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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha