When I first heard that the UK was selling off one-third of its stake in a new nuclear facility to be built at Hinkley Point C in South West England I was somewhat taken aback. Of the £40billion of trade deals trumpeted by Mr Cameron £18billion would come in the form of Chinese ownership of a British nuclear reactor.
I fully understand the desire to engage in trade with China but I would have thought there were boundaries that one wouldn't cross if at all possible.
One would have thought that domestic nuclear energy generation would have been beyond the pale of trade agreements with China-but maybe I'm old fashioned.
In discussions it seemed that the British with whom I spoke were more than happy about the financial aspect of the agreement, but all felt somewhat uncomfortable with the Chinese.
Shades of Dr Faustus anyone?
This discussion was played out during the Budget Presentation/Question Time on the floor of Parliament in what I think was supposed to be a classic "there's truth in jest" comment that I for one found amusing.
The Shadow Secretary of the Treasury, John McDonnell, chose to read out of Mao's Little Red Book quipping "I thought it would come in handy to you in your new relationship" as he tossed it to the actual Secretary of the Treasury Mr Osborne.
Anyone who found it distasteful should think twice before they criticise him.
The current Chinese are the (bastard?) heirs to Mao...
Friday 27 November 2015
Wednesday 25 November 2015
And You Shall Reap What You Have Sown....
Although I still harbour some concerns about Mr Obama's approach to Syria insofar as I think he and his advisors have underestimated the truly medieval aspect of the IS's ideology and the fact that they have intentionally declared war on any and all who don't adhere to their draconian version of Islam I also appreciate that the myriad groupings make it all but impossible to have a clear strategy.
Enter Russia.
Mr Putin thought he had a clear strategy. He thought he could create realities on the ground which would position Russia favourably when it came to discuss a diplomatic solution.
And indeed there were many voices-a sheer cacophony from the Republican ranks- but even grumblings from the Democrats that the moment called for a man of action rather than a man of intellectual reflection.
It was couched in terms of "leadership" but meant that they didn't want a wet washcloth in the White House but-dare I say it-longed for a dubbya to take those terrorists by the throat and show them who's who.
And so we watched as the Russians fortified air bases and then brought in masses of offensive hardware and launched indiscriminate bombing raids primarily on the various groupings of "moderate Islamists" who were part of a Syrian civil war while ostensibly bombing IS.
I was dumbfounded that we sat and watched the Russians bomb "our" proxies while we left "their" proxy Assad alone.
We cried foul when he defended Assad rather than attack his supposed target of IS, and then sat and watched him do it.
But then Mr Putin got a little too cocky. Up until that point no one was willing to militarily engage the Russians directly despite all their provocations.
But with Mr Erdogan he came up against an adversary who is cut from a cloth much closer to Mr Putin's than from the Americans or Europeans who he had been bullying.
And Mr Erdogan not only has NATO weaponry-he has shown that he is willing to use it.
Add to that the fact that Russia and Turkey have been competing for supremacy in the Caucasus/Near and Middle East for centuries and you suddenly have a situation where Syria is to Turkey what the Ukraine is to Russia.
I don't wish to bring the Ukraine into this spat except to highlight the differences. Turkey is well-armed. Is a member of NATO. And unlike the Ukraine was a major power for the better part of 600 years before its demise at the end of WWI.
And like Russia, it harbours imperial ambitions.
So when the Russians continually ignored Turkish warnings for actual or borderline incursions into their airspace while bombing Turkish proxies it is not all that surprising that threats turned into action.
If this were a novel it would make for a good plot twist. But it is not.
Turkey has essentially called Russia's bluff.
One can only hope that the result is to clarify spheres of influence/military activity and that everyone adheres to the rules and focuses on containing if not defeating IS rather than opening up new fronts.
As I said.
One can only hope....
Tuesday 24 November 2015
The Clash of Civilisations- The Logical Extension of Weltanshauung
I have been hesitant to write about Paris given the complexity of the situation and the realisation that in such an instance knee-jerk reactions are the most likely and I wanted to avoid going down that road.
But now some time has passed and I have been able to move past my emotional response to try and make sense of it.
First and foremost I think the most important thing that Mr Hollande has done was to paraphrase Samuel P Huntington and in so doing loudly proclaim that this was NOT a "Clash of Civilisations".
In his speech to the French Assembly he focussed on the fact that the acts of the IS, were wanton criminal acts and were anything but civilised. As such they cannot be construed as a Clash of Civilisations.
For some this sound like splitting hairs. But I believe it is a very important statement.
Huntington was convinced that the wars of the future would no longer be primarily driven by political and economical consideration, but rather would be driven by conflicting "world views" between different civilizations
He postulated that "differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion."
He distinguished between civilizations on the basis of differing views on the "...relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear."
This is exactly what IS wants the West to think. By claiming the mantel of Islam they have a potential following of over 1.6billion Muslims. They want nothing more than for the West to put all Muslims in one group and precipitate the clash.
But Islam is not a monolith. And slowly the Islamic "silent majority" is finding its voice. It is of the utmost importance that Muslims who do not wish to be identified with IS speak out loudly and clearly.
There can be no limp attempt to explain radical Islam as a valid response to perceived or even real slights or discrimination. Every attempt to excuse their barbarity as an unfortunate but understandable reaction to Western values is a perversion.
It will invite a competing and equally warped fundamentalist radical response from "Western" extremists.
And that will lead to the dreaded Clash of Civilisations.
But now some time has passed and I have been able to move past my emotional response to try and make sense of it.
First and foremost I think the most important thing that Mr Hollande has done was to paraphrase Samuel P Huntington and in so doing loudly proclaim that this was NOT a "Clash of Civilisations".
In his speech to the French Assembly he focussed on the fact that the acts of the IS, were wanton criminal acts and were anything but civilised. As such they cannot be construed as a Clash of Civilisations.
For some this sound like splitting hairs. But I believe it is a very important statement.
Huntington was convinced that the wars of the future would no longer be primarily driven by political and economical consideration, but rather would be driven by conflicting "world views" between different civilizations
He postulated that "differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion."
He distinguished between civilizations on the basis of differing views on the "...relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear."
This is exactly what IS wants the West to think. By claiming the mantel of Islam they have a potential following of over 1.6billion Muslims. They want nothing more than for the West to put all Muslims in one group and precipitate the clash.
But Islam is not a monolith. And slowly the Islamic "silent majority" is finding its voice. It is of the utmost importance that Muslims who do not wish to be identified with IS speak out loudly and clearly.
There can be no limp attempt to explain radical Islam as a valid response to perceived or even real slights or discrimination. Every attempt to excuse their barbarity as an unfortunate but understandable reaction to Western values is a perversion.
It will invite a competing and equally warped fundamentalist radical response from "Western" extremists.
And that will lead to the dreaded Clash of Civilisations.
Thursday 5 November 2015
Vocation, Greed and It's All a Socialist Plot
I received some interesting feedback on my NHS post from some staunch members of the Conservative Party with whom I periodically come into contact through my work.
Their opening salvo was that being a doctor in the UK has always been a vocation and as such doctors shouldn't be paid more because they are doing what they love to do.
I was quite taken aback by this line of reasoning. Were they suggesting that everyone else in the UK hates their job? Perhaps they thought that (self)loathing one's occupation means one deserves higher pay? That they be highly compensated for their decision to pursue careers where the hours are long and the stress is high but in sectors which they hate and in which they have no "vocational" attachment?
Yes. That is exactly what they were saying. If you don't like the hours and the pay associated with being a doctor then you shouldn't have chosen that profession in the first place. They also suggested that given the high intelligence required to become a doctor they could easily be successful in law or finance and so yes, medicine is a vocational choice for them.
Of course if all the smart kids became lawyers and bankers we would be dependent upon the less intelligent, less competent to fill the ranks of doctors and nurses. Or perhaps they think that outside of the dim only the vocationally driven or the independently wealthy can afford to be employed in the NHS. Who else would be happy to toil long, stressful hours in understaffed, underfunded hospitals for little pay?
Given this line of reasoning I guess one of my conclusions is that this smattering from the Conservative Party must not use the NHS so were uninterested in seriously engaging in a discussion of it.
They did tell me nod, nod, wink, wink that they know Junior Doctors and they don't really work that hard and imagine, they even might snatch the odd nap in a 15 hour day when there is a moment respite from the great unwashed.
Unhappy to show any empathy for a group of people who would want to enjoy their work, do it enthusiastically AND still want to get paid for it they moved on to explain that the problem lies within the system. They explained to me that the reason it takes so long to become a consultant is because the current consultants don't want to have more consultants and therefor intentionally keep a cap on the number of consultants.
As an aside they claimed the same structure obtained in the Police Force where promotion to the senior ranks is allegedly artificially restricted by the Senior Ranks to make sure that they have a cosy life.
I guess the Conservatives don't use the police either. I wonder how they feel about the Fire Service, the Military, the Civil Service, Public Transportation, and that great old Chestnut, the State School Sector.
But then what do you suspect from a class-ridden society built on the back of a Colonial Empire...
