Wes Streeting has stepped up his war of words with junior doctors by telling Labour MPs that strikes would be “a gift to Nigel Farage”.
In a hard-hitting speech to the Parliamentary Labour Party, the health secretary claimed ministers were “in the fight for the survival of the NHS“.
And he said that if Labour failed in its fight, the Reform UK leader would campaign for the health service to be replaced by an insurance-style system.
Mr Streeting‘s tough warning to Labour MPs came ahead of a showdown with the British Medical Association (BMA) this week in which he will call on the doctors to call off the strikes.
At a meeting in parliament at which he received a warm reception from Labour MPs, Mr Streeting said: “The BMA’s threats are unnecessary, unreasonable, and unfair.
“More than that, these strikes would be a gift to Nigel Farage, just as we are beginning to cut waiting lists and get the NHS moving in the right direction.
More on Nhs
Related Topics:
“What better recruitment agent could there be for his right-wing populist attacks on the very existence of a publicly funded, free at the point of need, universal health service? He is praying that we fail on the NHS.
“If Labour fail, he will point to that as proof that the NHS has failed and must now be replaced by an insurance-style system. So we are in the fight for the survival of the NHS, and it is a fight I have no intention of losing.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:27
Why are junior doctors striking again?
The threatened strikes are in pursuit of a 29% pay rise that the BMA is demanding to replace what it claims is lost pay in recent years. The government has awarded a 5.4% pay increase this year after a 22% rise for the previous two years.
Earlier, appearing before the all-party health and social care committee of MPs, Mr Streeting said the strikes would be a “catastrophic mistake” and not telling employers about their intention to strike would be “shockingly irresponsible”.
He said BMA leaders seemed to be telling their members “not to inform their trusts or their employers if they’re going out on strike” and that he could not fathom “how any doctor in good conscience would make it harder for managers to make sure we have safe staffing levels”.
He said: “Going on strike having received a 28.9% pay increase is not only unreasonable and unnecessary, given the progress that we’ve been making on pay and other issues, it’s also self-defeating.”
He said he accepted doctors’ right to strike, but added: “The idea that doctors would go on strike without informing their employer, not allowing planning for safe staffing, I think, is unconscionable, and I would urge resident doctors who are taking part in strike actions to do the right thing.”
Mr Streeting warned the strikes would lead to cancellations and delays in patient treatment and spoke of a family member who was waiting for the “inevitable” phone call informing them that their procedure would be postponed.
“We can mitigate against the impact of strikes, and we will, but what we cannot do is promise that there will be no consequence and no delay, no further suffering, because there are lots of people whose procedures are scheduled over that weekend period and in the period subsequently, where the NHS has to recover from the industrial action, who will see their operations and appointments delayed,” he said.
“I have a relative in that position. My family are currently dreading what I fear is an inevitable phone call saying that there is going to be a delay to this procedure. And I just think this is an unconscionable thing to do to the public, not least given the 28.9% pay rise.”
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.