BMA being ‘sidelined’ as a trade union by Labour Government, says GPC deputy
GP leaders have accused the Government of trying to ‘sideline’ the BMA as a trade union by overhauling the contract negotiation process.
As exclusively revealed by Pulse yesterday, instead of negotiations with the BMA’s GP Committee, the Government will ‘consult’ it alongside a wider group of stakeholders, including patient groups.
GPCE chair Dr David Wrigley accused the Government of trying ‘discredit’ and ‘sideline’ the trade union’, with many GP leaders echoing the sentiment that this was a departure from Labour Party values.
In a post on X, Dr Wrigley said: ‘This is the latest move by a Labour Govt – and shows their views of and approach to a trade Union. It’s shocking and an attempt to discredit/sideline us. It won’t work. The universal reaction from GPs on dozens of groups is one of dismay and loss of faith in the [Government]. A serious misstep.’
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland LMC chief executive Dr Grant Ingrams, a former GPC member, said: ‘This is a Labour Government deliberately undermining a trade union. I think is actually appalling, and the optics are just so wrong.
An LMC leader who wished to remain anonymous said: ‘Clearly an attempt to cut out a union from contract negotiations, presumably in the hope other parties are more likely to give them the answers they want (i.e. ‘neighbourhood model is great + move work unresourced into GP’). It also fits within their evident disdain for independent contractor GMS.
‘Which is puzzling as they are skint and the independent contractor model is highly cost-effective; and for a Labour Government to undermine a trade union seems at odds with their professed values.’
The Government’s overhaul of contract negotiations will see a group of stakeholders consulted on changes, also including the RCGP, the National Association of Primary Care (NAPC), Healthwatch England, National Voices and the NHS Confederation.
In her first official statement on the development, GPCE chair Dr Katie Bramall said she hoped that consulting other primary care stakeholders may show the Government that there is ‘more consensus’ than ‘Government perhaps realises’.
Dr Bramall said that whilst the Government ‘consults relevant stakeholders in every annual contract cycle’ she was ‘pleased that the Government recognises this is a departure from their usual process’.
She said: ‘GPC England likewise may consult more widely – we are confident there will be more consensus across various primary care stakeholders than Government perhaps realises, and this provides an excellent opportunity for mutual collaboration.’
She added that although ‘wider voices can be helpful’, the BMA ‘expects’ that the Government ‘an will continue to appropriately engage with us in our capacity as a representative professional association and trade union’.
The Government had this month cancelled all meetings with the BMA’s GP Committee while reviewing the relationship, amid a row over whether 1 October contract changes mandating core hours online access was agreed with the BMA or whether it was imposed.
In a private message to colleagues yesterday, seen by Pulse, Dr Bramall said she had been told that the Government’s decision to change the negotiation process had been coming for some time, and was not solely related to the recent row over 1 October contract changes.
However, some GP leaders suggested that GPCE infighting and actions by its current leadership had helped the Government along the way to make the decision.
A member of the GPC said yesterday’s news was ‘damning to hear’.
They added: ‘I’ve heard colleagues say that a source has told them that NHSE/DHSC have a specific trust issue with our chair – hence walking away from the negotiations.’
Dr Ingrams said: ‘I think, to be honest, the infighting by some of the GPC members and attacking the leadership actually have probably emboldened in the Government to do this at this time – because if the profession was really united, I think the Government would be thinking twice before doing something like this.
‘But because various GPC England members have been openly and publicly saying that there’s schisms, I think that that has emboldened this Government to take this action now, when the other Governments in the past have thought about it, but didn’t think they could get away with it.’
In an exclusive op-ed published in Pulse yesterday, NHS England’s primary care director Dr Amanda Doyle revealed that the consultation on next year’s contract will begin shortly.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [8]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
The BMA has only themselves to blame.
Over the past few years, the BMA appears to have been taken over by left wing activists and no longer reflects the views of the majority of doctors.
They have involved themselves in pronouncements about Government foreign policy when they should be sticking to representing the majority of doctors in the UK in improving the NHS. Their policy of strike action has alienated the country against doctors where previously we were the most respected profession in the country.
They have brought this on themselves.
