THE derisory one per cent pay rise for NHS workers in England should be an easy target at this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions – a real-terms pay cut for the heroes of the pandemic? Surely it’s an open goal. But moments after kick-off LibDem MP Daisy Cooper opts for a rather odd framing for her question, lambasting the Government for “throwing a staggering £37 billion at a Test and Trace system that we know has made barely any difference”. She shoots, she hits the post.
Far be it from me to defend the UK Government’s outsourced Test & Trace system, or indeed any part of its pandemic response aside from the vaccination rollout, but is this really the comparison politicians want to make? Had the government not spent billions on such a system – which will undoubtedly play a far more important role as lockdown measures are eased – then I’m quite sure they would have been up in arms about that.
READ MORE: UK Government's reward for frontline NHS workers is a real-terms pay cut
Test & Trace may be a far cry from the "world-beating" system we were promised, but as Boris Johnson points out, it is underpinning the return of pupils to their classrooms. He also deftly passes the buck by saying the Public Sector Review Panel is looking at NHS pay and will report back in due course.
Undeterred, Keir Starmer also wants to make comparisons. “Who does the PM think deserves a pay rise more – NHS nurses or Dominic Cummings?” he asks. I have to check my calendar – is this March 2021 or May 2020? Cummings is yesterday’s news. Why can’t the Labour leader simply ask a straightforward question like “Why are you giving NHS workers a real-terms pay cut?”
Instead he bangs on about “affordability”, when if anything his silly question is about priorities and perceived value. Paradoxically, Starmer is demonstrating that he himself could do with better advisers. I’ll give him this advice for free: ask better questions! Get to the point more quickly!
Johnson has, naturally, come prepared with a dossier of positive statistics about NHS recruitment levels and training bursaries. Starmer has answers to this, pointing to tens of thousands of current vacancies, but then goes off on a rant about interior decorating. Eventually he gets back on to firmer ground – reminding us that two years ago the Tories promised a minimum 2.1% pay rise, and pointing out that Johnson’s own colleagues think the Government looks “mean” – but why couldn’t he have cut to the chase sooner?
READ MORE: PMQs: MPs laugh and heckle as Ian Blackford faces technical issues
Technical issues prevent Ian Blackford from asking his question, which those on the benches seem to find absolutely hilarious. Kirsten Oswald ably steps in, highlighting the fact that the new Turing scheme falls far, far short of the EU’s Erasmus scheme and asking why the Government is taking opportunities away from young people.
“A delightfully concise question,” replies Johnson, to yet more chuckles from his chums. Are they drunk? What exactly is so funny about drastically limiting students’ choices? He then has the brass neck to accuse the Scottish Government of “failing on education”.
The SNP’s David Linden wants to know why the £20 a week uplift to Universal Credit – now extended for a further six months – was never available to those on legacy benefits, but he’ll certainly be none the wiser after the unrelated little speech with which the PM responds.
READ MORE: PMQs: Boris Johnson refuses to apologise to student facing £12k jump in uni fees
Alyn Smith is also denied an answer to his question, returning to the shortcomings of the Turing scheme with the real-life example of a student who had hoped to do a Masters in Amsterdam at a cost of £2168, only to be faced with fees of £14,600 thanks to Brexit. Smith says the new scheme “won’t touch the sides”, and asks if Johnson will apologise. No, he won’t, because apparently the new scheme is fairer to lower-income students.
It’s a shame the devolved administrations weren’t consulted about these plans, or involved in any way in their development. Then perhaps they’d have gained an understanding of why a fee increase of £12,000-plus is “fair”. It surely can’t be that the Prime Minister is in fact misrepresenting the scheme, and downplaying another disastrous consequence of Brexit. The Tories wouldn't be sitting chuckling to themselves about that. Or would they?
This article was edited to reflect the fact that Daisy Cooper is a Liberal Democrat MP, not a Labour one
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel