Today’s news summary – Paper Talk
Tuesday’s front pages report on the upcoming strikes. Heart attack and stroke patients could be denied ambulances as NHS strikes cause chaos.
NHS strikes cause chaos
“Plea to end strikes as NHS faces meltdown,” is the Telegraph’s headline. The paper says with nurses taking part in the latest industrial action, Health Secretary Steve Barlcay will meet unions to try to stop the planned strike action by ambulance crews on Wednesday. The paper’s leader accuses government ministers of taking the situation “less seriously than they should.” The paper suggests that as well as drafting in the army, police and volunteers are set to be used to cover the strikes.
The Guardian leads with a warning from NHS bosses that the “ambulance strike threatens lives of 999 patients”. They say people who suffer heart attacks and strokes in some areas will need to “get themselves to hospital.”
“A&E? Call a taxi” is the Sun’s take on the warning.
The Daily Mirror’s front page splashes on a picture of Steve Barclay meeting Sarah Pinnington-Auld and her daughter Lucy, who has cystic fibrosis. Ms Pinnington-Auld accused Barclay of working medics “to the bone”. In an opinion column for the paper, the writer agrees and says Ms Pinnington-Auld “spoke for a nation” when she confronted the health secretary and, in its words, “ruined his photo call.”
The Daily Express reports that with public support for the nurses still high the government should “give ground” and agree to discuss wages with the RCN.
Rwanda plan is legal says High Court
The Daily Mail celebrates the High Court’s ruling that the government’s Rwanda plan is lawful. The paper criticises those who say the plan is “unworkable” stating that: “Until the first flight leaves and we see whether others are discouraged, how on earth can we know?”
Whilst the left-wing Guardian warns that while the government’s dream of sending migrants to Rwanda might still be alive it “could still turn into a slow-moving nightmare”. The paper has spoken to lawyers who believe that it could take years rather than months for the case to be examined by higher courts.