Completely disagree, as the BMA have achieved significant gains as has been seen in the case of the resident doctors where there was at the time near unanimous support and a resultant completely unprecedented salary rises in the direction of fair returns for their work. The decline of professional standing of GPs rests significantly with the pointless membership fee collecting pontificating of the RCGP inner circle . The decline in the respect of the profession is directly in my view linked to the poor representation of the profession by the RCGP , as normally a so called Royal College would promote this and this is more the role of this hopeless group rather than the BMA. The problem the GP profession has is the disparate salaries /wages /conditions for disparate groups within Primary Care causing fragmentation of unity depending on the personal positions within various groups such as salaried doctors , locums and partners which clearly needs addressing. At points in the past locums have been the source of concern with demands for £145 per hour over prolonged lucrative times when partners were struggling , and now partners are the source of concern some (not all) having high incomes in comparison with locums who are now struggling. Salaried doctors also having their own issues including relative lack of control within their roles. Many have seen this cycle repeated recurrently over time. Then comes the payment per patient and huge disparities between inner city practices in payments per patient etc. etc. which can near only 50% of some of the higher paid more county practices in some cases combined with increased difficulties in inner city recruitment etc. If the BMA does not continue this battle and doesn’t have the support of GPs then it is not the BMA to blame but those who criticise but present no alternative . It certainly won’t be the RCGP who have led this decline imo as they are too busy finding a path to a knighthood or similar Royal Accolade or sending inert aimless emails..
completely agree centre ground. Consultants and juniors have both had pay agreements by uniting and standing strong. I agree the BMA should butt out of political stuff like Cass rv/supreme court on trans and foreign wars as its not the BMA purpose or remit but I doubt the public notice much and the government won’t care. All they care about is pushing through their crap Blair tribute act; Darzi/polyclincis/PFI-last time under Blair cost £80 billion, sucking up to pharmaceutical companies-weight loss injections instead of Dimbleby food reforms and the single patient record-last attempt by Blair crashed with no result to the tune of £14 billion; mainly for Big tech/AI companies benefit.
All Streeting understands is strength and unity from us and public backlash as it all goes wrong and services go pear shaped with their ridiculous plans.
They think digital tech and buildings substitute for doctors. Zero understanding. SWAST are trialling a single GP car to be sent out to prevent A&E admissions-95% success rate; I work with the PhD student who is collecting the data. Gps keep patients out of hospital, manage community care at the highest level and coordinate the rest of community care. And provide 90% of NHS consults for 7% of the budget. Good luck having any success without us. Anyway hold tight. I think this government is a slow motion car crash, like Truss but on slo mo, I think they will be gone after next May. We shall see. Keep calm and carry on.
Um, which foreign policy involvement bothers you, Mr shapiro?
The one that says killing children and women is wrong?
The one that says striking hospitals and targeting healthcare professionals is wrong?
The one that might say racism is wrong in all its forms, including when one group thinks it’s superior to another.?
I agree with CC and FO. DHSCNHSE are seeking to undermine BMA using Milburn school of Blairism.
Intent on disintegrating GMS as NHC develop, it’s a key political move to screw contract negotiations.
There was a time when it would have been unthinkable for a Labour government to sideline a trade union. Labour and the unions were bound together by history, ideology, and mutual dependence…one could hardly exist without the other. Yet here we are, watching a Labour administration distance itself from the British Medical Association, effectively diluting its role as a trade union voice for doctors.
It feels like a political role reversal. For decades, it was the Conservatives who were accused of undermining organised labour…curbing union powers, marginalising collective bargaining, and prioritising “efficiency” over representation. But this moment reveals how profoundly things have shifted. The traditional alliances that once defined British politics no longer hold steady.
Perhaps this change reflects a broader reality: governments today, even those with progressive labels, are more focused on control and optics than on partnership. The machinery of state demands agility and pragmatism, not necessarily loyalty to old allies. Still, it’s jarring to see the very party born from the trade union movement treating a union as an obstacle rather than an ally.
In some ways, this is the story of our political era … ideology giving way to expedience, and relationships once thought sacred being quietly rewritten. Things have changed indeed. And perhaps the most striking change of all is that few seem surprised anymore.
I agree with Katie, Finola, and Centreground here : there are possible benefits to having the additional voices expressing wishes of the patients on policy and provision. However, there is no way that such voices can interact in the NEGOTiATION of a Trade Union for it’s members with the Employer.
I expect there is distrust by Government of Katie, because she represents the Workers, and is too bright to be manipulated by the Government, although they are clearly trying extremely hard to do that at the moment.
It is the manipulative underhand dealer, however, in this case DHSE and Government, who shows themselves not worthy of Trust. It is time to rid Britain of this untrustworthy political entity, and go for a People’s Party to run the country to the benefit of the majority of patients and citzens, including workers.
“Analog to digital” has been led by General Practice; 2o care is way behind. “Hospital to Community”, “Illness to Prevention” will NOT happen without GP support – and lots of GPsí, because we are actually very cost effective (which is not the same as cheap). We are the magic ingredient, not AI nor PFI nor ARRS. By involving patient voices in the consultation, the Government are likely to find that most patients agree with the GPs on all this. I found our Healthwacth were supportive when we were discussing our local schemes with our commissioners.