Doctor’s note
Sir: Your leading article ‘Labour vs labour’ (21 September) follows a recent theme that I have noticed in The Spectator, in which the government is criticised for allowing public pay rises without implementing changes to working practices to increase productivity. I cannot comment on other sectors but I work in the NHS, working closely with junior doctors as colleagues and am involved in training them.
Your article appears to imply that if they worked harder or differently, productivity would improve. While I accept that NHS productivity may not have improved (or may have worsened over recent years), my experience as a GP and trainer is that my productivity and that of juniors is limited by structures and barriers to the efficient provision of care imposed by changes imposed from above. These changes have come from the last government, the Department of Health, NHS England and the wider society, and are completely beyond the control of frontline clinicians, who are as frustrated as the public about the situation. This is not in any way relevant to pay awards, which reflect the length and level of training (and responsibility carried) by junior doctors. In my experience, they are extremely diligent and hardworking (not to mention bright and motivated) members of the workforce.
Dr Jonathan Cleary
Gloucestershire
Migratory patterns
Sir: ‘The Swedish model’ (14 September) makes some very important points about illegal immigration – notably that withdrawing from the ECHR is in itself unlikely to be a silver bullet. But your leading article also implies that the fundamental problem is that we are admitting too many people to be able to provide them with the basic needs of housing, public services and the maintenance of social cohesion.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in