Has anyone clearly explained to the public, what it is about the proposed new contract that the junior doctors object to, or is it just the method adopted by the government to impose it unilaterally?
Clearly Conservatives love imposing their ideas on everybody else, as if they have a god-given right in education and health as in many other spheres. The 75% that DIDN'T vote for them at the last election (and probably many that did!) have grave reservations about their arrogant and bullying methods as well as the real reasons for doing what they do.
Is it really to improve life and health chances for all, or some ulterior socially divisive purpose to make more money for the rich and worsen the conditions for the poor and disadvantaged?
The disingenuous record seems to speak for itself: attacking local democracy, and the services it provides as the only bulwark against increased central and commercial control, whilst stating the intention is to do the very opposite.
Government thereby is not only damaging the 'common-wealth' but lying in the process, most recently exemplified in Cameron's praise of the Hillsborough campaigners who previously he maligned. The government's track record over Iraq and institutional child abuse is similarly deeply compromised. 'Back-tracking' in the face of public opposition has become a trademark of this administration (most recently in the Trade Union Bill to get support for staying in the EU) but it is far from reassuring.
Britain under its direction continues to slide socially and economically, whilst the rich are the only sector seen to benefit. Junior doctors now appear to be leading the challenge. Will it in turn radicalise and energise a cohort of 18 - 38 year olds, most disadvantaged by recent changes, and up-to-now disenfranchised by apathy and disillusionment? That is the question.