Richard Murphy's proposals for running the economy

Every time I see this thread title I read it as '...ruining the economy'!

Since they have now cancelled all the unpopular strikes.

They will do.

I don't think we're reading the same article. It clearly states that the government stated it was going to impose the new contract, back in July.

We'll have to wait and see whether or not the doctors choose to sign the new contract.

That BBC report is exactly what we were talking about, post-truth.

Do you not remember all the times Jeremy Hunt said that he was going to impose the new contract if doctors did not agree to it voluntarily?

'Justice for Health alleged Jeremy Hunt did not have the legal powers to underpin his announcement to Parliament in July that he would push on and introduce the new contract after BMA members had voted against it.

But the judge, Mr Justice Green, said Mr Hunt's decision "fell squarely within the scope of his lawful powers".

The junior doctors also argued the government's handling of the issue violated the principles of transparency and good administration.

The judge accepted that the impression given to doctors in the parliamentary statement was that Mr Hunt did intend to impose the new contract.

But afterwards he had, according to the ruling, clarified that he was not exercising compulsory powers.

The judge concluded there had been "no lack of clarity or transparency".'

Jeremy Hunt changed the statement that he was going to impose the contract. That is what the junior doctors took him to court for, to stop him imposing the contract. That's why they went on strike, to stop him imposing the contract.

In court he actually said that it wasn't his intention to impose the contract. Now the BBC and the right wing media believe him.
I bet if they looked back in their archives, they would see that he did say he was going to impose it.
He won in court, but the junior doctors have won. The separate hospital trusts are going to have to negotiate new contracts with the doctors. If the doctors do not want to sign up to the new contracts, they will not be made to. They can continue on the old contracts.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-hunt-junior-doctors-legal-battle-victory-was-ours-a7337271.html

Sorry dd, must have been mixing you up with someone else.

I think I was an 'elderly primagravida' too even though I was only 30!

@Ana

Neither of my children is still at home, although my son has only just left. I was an 'elderly primigravida' when my daughter was born.

I can't even remember how this started (and am too lazy to scroll back).

General Studies was very different 'back in the day' from today's exam. We also had to do a test called 'Test in Written English' (or something like that).

General Studies A level included sections on maths and a foreign language, in addition to science and current affairs.

It was compulsory at my school. We were told that it showed universities and employers that we had a broader range of knowledge and skills than our A level results showed. Whether or not that was true, I don't know. A great deal of curriculum time was devoted to it and we had some very interesting speakers, so I assume the school thought it was worthwhile.

Although it never 'counted' as an A level when offers were made, I expect you remember that most university candidates were interviewed rather than relying on grades. I was very jealous of friends who had offers of two Es, because they had made such an impression at interview. The interview covered topics outside the subject candidates were hoping to study, so general topics were useful. The Oxbridge exams included, as now, assessment of thinking outside the subject area.

General Studies was an attempt to force students to have all-round learning, just as the EBacc does today. As far as I know, no university requires the EBacc, but we are told that the more competitive ones look on it positively.

Ah, now you're back, perhaps you can confirm whether or not the BBC link I put up was a tissue of lies, durhamjen.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/09/30/corbyns-investment-programme-will-cost-less-than-the-governments-qe-programme/

So Osborne's QE has cost more than Corbyn's PQE will cost.
Who was trusted with the economy? I think he got out at the right time, before he was sussed.

No, he had other plans and General Studies would have been no help whatsoever!

Well, I don't expect he wanted to go to Oxbridge anyway!

We don't have to pay for a tv licence any longer, DH is so old
I don't think he did General Studies either.

So we can't even trust the good old BBC any more then? Huh, I don't know what I pay my licence fee for...

It is probably post-truth

www.plainenglish.co.uk/

You can't be that old - didn't you say you had a young(ish) daughter at home?
No, not me, they have all fledged!
I am positively ancient

Oh, you mean ddil Ana!
Yes, I thought she was still a spring chicken in comparison!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37481677

So this report is all lies then, is it?

You can't be that old - didn't you say you had a young(ish) daughter at home?

'And the result is post-truth politics where it is the lie and its teller that is rewarded.

George Orwell predicted it.

Now we have it.

The fight for truth has never been so important.'

Richard Murphy. The example he gives is Jeremy Hunt and the NHS.
This was written a while ago, but the latest Hunt is even worse.
The junior doctors took him to court because they said he was going beyond his powers by imposing the contract.
Hunt's lawyers said that he never said he was going to impose the contract, even though we all know he was going to, and it comes in next week.
However the judge agreed with Hunt's lawyers. The papers all said that the junior doctors had lost their case, but they won because Hunt backed down.

That's post-truth politics. We believe the lie.

A buzz-term it might be, but it's also relevant, when people don't base political decisions on facts, but on prejudices and emotions.

The dinosaur remark was intended to be ironic and self-deprecating, as I consider myself fairly old. I went to a school with a high percentage of successful Oxbridge entries (especially for girls), so it must have known what it was doing. We all had to do General Studies, because Oxbridge and the more prestigious universities looked on it favourably, although it wasn't included in any offer. The entrance exams themselves included the kind of questions we considered in General Studies. It was also useful, if called for interview.

post-truth politics
just another modern buzz-term, possibly imported from America.

Perhaps a way of reaching out to the electorate
It is what it is
Awesome!

[sigh]

I see what many mean about rude posts.

Or she could just look at the taxresearch link.
Who's she? The cat's mother?

General studies was first introduced in 1959 amid fears that A-levels lacked breadth

In those days Oxford and Cambridge held their own Entrance and Scholarship Examinations, and these were treated as vastly more significant than ‘A’ level results. Both universities were outside what is now the UCAS scheme and you had to submit an application direct to Oxford and/or Cambridge.

You must be a dinosaur.
Is that an 'ageist' remark?

Or she could just look at the taxresearch link.