
Resident doctors warn of ‘immensely disruptive' potential co-ordinated strikes
The threat of co-ordinated action comes after Health Secretary Wes Streeting urged doctors to vote against striking, with polling suggesting almost half of the British public are opposed to the proposed walkouts.
The co-chairs of the resident doctors committee are calling on members to vote for strikes, with Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt telling The Sunday Times that consultants and specialty and associate specialist (SAS) doctors are also in pay disputes with the Government, and future industrial action could be co-ordinated across those groups.
Dr Ryan, who works in Nottingham, said: 'We know how much the strikes last time were disruptive to patient care and the waiting list, but we also know exactly how much they cost the government and it was more than what it would cost to get to full pay restoration.
'Resident doctors are balloting for strike action but now you've got the consultant committee and you've got the SAS doctors also in a pay dispute with the Government.
'So last time we ended up co-ordinating some action and it was immensely disruptive for patient care, and we can see that on the horizon for this Government too.'
'We will have a mandate that runs from the end of July to the beginning of January 2026,' she continued.
'I am hoping that we will never get to the point where we have to take strike action but… we have three grades of doctors that are in pay disputes with the Government and there could be terrible disruption if the Government doesn't intervene soon.'
Reality:
I met twice with Resident Doctors in May and at the last meeting I offered to meet their entire committee.
I can't offer a higher pay increase: resident doctors have the highest pay award in the entire public sector.
These are not grounds that warrant strike action. https://t.co/gEid97eUPk
— Wes Streeting (@wesstreeting) June 1, 2025
Dr Nieuwoudt, a resident doctor in Liverpool, claimed Mr Streeting has become unwilling to engage.
'(He) seems to have gone from being the guy that was saying, 'Get in the room; talk it out; solve the problem,' to the guy that's not even willing to have that conversation with us,' he told the newspaper.
On Sunday, the Health Secretary posted on social media that he had met with resident doctors twice in May and offered to meet their entire committee.
'I can't offer a higher pay increase: resident doctors have the highest pay award in the entire public sector,' Mr Streeting said.
'These are not grounds that warrant strike action.'
A recent poll of 4,100 British adults by YouGov found that 48% of Britons oppose resident doctors going on strike, while 39% support them taking action.
YouGov said this 'marks a shift in opinion' of public support of striking junior doctors last summer, when the majority of Britons – 52% – said they supported the action.
It highlighted how Labour supporters were most supportive of strike action, with Conservatives expressing the strongest opposition.
Junior doctors protest opposite Downing Street in June 2024 (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
Resident doctors said their pay has declined by '23% in real terms since 2008'.
If they vote to strike, walkouts could begin in July and could potentially last until January 2026.
The Government accepted salary recommendations from pay review bodies earlier this month, resulting in an average 5.4% rise for resident doctors.
A leading patients' organisation said it was 'deeply concerned' about the prospect of strike action in the NHS over the busy winter period.
The Patients Association highlighted how previous strike action from doctors in training led to 1.3 million appointments, procedures and operations being postponed, with the true figure 'likely to be much higher'.
The BMA ballot will close on July 7.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scottish Sun
12 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Ex-Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich threatened with legal action over £2.3bn proceeds from sale of club
Abramovich was forced to sell in 2022 due to his links with Putin SALE ROW Ex-Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich threatened with legal action over £2.3bn proceeds from sale of club Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) FORMER Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich is being threatened with legal action over the £2.3billion proceeds from his sale of the club. The cash was supposed to go on humanitarian projects in Ukraine. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up But British government officials and Abramovich have failed to reach an agreement. The money has been sitting in a bank account since the 58-year-old was forced to sell in 2022 due to his links with tyrant Vladimir Putin. The Government has lost patience after three years of talks with the Russian oligarch failed to resolve the situation. In a joint statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: 'The Government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia's illegal full-scale invasion. 'We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far. 'While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required, to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.' Pressure was growing on the Government for some time to take a harder line on Abramovich. Charities like Save The Children and senior political figures like Lord Foulkes, a former chairman of Scottish club Hearts, urged first the previous Conservative administration and then the current Labour Government to find a way to end the deadlock. 1 Roman Abramovich is being threatened with legal action over the £2.3billion proceeds from his sale of Chelsea Credit: AP UK government could approve the sale of Chelsea but Abramovich can't personally profit, says MP Chris Philp Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme - Sun Club.


The Herald Scotland
17 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Healey announces £5 billion for military drones and lasers
It follows the publication of the Strategic Defence Review on Monday that recommended a greater focus on new technology, including artificial intelligence and drones, as an 'immediate priority'. Mr Healey said the investment would provide 'the most significant advance in UK defence technology in decades' and 'ensure our armed forces have the cutting-edge capabilities they need to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world'. He added: 'We are delivering the Strategic Defence Review's vision to put the UK at the leading edge of innovation in Nato, by backing British industry and fast-tracking the kit of the future into the hands of frontline troops.' Part of the investment will see the establishment of a new 'drone centre' to accelerate the deployment of the technology by all three branches of the armed forces. The focus on drones comes as the technology has proven increasingly lethal on the battlefield in Ukraine, where it now kills more people than traditional artillery. At a meeting of allied defence ministers in April, Mr Healey said the UK estimated drones were inflicting 70-80% of battlefield casualties, while on Sunday Ukraine launched a major attack on Russian airfields deep behind the front line using a fleet of small drones. In addition to investment in drones and AI, the Government has announced an additional £1 billion for the development of 'directed energy weapons' (DEWs) during the current parliament. This includes the DragonFire laser scheduled to be fitted to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers from 2027, with a similar system provided for the Army by the end of the decade. DragonFire and other DEWs are intended to provide a lower-cost form of air defence against targets including drones, costing just £10 per shot compared with the thousands of pounds it costs to fire existing weapons.


The Herald Scotland
17 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Bus powers could help TikTok-famous villages deal with problem parking
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which secured a second reading on Monday, would 'streamline' the franchising process when authorities bid to set up London-style networks, and would better secure 'lifeline routes' elsewhere. 'In part thanks to a TikTok craze to photograph sunset and sunrise over Mam Tor, communities where I live in High Peak have been plagued by illegal parking,' Labour's Mr Pearce told the Commons. The 517 metre-high hill in Derbyshire has become popular on social media, with several videos filmed at the landmark racking up more than 100,000 likes on TikTok. Mr Pearce continued: 'I'm co-ordinating a response to these issues with local stakeholders like the Peak park, police and councils, and a key tranche of what we need to do is deliver better bus services that are integrated with local train services. 'This Bill will transfer powers away from Westminster and empower local communities to take decisions necessary for our commuters to get to work, our students to get to college, our vulnerable to access the healthcare they need, and our honeypot villages to manage tourism sustainably.' Gritting crews were unable to reach a Peak District road near the hill earlier this year after more than 200 cars were double parked on it, according to Derbyshire County Council, and Mr Pearce previously wrote to authorities, when he warned that emergency services had been obstructed. The Bill would give councils the power to set up franchised bus networks to regulate routes, timetables, fares and vehicle standards, without the need for ministers' permission. Ms Alexander said the Government is 'fixing the broken' franchising process and told MPs: 'Proposed schemes need to jump through a myriad of hoops and they still require my consent to proceed, which is odd to say the least. 'The idea that I understand more what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need than their local leaders is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority and now through this Bill we will further streamline the process making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.' Ms Alexander said the franchising model 'won't work everywhere', and added: 'That's why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. 'Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their areas, this Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services – securing those lifeline routes that keep communities connected.' Pressed about funding to local authorities for the £3 bus fare cap, Ms Alexander said: 'There is a spending review under way but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of an affordable and accessible bus route.' Ms Alexander also said the Government will 'press pause' on so-called floating bus stops 'perceived to be poorly designed', amid concerns over accessibility issues and potential hazards for visually impaired people and others. Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Paul Kohler said the Bill 'rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically driven ban on municipally owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them' and added that 'it is not and must not become a one-size-fits-all approach'. He added: 'Empowering local authorities in law is one thing. Enabling them in practice is quite another. 'Whilst this Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it doesn't ensure there's fuel in the tank.' Conservative shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon earlier said improvements for passengers 'simply won't happen' without more Treasury money. He said: 'The Bill does not prioritise passengers and there is nothing in it that guarantees an improvement in service standards. 'The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.' The Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Commons at a later date.