Their opening salvo was that being a doctor in the UK has always been a vocation and as such doctors shouldn't be paid more because they are doing what they love to do.
I was quite taken aback by this line of reasoning. Were they suggesting that everyone else in the UK hates their job? Perhaps they thought that (self)loathing one's occupation means one deserves higher pay? That they be highly compensated for their decision to pursue careers where the hours are long and the stress is high but in sectors which they hate and in which they have no "vocational" attachment?
Yes. That is exactly what they were saying. If you don't like the hours and the pay associated with being a doctor then you shouldn't have chosen that profession in the first place. They also suggested that given the high intelligence required to become a doctor they could easily be successful in law or finance and so yes, medicine is a vocational choice for them.
Of course if all the smart kids became lawyers and bankers we would be dependent upon the less intelligent, less competent to fill the ranks of doctors and nurses. Or perhaps they think that outside of the dim only the vocationally driven or the independently wealthy can afford to be employed in the NHS. Who else would be happy to toil long, stressful hours in understaffed, underfunded hospitals for little pay?
Given this line of reasoning I guess one of my conclusions is that this smattering from the Conservative Party must not use the NHS so were uninterested in seriously engaging in a discussion of it.
They did tell me nod, nod, wink, wink that they know Junior Doctors and they don't really work that hard and imagine, they even might snatch the odd nap in a 15 hour day when there is a moment respite from the great unwashed.
Unhappy to show any empathy for a group of people who would want to enjoy their work, do it enthusiastically AND still want to get paid for it they moved on to explain that the problem lies within the system. They explained to me that the reason it takes so long to become a consultant is because the current consultants don't want to have more consultants and therefor intentionally keep a cap on the number of consultants.
As an aside they claimed the same structure obtained in the Police Force where promotion to the senior ranks is allegedly artificially restricted by the Senior Ranks to make sure that they have a cosy life.
I guess the Conservatives don't use the police either. I wonder how they feel about the Fire Service, the Military, the Civil Service, Public Transportation, and that great old Chestnut, the State School Sector.
But then what do you suspect from a class-ridden society built on the back of a Colonial Empire...
Wednesday 4 November 2015
A Quick Journey into the State of the National Health System
For those of you not aware there is an attempt by the current Conservative government to change the terms and conditions of Junior Doctors working for the National Health Service (NHS).
Broadly speaking the Health Secretary, Mr Jeremy Hunt would like to make the NHS a 24/7 enterprise without paying any more to achieve this- or at least that is his stated claim.
Firstly however I should bring to your attention that the definition "Junior Doctor" is a bit misleading. In the NHS once you have passed your final exams you are a qualified Medical Doctor but are defined as a Junior Doctor until you become a Consultant. This process could take 10-15 years with many "Junior Doctors" being in their 30's with families and mortgages.
It is these Junior Doctors who are the engine room of the NHS. For the most recently qualified junior doctors, basic pay is around £23,000 a year. There is a 50% annual top up for those who work one weekend in six but that applies both to those who are on call at home and those who spend both Saturdays and Sundays at work. This top up, known as banding, also involves an obligation to work unsocial hours at other times of the week.
Social hours are currently 7-19h00 Monday through Friday. Some junior doctors are required to work one weekend in four to qualify for the 50% banding with a number even having to do one in two or three. Others receive a 20% banding payment, again, depending on their working hours schedule.
The net result of this is that their current average work week is 48 hours. The current top limit that they work is 91 hours.
Mr Hunt would like to extend the definition of social hours to include 7-22h00 Monday to Friday and to be extended to Saturday as well.
The British Medical Association (BMA) calculated that these changes will result in decreases for Junior Doctor incomes from 15-30%.
Mr Hunt's response to this claim is that no Doctor will earn less than they currently earn as long as they work the maximum hours available.
This seems disingenuous to me. I think he has a broader strategy. Mr Hunt was co-author of a book in 2009 claiming the NHS was no longer relevant and that it should be dismantled. This is indeed his goal.
Create enough strife in the system and then bring in private sector alternatives. But he is overlooking certain figures. Current health expenditure in the UK was 8.46 per cent of GDP in 2013. This compares to 16.43 per cent in the USA, 11.12 per cent in the Netherlands, 10.98 per cent in Germany, 10.95 per cent in France, 10.40 per cent in Denmark, 10.16 per cent in Canada and 8.77 per cent in Italy.
Current expenditure per capita (using the purchasing power parity) for the UK was $3,235 in 2013. This can be compared to $8,713 in the USA, $5,131 in the Netherlands, $4,819 in Germany, $4,553 in Denmark, $4,351 in Canada, $4,124 in France and $3,077 in Italy.
