Labour voters back doctors over five-day strike and think Wes Streeting should meet pay demands
Overall people oppose the industrial action due to start next Friday by a margin of 44 per cent to 34 per cent, pollsters More in Common found.
However, Labour voters support the strikes, with 47 per cent in favour and 35 per cent against, in a major challenge to the stance taken by the health secretary Wes Streeting who has vociferously pressed doctors' leaders to ditch their plans.
Green voters also back the strike with 49 per cent in support, while others oppose it. Some 69 per cent of Tory voters are against the walkouts, followed by Reform voters (63 per cent) and Lib Dem voters (55 per cent).
Mr Streeting is set to hold last-ditch talks with doctors ' union leaders on Thursday in an effort to avoid the action, which he has warned could break the NHS.
Resident doctors, previously known as junior doctors, in England are set to strike from 7am on 25 July as part of a pay dispute with the government.
Professor Robert Winston, a Labour peer who became a household name through his documentaries on child development, has warned that the 'highly dangerous' industrial action risks harming the public's trust in the profession.
But the new leader of the British Medical Association (BMA), whose members voted in favour of strike action, has said that the doctors' 29 per cent pay demand is 'non-negotiable' and warned strikes could go on for years if the dispute is not resolved.
Mr Streeting has previously told the union that, after junior doctors received a 28.9 per cent pay rise last year when Labour entered government, the public would not understand why 'you would still walk out on strike, and neither do I'.
The More in Common poll of more than 3,000 adults conducted between July 11 and 14, also found that many voters feel resident doctors are not paid enough, yet most think the pay rises in recent years have been fair.
The survey found 38 per cent think junior doctors are paid too little, 34 per cent think the right amount, and only 10 per cent think they are paid too much.
However, asked about the pay rises awarded over the past three years, overall 45 per cent said they have increased by the right amount, compared to 23 per cent who said they have not been generous enough. Some 19 per cent of people said they had been too generous.
However, such is the level of concern about the health service, the public may accept a further increase in junior doctors' pay in order to prevent strikes. The majority of voters (58 per cent) of the public believes that preventing strikes later this month should be prioritised, even if it means spending more on doctors' pay.
Luke Tryl, from More in Common, said: 'When it comes to the prospect of resident doctor strikes, it looks to be lose-lose for everyone involved.
'The public tend to oppose the strikes, though trickily for the government, Labour's own voters are far more supportive.
'Britons also tend to think the settlement the doctors have received is fair, and they risk ending up on the wrong side of a public who are themselves still struggling with the cost of living. But above all, the public don't want strikes to further disrupt the NHS and grow waiting lists.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Fans can improve sleep quality and reduce noise pollution
Using a fan can significantly improve sleep quality by providing white noise to mask environmental disturbances and by helping to cool the body. A survey indicated that 27 percent of excellent sleepers regularly use a fan, suggesting its effectiveness in promoting good rest. Fans help mitigate the negative effects of noise pollution, which can lead to sleep disruption, insomnia, and various chronic health conditions. Beyond temperature regulation and noise reduction, fans also assist in circulating air, helping to clear carbon dioxide from a room. However, potential drawbacks include circulating dust and drying out eyes or skin, and health authorities advise against using fans in temperatures above 32 degrees Celsius (90 degrees Fahrenheit) as they can increase body temperature.
Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: This timid, blinky burbler's eyes darted around. She would make a terrible shoplifter
The votes-at-16 announcement was entrusted to Rushanara Ali, a D-lister from Angela Rayner 's department. Ms Ali is 'minister for homelessness and democracy'. There are few parliamentary performers more blinky. She is a timid burbler, a reader-of-precooked-answers whose eyes dart from side to side. Would make a terrible shoplifter. Put her in front of a class of 16-year-olds and they'd reduce her to a gibbering puddle. When politicians go campaigning at the next general election the youngsters will bait them relentlessly. Imagine the mockery when Sir Edward Davey tries asking sixth-formers for their votes. It's going to be a massacre. The Government tried to slip out its policy via a parliamentary written statement but a Tory urgent question meant Ms Ali was despatched to the Commons. No other minister attended. Anxious Ali, quite alone, smiled queasily. It was important, she gulped, 'to strengthen our precious democracy'. Votes at 16 would be introduced along with laxer rules on voter identification at polling stations and new restrictions to stop rich foreigners funding the Tory party. Labour MPs were delighted. When the last government brought in ID checks for voting, the Left complained that it was unfair on upstanding citizens who wished to cast ballots for their numerous wives and dead aunties. Ms Ali, snout buried in her ministerial file, said she wished to 'future-proof our democracy' and 'support young people in their leadership journeys'. When my son was 16 his 'leadership journey' was more about reading Nuts magazine and compiling football statistics. At 18, he was a blazing Corbynista. A year later, he was even more Right-wing than me. Not so much a journey as a game of pinball. On Ms Ali ploughed, woodenly arguing that 'our democracy is central to who we are as a country – we can take pride in its evolution and in how it continues to inspire'. Talking of inspiration, Sarah Coombes (Lab, West Bromwich) informed us that turnout in her constituency last year was 49 per cent. That was because 'the Conservative government did everything it could to destroy trust in politics'. Some 49 per cent is indeed low but imagine how much worse it would have been had Sir Keir Starmer not so galvanised the nation with his charisma and flamboyance. As for the virtuous Coombes, she was previously 'head of policy and communications' for Tom Watson, who smeared the good names of Leon Brittan and Dwin Bramall. Lord Watson, as he now is, has never done anything to 'destroy trust in politics', has he? Up popped Joe Morris (Lab, Hexham), who as usual could have been talking through a games sock. Only the most gifted linguists can understand him. Hand in pocket, shoulders hunched, the Hexham Mumbler possibly said something tremendously statesmanlike but I am afraid I couldn't catch a word of it. The parliamentary correspondent of the Hexham Courant must be a miracle worker to file any copy concerning the town's Hon Member. Nick Timothy (Con, W Suffolk) asked if more foreigners would be given the vote. Ms Ali did not quite deny that possibility. The Lib Dems were terribly excited, not only about votes at 16 but also about the possibility of more proportional representation. Richard Tice (Ref, Boston) was sceptical about postal voting and claimed to have seen people turn up at polling stations with 'bags' of postal votes. Labour MPs were incensed by this claim. Christine Jardine (Lib Dem, Edinburgh W) wanted potential teenage voters to be given information before the next general election. As a sometime journalist, she possibly envisaged 12-year-olds subscribing to The Economist. And why not? They may find it no more baffling than the rest of us. Ms Ali also denounced those who seek to intimidate elected Members. We must hope that a copy of her speech is sent to that tartar Sir Alan Campbell, Government Chief Whip, who just sacked four Labour MPs. He may now have to sack himself for being so out of line with Government policy.
Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
TOM UTLEY: The old lie that private schools are stuffed with posh, rich kids may turn into reality when Labour's VAT raid drives away strivers like the Utleys
On the day 19 years ago when I accepted a job offer from the Daily Mail – which meant a hefty increase in my salary – I took the youngest of our four sons aside and told him that I could at last afford to remove him from our local state school and send him to Dulwich College, the illustrious public school where we had sent two of his older brothers. In robust language, he let me know that nothing on earth would induce him to move from the state sector to a single-sex private school stuffed with filthy rich, arrogant, posh twits (in fact the noun he used had an 'a' in it, in place of my more printable 'i'). Actually, he could hardly have been more wrong about Dulwich – alma mater of Nigel Farage – few of whose pupils were at all posh by the standards of other great private schools. Then, as now, they tended to be the sons of aspirational small businessmen, dentists, teachers, bank clerks, civil servants, corner-shop owners and the like. Indeed, when our two oldest were there, I counted several dozen boys on the school roll who bore the surname Patel – hardly a name that reeks of landed wealth – with not a Cholmondeley-Cavendish-Grosvenor in sight. Many or even most of these boys' parents had to make great sacrifices to scrape together the money for the fees, even though these have always been comparatively modest at Dulwich, thanks to subsidies from the estate of the Elizabethan actor and impresario, Edward Alleyn (1566-1626). In our case, we managed it for our oldest two by constantly increasing our mortgage, while Mrs U took a job driving double-decker buses around London for two-and-a-half years when the money ran out. She often had to get up at four in the morning to start work, poor woman, arriving home exhausted in the evening.(She handed in her notice on that happy day when I accepted the Mail's offer – and our youngest declined mine to send him to Dulwich.) But then our youngest's prejudice against private schools and their pupils was and is far from unusual. For the fact is that Britain's class system – fast decaying, but still surviving – has bred a great deal of ill-feeling over the years. The worst sort of dimwit Hooray Henry still looks down on people who went to state schools, while there are a great many state-educated pupils, like our youngest, who look upon the products of the private system with contempt. Indeed, class hatred and resentment are among the few forms of bigotry that have yet to be banned by law (but I mustn't go putting ideas into the minds of the thought police). If my guess is right, Sir Keir Starmer's aim in launching his 20 per cent VAT raid on private school fees was chiefly to make political capital out of those feelings, since the politics of envy have always played well with a certain section of Labour's core voters. But of course he didn't put it like that in his party's election manifesto last year. Oh, no, the point of the raid was not to kick the aspirant middle classes in the teeth. Far from it. The purpose of making Britain one of the very few countries in the developed world to slap a tax on education was purely to benefit … education! The money raised by imposing the new taxes, said this utterly discredited document, would be spent on 6,500 new expert teachers, increased teacher and headteacher training, delivering work experience and careers advice for all young people, early language development in primary schools, Ofsted reform, over 3,000 new nurseries, mental health support for every school and Young Futures Hubs (whatever they may be). True, admits the Government's website, the consequent increase in fees may mean a few pupils will have to move from private schools into the state sector. But, it says, there will be no more than 35,000 of them – or 0.5 per cent of the pupil population – for whom there will be plenty of room at the local state primary or comprehensive. How's it all going, so far? Well, only seven months since the VAT raid came in, and three months since the removal of schools' charitable business rate relief, more than 30 independent institutions have already announced closures or proposed closures, displacing at least 3,350 pupils … and counting. All have cited the pressures of the new taxes as the principal reason for their decision. Of course, some of those 3,350 children so far displaced may move to other private schools. But to give some idea of the impact on the Treasury, the Guido Fawkes website calculates that if all were to move to the state sector, where it costs councils an average of £8,210 a year to educate a child, the total bill to the taxpayer would be £26.5 million. In one case alone, it emerged this week, state schools in Kent received almost 100 inquiries from parents in the 48 hours after Bishop Challoner School was forced to shut its doors, after it lost more than a third of its pupils to the tax raid. Indeed, it's become ever harder to argue with Neil O'Brien, the Shadow Education minister, when he says the likely costs to state education make a nonsense of Labour's claim that the raid would bring in up to £1.7 billion a year. 'The number of children being forced to move schools and away from their friends is much larger than Labour predicted,' he said, 'wiping out the supposed tax revenues. 'The Chancellor said every penny would go on state schools. The Prime Minister said he'd spend the money on housing instead. And given that the number of teachers in state schools is down under Labour, we can see it was all just a pack of lies.' I can say two things with certainty. One is that if this tax raid had been brought in when I was a reporter on a modest income, and Mrs U was a London bus-driver, there would have been absolutely no way we could have kept our two oldest boys at one of the best schools in the land. The other is that, yes, Dulwich College and other great private schools in the premier league for academia, sports and the arts are likely to survive. But their character is sure to change. With fees that will inevitably rise beyond the reach of the aspirant just-about-managing – and less cash available for scholarships for bright, poorer pupils like our boys – they will increasingly become the exclusive preserve of the seriously rich. Indeed, the day may be approaching when our youngest son's prejudice against private schools and their pupils may contain more than an element of truth.
