The Gender Pay Gap Myth Myth Myth Myth Myth Myth Myth…etc.

Female question mark

I’ve recently had a couple of discussions about this and I realised I didn’t really know the answer. It’s back in the news since the BBC recently announced only two of their 10 highest paid celebrities were women. Journalists at the Financial Times have threatened a strike over gender disparities in pay. And famously, Barack Obama said in his 2014 State Of The Union address that “the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns”.

As ever with statistics, a slew of people from economists, fact checkers, mens’ rights activists and even feminists called Obama out for being misleading. Their objection? Women are paid less because they do less well-paid jobs.

Essentially, if you have ten women, one of whom is a CEO on (£100 000 a year) and 9 of whom are cleaners (on £10 000 a year), the median annual income is £10 000 a year (NB: median not mean). If you have ten men, 6 of whom are CEOs and 4 of whom are cleaners, the median is £100 000. On these statistics, the gender pay gap is either 90% (meaning women earn 10 pence for every pound a man earns) or zero (within each job, men and women are paid equally).

So which is it?

Well, both and neither. The unadjusted statistic is the one generally used. If you walk away with the notion that two doctors, two managers, two veterinarians, two bin collectors or two television presenters would have significantly different earnings because one is a woman and one a man, that statistic alone doesn’t back that up.

So surely it is misleading?

Harvard prof. takes down gender wage gap myth” screams a Washington Examiner headline whilst a New York Times headline claims “Pay Gap Is Because of Gender, Not Jobs“. Hilariously, they both quote the same woman – Claudia Goldin, professor of economics at Harvard. She speaks for herself in this Freakonomics podcast and in her article How to Achieve Gender Equality.

Goldin argues it’s that women choose jobs with “temporal flexibility”. When one looks at industries such as medicine, finance and law where a high value is placed on working long hours, women earn significantly less than men. The case study she uses of pharmacy, where the industry has introduced more flexible working, sees barely any pay disparity at all.

She identifies four factors: women, men, children and organisations. Her argument is that increasing flexibility which solves the organisational problem will have the biggest effect. CEO of New America Anne-Marie Slaughter argues the problem is a masculinity dictating women should be primary caregivers. Susan Chira in NY Times goes further arguing masculinity prevents men from taking typically “female” jobs.

Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In, though controversial, essentially argued that women themselves could do much to change their fate. And Goldin also makes the point that childcare is a cost not limited to the early years but right the way through school. I could go on.

The Gender Pay Gap isn’t a myth; it’s just not the problem one might think

My point is that often this debate boils down to whether or not employers are, all things considered, picking men over equally qualified women because they’re sexist. Some argue that they are; others argue it’s a myth. Lots of unproductive shouting ensues. Policy doesn’t change.

How much of the gender pay gap is down to discrimination is difficult to quantify. This oft-cited study by Corrine Moss-Racusin et al shows prospective employers would rate a laboratory manager more highly on the basis of their CV if they had a male-sounding name rather than a female-sounding one.

But so much of the gender pay cap is caused by other factors: why are women still the primary caregivers when evidence is scant they’re either more competent or willing? Why don’t women ask for pay rises? Why don’t men want to become nurses?

Until those questions are answered and the resulting problems solved, the gender pay cap, even unadjusted, is still a useful marker of sexism in the workplace.

What for the Liberal Democrats now?

libdem_bird

As of this writing, Theresa May has agreed to a “confidence and supply” agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party. Nick Clegg, whom I campaigned for, has lost his seat with losses by 105 in Ceredigion, 45 in Richmond Park and most heartbreakingly 2 in Northeast Fife to boot. This has made the increase in Liberal Democrat seats from 9 to 12 bittersweet.

I’ll only talk briefly about Sheffield Hallam; how Nick Clegg lost to a unapologetically leftist Labour party in one of the most affluent constituencies in the country may be puzzling. Simply, Tories voted Tory and many students plus some left-wing Liberals voted Labour. The Liberal Democrats only lost 2000 votes and Labour only gained 2000 but it was enough. Sheffield Liberal Democrats may read this so a full examination now is not my place. For me it is sad to see a man gone whose decisions pushed me to join a party and campaign.

A new leader…

Many will argue Tim Farron underperformed. The second Brexit referendum message did not work. Half of Remain voters now support Leave, giving Leave 68% of voters. 30% of 2015 Liberal Democrat voters voted Leave; how did it make sense?

To be honest, he didn’t have a chance. Assume the election is in 2020. The second Brexit referendum becomes a foundation from which to build. Between March 2019 and May 2020, Liberal Democrats propose plans to deal with a calamitous Brexit. Our predictions coming to fruition gives us the authority.

Whether you agree with that counterfactual, the snap election meant we couldn’t retract that message. Lib Dems would have haemorrhaged votes if they had U-turned. Further, we’d have lost the large number of new members and volunteers making winning even more difficult.

