If Starmer caves in to junior doctors, he will destroy his last crumbs of credibility
Because all the evidence suggests that the public have bought wholesale into the notion that poor, underpaid doctors are the modern heroes of the NHS, which is itself an institution so perfect that it is far beyond criticism. If an award was to be presented on who was more popular between the doctors or Streeting's Government, I would advise the Health Secretary not to clear a space on his mantelpiece just yet.
Resident doctors (formerly known as 'junior doctors') have already announced a five-day strike at the end of this month, sending a strong signal to the Government that they mean business and that patients' welfare is to come a poor second to the priority of increasing their take-home pay.
It has been reported that Streeting is 'adamant' that he will not offer the unhappy medics any more money, and so the obvious next question will be: 'How much exactly?'
Ministers, after all, can hardly blame anyone else if its attempts to convince the nation that it means what it says and that it will not be influenced by external pressures to change policy is regarded with a degree of incredulity.
A dispute with the residents is the last thing this Government needs. Streeting is one of Labour's more effective and courageous ministers, not to mention its best communicator. But even he will find it difficult to turn public sympathy away from resident doctors.
The problem is that, just a year ago, the Health Secretary awarded them a 22 per cent pay deal over two years. Like the train drivers' settlement that was agreed by former Transport Secretary, Louise Haigh, the deal came with no strings attached and with no obligation to reform outdated working practices. And, like at least some train drivers, the residents have come back for more.
There is a case for looking at the doctors' pay and conditions, given how severely pay rates have suffered since the 2008 financial crash. But then, there is a case for looking at everyone's – public and private sector employees' – remuneration.
Are doctors such a special case that they can demand 29 per cent when everyone else is forced to settle for single digit – and low single digit – settlements? Even a modest amount of disruption within the NHS will severely undermine the Government's efforts to clear waiting lists and improve patient care.
If doctors' strike action forces the health service to take a step backwards in the next six months – and the recent BMA strike ballot gives them a mandate for industrial action in that period – only for Streeting to cave into their demands anyway, it would expose a potentially fatal weakness in this Government.
As we are constantly told, Labour is the party of the NHS. What is rarely explained is why, given how precious the NHS is to voters, they have chosen to entrust the institution more frequently and for longer periods of time to the Conservatives than to the party that founded it.
The esteem in which the NHS is held, despite Labour's best efforts over decades, has not rubbed off on the party. So if ministers mess up their negotiations with the resident doctors, expect voters to blame the Government with exactly the same degree of ferocity with which they would regard a Conservative Government in similar circumstances.
Labour will be offered no free pass on the NHS and Streeting should be aware of this before he enters negotiations with the unhappy residents. This means that playing hardball will similarly have no worse impact on Labour than it would on the Conservatives.
The Government cannot continually claim there is no money left and yet open the public purse for this or that exemption when it comes to pay. There must come a point at which ministers must start behaving as if they believe their own rhetoric on public spending. Capitulating to the resident doctors would signal an end to any pretence by the Government that it aims to get serious about public sector pay.
The confrontation between the resident doctors and the Government could prove a defining one for the future of Keir Starmer's administration. If ever there were an opportunity to inject some steel into ministers' backbones, this is it. The question is whether the inevitable orchestrated avalanche of emails from doctors and their supporters to unhappy Labour backbenchers will have the same effect as in previous successful campaigns.
