Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "NHS pay talks ‘disappointing’ with more strikes likely say Unions" video.

  1. I have worked with many very fine nurses, but being a good person or good at your job doesn't mean you get paid more than that role is worth. It certainly does not mean that you get to hold the nation hostage during the worst global inflationary event since 1977, because you can't afford a second holiday without doing some overtime. Yes @sungaze1012  nurses are on wards with patients. That's their job. To be an assistant to doctors, so you can have one doctor and many nurses covering a ward. The point there is the nurses are significantly less trained than the doctor, and thus get lower pay. The market pays based on skill level, and the scarcity of those skills in the market. Nurses do a fantastic job, but so do all of the support staff in the kitchen, housekeeping, and wardies. So do the doctors, allied health practitioners, medical technicians, lab techs, phlebotomist, pharmacists, the administrators, IT staff, security guards and the thousands of VOLUNTEERS. Let's not pretend nurses are more important than they are. A hospital needs all of it's parts to function. Let's stop being silly about this. The strikes need to stop. It was bad enough doing it for one day, continuing on with strike action is putting patient lives and outcomes in serious jeopardy. Finances are hard for everyone right now, not just the unionists whom have voted to strike. We need calmer, cooler heads to ride this inflationary event out so things can get to where they should be. That's how we solve this crisis, not through strikes that leave nurses with less money.
    4
  2. Prime ministers ARE NOT elected by the people under the west minster system. None. Zip. Zero. The people vote ONLY for their local member and their local member votes for who they want to be prime minister to represent THEM. A prime minister is not a president, they're nothing alike. Stop watching yankvillain politics and expecting anything is relevant to the UK, it's not. They're utterly different systems.
    1
  3.  @edix1673  On the contrary I think you are the one whom is not only being naive but is purposefully presenting a strawman argument. If we want to get super technical, most people's first preference votes go nowhere. It's their 3rd and 4th preference votes that elect someone. We do not see first preference voting data, only final results so it's a misnomer to suggest an electorate turned against anyone. A party is not it's prime minister and you'd be wise to learn what a prime minister actually does. They aren't anywhere near as important or as powerful as you seem to believe. Yes, many people in practice try to vote blindly for a party and disregard the platform of the actual candidate they're voting for. No party member agrees 100% with their parties national platform regardless of which party we're talking about. Voting blindly for a party instead of the local candidate breaks the system, encourages corruption, fails to hold politicians to account and creates the leaderless, planless situation the UK is in now. It's not a situation unique to the UK, but it's certainly one the UK is experiencing.
    1
  4.  @edix1673  That is factually inaccurate. The moment someone proudly tells you they voted for a PM, you know they have no idea how the west minster system functions and aren't really politically aware. That some people falsely believe something, doesn't make it true. Moreover, a prime minister is not a party. Parties change leaders, including whilst in government which both major parties have demonstrated. Again, please go and learn what a prime minister's role actually entails. It isn't anywhere near as important as you want to believe.
    1
  5.  @edix1673  I do ever so much enjoy being spoken down to by a halfwit, it makes me giggle in ways nothing else can. Last words from me on this matter. It indeed does matter how the system functions, because that is what's going to happen regardless of how people want things to go. You, nor any other member of the public, factually have never voted for a UK PM no matter what you tell yourself, and if you actually understood what the PM actually does you wouldn't just know why but you wouldn't want to vote for them either. This is a very silly conversation, good day to you.
    1
  6.  @sungaze1012  I did not compare nurses to doctors, please do not put words in my mouth. No, nurses ALREADY have fair pay.
    1
  7.  @edix1673  The fact that you can not tell the difference between an individual's intent and their ability to achieve that intent, is your downfall. Work on your basic reading comprehension skills. There was never a debate, because there never was an argument on your part to answer. Just a jester yipping away with nonsense and refusing to acknowledge objective reality. I find your words childlike and borish. For one final time. A voter can preference a party blindly based on whom the party leader is at the time of voting. However, that is not paramount to voting for a PM because only party members vote on leaders and only MPs vote on whom should be PM. A preference for a party is no guarantee that whomever the leader at the time of voting is, will ever be made PM even though the party forms government. Party leadership can be changed at any time at the sole discretion of party members, and there is no rule stating a prime minister must be a party leader. The majority of voters, vote for their local member and not blindly for a party. That some people do not understand the system is irrelevant. Preferences are counted and respected for local members only. There is no mechanism in the system for voters to decide a PM, and thus as their will is never taken into account there is nothing to "respect" from the people in terms of who is PM. A prime minister is not the head of state, that's the King. A prime minister is not the head of the government, that's the party leader whom as we've established does not necessarily have to be PM, and even where they inhabit the same person they remain separate roles. A prime minister is only the representative of the house, or another way of describing the role is they are the representative of the representatives. It is therefore only fitting that solely the house vote on whom represents them. They are responsible for appointing ministers to portfolios, communicating to press, representing government abroad and form the figure head for the civil service. There is a separate role of Minister of the Union, which whilst traditionally embodied by a PM can be appointed to any member of the house. That role is to liaise with first ministers across the union and ensure government acts on behalf of the entire union not just any one member. Before you make an even bigger fool for yourself, do look up the PM role. Ministers sworn into portfolios control those portfolios and the PM has little to no say beyond appointment. You likewise do not vote for whom has which portfolio. What you're doing is making a series of logical fallacies then patting yourself on the back for having done so. Your argument was lost before it even began.
    1
  8.  @edix1673  Did you just parrot me like a primary schooler saying "I know you are but what am I"? You want things to be a way they simply are not, and you want to have a bigger say and more control than you actually have. As it so happens voters in the UK have very little control over how the country is run. This is not yankville, if you want yankville style politics you should move there. Completely hopeless troll, come back when you grow a brain.
    1
  9.  @edix1673  You're so desperate to come out on top of an argument that never happened because you never had a leg to stand on.
    1
  10. Strike action for essential workers needs to be made illegal. Find a different way to make your case that doesn't involve lowering patient outcomes and putting lives at risk. If they can't be trusted to strike safely they shouldn't be allowed at all. What they should have done instead of leaving hospitals with a skeleton staff is to simply have 10-15% of rostered staff from a given shift strike. That would still cause significant disruption without being reckless. That's precisely how nurses strike in other parts of the world, which they're doing right now all over the place not just the UK.
    1