You advance three rational arguments in doctors’ favour, but you know as well as anybody that the rational counts for little in a political battle.

And I’d be grateful if you could help my understanding further with your three points.

Firstly, the renegotiation of pensions was in 2008, but the world looked very different then from now. Isn’t this a major blow to that argument?

Secondly,  you write the doctors’ pension scheme “will be affordable for many years to come,” But how many years? Inevitably it’s necessary to think long term with pensions. And are the assumptions that underlie that calculation still valid? I’m a 60 year old doctor, and I’ve found that many of my contemporaries have retired. Plus the NHS reforms seem to be causing many to quit. So I’m worried that the ratio of working to retired doctors may be different from that included in the calculations.

Thirdly, you write “the public is not financially supporting this pension scheme beyond what is reasonable.” But we may all have very different ideas on what is reasonable. Many might think it unreasonable that doctors get much higher salaries and pensions than most public sector workers, and many might wonder why the public has to pay at all for doctors’ pensions.

You then put the case against doctors beautifully.

It can’t be coincidence that in the week that the doctors announce their strike the Economist runs a piece on the future of medicine that is entitled “Squeezing out the doctor” with the standfirst of “The role of physicians at the centre of healthcare is under pressure.”