Voting for a GP rather than a current politician?

Home Forum Chat Forum Voting for a GP rather than a current politician?

Viewing 36 posts - 1 through 36 (of 36 total)
  • Voting for a GP rather than a current politician?
  • awh
    Member

    Would you vote for a GP?. Assuming they have more policies than save the NHS… If evidence based medicine extended to evidence based political policy I think I would.

    loum
    Member

    Yes. Why not?
    As long as their policies are supportable.
    But personally, I don’t have much trust or respect foe “career politicians”.

    awh
    Member

    The more I hear about the ‘evidence’ the Tories are using to justify their proposed changes to the NHS the weaker the case appears to be, and the more I think the changes are completely driven by political ideology only. I’m surprised how little coverage there has been on the issue. And that no STW big-hitters have joined this thread yet!!

    druidh
    Member

    No. There is more to government than the NHS.

    Premier Icon scaredypants
    Subscriber


    *rests case*

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Your comment sounds as if you don’t trust financially GPs Zulu-Eleven.

    Can this be so ? Are we really witnessing for the first time ever Zulu-Eleven completely at odds with the alleged driving principle behind a key right-wing Tory policy ?

    According to David Cameron GPs are so financially trustworthy that the government is determined to handover statutory responsibility for the commissioning budget to them.

    Even though GPs themselves have made it crystal clear that they only want to practice medicine and not run businesses.

    So what is it Zulu-Eleven ……..are you really now so out of step with this extreme right-wing government? I feel this might be cause for celebration.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Member

    Sorry, I thought the reason for them having to employ the cover was the European working time directive Ernie… The one that the evil Tories want rid of πŸ˜‰

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Sorry

    No need to apologise – I didn’t mention anything about “the reason for them having to employ the cover”.

    I said, your comment sounds as if you don’t trust financially GPs Zulu-Eleven.

    I also said, can this be so ? are we really witnessing for the first time ever Zulu-Eleven completely at odds with the alleged driving principle behind a key right-wing Tory policy ?

    Well ? What’s your answer – are GPs financially trustworthy ?

    Don’t be shy and tell us what you think.

    .

    BTW, RE : “The one that the evil Tories want rid of” If that’s the case that shouldn’t prove too difficult. As I understand it out of the 27 EU countries 23 of them have conservative governments, so I can’t see why there would be a problem there.

    Or are you suggesting that the British Tories are far more right-wing than their European counterparts ?

    DrP
    Member

    I know it’s a separate note, but the reason Locum doctors are hired ( often at high rates) is that there is a shortage of available doctors ‘in house’ (i.e. Staff levels are bare minimum) so any sickness or absence needs to be covered pronto. Also, frequent extra cover is needed at weekends in a&e due to increases use…

    It’s a supply and demand thing – there are so few good locums that the rates have to be high (else the patient (i.e. You!) Suffers!

    I’ve had 3 requests to Locum in a local a&e just this week alone -all for a fairly tidy sum too.had to say no to all, as I imagine several others have too…hence the problem!

    DrP

    DrP
    Member

    Also, in reply to the ‘being paid to sleep’comment, many shifts are such low intensity that one Dr is hired for 24 hours cover, with designated protected hours to sleep…

    DrP

    julianwilson
    Member

    I found this in the ‘comments’ of the Daily Telegraph article.

    The DT finds one example of something that is excessive and you conclude that ALL doctors are millionaires. The DT loves suckers like you.

    Of course, if you worked in a hospital you might have some real world experience of what an improvment in care patients have had since so many of our doctors went over to doing proper waking night shifts and sleeping during the day.

    By ‘improvments in care’ I mean how you would like your Nan looked after if she goes a funny colour at three in the morning, but for the Righties on here I also include ‘shorter length of stay’, ‘avoiding deterioration requiring HDU or ICU bed’ and ‘fewer costly negligence claims’ which of course equals £££ if that’s all you really give a toss about.

    It’s also not just about the WTD is it? From the article:
    Prof Williams said: β€œWe are hearing reports that when a consultant retires, trusts are taking a knee-jerk reaction, deciding they won’t fill the post, because they don’t want to commit to the future, and instead they are spending far more on agency rates.”

    Sadly not suprising given the current economic uncertainty in health trusts, and the fear that dominates about having your service farmed out to Richard Branson because you don’t look ‘competitive’ enough. πŸ™

    awh
    Member

    The actions of these companies rather goes against the public mood. Tax arrangement of 5 largest medical companies

    Premier Icon ratadog
    Subscriber

    I think that the very fact that you have felt the need to ask the question is telling.

    There is precedent here in Kidderminster where in 2001 a local doctor was elected with an 18000 majority in a previously “safe” seat ahead of a junior minister of a government that was otherwise in the process of being re-elected by a landslide.

    The main reason that the Labour government tried to avoid all further reconfigurations of local services and part of the reason that the Tories seem to want to be able to create a service where they can blame GPs or big business for any changes is the fear that the local MP for wherever might go the same way again. As such I think this is a very clever political move on the part of the doctors who have organised it.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    DrP – Member

    I know it’s a separate note…….

    Of course it is, that’s why Zulu-Eleven mentioned it.

    Bringing up a completely irrelevant point concerning an allegation made by the Daily Telegraph, which involves one incident and one individual, is a classic Zulu-Eleven deviation tactic – something which he always does when faced with awkward posts that make him feel uncomfortable and unable to respond in a meaningful way.

    The purpose in this particular example was to smear all GPs as overpaid and greedy, and to darkly suggest that they would possibly reduce any taxation which effected them. Zulu-Eleven saves his kind words for bankers.

    The other classic tactic Zulu-Eleven employs is to repeatedly refuse to answer a direct question, preferring instead to answer a question which hasn’t been asked. No one person behaves more like a career politician on this forum than Zulu-Eleven.

    I of course don’t expect him to answer the direct question whether his thinly veiled attack, that clearly questions the moral integrity of GPs when it comes to financial matters, puts him completely at odds with the Tory stated faith that GPs are so financially trustworthy that the government is determined to handover statutory responsibility for the commissioning budget to them.

    But it’s always fun to expose right-wing inconsistency and hypocrisy, even though we’re clearly spoilt for choice.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Member

    πŸ˜†

    I’m sure that GP’s are just as financially trustworthy as any Labour candidates for certain high level political posts that you have repeatedly voted for, despite previously vowing not to, Ernie…

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Keep it up mate.

    After all, it’s the only thing you can do.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Member

    Sincere apologies Ernie – I thought you wanted to have a pissing match over who could expose the worst examples of right/left-wing inconsistency and hypocrisy – I just couldn’t decide which of you was worse, the tax cheat, or the bloke who keeps voting for him πŸ˜†

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Yeah yeah yeah, I know, according to you Livingstone is an “anti-semitic, terrorist-supporting, tax-avoiding, anti-gay, philandering drunkard and general all round nasty piece of work”

    OK, we’ve got that out of the way. Now answer the question.

    Does your thinly veiled attack, which clearly questions the moral integrity of GPs when it comes to financial matters, put you completely at odds with the Tory stated faith that GPs are so financially trustworthy that the government is determined to handover statutory responsibility for the commissioning budget to them ?

    Well ? Are we really witnessing for the first time ever Zulu-Eleven completely at odds with the alleged driving principle behind a key right-wing Tory policy ?

    Answer the question since you clearly want to contribute to this thread. Or is sabotage your only tactic ?

    Zulu-Eleven
    Member

    I answered you above, in the bit where I, erm, answered you, by saying that “I’m sure that GP’s are just as financially trustworthy as…

    For the sake of clarity – you asked if I thought GP’s were financially trustworthy, I answered that I thought they’re as trustworthy as the bloke you campaigned for, and voted for, as Mayor of London.

    So, whether you believe I’m at odds with Conservative party policy is really down to whether you personally believe Ken is financially trustworthy or not, isn’t it Ernie

    In the words of Dear leader Ed Miliband, “Ken Livingstone has paid every pound in tax that he owed”

    πŸ˜†

    Mr Woppit
    Member

    Even though GPs themselves have made it crystal clear that they only want to practice medicine and not run businesses.

    Plenty of spare time to go and play at being politicians though, it would seem…

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    answered you, by saying that “I’m sure that GP’s are just as financially trustworthy as…”

    So you don’t think GPs are financially trustworthy then. Excellent, you are now completely at odds with an alleged driving principle behind a key right-wing Tory policy.

    How does it feel to be a recovering right-wing Tory ? I’m sure it will get easier with time.

    BTW, I thought the comparison you made between Ed Miliband and a North Korean dictator was absolutely hilarious. I think I might have wet myself. Your humour is so incredibly witty, clever, and grown-up.

    Farmer_John
    Member

    “Even though GPs themselves have made it crystal clear that they only want to practice medicine and not run businesses.”

    Despite the fact that most already run limited companies i.e. businesses – their constant whining about “privatisation” would have some credibility if they were actually honest with the public about their existing roles as private contractors and the level of income they now receive as a profession – they are paid substantially more for working less hours (and less anti social hours) than many doctors in secondary care.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    I think I might have wet myself. Your humour is so incredibly witty, clever, and grown-up.

    Fun observing/lurking on this thread especially for the unintended irony. πŸ˜‰

    Zulu-Eleven
    Member

    So you don’t think GPs are financially trustworthy then.

    Did I say that? – I believe I said that your conclusion depended on your views on Ken’s shenannigans

    Hang on, I’ll just check – ( down to whether you personally believe Ken is financially trustworthy or not, isn’t it Ernie) – Yep, thats what I said πŸ˜€

    does your conclusion not therefore mean that you don’t think that the man you campaigned for, and voted for as mayor of London is not financially trustworthy? is that what you are saying?

    I also take it that you will therefore not be voting for Ken in the upcoming mayoral elections, as surely voting for someone you don’t think is financially trustworthy would expose the very inconsistency and hypocrisy that you so despise

    You’re digging you own hole here Ernie 😈

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    their constant whining about “privatisation” would have some credibility if they were actually honest with the public about their existing roles as private contractors and the level of income they now receive as a profession

    How and why could/would they be ‘dishonest’ with the public about the level of income they now receive ? Their pay isn’t covered by the Official Secrets Act you know.

    And I think you’ll find that GPs enjoy a fair level of credibility with the public when it comes to healthcare, certainly more so than the present government.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Did I say that?

    Well obviously you don’t answer a direct question with a direct answer – we all know that.

    But your claim that GPs are as trustworthy as a man who according to you is “anti-semitic, terrorist-supporting, tax-avoiding, anti-gay, philandering drunkard and general all round nasty piece of work” very clearly implies that you don’t think they are trustworthy at all.

    Are you backtracking already ? How disappointing.

    Farmer_John
    Member

    “How and why could/would they be ‘dishonest’ with the public about the level of income they now receive ? Their pay isn’t covered by the Official Secrets Act you know.”

    So when was the last time you heard someone from the BMA GP Sub Committe or RCGPs speaking out against privatisation and in the same breath for balance confirming most of their members are private contractors to the NHS? GPs hide behind the veil of “anti privatisation” whilst advocating a continuation of the current status-quo that serves them rather well as private sector suppliers.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    GPs [and consultants especially] hide behind the veil of “anti privatisation” whilst advocating a continuation of the current status-quo that serves them rather [very?] well as private sector suppliers.

    +1

    Now would I vote for a (perceptive) farmer than a politician? – there’s a better story!!

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    GPs hide behind the veil of “anti privatisation” whilst advocating a continuation of the current status-quo that serves them rather well as private sector suppliers.

    That was the deal made when the NHS was created 60 years ago, and the BMA was adamantly opposed to GPs becoming “civil servants”.

    There nothing new about their status, it’s always been the same, and there’s no secret about it – never has been, despite your apparent suggestion.

    Now’s a funny time to bring it up.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Now’s a funny time to bring it up.

    On the contrary, now is the exact time to be bringing this up. Like the national pay debate, greater transparency of each parties vested interests makes more informed responses.

    But funny to bring up when weather says it time for a spin.

    julianwilson
    Member

    Plenty of spare time to go and play at being politicians though, it would seem…

    Point being?

    With the european wtd, I would imagine that GP’s have far more time on their hands to play politics than the COE’s, partners in law firms and so on that we so often see go into government. My constituency’s MP being just one example of solicitor-turned-politician. We are forever hearing on here about how many hours they work. πŸ˜•

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    greater transparency of each parties vested interests makes more informed responses.

    But there’s complete transparency concerning how much GPs earn, what’s your point ?

    And since the proposed changes to the NHS isn’t about their pay, how does “vested interests” come into it ?

    Perhaps the “vested interests” of the Tory Party/private healthcare providers is more relevant. Why don’t you talk about that ?

    Or is that sort of “more informed responses” not quite what you are after ?

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Ernie – do you actually read what you write and quote? A bit of highlighting to assist you:

    transparency of each parties vested interests makes more informed responses.

    Indeed expose the MPs vested interests as well, expose the consultants’ interests – absolutely.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Yeah I read what I write. What’s your problem ? I said there’s complete transparency concerning how much GPs earn.

    I also mentioned that since the proposed changes to the NHS isn’t about their pay, how does “vested interests” come into it ?

    Finally I asked why you haven’t talked about the “vested interests” of the Tory Party/private healthcare providers, which is actually relevant. You still haven’t, despite your call for transparency of each parties vested interests, which you point out allows for more informed responses.

    I can’t see any contradictions or other problem with my post. Except for the obvious fact that as a general rule you don’t agree with me. But I certainly read what I write, even if no one else does.

Viewing 36 posts - 1 through 36 (of 36 total)

The topic ‘Voting for a GP rather than a current politician?’ is closed to new replies.