If it does, and if Streeting and Starmer are forced to make more concessions in the face of unethical and harmful industrial action, maybe ministers should consider surrendering the reins of Government immediately, without the need for a messy general election.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Of course the SNP has never been in politics for Unionists... now it seems not to care for Nationalists, either
The older you get the grumpier you become about repeats, and not just on television. In the world of public policy, you begin to notice that the same bad ideas keep coming round and round. The sales pitch might be altered, the window dressing rejigged, but the goods being flogged remain unchanged. Albert Einstein said repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome was the definition of madness, but it's also an uncanny description of politics. John Swinney 's new independence plan, announced at the end of last week, proposes a three-pronged approach. First, it commits to building up support for separation so that it becomes the settled will of the vast majority of Scots. Next, it undertakes to ramp up pressure on Westminster to concede that will and permit another referendum to confirm it. Finally, it asks the voters to give the SNP another term in charge at next year's Scottish Parliament elections. The word 'new' is doing a lot of heavy-lifting here. Swinney is not submitting any novel tactics or strategies; he offers no answers to impediments economic or constitutional. He is simply rewrapping the same hollow pledges in a shinier bow, and he is doing it for cynical reasons. A growing faction inside the SNP wants Swinney gone and replaced by a younger, more aggressive leader like Stephen Flynn, whom they believe can regain momentum on the constitution. Swinney is looking out for his own skin, not Scotland. In his defence, he's hardly the first SNP leader to string along the party faithful with empty promises. There is an Indyref 2 panic button at Bute House and, little more than a year into his leadership, Swinney has punched it. It's a wonder this button still works given the scale of overuse in the past decade. In March 2016, Nicola Sturgeon hit the alarm and announced 'a new initiative to build support for independence' that summer. Once summer was over, she unveiled a 'new conversation' on independence, then, the following month, a consultation on an Indyref2 Bill. In March 2017, Sturgeon said autumn 2018 would be a 'common sense' time for a new referendum and, later that month, that she planned to request a Section 30 order from Westminster. The following May, the panic alarm was back in use when Sturgeon published the report of her Sustainable Growth Commission into 'the economic opportunities of independence'. In April 2019, she confirmed her government would be 'giving people a choice on independence later in this term of parliament'. That October, she told SNP conference there would be a referendum in 2020. In January 2021, Sturgeon promised a referendum if the SNP won that May's Holyrood elections and then, in September, commissioned a 'detailed prospectus' on the case for independence. Two months later, she told SNP conference that her independence campaign would relaunch in 2022. In June 2022, the Indyref button was jabbed again, as Sturgeon set out plans for a referendum in 2023. Then, that November, she declared the 2024 general election a 'de facto referendum'. Come October 2023, her successor Humza Yousaf stated that election would in fact be an opportunity to give the SNP a mandate to enter negotiations for a second referendum. Then last June, his successor John Swinney said voting SNP in the following month's election would 'intensify the pressure to secure Scottish independence'. For a decade, party members have been left waiting for a referendum that was never coming and perhaps never will. The SNP has enough financial woes as it is, but its constitutional strategists ought to be paying royalties to the estate of Samuel Beckett. The secret to the SNP's success in the Alex Salmond and early Sturgeon years was its positioning as a big-tent, New Labour-style party. By being all things to all people, the Nationalists were able to cobble together a formidable electoral coalition. Independence supporters could back the SNP safe in the knowledge that secession was its chief priority, while Unionists could back them knowing they were in no hurry to secede. That tent has been stretched to breaking point. Swinney's latest ruse will have been greeted with horror by pro-Union voters and people of all constitutional persuasions who want to see the Scottish Government focused on the economy, services and public safety for the time being. He was supposed to be different. A fresh start. A first minister who would move beyond division and get Holyrood back on track. Instead, he has revealed himself to be every bit the political tribalist that Sturgeon and Yousaf were, more fixated on internal party disputes than on the concerns of ordinary Scots. Swinney has made clear that he puts party before nation. How can he expect voters who put Scotland before the SNP to lend him their votes? And while he disregards the interests of pro-Union voters, he doesn't do so to serve the interests of pro-independence voters. He puts party before nation but also puts self before party. All Yes voters get from Swinney is pandering. He has no intention of doing anything for them. He talks independence to get them riled up and out to the polls to vote SNP but, once the ballots are in, the constitution tumbles back down the hierarchy of priorities. Unionists decry the contempt in which they are held within the senior ranks of the SNP, but they should spare a thought for the grubby, exploitative way in which Yes voters are treated. Set aside your own thoughts about independence. It is something half the people in this country believe in, many of them passionately and some of them their whole life long. Time and again they were assured by Sturgeon, then Yousaf, and now Swinney that it was coming yet for a' that. One more plan, one more push. It's within reach, almost there. Vote here, donate there. But it wasn't coming, it still isn't, and it won't be any time soon. At this point, there are two paths to independence. Convince Westminster to allow a repeat of the 2014 vote. Granting another referendum would be an act of unparalleled stupidity, sure to do grievous harm to Britain, and would require a prime minister with the strategic nous of a baked potato. You can see why the SNP might harbour hopes for Keir Starmer, but it is still highly unlikely that Westminster would take the risk. Alternatively, you could go down the route of a unilateral declaration of independence, but it's fraught with risk, has no guarantee of success and might even make some important nations ill-disposed to Scotland. (They have their own separatist movements and it would not be in their interests for a Scottish UDI to be a success.) If Holyrood declares independence, there is no mechanism to compel Westminster or any foreign state to recognise it. Instead of being honest with their voters, the SNP leadership spins out fantasies like Swinney's three-pronged plan and tries to gull ordinary Nationalists into thinking independence is imminent, so they keep voting and donating. Giving people false hope is one of the cruellest things you can do in politics but the SNP does it to its own voters without compunction. The SNP has never been in politics for Unionists, of course, but it's no longer in it for Nationalists either. It has ceased to be a big-tent party and has become a narrow elite that exists only to serve its own interests and maintain itself in power. No plan, no matter how many prongs it has, is going to change that. The only way forward is for all Scots, Unionists and Nationalists alike, to declare their independence from the SNP at the ballot box.
