The junior doctors strike will be remembered not only as the first time in NHS history that a complete walk out took place, but also for its viciousness. Both the British Medical Association and the Government can share their blame in this. Jeremy Hunt’s threat to ‘impose’ contracts on junior doctors was unhelpful in its forcefulness, even if his frustration was understandable. Whilst the rhetoric used by the BMA has also scarcely painted the association in a good light. Junior doctors may have had their concerns about patient safety but this was also a dispute about pay and to suggest otherwise was disingenuous. It seems, at last however, that an agreement has been reached. The BMA’s Dr Johann Malawana said the terms offered a ‘good deal’ for junior doctors. Whilst Jeremy Hunt insisted the agreement ‘represents a definitive step forward for patients, for doctors, and for the NHS as a whole.’
Both sides are clearly doing their best to paint the agreement as a victory and whilst we won’t know until July 6th whether the new contract has the backing of junior doctors themselves, what does seem difficult to imagine is how the relationship between Hunt and the medical profession can automatically become amicable again. The Health Secretary has praised Malawana for making a ‘difficult decision’. But what seems trickier to unsay is some of the things spoken during the dispute itself. Jeremy Hunt was asked, for instance, about his comments that the strike had been used by some elements of the BMA to bash a Tory Government. He responded by saying:
‘I think we have seen a very serious and constructive attitude from the leader of the junior doctors committee. And if that was the case I think it shows that isn’t what the leadership of the BMA stand for. They clearly do want to do a deal’.
But the problem here may be with what Hunt is saying. Is he suggesting that wider elements of those who opposed the new junior doctors contract were using it as a stick to bash the Government with? Whilst Hunt isn’t necessarily wrong to imply that, this does show just how difficult his position as Health Secretary will be, whether a conclusion has been reached or not. So would Hunt himself have done anything differently? His reply to this question posed on the Today show was a masterclass in political speak. Hunt used the third person to suggest that the Health Secretary (i.e. himself) could learn from what happened. He said:
‘We have all got lessons to learn from what has been an incredibly bitter and protracted dispute. I don’t think you can go through what we’ve been through and say everyone hasn’t got lessons to learn, including the health secretary.’
It seems fair to say that this dispute could have been handled differently by both sides. But Hunt’s problem now lies in whether his part in this row – and his partial unwillingness to admit that lessons could have been learnt from it – makes his job as Health Secretary even more difficult than it was before. Whilst Hunt deserves much credit for helping this agreement to happen, ironically, he’s more likely to be remembered for the anger with which this dispute played out than for what actually happened in the end.
Comments