Junior Doctors row: 98% vote to strike

[Berberis]

Spin? I cut and pasted information from the same article as you!!!!!!!!!

 

Did you?

 

It's also the opinion by the majority of the junior doctors that the contract will leave them worse off, it's why they're striking. If you think that this isn't the case, why do you believe that they are striking.

 

Where does it say this in the link both you and I have referenced?

 

link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34775980

 

hint, it doesn't even use the word "majority" in the entire article.

[JFKvsNixon]

Did you?

 

 

 

Where does it say this in the link both you and I have referenced?

 

link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34775980

 

hint, it doesn't even use the word "majority" in the entire article.

 

How very disingenuous. Or do I give you the benefit of the doubt and you got confused about the context?

 

I responded to this comment, where you commented on me copying and pasting quotes from your link.

 

The fact remains, only 1% of doctors will see a drop in salary, that's not the majority however you try to spin it.

[sutty27]

We've been on that merry-go-round before, so lets not wasting time rearguing the contract.

 

It's also the opinion by the majority of the junior doctors that the contract will leave them worse off, it's why they're striking. If you think that this isn't the case, why do you believe that they are striking.

 

We don't know the opinion of the majority because only about 50% voted for the strike, some of them appear to believe it is about patient safety, and some believe it is about money, one just said it is about lone parents and women rights.

[Berberis]

How very disingenuous. Or do I give you the benefit of the doubt and you got confused about the context?

 

I responded to this comment, where you commented on me copying and pasting quotes from your link.

 

Its not disingenuous at all. You claim to know that the majority of junior doctors think they will be worse off. I called this spin and linked a credible article that states only 1% of doctors will be worse off financially. Your response was "I cut and pasted information from the same article as you!!!!!!!!!", but when I asked for where in the link I provided, it backs up your claim, you start name calling. I think you have lost the argument if this is the best you can do.

[Bonzo77]

Hunt is the problem, not the doctors!

 

He could ask for more funding to train new junior doctors to cover the weekends. He could sacrifice week day working to cover the weekend. He could at least try and negotiate.

First full strike in the history of the NHS. Speaks volumes!

[JFKvsNixon]

We don't know the opinion of the majority because only about 50% voted for the strike, some of them appear to believe it is about patient safety, and some believe it is about money, one just said it is about lone parents and women rights.

 

I think that it's safe to conclude that the majority of the junior doctors who are effected by the contract voted to strike, that's who were really talking about isn't it?

 

Out of over 37,000 doctors who were were allowed to vote were balloted, those who aren't in the BMA or those who were not effected by the contract changes did not vote. About 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against, 9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote.

 

75% of all those balloted voted to strike.

[unbeliever]

Hunt is the problem, not the doctors!

 

He could ask for more funding to train new junior doctors to cover the weekends. He could sacrifice week day working to cover the weekend. He could at least try and negotiate.

First full strike in the history of the NHS. Speaks volumes!

 

The idea is that the existing doctors' shifts will be spread out better over the week.

NHS funding is pretty much the only state spending which has been increased in real terms continuously since 2010.

It seems that's not enough for you.

 

So you want yet more funding for the NHS. Okay. What taxes should we raise and/or what spending should be cut to find the money? Or are we to borrow still more?

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 11:02 ----------

 

I think that it's safe to conclude that the majority of the junior doctors who are effected by the contract voted to strike, that's who were really talking about isn't it?

 

Out of over 37,000 doctors who were were allowed to vote were balloted, those who aren't in the BMA or those who were not effected by the contract changes did not vote. About 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against, 9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote.

 

75% of all those balloted voted to strike.

 

Yes. They clearly want better pay and conditions than they're being offered.

Why don't they just say do?

[JFKvsNixon]

Its not disingenuous at all. You claim to know that the majority of junior doctors think they will be worse off. I called this spin and linked a credible article that states only 1% of doctors will be worse off financially. Your response was "I cut and pasted information from the same article as you!!!!!!!!!", but when I asked for where in the link I provided, it backs up your claim, you start name calling. I think you have lost the argument if this is the best you can do.

 

No, my response was that I cut and pasted more information from the same article that explained how the new contract changes effected the junior doctors, something that seemed to have slipped you mind.

 

Unless of course you are being disingenuous over this matter.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 11:03 ----------

 

Yes. They clearly want better pay and conditions than they're being offered.

Why don't they just say do?

 

I think I covered that here:

 

I think that the compulsion to work the extra hours do have an effect. For example, currently the junior doctor can cut the hours that they work when they have a big exam coming up so they can revise.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2016 at 11:06 ----------

 

The idea is that the existing doctors' shifts will be spread out better over the week.

NHS funding is pretty much the only state spending which has been increased in real terms continuously since 2010.

It seems that's not enough for you.

 

How will they manage that when many departments are currently struggling to cover junior doctor shifts?

Edited April 26, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[Berberis]

No, my response was that I cut and pasted more information from the same article that explained how the new contract changes effected the junior doctors, something that seemed to have slipped you mind.

 

JFKvsNixon, it's clear, there is no reference to your claim. Say what you want, but you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim.

 

As its sits, only 1% of Junior Doctors will be worse off, unless you dispute this number, which if you do, please provide evidence to back this up.

[sutty27]

I think that it's safe to conclude that the majority of the junior doctors who are effected by the contract voted to strike, that's who were really talking about isn't it?

 

Out of over 37,000 doctors who were were allowed to vote were balloted, those who aren't in the BMA or those who were not effected by the contract changes did not vote. About 28,000 voted to strike and about 600 voted against, 9,000 people who received ballot papers didn't vote.

 

75% of all those balloted voted to strike.

 

So we can conclude then that majority aren't affected because the majority didn't vote to strike.