BBC News
11 minutes ago
- BBC News
Ellen DeGeneres: I moved to the UK because of Donald Trump
US TV star Ellen DeGeneres has made her first public appearance since moving to the UK, saying she decided to settle in England the day after Donald Trump was re-elected US comedian and host told a crowd in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, that life "is just better" in the said she and wife Portia de Rossi were considering getting married again in England after some moves in the US to reverse the right to gay marriage, and that America can still be "scary for people to be who they are".She also addressed allegations of a toxic workplace that led to the end of her long-running chat show in 2022, admitting she could be "very blunt", but dismissed the stories as "clickbait". 'We're staying here' Ellen was one of the biggest names on US TV for 30 years, thanks to her daytime chat show, as well as her self-titled 1990s sitcom, for hosting the Oscars, Grammys and Emmys, and for voicing Dory in Finding her talk show was cancelled and a "final stand-up tour", she bought a house in the Cotswolds, a historic and picturesque area mainly spanning parts of Gloucestershire and Sunday at the Everyman theatre in nearby Cheltenham, she was in conversation with broadcaster Richard Bacon, who asked whether reports that she moved because of Donald Trump were correct. "Yes," she 67-year-old said she and De Rossi had initially planned to spend three or four months a year in the UK and bought what they thought would be "a part-time house"."We got here the day before the election and woke up to lots of texts from our friends with crying emojis, and I was like, 'He got in'," she said. "And we're like, 'We're staying here'." Ellen has been giving glimpses of her new rural life on social media, in videos showing her farm animals including sheep - although they have now been sold after they kept escaping."It's absolutely beautiful," she said. "We're just not used to seeing this kind of beauty. The villages and the towns and the architecture - everything you see is charming and it's just a simpler way of life."It's clean. Everything here is just better - the way animals are treated, people are polite. I just love it here."We moved here in November, which was not the ideal time, but I saw snow for the first time in my life. We love it here. Portia flew her horses here, and I have chickens, and we had sheep for about two weeks." Being gay in Hollywood 'is still a problem' On her last tour, she joked that she had been "kicked out of show business twice" - the first being when she came out as gay in effectively led to the end of her sitcom after advertisers pulled out and the network stopped promoting it, she told the Cheltenham crowd on asked whether her visibility had encouraged other people to come out. "I would say no," she replied. "I imagined a lot of people coming out like meerkats poking out of a hole and going back in again. 'How's she doing? OK, no, no.'"But it is "a really hard decision" that doesn't suit everyone, she continued, and that things are better today "in some ways"."If it was [better], all these other people that are actors and actresses that I know they're gay, they'd be out, but they're not, because it's still a problem. People are still scared." Ellen also referenced a recent move by the Southern Baptist Convention to endorse the reversal of a Supreme Court case allowing same-sex marriage. At least nine state legislatures have introduced bills to do the same."The Baptist Church in America is trying to reverse gay marriage," she said. "They're trying to literally stop it from happening in the future and possibly reverse it. And Portia and I are already looking into it. And if they do that, we're going to get married here."Later, in response to an audience question, she added: "I wish we were at a place where it was not scary for people to be who they are. I wish that we lived in a society where everybody could accept other people and their differences."So until we're there, I think there's a hard place to say we have huge progress."However, the younger generation are "more comfortable with it" and are "just kind of fluid", she added. "So I think the younger generation is going to show us the way." 