Nonetheless Ed Davey, Vince Cable and Jo Swinson have made welcome returns. A third of our MPs our now women and Layla Moran of Oxford West and Abingdon is – I think – the first Palestinian-British MP. I’m not sure now is the time to be picking a new leader. Let’s keep things strong and – erm, on an even keel.

…or a new message…

Tony Blair – Things Can Only Get Better
Barack Obama – Yes We Can
Trump – Make America Great Again
Vote Leave – Take Back Control

I don’t have the 2017 results yet but look at the 2015 results. Since I kind of like spreadsheets, I spent some time fiddling with them. Let’s say we win the 8 seats we did with majorities of 1 (ie beat the other person by 1 vote only). And we win another 318 seats by 1. We’d have 326 seats ie a majority.

In order to do this, we’d need an extra 4.9 million votes (4903316 to be exact), or around 15% of people who cast a vote. These numbers are silly and impractical; I say this only to highlight the importance of targeting.  Winning in our electoral system isn’t about convincing everybody.

The four slogans above (though strictly Blair’s was Because Britain Deserves Better but nobody remembers that) have a lot in common. The only word with more than two syllables is America. They’re short and snappy. The last two have elements of assonance and alliteration. They’re positive. They conjure the idea of change.

So why did Strong and Stable fail? Well, campaigns also have to pass the sniff test. Does it “feel” like it makes sense? You can’t run on stability and then do U-turns. But often campaign failures go further than that. Hillary Clinton (Ready For Hillary) and Stronger In (Harder Better Faster…just kidding it was Stronger. Safer. Better Off. Probably) didn’t just have poor slogans – they lacked a message. Stronger In was persistenly undermined by wild claims about average loss of earnings and emergency Brexit budgets. Clinton…well, I’m still not sure what her message was.

…and if so, what?

To build a message, you have to start with an idea. Who are we? Well, we’re liberals. Which is so vague and fluffy you could barely convince a child it was worthwhile let alone an electorate. The party is split along the lines of Orange Bookers and Yellow Social Liberals. Economic and social liberalism have not always been easy bedfellows and the fault lines between the SDP’s social democracy and the Liberal Party’s classical liberalism still hinder the party.

I don’t believe they should. Economic and social liberalism are not mutually exclusive. Further, they are necessary for one another. A failing economy leads to unemployment and inflation. If you can’t afford food and heating because prices go up, you’re more likely to get sick or do badly at school. If you have no job, crime may be the only option.

An effective welfare state reduces sickness, trains and educates people and gets them back into the workplace. It is worth spending money on. Thatcher’s legacy of failing to pay for a welfare state can been seen in the mining towns and villages across South Yorkshire. Blair believed that unfettered free markets would give traditional Labour voters jobs – it didn’t as their skills were rendered obsolete and a crushing recession after his resignation meant they struggled with what little they had left.

Brexit

Too few people care about Europe for it to be an electoral issue. When the next election will be remains uncertain but the emphasis cannot be on staying in the EU. Brexit is, I think, an inevitability. Whether or not the second referendum stays as policy, it should be quietly pushed aside – we need a plan for Brexit.

The case should be made for free trade and the positives of immigration. Come the 29th March 2019, I have no doubt the Conservative government will have screwed this up. Royally. We have to have a positive alternative. Change Britain’s Future is a solid slogan (though I humbly suggest Change Your Future or Change Our Future for the, er, future). Indeed, there is something in the Republican notion that you can “pull yourselves by your bootstraps”.

The bottom line is a plan for a post-Brexit world. One where we show why it matters that we reach out to Europe and the rest of the world. How the Polish fruit-picker means the farmer in Lincolnshire has a job. As does the lorry driver who moves the produce and supermarket cashier who sells it. The mechanic who fixes the lorry and buys parts from Germany because of the trade deal we have – but rather than framing these as costs, these can be framed as opportunities. Immigration can create jobs for the many, not…the smaller number.

But moreover, how that money can be ploughed back into deprived areas. Into retraining the everybody for the onset of new technology.

We can be for both and we should be and we have to be.

Will it work?

No idea. May be this is all rambling. I’m not a seasoned campaigner, an expert in polls or a politician. I’m not clear we can successfully sell immigration to a skeptical electorate. Though most people’s number one reason to vote Leave was sovereignty, not immigration, this doesn’t say how important immigration was to them. I wonder if it is still too early to be talking about free trade in an increasingly isolationist Britain.

But if we can back the slogan – Change Britain’s (Your?) Future – with an idea, the idea that we can build a welfare state that creates a booming economy in the wake of Brexit to pay for that welfare state, may be we can sell it to 5 million more than people in 2022 that we did in 2015. Unless we do this all again in October…

Lib Dems vote to end religious selection in school admissions

tl;dr:

  • Faith schools select on the basis of riches, not religion
  • They may discriminate against South Asians
  • Religious parents can send their kids to any school, non-religious parents can only send their kids to non-religious schools – this gives religious parents more choice and is illiberal
  • Most people oppose or don’t care about faith schools – it’s not clear how this will affect the Liberal Democrat vote

coexist_by_piotr_mlodozeniec

In case you didn’t believe me (you should – I was there), here’s the British Humanist Association (BHA) reporting on this. Liberal Democrat party policy is voted on by its members. Earlier today on the last day of our Spring Conference, we voted to:

“[ensure] that selection in admissions on the basis of religion or belief to state-funded schools is phased out over up to six years.

It was all a bit complicated but there were three options. Option A – see above; option B – allow religious selection but don’t hurt the poor or be racist; option C – option B but for 50% of admissions (aka option B-lite). (A gross oversimplification but it’ll do for now.)

Faith schools hurt the poor

Often this debate centres around whether children of different faiths and none should mix. Whilst important, my greater concern is that faith schools de facto select for richer children.

The Fair Admissions Campaign demonstrates this. The proportion of children at a school eligible for free school meals (FSM) is a proxy for affluence. More FSM-eligible kids means poorer pupils.

When compared to the local area, non-religious schools have 5% more FSM-eligible pupils than would be expected. Schools with 100% religious selection vary between 27.59-63.39% fewer FSM-eligible kids than expected given the make-up of their local area – pupils at faith schools have richer parents.

South Asians

On a side-note, the Accord Coalition looked at 4 religious schools and their proportions of South Asian pupils compared to the local areas. Most striking was Bury CofE: in an area with 1 in 5 South Asians, the school had none. It’s not definitive evidence but is concerning if people who are poor and look like me are discriminated against. More so, in a party which is too white and too middle-class.

Benevolent intention

Whilst there are exceptions, most faith schools are not doing this on purpose. They however have an issue – how do you tell if somebody’s religious?  Using the amount of donations is unethical (though it doesn’t stop some). So the next best thing is attendance at religious services.

If you are middle-class, it is easier for you to attend a religious service than if you are poor. A poor single mother may not have the option of turning to down a Sunday morning shift that a two-parent well-to-do family can. With any barrier to selection, richer and educated parents are better-equipped jumping through hoops.

With the best will in the world, even if it was the right thing to do, religious selection is impossible. A religious poor person without the time to attend church loses out to the rich person who knows how to fake it, and does so to get their child into the better-performing local faith school.

The bottom line: faith schools de facto select on how rich your parents are.

The false dichotomy of choice

This has been very difficult for many proponents of faith schools in the Liberal Democrats. For them, the ability to educate their child in a religion of their choosing was fundamental. Why should government impose a secular education on children against parents’ wishes?

Firstly, taking into account all of the above, it’s not clear poor religious parents have the same access to this choice as rich ones. Even if this weren’t true, the claim mischaracterises the debate.

If you are religious, you can send your child to religious or non-religious schools. If you are not religious, you can only send your child to non-religious schools. Children of non-religious parents have fewer choices than religious parents.

That one set of children has more choices because of their parents’ religion is illiberal.

The future for the Lib Dems and faith schools

Interestingly, an amendment which would have effectively abolished faith schools was voted against. Whilst I voted for it, it is worth noting that it would be incredibly difficult to implement, let alone sell to the public. A number of rural schools for instance are paid for and run by the Church of England where no alternative schools are available. The historical set up of British education means such a change would need more thought.

Further Liberal Democrats, particularly in Remain Con-Lib marginals at council level, will fear backlash amongst religious Tories who will bring this up – how do we square this circle?

Whilst this is certainly something that needs consideration, note that 58% of adults oppose faith schools v 30% who have “no objection” to their state-funding and only 8% saying they would choose a school because of a “faith tradition” or “transmission of belief about God”.

We have to be wary that when campaigning, we aren’t listening to vocal and well-to-do faith school supporting minority when the silent majority either oppose or don’t care about faith schools.

I dislike Valentine’s Day and will now try to make you feel bad about it

76892555_love-heart

In what seems like a lifetime ago, I attended an intervarsity debating competition where I watched a final on the motion “This house would ban Valentine’s Day”. It was on Valentine’s Day. I was single. Everybody in room knew they were really cool.

I remember little to nothing of the debate but it did make me think about Valentine’s Day a lot. It even became a bit of stand-up when I still did stand-up. It went something like this:

“I hate Valentine’s Day. It’s the only day dedicated to making happy people happier. There’s no International Rich and Happy day where rich people rub money in the faces of the poor. Or People Who Don’t Have Cancer day where people who don’t have cancer go to chemotherapy units to have dinner without vomiting or losing their hair.”

