One issue which has not yet hit the middle pages is the position of junior foreign doctors. For years, they have helped fill gaps in the NHS, coming to Britain for both career advancement and (increasingly in recent years) for higher pay.
In order to facilitate the employment of these doctors, the Home Office invented a ‘no work permit required’ category. They were described as being in ‘training’, while typically earning net salaries of around GBP 20,000 to 30,000 per annum. (I suppose one of the purposes of bureaucracies is to create interesting anomalies.) Those wishing to get this status had to take the so-called PLAB (Professional and Linguistic assessments Board) test, organized by the GMC - a large industry in its own right.
Now there are too many doctors. Not too many from the point of view of patients who can’t get treatment, but from the point of view of overspending NHS officials. One reason for this is that the training scheme for young doctors has been changed (shortened) in such a way that those at the beginning and middle of the process have suddenly had to chase fewer and fewer jobs. Over the past six months it has been common for hospitals to get hundreds of applications for a single job. (This has also affected young British doctors as well and many have left the country to try to get jobs in places like Australia and New Zealand.)
The response from the Home Office has been to end the ‘no work permit required’ status for foreign doctors from July. Unfortunately many young doctors have been caught in the middle of the changes. The BAPIO (British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin) is organizing a protest march on 21 April. They explain:
“We are international medical graduates, who have passed PLAB, and are trying to get fair treatment. Many of us are already here in the UK and are in training posts, but are being treated unequally. Why are we protesting? Because the rules have been changed suddenly, without proper consultation or warning and unilaterally.”
UPDATE 21 April 2006
This story has now been taken up by the BBC and press.
]]>The RAF prosecution made a statement that:
“British troops are operating in Iraq under a United Nations mandate and at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The judge advocate ruled that the court would not accept his defence that the war was illegal and a panel of his peers have convicted him on that basis.”
Many people would not recognize that version of the situation in Iraq. I hope we hear more from Kendall-Smith.
]]>There is an inherent conflict between defending the supremacy of the Commons and making the composition of the Lords more “legitimate”, less aristocratic and more democratic.
Of course real democracies, whether unicameral or bicameral, elect all (yes, all) their representatives.
]]>Sales are completely clean and above board. The small type says “The Elect the Lords campaign regrets that it cannot accept a loan as payment.”
]]>What exactly do we make of the Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, telling us we will fail to meet the target of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010, and then hopping into her Jaguar? Meanwhile according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, God is sending us a warning and we should take notice.
Chris Huhne got it right when he said, “Even the modest progress made on the Kyoto basket of greenhouse gases is largely an accidental result of the switch from coal to gas-powered electricity generation, and has nothing to do with government policy.” The government has never prioritized climate change except in Tony Blair’s speeches.
Mark Lazarowicz, the excellent Edinburgh North MP, is quoted as saying, “Nuclear power is neither safe, secure, cheap nor renewable. As long as the debate remains focused on the fors and againsts of nuclear power, the full potentiality of renewable energy will not be realised.”
This states the Labour government policy in reverse: the full potentiality of renewable energy will not be realised (because of all the tedious problems involved with planning, bureaucracy etc.) so we will have to build new nuclear power stations.
This is defeatist. If the public were presented with concrete policies (road speed limits, energy saving in homes, clean fuel incentives, air travel taxes etc.) they would be support them. People are not indifferent to the issue of climate change. Many things can be done now, relatively inexpensively, before we tackle the harder, more difficult and more expensive questions.
Meanwhile what about the international context? What does climate change imply for our relationship with the USA? Is the alliance still viable if America refuses to take measures to reduce emissions?
www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1741461,00.html?gusrc=rss
]]>Members of the House of Commons are determined to maintain the power of the Commons, i.e. their own power. They have the difficulty of trying to reform the Lords (in a seemingly democratic way) and at the same time making it subservient.
However for those of us who are not in the Commons, ‘primacy’ is not an issue. We just want effective democractic institutions. The relative power of an elected lower house vis-à-vis an elected upper house is not a problem. Indeed it seems entirely natural that an elected upper house should become more powerful than an unreformed, unelected, and basically corrupt assembly.
]]>Geographic data is of considerable economic, social and political importance. It’s vital that the public have free access to information that has already been funded from taxation.
Please sign!
]]>According to someone on the PodTech podcast, there are still only about 100,000 people in the States are listening to podcasts. The number in Britain may be higher (relative to the size of the population) as the BBC has so enthusiastically embraced the medium for recycling radio programmes like the ‘Today Programme’, ‘In Our Time’ etc.
]]>“We would make it clear [in the 2007 election campaign] that we are absolutely determined to use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to prevent a new generation of nuclear power stations being built here… . I am absolutely committed to local income tax for councils replacing the council tax. We will fight very hard for that issue - this is one of the core issues we will be fighting the campaign on.” Nicol Stephen]]>
So which song is easy to sing, universally known, expresses warm and friendly emotions, and has a text by our national poet? ‘Auld Lang Syne’, of course. Not choosing it would be like the Australians failing to pick ‘Waltzing Matilda’.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4837078.stm
www.theherald.co.uk/features/58519.htm
kirkelder.blogspot.com/2006/03/scotland-has-no-need-of-anthem-for-it.html
]]>We can look at the Steel Commission’s list of recommended powers for Scotland, noting what is there and what isn’t. The detail is important. ‘Scottish national security’ is in. For the SNP this is good. In almost all federal countries this power is not devolved. Control over taxation and immigration are also in, although foreign policy, Europe, defence and the armed forces are off the list.
I believe the Liberal Democrats and the SNP could negotiate a common programme around these proposals - after the 2007 election. Much would depend on the actual election results.
Looking further ahead, a vigorous Scottish parliament in charge of its own finances might be in a position to claim control of foreign policy etc., but the Steel Commission is also asking for a written constitution for the UK which would presumably make changes more difficult. This would be less attractive to the SNP.
My own preference would be for a Nordic Council type of arrangement that included Ireland as well as Scotland, England and Wales as members, rather than a UK-based state.
]]>This includes a system for absorbing heat from the ground which I hadn’t heard of before. It is being used in the Orkneys.
]]>Councillor Ricky Henderson is quoted as saying that “A world-class city needs ‘world-class’ green space”. What exactly does he mean? What is a “world-class green space”?
The establishment of new parks in areas which don’t have them is obviously desirable, but the language of ‘upgrading’ the existing ones rather than ‘conserving/preserving’ raises suspicions. After all, the council has an appalling record when it comes to new architecture.
If they want to upgrade they should start with the performing arts facilities used by the Edinburgh Festival. A lot of money is needed there and until it is spent the Edinburgh Festival will continue to decline.
]]>