Another winter. Another strike. Except this time the industrial action by junior doctors will be longer than any other in NHS history.
In total, three days starting this morning. Then back out again for six consecutive days from 3-9 January.
In all, there will only be four weekdays unaffected by strike action or holidays over the next three weeks.
The action is already having a serious impact.
Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust has announced that Cheltenham A&E has temporarily closed until 8am on 23 December and will do so again from 8pm on 1 January until 8am on 9 January.
Professor Phil Banfield, chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) Council, told Sky News the strikes were called to protect the long-term future of the NHSwhich could not afford to keep losing trained doctors.
He said: “The aim is not to collapse the NHS, the aim is to save the NHS.
“We must have doctors, you cannot fly an aeroplane without pilots and we represent the skills and the expertise that patients need, and of course doctors are leaving because of a lack of valuing them in the workplace.”
Advertisement
The strike mandate for junior doctors expires in February. That is why they have chosen to strike in December and January.
Sky News understands junior doctors’ leaders ruled out extended industrial action right through Christmas to give the NHS some recovery time between the strikes.
Sunak condemns ‘disappointing’ strikes
Rishi Sunak told parliament the junior doctors’ actions was “disappointing”.
He said: “We have now reached a resolution with every other part of the public sector and every other part of the NHS.
“And I’d also say that it was the junior doctors who received the biggest increase in their pay through the independent public standing pay review process of around a 10% increase for a typical junior doctor.”
But BMA leaders have challenged the prime minister by saying the government’s proposal of an extra 3% pay rise for junior doctors on top of 8.8% already given would amount to a pay cut for many of its members after years of below-inflation pay rises.
And they also stress that both consultants and specialists have yet to vote in favour of the pay offers they received in January.
More than a million procedures and appointments have had to be rescheduled since industrial action began by health workers last December.
The record waiting list that stands at over 6.4 million patients needing more than 7.7 million appointments and procedures looks set to grow.
Health leaders warn that this strike action could be the most damaging yet.
Julian Hartley, chief executive of NHS Providers, said trust leaders are worried.
“It does mean that there will be a huge amount of concern around managing patient safety and quality during this period because urgent care will be the priority, but a lot of planned care will have to be rescheduled for later in the new year,” he said.
It is too late to call off the strikes that begin today.
But there is hope – albeit very slim – that both sides will still try to find a way to stop January’s industrial action from going ahead.
WazirX has been trying to get a restructuring plan through the Singapore High Court to start returning funds to users impacted by the $234 million hack in 2024.
“It’s an interesting moment,” was how one government source described the High Court ruling that will force an Essex hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers within weeks.
That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.
For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office’s own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.
Granting the injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”, the barrister said – pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would “aggravate pressures on the asylum estate”.
Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council – over the border in Hertfordshire – posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.
The risks here are clear.
Image: Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA
Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.
If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.
After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.
There are several caveats though.
This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.
So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain – and by extension the Home Office.
Image: Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters
We have been here before
Remember, this isn’t the first legal claim of this kind.
Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.
In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.
As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.
Image: The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA
But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.
So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.
Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.
Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area – as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county – the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives‘ time in government.
Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.
But that won’t stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.
So there are political risks for the government, yes, but it’s the practicalities that could flow from this ruling that pose the bigger danger.