If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume you’re happy to receive all cookies from the BMA website. Find out more about cookies
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms.
You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies are required
These cookies allow us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information we collect is anonymous unless you actively provide personal information to us.
If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies allow a website to remember choices you make (such as your user name, language or the region you're in) and tailor the website to provide enhanced features and content for you.
For example, they can be used to remember certain log-in details, changes you've made to text size, font and other parts of pages that you can customise. They may also be used to provide services you've asked for such as watching a video or commenting on a blog. These cookies may be used to ensure that all our services and communications are relevant to you. The information these cookies collect cannot track your browsing activity on other websites.
Without these cookies, a website cannot remember choices you've previously made or personalise your browsing experience meaning you would have to reset these for every visit. In addition, some functionality may not be available if this category is switched off.
Our websites sometimes integrate with other companies’ sites. For example, we integrate with social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, to make it easier for you to share what you have read. These sites place their own cookies on your browser as a result of us including their icons and ‘like’ or ‘share’ buttons on our sites.
Most of you will by now have seen the Secretary of State for Health’s response to the Annual Pay Review from the DDRB and the derisory and outrageous 1.5% (against a 2% DDRB recommended increase) pay increase for consultants which it outlines. To add insult to injury that pay increase comes into effect in October and will not be backdated to April.Apart from the obvious facts that the new Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, has wilfully declined to follow the DDRB’s recommended 2% uplift for doctors, and that once again this is a below inflationary uplift (and therefore effectively a real terms pay cut), as this uplift comes into effect in October (and is not backdated) it is actually a 0.75% uplift, which is to say less than the 1% uplift which we have received in previous years.
In other words, then, our real terms pay cut (a pay cut which comes on the back of a 19% decrease in real term pay over the last 10 years) is actually larger than in previous years. We have also yet to receive clarity on whether trusts can choose to use the CEA funding to pay for transition, rather than using it to uplift the value of awards. What is clear is that the DDRB suggested that a 2% uplift should apply to CEAs but the Government’s response was that the value of existing awards would be frozen and that 0.5% of the pay bill would be allocated to employers to increase the funding available for new awards from 2019/20, with half that amount this year solely to fund employers’ obligation to run awards rounds that are your contractual entitlement. We can now plainly see that that Matt Hancock’s words of last week about how ‘heart-breaking’ it was for him to see how ‘under-valued’ NHS staff feel, were merely a politician’s soundbite. Instead, we now know the truth: this Secretary of State does not value doctors in the NHS, and of doctors in the NHS this level of annual uplift suggests he values consultants least of all. At the time of writing it seems that the award to consultants is the lowest amongst all public sector workers - we are clear that does not reflect your value to the country but does clearly illustrate why consultants are justifiably so very angry.It is now also clear to us that the government’s much heralded 3.4% NHS investment increase is in some part subsidised by ongoing and unacceptable reductions in consultants pay. The BMA consultants committee and BMA staff are still in the process of analysing what this means for our ongoing contract negotiations, but what I am absolutely clear on is that the year on year reduction in consultant’s pay cannot continue: consultants are the cornerstone of a faltering NHS secondary care service, to continue to undermine their loyalty and commitment to their place within the NHS could bring that service to its knees. Moreover, we will review our measured collegiate approach to dealing with this government since results such as this imply that this may no longer be our best way forward. We can also expect that this announcement will only make any eventual ballot on a new consultant contract much less likely to succeed. I would just like to be clear to you that I share your anger and the anger of our colleagues. Tuesday’s profoundly demoralising announcement will only increase the exodus of skilled and expert consultants from the profession, and increase the workforce and morale crisis under which we are all working. We will do all that we can to ensure that you are valued and rewarded appropriately. Rob Harwood is Chair of the BMA consultants committee
As many have said, what's the point of the BMA? Stop telling us what's happened - we know. I don't pay you subs to be a news agency. Ballot your members for industrial action, work to rule, whatever. But do something, for goodness sake. Are you a union? I'm having my doubts.
I suggest we all save some money and leave the BMA. They're an effing shambles !!
Harwood needs to pull his finger out and do something for once !
The fact that the 'pay rise' is also split between basic pay and cea pay means that those of us without any cea's will lose out even more. With the rise in inflation to 2% actually have a greater pay cut.
We won't get anywhere by bad mouthing our union. The fault here lies with the government. Their spin included the part where they said basic pay for a consultant appointed in 2013 had risen by 16.5% after 5 years. This figure was chosen to include the five year seniority increment the government is trying to get rid of. It was clever to phrase it that way as any news editor would quote it so that the general public think there is nothing to moan about. We should publicise the percentage rise without seniority increments since the new contract came in 13 years ago.
Please do not mistake my even tone for lack of emotion; I feel that the current slimy bastard health secretary is trying to rival archturd Jeremy Hunt, whose legacy has been to drive unprecedented hordes of doctors to Australia.
The BMA is not our only union available. They are a shambles. Alternative unions May be better.
I'd like to know what CEA Harwood is on !!
I can not help feeling that this is intended to stir up industrial action which will then be used to justify the introduction of a heavy handed new consultant contract with routine weekend work.
With the inevitable government spin, the public will side with the government and it will be a good vote winner.
A strict work to contracct and no more, would probably be the most damaging response.
How dare you refer to me as a slimy bastard ? Make no mistake - I am a Jeremy Hunt ( cockney rhyming slang ). Regards, Matt xx
I think I may review my measured collegiate approach to dealing with the useless BMA.....
Haha Matt you might try to emulate me but there's no greater 'Hunt' than Jeremy 'Hunt' !!
Regards, Jezza xx
Haha you two boys are so funny ! So pleased I've got you in my cabinet ! Enjoy your jollies boys and I can't wait to see you back at work on 4th September ! Regards, Theresa xxx
Thank God I'm an orthopaedic surgeon so can top up my meagre salary with £250000 / year in WLI payments !!
Thank God I'm a geriatrician ! Any word on Crem fee increases yet ?
Crem fees are at present a privately negotiated fee between you and the FD.
Of course you may feel the BMA could do a better job than you at negotiating, but you'd need to be prepared withdraw your labour if you want a good deal.
The BMA has always told us we wont strike. When a huge body of colleagues did vote to strike, the BMA backed down.
What are we to believe now?