Share this post:
The British Medical Association has announced a five-day strike by resident doctors (formerly junior doctors) from November 14-19.
It will be the 13th strike since March 2023 in a pay and conditions dispute that began under the Conservatives but continues under Labour.
The BMA says real-terms pay for these doctors is still 20 per cent lower than in 2008, even after nearly 30 per cent in cumulative rises over the last three years.
The union’s statement also highlights a jobs crisis, where there are 30,000 applicants for only 10,000 training places after residency, forcing thousands of UK-trained doctors either abroad or out of medicine entirely.
The Labour government, through Health Secretary Wes Streeting, insists it has already been generous and will not return to pay negotiations.
Instead, it is offering to expand training places and support doctors with exam fees and career development. Streeting says further concessions are unaffordable while the NHS absorbs the cost of previous strikes.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving – in SIX days!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
Here‘s the BBC:
The government will not “be held to ransom” by striking doctors, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said.
Streeting told the BBC there was a deal available to increase the number of speciality training places and provide support for things like exam fees.
But he said: “I can’t do that if I’m spending a quarter-of-a-billion pounds meeting the costs of strikes.”
But the BMA said the government had not presented “any proposals to us which will see the real change needed to fix the jobs crisis this year”.
It added that it had requested “as little as £1 per hour more over the next few years” in terms of a pay deal for resident doctors.
“Mr Streeting should be honest with patients: we are losing doctors to other countries and professions because they can’t find work in the UK – despite training here and wanting to work here,” the statement added.
What makes this strike different
This is the first strike under a Labour government — and specifically under a party that traditionally draws union support.
That alone makes the political dynamics unusual.
The BMA expected more sympathy and constructive negotiation from Labour, and the government’s refusal to re-open pay talks represents a deliberate break from that assumption.
Streeting is reframing the narrative: Unlike the Conservatives, who often portrayed striking doctors as greedy or disruptive, Streeting is arguing a resource-allocation case.
He says he’s sympathetic but constrained — that every pound spent on strikes is a pound not spent on training or patients.
This recasts the argument as one of “shared responsibility” rather than confrontation, while still using Thatcherite language like “we will not be held to ransom.”
A change in the name and status of “junior doctors”: The term resident doctors is new and intended to sound more professional and permanent.
The BMA hoped this would signal a step up in recognition and responsibility.
Instead, the government has used it to draw a line — implying these doctors have already been substantially rewarded and should now “move on.”
The underlying crisis is not just pay but workforce planning. Earlier strikes focused narrowly on pay restoration but this one is more complex, tying together pay, training, and career progression — particularly the lack of posts after the second training year.
That makes it a dispute not only about fairness but about retention, NHS capacity, and the sustainability of the medical workforce.
Streeting’s Labour is trying to prove its fiscal discipline to the markets and the media. The Health Secretary’s insistence that “we can’t afford another quarter-of-a-billion” fits the wider Starmer–Reeves narrative of “no unfunded spending promises”.
The subtext is that Labour’s credibility with the City takes precedence over its relationship with the unions — something that differentiates this strike from those under the Tories, who used strikes to rally their own base rather than reassure financial institutions.
What makes the government’s stance different from the Tories’
Streeting couches his position in managerial, technocratic language rather than moral outrage. But his phrase “we will not be held to ransom” echoes Tory rhetoric from the Cameron–Hunt and Sunak–Barclay eras.
The difference is that Labour’s argument is not ideological (“militant doctors versus hardworking taxpayers”) but fiscal and strategic (“every strike costs us investment in the NHS”).
But while Tory governments could present confrontation with unions as expected, Labour faces an internal contradiction: the party is supposed to represent working people — yet it is now telling public-sector professionals that they’ve had enough.
The political cost could be severe if Streeting alienates medical staff and voters who expected better from Labour.
While Tories generally blamed staff strikes for worsening waiting lists, Streeting adds a note of reluctant realism — acknowledging both industrial action and rising demand.
This allows him to appear “honest” while still avoiding the root problem: chronic underfunding and workforce shortages.
Finally, by refusing to re-open pay talks, Labour signals to the financial press that it won’t bow to “special pleading” from public sector groups.
That’s a posture designed to contrast with past Labour governments and reassure business — not the public or the workforce.
The deeper issue
This is not just another pay dispute — it’s a test case for how Labour governs:
Can it manage industrial relations with empathy and credibility, or will it treat doctors the same way the Conservatives treated nurses and rail workers?
If the answer is the latter, it suggests Starmer’s Labour sees maintaining economic orthodoxy as more important than rebuilding trust in public services.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
New doctors’ strike is a test case for how Labour governs
Share this post:
The British Medical Association has announced a five-day strike by resident doctors (formerly junior doctors) from November 14-19.
It will be the 13th strike since March 2023 in a pay and conditions dispute that began under the Conservatives but continues under Labour.
The BMA says real-terms pay for these doctors is still 20 per cent lower than in 2008, even after nearly 30 per cent in cumulative rises over the last three years.
The union’s statement also highlights a jobs crisis, where there are 30,000 applicants for only 10,000 training places after residency, forcing thousands of UK-trained doctors either abroad or out of medicine entirely.
The Labour government, through Health Secretary Wes Streeting, insists it has already been generous and will not return to pay negotiations.
Instead, it is offering to expand training places and support doctors with exam fees and career development. Streeting says further concessions are unaffordable while the NHS absorbs the cost of previous strikes.
Here‘s the BBC:
What makes this strike different
This is the first strike under a Labour government — and specifically under a party that traditionally draws union support.
That alone makes the political dynamics unusual.
The BMA expected more sympathy and constructive negotiation from Labour, and the government’s refusal to re-open pay talks represents a deliberate break from that assumption.
Streeting is reframing the narrative: Unlike the Conservatives, who often portrayed striking doctors as greedy or disruptive, Streeting is arguing a resource-allocation case.
He says he’s sympathetic but constrained — that every pound spent on strikes is a pound not spent on training or patients.
This recasts the argument as one of “shared responsibility” rather than confrontation, while still using Thatcherite language like “we will not be held to ransom.”
A change in the name and status of “junior doctors”: The term resident doctors is new and intended to sound more professional and permanent.
The BMA hoped this would signal a step up in recognition and responsibility.
Instead, the government has used it to draw a line — implying these doctors have already been substantially rewarded and should now “move on.”
The underlying crisis is not just pay but workforce planning. Earlier strikes focused narrowly on pay restoration but this one is more complex, tying together pay, training, and career progression — particularly the lack of posts after the second training year.
That makes it a dispute not only about fairness but about retention, NHS capacity, and the sustainability of the medical workforce.
Streeting’s Labour is trying to prove its fiscal discipline to the markets and the media. The Health Secretary’s insistence that “we can’t afford another quarter-of-a-billion” fits the wider Starmer–Reeves narrative of “no unfunded spending promises”.
The subtext is that Labour’s credibility with the City takes precedence over its relationship with the unions — something that differentiates this strike from those under the Tories, who used strikes to rally their own base rather than reassure financial institutions.
What makes the government’s stance different from the Tories’
Streeting couches his position in managerial, technocratic language rather than moral outrage. But his phrase “we will not be held to ransom” echoes Tory rhetoric from the Cameron–Hunt and Sunak–Barclay eras.
The difference is that Labour’s argument is not ideological (“militant doctors versus hardworking taxpayers”) but fiscal and strategic (“every strike costs us investment in the NHS”).
But while Tory governments could present confrontation with unions as expected, Labour faces an internal contradiction: the party is supposed to represent working people — yet it is now telling public-sector professionals that they’ve had enough.
The political cost could be severe if Streeting alienates medical staff and voters who expected better from Labour.
While Tories generally blamed staff strikes for worsening waiting lists, Streeting adds a note of reluctant realism — acknowledging both industrial action and rising demand.
This allows him to appear “honest” while still avoiding the root problem: chronic underfunding and workforce shortages.
Finally, by refusing to re-open pay talks, Labour signals to the financial press that it won’t bow to “special pleading” from public sector groups.
That’s a posture designed to contrast with past Labour governments and reassure business — not the public or the workforce.
The deeper issue
This is not just another pay dispute — it’s a test case for how Labour governs:
Can it manage industrial relations with empathy and credibility, or will it treat doctors the same way the Conservatives treated nurses and rail workers?
If the answer is the latter, it suggests Starmer’s Labour sees maintaining economic orthodoxy as more important than rebuilding trust in public services.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Who is ‘extreme’, Jeremy Hunt? Striking junior doctors… or YOU?
Like this:
This is why junior doctors are threatening to go on strike in December
Like this:
Welsh government in drive to recruit junior doctors from England
Like this:
Like this: