This Government’s honeymoon period with GPs is well and truly over

Pulse editor Sofia Lind details the fraught relationship between the Government and GPs following the rows over online access, funding reviews and contracts

It has all got a bit out of hand, hasn’t it? Pulse has reported extensively on the row over online access in recent weeks, with the BMA declaring a dispute and, most recently, Wes Streeting more or less accusing the GPC England chair of radicalising LMCs. The temperature has well and truly risen.

The row within GPC itself seems to have quietened down, but now we’re seeing all-out war with the Government. The Government, for its part, seems to have taken a leaf out of its wider playbook. Yes, protest is inconvenient, but if you don’t listen to people, they tend to get annoyed. And when you disregard that they might have a point, they tend to get angry.

Labour seemed to come in with the idea that it was going to resolve the profession’s long-running disputes. Having ended the junior doctors’ strikes after years of industrial action and then settled with GPs, it looked like a Government intent on resetting relationships and rebuilding trust. But now, with junior doctors back on strike and GPs in open dispute, it seems willing to throw all that goodwill away. Is there something wider going on here? Were they genuinely trying to rebuild trust at the start, or have they quietly decided that taking on the medical profession makes better politics?

One commenter joked (I think) that ‘next they’ll be proscribing the BMA’. It would be funny if it weren’t slightly chilling. I’m not suggesting that ministers will start labelling the BMA as a terror group, but a Government that refuses to listen to professional representatives risks creating a vacuum in which it can act with too little scrutiny – and we’ve seen that story play out before.

And to be fair, I’d be pretty angry too if I were GPC England. For all the fanfare of the first contract agreement in four years, there are still no safeguards in place to mitigate the risks of unlimited online access. They also weren’t consulted on the 10-year plan and still have no idea whether the new contracts it proposes will replace GMS. I wouldn’t take ministers at their word that it won’t replace partnerships – how can anyone, when they haven’t explained how it will fit in?

The BMA was also not consulted on the launch of the Carr-Hill formula review, though one would hope it will be among the stakeholders NIHR speaks to. In previous reviews (and there have been a few), the BMA was part of the review group. This time, its absence is notable.

Next month, England’s LMCs will meet to set policy for the profession. They’ll be hoping that this remains an exercise that still matters – and one that will continue to be relevant in the years to come.

Sofia Lind is editor of Pulse. Find her at [email protected] or on LinkedIn