Unfortunately I don't think a few days of strikes are going to end this, the rail strikes have been going on since June and Mick Lynch said we are still nowhere near reaching a resolution when asked this morning.
The government will keep hiding behind pay review bodies and minimum service levels and this will drag on as long as the union members still have an appetite for it.
We need mass demonstrations now in my opinion or some other change of approach from the unions, a couple of days here and there on strike isn't changing anything. Maybe we need to announce that we're going out and not coming back until the government start actually negotiating.
They won't but they'll get the ball rolling, the ball will roll easier for the NHS mind, as the NHS has far more public support than rail. Lynch will get a good result for the rail though, as he's extremely competent and clinical, but that will probably take more time. The NHS will probably get a worse result, but quicker, but tough to say, it's harder for them to strike for longer. Once Lynch is done with the rail, the NHS unions should try and recruit him.
The government aren't meeting performance targets for the NHS, but just as important is social care from council budgets/ budget cuts) which is crippling the NHS, and unless they commit to funding which would cover existing and previous inflation, plus a lot more, and doing that for the future then performance will get worse. The Tory minimum service target should be how they took over it (both the NHS and social care), at the very least, not considerably worse.
We need a reality check of what an older population will do/ cost, and also what damage a pandemic will cause at the time, and for a long time after, people are really underestimating this. The public are realising (who has caused this mess, at least, albeit not the full scale), and hopefully this will be reflected in the next GE, that's the only way anything will be done.
Lots of people get conned that if funding (not just wages) increased with inflation then this would do the trick, but it won't it will be a long, long way short and become a bigger hole to dig out of. The population is getting older, in 20 years we will have twice as many old people (as a percentage) than we did when Labour took over in 1997 (labour kept on top of it mind). Old people cost ~3-5x more to maintain than younger folk, so cost is rocketing, as will pension payments out, but a big problem is there will be less younger people to pay into the pot to balance those books. We can't charge the younger folk more, as they're already screwed by house price increases and other increases and lack of wage growth. The only way to cover that cost is to redistribute wealth, pay people more and get people spending (so we can tax it). Having money sitting in the bank of the top 1%, or top 0.1% won't work. Having those with no money paying finance charges won't work, the only way to avoid these charges is to have more money so you don't need the finance (like the rich don't, or not at the same rates).
Not sure what we can do about rail, but cutting the ludicrous red tape on maintenance/ new projects will help. Having worked in the rail industry (and all areas of infrastructure) there is extreme cash burning/ waste, which is beyond ludicrous. All this is doing is funnelling money into the pockets of big contractors (and to a lesser degree sub-contractors, but they at least spend what they make, and find it much harder to doge tax). This all largely comes at the cost of those who rely on public transport, but also the taxpayer. Nationalising won't fix it either, as it's the aspect of which which is already nationalised which is causing the biggest problems (Network Rail), not the train operators. Red tape and cost have gone up, many multiples compared to any quality or safety increases.