In the USA, despite the current health expenditure figures there were some 45 million Americans without healthcare.
These figures were the driving force behind Obamacare which has brought health insurance to approximately 16 million Americans who were previously uninsured.
Looking at the figures it must be that the UK government's desire to dismantle/privatise the NHS is on ideological grounds because by most accounts the NHS ranks very high when compared internationally.
So the Conservatives point to the fact that the NHS is around £750 million in debt. They wheel out this number to show that it is inefficient, and then wheel out the old chestnut that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, as so adequately demonstrated by the privatisation of the Rail and Prison sectors.
Of course it could be more efficient- what couldn't? But that should not be used to suggest that the solution is to cut costs to try and balance its budget. That would only accelerate its demise.
The truth is that it is underfunded. That means it is understaffed. That means that it is constantly being jerry rigged as opposed to being properly funded, and managed.
Fund it properly. Staff it properly. But stop asking for it, a health system, to generate profits.
We don't ask the Police. We don't ask the Fire Service to be profitable.
We do ask that they are well run.
I am not convinced that Jeremy Hunt is the right man to oversee that undertaking.
Broadly speaking the Health Secretary, Mr Jeremy Hunt would like to make the NHS a 24/7 enterprise without paying any more to achieve this- or at least that is his stated claim.
Firstly however I should bring to your attention that the definition "Junior Doctor" is a bit misleading. In the NHS once you have passed your final exams you are a qualified Medical Doctor but are defined as a Junior Doctor until you become a Consultant. This process could take 10-15 years with many "Junior Doctors" being in their 30's with families and mortgages.
It is these Junior Doctors who are the engine room of the NHS. For the most recently qualified junior doctors, basic pay is around £23,000 a year. There is a 50% annual top up for those who work one weekend in six but that applies both to those who are on call at home and those who spend both Saturdays and Sundays at work. This top up, known as banding, also involves an obligation to work unsocial hours at other times of the week.
Social hours are currently 7-19h00 Monday through Friday. Some junior doctors are required to work one weekend in four to qualify for the 50% banding with a number even having to do one in two or three. Others receive a 20% banding payment, again, depending on their working hours schedule.
The net result of this is that their current average work week is 48 hours. The current top limit that they work is 91 hours.
Mr Hunt would like to extend the definition of social hours to include 7-22h00 Monday to Friday and to be extended to Saturday as well.
The British Medical Association (BMA) calculated that these changes will result in decreases for Junior Doctor incomes from 15-30%.
Mr Hunt's response to this claim is that no Doctor will earn less than they currently earn as long as they work the maximum hours available.
This seems disingenuous to me. I think he has a broader strategy. Mr Hunt was co-author of a book in 2009 claiming the NHS was no longer relevant and that it should be dismantled. This is indeed his goal.
Create enough strife in the system and then bring in private sector alternatives. But he is overlooking certain figures. Current health expenditure in the UK was 8.46 per cent of GDP in 2013. This compares to 16.43 per cent in the USA, 11.12 per cent in the Netherlands, 10.98 per cent in Germany, 10.95 per cent in France, 10.40 per cent in Denmark, 10.16 per cent in Canada and 8.77 per cent in Italy.
Current expenditure per capita (using the purchasing power parity) for the UK was $3,235 in 2013. This can be compared to $8,713 in the USA, $5,131 in the Netherlands, $4,819 in Germany, $4,553 in Denmark, $4,351 in Canada, $4,124 in France and $3,077 in Italy.
In the USA, despite the current health expenditure figures there were some 45 million Americans without healthcare.
These figures were the driving force behind Obamacare which has brought health insurance to approximately 16 million Americans who were previously uninsured.
Looking at the figures it must be that the UK government's desire to dismantle/privatise the NHS is on ideological grounds because by most accounts the NHS ranks very high when compared internationally.
So the Conservatives point to the fact that the NHS is around £750 million in debt. They wheel out this number to show that it is inefficient, and then wheel out the old chestnut that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, as so adequately demonstrated by the privatisation of the Rail and Prison sectors.
Of course it could be more efficient- what couldn't? But that should not be used to suggest that the solution is to cut costs to try and balance its budget. That would only accelerate its demise.
The truth is that it is underfunded. That means it is understaffed. That means that it is constantly being jerry rigged as opposed to being properly funded, and managed.
Fund it properly. Staff it properly. But stop asking for it, a health system, to generate profits.
We don't ask the Police. We don't ask the Fire Service to be profitable.
We do ask that they are well run.
I am not convinced that Jeremy Hunt is the right man to oversee that undertaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)