'Does being blunt mean I'm mean?' After some former workers on her talk show made allegations of a toxic workplace culture, the star - who ended every episode by telling viewers to "be kind to one another" - was dubbed as "mean" in the the scandal three producers were sacked amid allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment, and the final season of the show opened with DeGeneres giving an on-air addressed that in her 2024 tour and the accompanying Netflix stand-up special."No matter what, any article that came up, it was like, 'She's mean', and it's like, how do I deal with this without sounding like a victim or 'poor me' or complaining? But I wanted to address it."It's as simple as, I'm a direct person, and I'm very blunt, and I guess sometimes that means that... I'm mean?" She also said it was "kind of crazy" that saying someone is mean "can be the worst thing that you say about a woman"."How dare us have any kind of mood, or you can't be anything other than nice and sweet and kind and submissive and complacent?"She added: "I don't think I can say anything that's ever going to get rid of that [reputation] or dispel it, which is hurtful to me. I hate it. I hate that people think that I'm that because I know who I am and I know that I'm an empathetic, compassionate person."It was "certainly an unpleasant way to end" her talk show, she said. Would 'love' a British talk show Ellen said she misses "a lot" about her show, but doesn't think a similar format would work any more. "I mean, I wish it did, because I would do the same thing here. I would love to do that again, but I just feel like people are watching on their phones, or people aren't really paying attention as much to televisions, because we're so inundated with with information and entertainment."She said she didn't know what she would do in the future, but would pick her next move "very carefully"."I just don't know what that is yet," she said. "I want to have fun, I want to do something. I do like my chickens but I'm a little bit bored."
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph
Eight babies have been born free of a disease that can lead to terrible suffering and early death, thanks to pioneering scientists in the UK employing a form of genetic engineering that is banned in some countries, including the US and France. Ten years ago, when the government and regulators were considering whether to allow mitochondrial transfer technology, critics warned of 'Frankenstein meddling' that would lead to three-parent children. It's hard now to justify such hostility in the face of the painstaking work carried out by the scientific and medical teams at Newcastle, resulting in these healthy babies and ecstatic families. Mitochondria, like tiny battery packs, supply energy to every cell of the body. Their DNA is handed down in the egg from mother to child. In rare instances, there are genetic mutations, which means the baby may develop mitochondrial disease. About one in 5,000 people is affected by it, making it one of the most common inherited disorders. As the cell batteries fail in various organs, the child can experience a range of symptoms, from muscle weakness to epilepsy, encephalopathy, blindness, hearing loss and diabetes. In severe cases, they die young. There is no cure yet, so the aim is prevention. Women who have some damaged and some healthy mitochondria can have IVF and pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) to select embryos that are clear of mutations or only slightly affected. The options for women with 100% mutated mitochondria used to be limited to donated eggs or adoption – until parliament changed the rules to allow the technology in 2015 and the Newcastle Fertility Centre was granted a licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to use it in 2017. The process does indeed involve three people. The would-be mother's egg and a donor egg are both fertilised by the man's sperm. The nucleus of the donated egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus of the woman's egg, but its healthy mitochondria remain. This composite egg is inserted into the woman's uterus. The resulting baby's DNA will be 99.9% from the parents and only 0.1% from the donor. Hardly a three-parent child. Yet there are controversies. Some countries will not permit use of the technology because of concerns over human germline genetic modification. The lab-mixed DNA will be passed to future generations, with who knows what consequences. And a question hangs over something called reversal, or reversion. The results of the Newcastle research published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that some of the embryos with healthy donated mitochondria developed mutations somewhere along the line. Mutations formed in 12% of one baby's mitochondria and 16% in another's. That was not enough to affect the babies, who were healthy, but previous work by other scientists has suggested that mutations can increase with time, and nobody yet understands why. The Newcastle scientists and medics have been highly praised for their slow and methodical work. They have brought joy to some families and hope to others. But this is still experimental technology and caution is absolutely valid. And inevitably there are cost issues. People who can afford it will no doubt pay, but the NHS is unlikely to be able to help the rest. Nonetheless, this groundbreaking research must surely be allowed to continue, albeit only in the same careful fashion.