Now whether you find that funny, offensive or both (NB: it is not a joke a about cancer), it hopefully demonstrates my point. But I want to expand on it which is less funny but possibly more interesting. I’m going to generalise about people in three different statuses of relationship: single, traditional monogamous and non-traditional relationships.

Single

This one’s easy. See the quote above. If you’re in a relationship, why on Earth do you feel the need the to rub this in the face of people who are single? What kind of narcissist are you? Unless you literally never mention your Valentine’s plans to anybody.

Sure, a lot of single people don’t care. But a lot do. Some will be recently divorced. Some will have had a partner who has died. Some will have just broken up. Some will be lonely. All these people are made to feel bad on Valentine’s Day. Thanks, people in a relationship!

Traditional relationships

Here, I’m talking about monogamous relationships of all sexualities and all genders. One person who is an exclusive romantic relationship with another person.

If your relationship is currently a happy one, Valentine’s Day makes no difference to you. You don’t need a special day where you get together with everybody else to celebrate how great you are because you found somebody else. Well done on attempting to make the entire world your awkward third wheel.

If however your relationship is going through a difficult time, what Valentine’s Day does is says, “if your Valentine’s Day is unsuccessful, you are in a bad relationship”. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Outside of film, TV and books, all relationships have ups and down. All Valentine’s Day does is force these couples to focus on the failings in their relationships, whether they want to or not. It may even break relationships.

Non-traditional relationships

 

Valentine’s Day perpetuates the notion the road to happiness is through monogamy. “Will you be my valentine?” implies one person, not many. And it goes further.

There is a general perception that being in a monogamous relationship is not just about happiness – it’s about virtue. That there is something fundamentally morally superior about those us in monogamous relationships than those of the us that aren’t.

First of all, this is awful for people who aren’t in monogamous relationships. Secondly, it means that single people may not look at either being single or being in polyamorous relationships are legitimate routes to happiness.

(As an aside, the “most virtuous” relationship is arguably the heterosexual, cis, monogamous relationship but sexuality and gender aren’t Valentine’s Day’s biggest issue.)

So basically, by celebrating Valentine’s Day, you’re making single people lonely, potentially destroying relationships, marginalising the polyamorous and closing off paths to happiness for everybody.

Well, at least I was considerate enough to post this after February 14th.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

The NHS needs money. It also needs to change

nhs

In 2011, the UK had 2.8 physicians/1000 population compared with Germany 3.8, France 3.4 and Australia 3.3. The UK spent 9.4% of its GDP on health compared with France 11.5, Germany 11.3 and Australia 9.4; the UK’s spending was forecast to drop to 6.6% by 2020/21 though all bets are off with Brexit looming.

The NHS in England needs more doctors. I work for a large trust across two hospitals where the 6 different anaesthetic rotas at middle grade/registrar level should theoretically provide plenty of cross-cover. It doesn’t: I regularly receive requests to fill gaps in rotas, often with “HELP!!!!” in the subject line. This is no different at smaller district general hospitals.

Criticisms from the BMA of Jeremy Hunt during the doctors’ strike and Theresa May are correct. Seven-day elective services do little for emergency care provision. Moving GP opening hours to 8-8pm is not the same as increasing capacity. If two GPs work 9-5 and then change their working hours to 8-4 and 12-8, the surgery will still be open 8-8 but there will be the same number of appointments.

Opposition to change in the NHS is widespread

That said, trying to change something in the NHS is nigh-on impossible. Healthcare professionals blame managers. Managers blame healthcare professionals. Everybody blames IT.

Let me give you an example. Patients in acute medicine are allocated to consultants in 24 hour blocks, 8am-8am. Patients who arrive in that time, fall under that so-called “take” consultant. If not discharged on the day, they are added to a “post-take” ward round the day after.

There is software which produces an active list of patients who need to and have been seen by Acute Medicine. There is a list for yesterday and today. From 0800-0900, it moves forward to the next day. The issue is, at 0730, secretaries print the previous day’s “take” list. Between 0730-0900, patient’s deemed seen by a junior doctor may get added to the previous day’s list after it has been printed. Today’s take consultant thinks the patient has been seen by the previous day’s consultant. The previous day’s consultant – now on the post-take ward round – doesn’t know about the patient

This could be solved simply by having the system refresh at 0630-0730. However, this doesn’t happen. Instead, at 8am, junior doctors print a physical list and after 0900, add the information. Of course, doctors may forget, may be new and not realise or there may simply be a clerical error on paper leading to patient not being seen.

At another hospital, the portering system had gone electronic and theatres had lost their dedicated porter. If there were no operations, previously that porter went and helped with other portering jobs.

On the new system, the most urgent your patient will be picked up is “urgent”. However, I have frequently waited an hour or more for patients who were acutely unwell. Theatre staff were instructed they should not be leaving theatres to collect patients – this makes sense as if the patients arrived in a timely fashion, theatre staff would be preparing theatre. This was not an issue prior to the introduction of the electronic system.

These issues may seem minor but they are legion. Each one adds a layer of inefficiency. Occasionally, you get workarounds (like in the first example) but these aren’t really solving the problem. Steven J. Spear’s excellent book The High-Velocity Edge looks at how to improve processes – to paraphrase him, this is not a solution, rather solving the same problem every day.

Efficiency savings or quality improvement?

As a junior doctor, largely you feel powerless to change these things. You usually spend 4-6 months per placement, too little time to effect change. This is made worse by healthcare professionals who aren’t willing to at least try change. Change is not always good – yes – but that’s necessary risk to take. Indeed, in research, it’s acknowledged that change is necessary. Without it, we would not have seen the medical advances of the last 70 years. Ultimately, the “low-hanging fruit” of research have been taken. With quality improvement, we have barely scratched the surface of what the NHS is capable.

The difficulty is two-fold. First, any criticism of the NHS is perceived as bad. “Efficiency savings” have become a euphemism for cuts. However, what kind of organisation isn’t constantly trying to make efficiency savings?

Under Tony Blair, healthcare organisations worked on expanding services, a very different set of managerial skills to improving current ones. It takes time and effort but mindless calls to #SaveOurNHS, whilst useful at times, perpetuate the image that the NHS doesn’t need change, it just needs more money.

Secondly, many healthcare professionals engage in management begrudgingly, interested in clinical practice only. Though we receive little training in management, our reluctance to change processes kils our patients as much as any funding gap. They are as important as our clinical skills.

To be effective, these changes need to solve problems from the bottom up. Managers should call for small problems to be highlighted and praise staff for doing so. Staff, when change is implemented, should go with it, at least at first. And managers should listen to the things that do and do not work. No amount of money can change this.

A really fun post about death

princess-leia-1

Last year, there was quite a bit of chat about famous people dying. The BBC examined this and found they had published more pre-prepared obituaries than usual in the first 4 months of last year in particular.

This sounds callous but I find it difficult to care.

Don’t get me wrong – if Sarah Michelle Gellar (I liked Buffy) or Claire Danes (I like Homeland) die, I will be taken aback. However, I am not going to be personally affected should Gellar die. And whilst it would be sad if Homeland got cancelled due to Danes’ untimely demise, this is not reason to grieve.

When people on social media express their sadness at a celebrity’s death, mostly this is in tribute to their body of work. However, there sometimes seem to be genuine expressions of grief as though they were a loved one.

In hospital, whilst most relatives are realistic, it is not uncommon to encounter impossible expectations of healthcare. Arguably the most challenging aspect of critical care medicine is making the decision about when to provide or more crucially when not to provide critical care.

Being on a Critical Care Unit/Intensive Care Unit (vs being on a standard ward) involves a host of unpleasant interventions. Whilst this is worthwhile if a patient has a reasonable chance of survival, in futile cases, this is tantamount to torture, a word I use when explaining ceilings of care.

I worry that both the unrealistic expectations and grieving for celebrities are symptoms of our general aversion to discussing death. How can one seriously grieve for somebody unknown to them?

In the original Get Carter (1971), Michael Caine’s character (the titular Jack Carter) has to attend his brother’s funeral. The body is kept in the family home. These days, bodies are kept in mortuaries and taken by funeral directors prior to burial or cremation. It would be unheard of to keep a body in the family home.

I am not trying to make you feel bad for your sadness at George Michael/Alan Rickman/Victoria Wood’s death. Still, posts can seem as grief-stricken as those from the genuinely bereaved.

Death is a fact and it is something we consider too little and discuss too infrequently. It leads to the situations where people with cancer are abandoned by their friends. I have had multiple conversations where bereaved friends have found others unable or unwilling to discuss the death of a loved one.

And because of this, it seems uncouth and unhealthy to act as though a celebrity death should be treated similarly to personal bereavement.

Talk about death; when your relatives became unwell, doctors are going to ask what you think they wanted. That is a much easier discussion if you have had the decency to talk about it. It is for them as much as you.

You and everybody you know and love is going to die: get comfortable with that. On that note, I am going to have a banana and go to bed.

 

The moral failure of Stronger In

10638image_large

Not seen this in a while…

The EU referendum was a major campaigning failure on both sides. Whilst Leave won, much of the press has analysed its moral failings; lying red buses, racist posters and the conspicuous absence of even an inkling of a model for Brexit.

Remain’s failure is more obvious: they lost. This failure is practical one. Listless and crippled by its de facto figurehead David Cameron’s inability to be positive, particularly on immigration given his previous anti-immigrant rhetoric instead Stronger In avoided the issue. Labour’s lacklustre campaign in its heartlands exacerbated this, whether you blame Jeremy Corbyn, Alan Johnson or both.

Unfortunately, Bremoaning won’t change the future. Theresa May’s path is unlikely to be swayed from what looks to be a hard Brexit. Largely, all of the above is academic.

There were reasons Stronger In didn’t campaign in poor areas…

There were two reasons for not targeting the poor. Firstly, that it would be ineffective.

The theory: Leave voters were more likely to be poor and fewer would vote except a small, dedicated core of Leavers. Remain voters were more numerous, richer and normally more likely to vote at elections. However, they were less enthused than Leavers on this issue.

Run a good Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign in affluent areas and turnout would be high; Remain would win. With a low turnout, this dedicated core of Leavers would outnumber the Remain equivalent.

Secondly, there were safety issues. Attempts to set up a stall in a South Yorkshire town were abandoned due to a ream of abuse. A woman I was with was assaulted (though she was not badly hurt) whilst slightly away from the main campaign group in a city centre. On referendum day, a campaigner talking to parents outside a school was accused of being a paedophile by a local. They then threatened to call the police. Outside the largely good-natured shouts of ‘Brexit’ – from largely from white van men apparently unaware of or uncaring for their stereotype – one group of builders physically threatened a campaign group in a leafy suburb of Sheffield. A local politician placated them with a selfie.

And all in the wake of the death of Jo Cox, herself a passionate Remainer.

…but Stronger In still should have campaigned to the poor

Having discussed the issue since, I know many campaigners – in South Yorkshire in particular – were frustrated that they weren’t talking to the poor. Stronger In’s leadership made its decisions for the reasons outlined but they lost. Turnout was high at 72% and 17.1m voted Leave; in practical terms, they are to blame.

But I’m talking about a moral failing. It comes down to this: we had a duty to talk to the poor about why immigration was good.

I understand why Remain needed to win. I also get this is a very easy decision to make in hindsight. But ultimately it was the right thing to do.

Why? Britain is rarely transfixed by politics but the EU referendum had managed it. We squandered that opportunity to talk to the poor about why immigration mattered to them. Would we have convinced all of them? No. But maybe some. Maybe 600000. Maybe our campaign wouldn’t have looked and felt so insipid.

Labour probably ought to take some blame for this. They could venture into areas Tories, Lib Dems and Stronger In campaigners could not. But the blame cannot lie solely at their feet.

I am a doctor. The most affluent place I’ve worked is Nottingham for 1 year. I spent the other 3½ years full-time in Boston, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham, excluding a further 1½ years part-time.

My patients are largely poor and they need the NHS more than anybody. I’d far rather work in an area with those who truly need my help. It makes me feel like it’s worth being a doctor.

That’s what the Stronger In campaign could have been – an attempt to at least partially reverse the trend of assuming every poor person hates immigrants. It wasn’t first-past-the-post, there were no marginal seats. And the theory that we would have “woken up” Leave voters was both wrong and offensive.

I don’t know what will happen with Open Britain, the European Movement, Britain for Europe or the British People Who Think Europe Is Really Ace Or At Least Sort Of Alright And Not As Bad As That Floppy-Haired Chap Heavily Implied. I hope above all, that it talks to the poorest in society about immigration. They’re the ones that need it most.

Rage Against The NHS Fax Machine

fax-amarys

So I haven’t posted on this blog in a while, largely due to recently getting my first full-time position in a year as a Specialty Trainee in Critical Care i.e. the path to becoming a consultant in Intensive Care Medicine (yay!). Also, there’s been a lot of depressing Brexit chat to avoid.

This post is just me complaining about a relatively minor but still important thing.

I hate fax machines

To become a critical care trainee, you need a background in internal medicine, emergency medicine or anaesthetics. It’s all very complicated but because my background is anaesthetics, I don’t have the requisite competencies in medicine. This August, I started work on an acute medical unit doing acute medicine, a specialty I’ve not been involved with for three years.

One of the frustrating things about working in acute medicine is drug histories. Trying to determine what drugs a patient is on is difficult if they don’t bring a prescription or their medications with them. Trust me, no doctor knows what “the little blue pill” is unless they’re science-fiction fans and you happen to be Neo from The Matrix.

As such, during the day if you’re seeing a patient, you’ll often have to phone their GP’s surgery (though now some trusts have a centralised record system). If the list of drugs is long, rather than bother a GP, secretaries will often just send you the list.

However, they always, always insist on fax. I had to organise this for the first time in a long time a couple of weeks ago; fax is bad for a number of reasons.

Why not just use email?

