen as a long term savings strategy for the NHS. Efficiency gains will be achieved by focusing on quality, not by suppressing pay.

“Healthcare workers are at the forefront of the drive to improve efficiency in the NHS. They have already undergone major changes to their pensions, and many doctors have been subject to real terms pay cuts for several years. Pay progression is not automatic for most senior doctors.

Commenting on the Chancellor’s confirmation that NHS funding will continue to be protected, Dr Porter said:

“We welcome the fact that the Government continues to recognise the importance of the NHS, and the scale of cost inflation in healthcare. However, it is not the case that health has been exempted from the financial pressures facing the rest of the public sector. The NHS has been asked to deliver cost savings of £20 billion by 2015. Posts are being cut and services are being rationed.”

Commenting on the announcement of a reduction in duty on beer, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA’s Director of Professional Activities, said:

“We’re getting mixed messages from the Government about its commitment to tackling the harm caused by alcohol misuse. On one hand the Prime Minister says he wants to crack down on cheap alcohol, and on the other the Chancellor announces a penny less on beer. “The success of the Government’s alcohol strategy for England and Wales will be undermined if cheap booze continues to be available. We urge the Government to demonstrate that it is committed to tackling alcohol misuse and introduce a minimum unit price.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown