This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

GPs buried under trusts' workload dump

GPs ‘should become more militant’ – but not resign contracts

GP negotiators should be able to take a more militant stance in negotiations with the Government, before balloting on mass GP resignations from their NHS contracts, a Pulse Live GP panel has said.

The GP leaders, speaking at the keynote discussion at Pulse Live Liverpool today, said that the GPC is working with ‘both hands tied behind their backs’ due to BMA structures and advocated an independent GP negotiating body that would have more freedom to act in the professions’ interests.

A straw poll of delegates at the conference found that only around 20% thought GPs should resign from the NHS en masse, with 40% saying opposing it after hearing of the potential harm to patients and the political consequences of dividing the profession.

Speaking against the proposal, Family Doctor Association chair Dr Peter Swinyard said that the GPC is doing a good job, but they are limited by the wider BMA. 

He said: ‘The main reason I say no to resignation en masse is that our negotiators are working with both hands tied behind their backs. I have the highest regard for [GPC chair] Dr Chaand Nagpaul and his team, they’re brilliant. But they’re working within the BMA.

‘We need to stay with what we have, imperfect though it is. [But] we need a strong, GP-only, trade union which is not tied down by the needs of the other crafts in medicine. And we need a group of GPs prepared to take action.’

GP and media medic Dr Roger Henderson, argued that mass resignation should be a last resort.

He told delegates: ‘I do not want to have that conversation with my Mrs Trellises, saying “today I’m a GP, tomorrow I’m not. You can see me, but it’ll cost you £100… That’s not my way of doing general practice.’

Instead, he advocated a ’militant work-to-rule’, which would involve a wealth of non-GMS work being halted, including only doing palliative care visits, bouncing back secondary care work, and ‘bankrupting your CCG if need be.’

Dr Zoe Norris, spokesperson for the campaign group GP Survival, told delegates that the threat of resignation was what was required to bring the Government to negotiations, and was assured that ministers ‘would blink first’.

She added: ’The only way we’ll succeed is by standing together on this, and they will blink first if we do. The NHS cannot run without GPs, whatever they think.

Readers' comments (26)

  • I agree. There are plenty of options that would not play into the hands of the Govt. As per Anon@7.56, closure of lists can be justified on safety grounds - wandering patients would then have to use WICs and A&E without blame falling on responsible practice. How about a mass list closure of lists at all practices above a certain weighted list size per GP?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'Anonymous | GP Partner29 Sep 2015 3:19pm

    So mass resignation one at a time it is then.'

    Absolutely ...that's what's currently happening! It's almost Darwinian. Slowly but surely the profession is disintegrating and all that will remain are servants who do as they are told. Frankly rather pathetic.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The threat of closure will also cause the millions of young who are not on any lost to register with a GP leading to a significant rise in incomes.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes it is time for mass resignation to force change

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm afraid a strike will never happen as things currently stand. Look at the pensions fiasco a few years back to see why.
    We are, as a profession are divided, but more importantly we are afraid and rightly so. But our fear is not rooted in concerns of being laid off, or even losing pay during the strike periods, the fear goes right to the heart of being a doctor.

    Whether or not you like it the Hippocratic Oath, as quaint as it may seem to some, really does run through our DNA. It has given all but the most fraudulent and malevolent of us impulses that we can neither control nor resist. Top of that list is do no harm. So as intelligent and sentient beings all doctors know that a full on strike will result in harm of varying degrees to their patients, the impulse to not do this will be so strong as to create a cognitive dissonance which will result in negative feelings such as guilt and worthlessness in many who may which to strike. Very similar emotions in fact to going before the GMC's MTPS fitness to practice panel.

    I think the only to combat these impulses is actually to go on one of the many 'resilient training' courses advocated and organised (extortionate fee a pre-requisite)by the GMC, RCGP and BMA. At least that way these organisations would have contributed at least one positive thing to the profession during this current apocalypse - namely to enable us to grow a pair and act on the courage of our convictions!

    Viva la revolution!!!

    Disillusioned GP Partner (3.75yrs)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This vote was a foregone conclusion. We get the leaders we vote for and they don't give a damn.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Zoe, at least we have one person with balls. Hats off to you for sticking to your guns !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @8:52 : List closure is allowed by NHSE only for LMC Chairpersons who do not have to consult with neighbouring Practices and nobody dares question their decision. Closure of list despite boasting in the local newspaper weeks earlier that they have 1 Gp for 2000 patient.

    The gift of gab is not an indicator of honesty but persuades people to elect them.Is it surprising only 20% voted for the motion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated.

  • Forget it then. I'm out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Let's be honest. 2004 contract opened the way to this. They greased us up and painlessly shafted us because the shit sandwich tasted ok because of the bread was thick and tasty. Now the shit has got shittier and the bread thinner and less crusty!
    Sorry about the words but if they threw us some more bread we'd invest it where it is needed, not on more shit filling!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say