Labour junior doctors pay deal is actually still a real terms pay cut

  • Post last modified:July 29, 2024
  • Reading time:10 mins read


The Labour Party government has struck a deal with NHS junior doctors’ leaders. It’s offering a supposed 22.3% pay rise over the next two years between 2023 to 2025. Predictably, it has meant the Labour Starmerites have been out in force on social media piling on praise to health secretary Wes Streeting.

However, the only thing more nauseatingly galling than a weasely Wes praise-fest is the deal itself. That’s because, in reality, it still leaves junior doctors with a real-terms pay cut. More shockingly still, they’ll be worse off than physician associates (PAs) – the staff without full medical qualifications at the centre of growing controversy.

Labour junior doctors new pay deal

On Monday 29 July, mainstream media outlets begun reporting that the government had negotiated a pay deal with the British Medical Association’s (BMA) junior doctors committee.

Specifically, the government has put a 22.3% pay deal on the table for the next two years – which the BMA trade union accepted. This was almost 13% shy of the junior doctors’ original demand for a 35% pay rise. The BMA will now put this deal to its members.

Previously, under Sunak, the Tories had refused to budge on its pitiful 8.8% pay offer. It was why, just days ahead of the election, junior doctors once again held a round of strikes. Since they started in March 2023, junior doctors have engaged in 44 days of industrial action.

As a result, many were hailing Labour – and particularly new health secretary Streeting – for closing discussions so soon after taking charge:

But it’s a real-terms pay cut

However, the reality is, the new deal actually still constitutes a real-terms pay cut. This is because junior doctors have seen a 26% fall in their real-terms wages since 2008 due to repeated governments’ failure to keep them in line with inflation. So, the 22.3% so-called pay rise doesn’t even bring junior doctors back to where they were over 15 years ago.

Given this, many junior doctors were declaring their opposition to the deal on X:

Worse still, the deal also included the pay increase the Tories had already committed to:

So as one poster pointed out, this means that junior doctors would only get a 4% pay rise for this year:

Because, in reality, the 22% comprises of:

  • A 4% backdated pay increase for 2023-24.
  • The existing 9% increase that the Tories promised.
  • 6% more on top of that for 2024-25.
  • A £1,000 fixed payment.

In other words, the deal isn’t really offering that much more than the previous government. Crucially, it’s a far cry from what the doctors ordered.

Physicians associates will earn more

Another doctor on X set out how the deal could mean that if rates reflect anything like that in recent years of the Tories class war-driven cost of living crisis, junior doctor pay may only just keep pace with inflation next year:

If that wasn’t bad enough, new physician associates will be on a higher wage than newly qualified junior doctors:

Despite its claims otherwise, Labour could afford to meet junior doctors’ demand for full pay restoration and a pay rise. But much as Reeves’ announcement of a new wave of austerity, it’s a political choice. And naturally, these are to the benefit of its private sector backers.

Where the NHS is concerned, the new government will sell off properties, and continue its march to privatisation.

At the end of the day, the deal isn’t Labour meeting junior doctor demands. Instead, it’s a quick win PR exercise for the new government. Proof in the publicity stunt pudding? As one poster raised, the fact the government leaked it to the press before the BMA communicated the news to its members:

Ultimately, Labour is putting private sector profit against the public sector pay rises. But to anyone whose been paying attention, this should come as no surprise. The new Labour government is showing once again that there isn’t a fag paper between it and the Tories – on workers’ rights this is already glaringly obvious.

Feature image via the Canary





Source link