Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe my analysis is over-simplistic, but if she wanted to continue the break from the past theme, look tough, plus also make herself quite popular with the NHS workers, a large section of our populace, she could have gotten rid. I think it might have been quite shrewd to give Gove that tough gig at this time. Or is there some other thinking as to why she has kept him?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    she is sensible
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Hunt's doing a terrific job: no new SoS could change the BMA mindset.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A1112787)
    Hunt's doing a terrific job: no new SoS could change the BMA mindset.
    What do you think the BMA mindset is?

    Debate seems about pay these days (e.g. leaked emails)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Jeremy Hunt may be doing good things - although I'm sure many would argue otherwise. I'd think however that the hash he has made of public relations would be grounds enough to get rid, however she might feel that would look like weakness and an act of retreat against the Government's opponents.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Jeremy Hunt may be doing good things - although I'm sure many would argue otherwise. I'd think however that the hash he has made of public relations would be grounds enough to get rid, however she might feel that would look like weakness and an act of retreat against the Government's opponents.
    So you think there might be a bit of good cop, bad cop(or good Tory, bad Tory) to her? Or maybe she is allowing him enough rope to hang himself.....
    Just slightly perplexed as she has been quite ruthless with a big name 'success' like Osbourne, but with probably the most hated minister, she has kept him.

    For the record I loathe Hunt.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I hope Sarah Wollaston ends up as health sec
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's good to keep Hunt there - it's a difficult time for Health, and he's been working there for a long time, so presumably has a better idea than others of the situation.

    The BMA are presumably going to try to continue making a fuss regardless of who the Health Secretary is.

    You are right in that it would have looked good for May from a publicity point-of-view if she had sacked him. There are rumours that she offered Health to someone else, they refused it, and so she then kept Hunt there. That would perhaps explain the rumours that he had been sacked initially, before the media backtracking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    I think it's good to keep Hunt there - it's a difficult time for Health, and he's been working there for a long time, so presumably has a better idea than others of the situation.

    The BMA are presumably going to try to continue making a fuss regardless of who the Health Secretary is.
    You're a doctor IIRC, what's your take on the situation? :yep:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    So you think there might be a bit of good cop, bad cop(or good Tory, bad Tory) to her? Or maybe she is allowing him enough rope to hang himself.....
    Just slightly perplexed as she has been quite ruthless with a big name 'success' like Osbourne, but with probably the most hated minister, she has kept him.

    For the record I loathe Hunt.
    Well, I'm not even going that far - although ironically what I've said may mean that the personalised intransigence of the BMA against Hunt is coming back to bite them in the arse if they really did want a different Health Secretary. Could May really have replaced him without looking like the Government was backing down?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    She brings in a new person, and they fail to solve the problems (as is likely) = she is held partially responsible for appointing the new person

    She leaves Hunt in the position, and he fails to solve the problem (as is likely) = Hunt takes the flack
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyHunt)
    What do you think the BMA mindset is?

    Debate seems about pay these days (e.g. leaked emails)
    Politically, its leaders are inherently left-wing.

    On the whole, I'd say the mindset is about pay too - and unrealistic expectations.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Front page of The Lancet...



    Personally I think she didn't sack him because he's basically managed to weather the storm and the storm is on-going. His tactic is essentially to ignore the whole thing, and to ignore the future of the NHS and any concerns about it. Which is working very well, because no amount of pressure on him seems to have any effect. So either he stays in and continues his current ways and thereby averts any further action by completely demoralising junior doctors who will eventually become resigned to the status quo.
    OR if things go tits up, as I suspect they might, then he's the perfect scape goat for the whole situation from May's point of view.

    To be honest I think they're in great danger of genuinely making the NHS unsustainable. It's already financially on the rocks, which is repairable by injections of money. However it is in danger of becoming on the rocks for reasons which are much harder to reverse - taking on the burdens of social care and chronically leaking staff. Those are not quick fixes, and to be honest tackling them requires a long term point of view which simply isn't being looked at right now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Front page of The Lancet...



    Personally I think she didn't sack him because he's basically managed to weather the storm and the storm is on-going. His tactic is essentially to ignore the whole thing, and to ignore the future of the NHS and any concerns about it. Which is working very well, because no amount of pressure on him seems to have any effect. So either he stays in and continues his current ways and thereby averts any further action by completely demoralising junior doctors who will eventually become resigned to the status quo.
    OR if things go tits up, as I suspect they might, then he's the perfect scape goat for the whole situation from May's point of view.

    To be honest I think they're in great danger of genuinely making the NHS unsustainable. It's already financially on the rocks, which is repairable by injections of money. However it is in danger of becoming on the rocks for reasons which are much harder to reverse - taking on the burdens of social care and chronically leaking staff. Those are not quick fixes, and to be honest tackling them requires a long term point of view which simply isn't being looked at right now.
    Good grief, what a rag a once respected journal has become. :unimpressed:

    She hasn't fired him because to do so would have been to be seen to cave in to NHS producer interests, Nothing more, nothing less.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Front page of The Lancet...


    How's the Lancet taking the side of doctors against the government (and using an opportunity to **** off the government) in a dispute between the doctors and the government evidence of anything? It's like Watchtower taking the side of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say that the legitimate reason is that any health secretary who does not pander to them is going to be unpopular, she clearly supports further NHS reform.

    It's the same with teachers (but to a lesser degree) in that the NUT despises anybody who does not follow their libertarian social education mumbo jumbo approach.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    How's the Lancet taking the side of doctors against the government (and using an opportunity to **** off the government) in a dispute between the doctors and the government evidence of anything? It's like Watchtower taking the side of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    I guess because it's impartial from the BMA and the government and a respected journal on healthcare? Did you actually read the editorial?

    The BMJ is to junior doctors what Watchtower is to Jehovah's Witnesses. The Lancet has no direct link. It is to medicine kind of like what the Economist is to economics, if you have ever read that magazine... an opinion, certainly, but not one tied to any particular cause, just commenting on the area in question. Economics or medicine.

    If you go with your reasoning, any healthcare related publication ever would be suspicious if it came out and said the disenfranchisement of junior doctors was a problem.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Good grief, what a rag a once respected journal has become. :unimpressed:

    She hasn't fired him because to do so would have been to be seen to cave in to NHS producer interests, Nothing more, nothing less.
    I assume a 'rag' for posting an opinion?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.