Evidently, confidentiality is an issue in healthcare. Clearly, you shouldn’t send confidential information via Facebook chat. However, we have trust NHS email addresses. These end .nhs.uk and generally have the initialisation of the trust ie Leeds Teaching Hospitals use @lth.nhs.uk, Nottingham University Hospitals @nuh.nhs.uk etc. These are given to staff when they start at a particular trust and deleted when their contract ends.

It’s generally considered safe to send confidential information via email within the trust using this system (though nobody has actually confirmed this with me). However, for sending information outside of the trust, you need an NHSmail email address. These end @nhs.net and are personal ie they go with you as long as you work within the NHS.

At least, that’s my understanding. A few days ago, I tweeted NHS England and received a response from @grant_me who according to his bio is an “IT Professional working in NHS Primary Care”. That’s the best I’ve got to go on after not really trying very hard.

Given the lack of clarity about this, secretaries stick to the tried and trusted method of fax.

What’s wrong with fax?

1. It’s really annoying

I don’t use fax machines because it’s not 1992. I’m not particularly technophobic, I like my smartphone. However, I’ve used a fax machine about twice in my entire life.

Whenever a doctor needs to use the fax machine, we find a friendly ward clerk or secretary and look forlorn at them until they realise we’re not going away until they send the fax. I can be very good at looking forlorn.

(NB: any medical students reading this: make friends with the secretaries. I’ve seen them ignore a surgeon they didn’t like who asked for a form, saying they didn’t know where it was. They then found the exact same form for me 10 minutes later, and sent it for me because I’m all sweetness and light.)

2. It’s hilariously unsecure

I rang the GP. I explained I was a doctor at the local hospital on the acute medical unit. I gave my name and – after them insisting they wouldn’t send it to an email address – faxed me a copy after I eventually found out the fax number.

I could have been any muppet who bought a fax machine. There was no security or check to see if had gone to the right machine. No check to see I was actually a doctor. Literally, you could ring up a GP and do this yourself if you have a fax machine (but don’t because you’ll go to jail).

3. It can be incredibly complicated

At the hospital I work at, to make a referral to the anticoagulation clinic on discharge, you have to fill out a form, fax it to the clinic then ring them to make sure they’ve received the fax. This means that if you discharge a patient at 6pm, after the clinic has closed, you can’t ensure a referral unless you’re in the next working day.

There’s no guarantee you’re going to be in. The patient will have gone home. If it’s a Friday and you’re on nights the next week, it means you may not be able to check for about 10 days at which point, the patient hasn’t got their anticoagulation appointment and they’re at risk of stroke or blood clots or being struck by lightning. OK, anticoagulation does not decrease lightning strike risk but it is important.

Communication within the NHS

This is generally bad, particularly because we deal with a lot of sensitive data. I have worked in hospitals where non-urgent referrals were done by an A6 piece of card to the secretary of the relevant specialty. Like they never got lost. Some services ask for fax (like anticoagluation). Some are on the hospital intranet. Some are Word forms filled out and sent via email. Some are via an online request system. And don’t get me started on the bleep system (something for another time I feel).

I worked with a cardiology team who set up an email address at the trust that was “cardiology@trust.nhs.uk” to replace the aforementioned card system. They went from seeing something like 60-70% of their referrals within 24 hours to seeing 100% of their referrals by the end of the next day, and 100% within the same day if the referral was sent by email.

Firstly, given NHSmail exists, all NHS staff who handle confidential information should have an NHS.net account. This should be the standard form of written communication between NHS bodies. Fax should be banned. Tomorrow.

Secondly, trust emails should exist for all specialties and services to which referrals can be made, with delivery reports. This gives a clear trail as to whether a service has received an email. Creating an email address is presumably not a massive step for an IT dept and it’s a familiar system to most people.

Obviously, this is more complicated than I’m making out. But also, you know, it’s not. Especially, given it’s been done already. Pff. Unfortunately, I’m not sure anybody’s that bothered and so many people seem to love fax machines. Sigh.

We are screwed

Britain has voted for self-harm. That probably sounds like hyperbole but both economically and politically, the news today is bearing this out.

The pound has dropped to a 30 year low. The Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 (more commonly FTSE, or FTSE 100 or “Footsie”) fell 8.7% and recovered to 4.2% (as of this writing). Consider that ordinarily, a fall in half a percent is a significant event.

Scientists tell me their funding is partly or wholly from the European Union. Lawyers and accountants point out that much of their business relies on free access to Europe. I worry about the fate of my fellow healthcare professionals when 1 in 10 doctors and 1 in 25 nurses are from the EU. At a time when we need more, how are we going to fill those gaps? Pensions, savings, house prices all are at risk and the fruit of many lifetimes’ of hard graft will go to waste.

Economics though, is only part of the story.

Westminster
David Cameron has resigned and will step down in October. He is either a coward, naive or a naive coward. He is at best an average but more accurately a bad politician.

Against a weak Gordon Brown, he failed to achieve a majority in 2010, needing the Liberal Democrats to hold his hand. He used the Lib Dems as an excuse to tame the Tory right. In 2015, he managed only a pathetic majority of 12 against an awful Ed Miliband campaign, again thanks largely to the Liberal Democrat annihilation and the SNPs yellow-wash of Scotland, taking many Labour heartlands.

In light of UKIP success in the 2014 European elections, the Prime Minister called for this referendum. He much fanfare of a renegotiation with Brussels – though these changes were of importance, they were rather minor (and now irrelevant). After years of promising to bring migration into the tens of thousands, that Mr Cameron led the Remain campaign at all now seems utterly misjudged.

These vacuous promises undermined any chance of him running a pro-immigration campaign. He meekly said his renegotiation would lead to a reduction in migration, a laughable claim to even a casual observer. He tried to steer the debate towards economics but picked the most ridiculous claims, rather than sticking to the facts that were already stark enough.

Then, after the referendum result, at a time when Britain needs stability, he has run away. Even Conservatives and Leave supporters are glad to see the back of him – he epitomises what happens when average people are allowed to make difficult decisions. History may remember him as a man who destroyed Britain’s economy.

Scotland and Northern Ireland
Nicola Sturgeon has all but announced a second referendum on independence. Rightly so. Scotland voted to Remain. She will want to join the euro, a currency arguably more stable than the pound. This eliminates a primary argument against leaving. The economic security of British union is gone too.

As for Northern Ireland, the only path to prosperity seems to be remaining in the EU. The only way to do that is as a united Ireland. The border between Northern Ireland and the Republic must be kept open. Customs officials and soldiers with guns will revive tensions that have largely though not completely been quelled. There may be a referendum there too it seems. It is not out of the question that will bring with it violence.

Jeremy Corbyn
“Spineless”, in the words of Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader. Labour MPs are currently working to remove him. He failed to share a platform with David Cameron until Jo Cox was shot dead. He failed to passionately make the case to stay in, meaning many Labour voters stayed home. His first real challenge as party leader, he has been an abject, abject failure.

Identity

Fundamentally though, this debate came down to immigration vs the economy. By the end of the campaign, Vote Leave largely avoided talking about the economy, Remain campaigners avoided talking about immigration. Britain chose, albeit by a whisker, immigration.

The poorest in Britain have been sold a lie. Immigrants have not made them poorer. Their impact on public finances is small and they are net contributors to the Treasury. They are also vital in aforementioned sectors such as healthcare – they tend to do jobs where the supply is low. Pressure in local areas can be mitigated by funding public services proportionally to the change in migrant population – this is a domestic issue, not an international one.

I always thought of this country as an open place. Yes, all places have problems with race and immigration. Much of the issue with migration is a belief that immigrants cause economic problems. But there is no doubt some of it is simply a desire to not have people who are different living near you. What is a British Asian man supposed to do about that?

As though trying to fulfil a stereotype, most shouts of “Leave” and “Out” were from white white van men and builders. Ironically, it is precisely these sort of services which will be hit. We have failed for decades to have a sensible conversation about immigration. We failed to do it in the campaign. We have failed to remain members of the EU.

There are many, many Leave voters who have legitimate reason for voting that way. Still, I cannot shake the feeling that there are Leave voters would be happy to see anybody who isn’t white and British gone as well.

“No Black No Dogs No Irish” and other thoughts on the EU

I am scared of leaving the European Union.

A not insignificant number of my friends are Leave supporters. I have little doubt they genuinely believe leaving the EU will be of benefit to them. Whether their arguments are about sovereignty or the economy, they’re intelligent people who are appalled they are on the same side as Nigel Farage and George Galloway.

However, there is an undercurrent of fear of the other percolating Leave. Regardless of Boris Johnson opining his love of immigration or indeed that an Australian-style points system would lead to more immigration, much of Leave’s support comes from those who are scared that foreign people make things worse.

To a certain extent, I’m not making a logical argument. It’s that if a politics of populist fear succeeds, it paves the way for more. Fear of the other is the cause of your problems. We need less ‘other people’ and more ‘your kind of people’.

That was, when my parents came to the UK and my brothers grew up, the norm. The National Front were popular in the 1970s. Rivers Of Blood and “if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour” still echoed in the ears of immigrants. Even today, for 10 years David Cameron has espoused anti-immigration rhetoric that has now undermined anybody’s belief he supports any pan-European project.

I worry that that social progress will go backwards, even just a little bit. I don’t want to live in a country where that fear is stoked and where that is a legitimate way to win elections.

This referendum is for me whether Britain feels it wants me to be here. So I will campaign for Remain tomorrow. Largely, this will be genuine passion for the EU; partly though it will be out of fear.