Published: 25 July ‘2025 | The English Chronicle Desk | The English Chronicle Online
In a striking display of discontent within the National Health Service (NHS), resident doctors have resumed industrial action, reigniting a tense standoff between the British Medical Association (BMA) and the newly elected Labour government. At the heart of the dispute lies a simple but unresolved demand: money. And Labour, it appears, does not currently have the one thing striking doctors want most — a financial settlement that reflects what they argue is nearly two decades of pay erosion.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who recently brought an end to two years of junior doctors’ strikes, now finds himself in an increasingly precarious position. His ambitious 10-year NHS reform plan, once hailed as a beacon of hope, now appears at risk of stalling before it has truly begun. The resident doctors — formerly referred to as junior doctors — are once again off the job, and the stalemate shows few signs of resolution.
The BMA is calling for a 26% pay restoration, asserting that pay levels have failed to keep up with inflation for the past 17 years. According to the union, many resident doctors currently earn around £18 per hour, and are demanding an increase to £22 per hour to correct what they term systemic underpayment. Streeting, on the other hand, points to a recent 29% pay hike as evidence that their demands have been at least partially addressed.
But the numbers are only part of the story. The consequences of this renewed industrial action are already being felt across the NHS. Non-critical care has been paused almost entirely, with only Accident & Emergency departments remaining operational. The BMA argues that this situation endangers patient safety, as senior staff are stretched thin trying to backfill for their striking colleagues.
The issue is not merely one of labour relations — it has become a matter of public health, governance, and the political viability of Labour’s reform agenda. Streeting’s frustration is reportedly growing, as he believes that his vision for a rejuvenated NHS is being held hostage by a financial demand he cannot, at present, meet. For a health secretary trying to steer a post-crisis system through modernization and expansion, this conflict could not have come at a worse time.
Observers note the deep entrenchment on both sides. The BMA is determined to reverse what it sees as a historical wrong, while Labour, despite its reformist intentions, is hamstrung by a challenging fiscal environment and mounting pressures elsewhere in government.
This impasse also highlights a critical truth: NHS reform will not be possible without buy-in from those on the front lines. The 10-year plan, no matter how visionary, relies fundamentally on the goodwill and cooperation of NHS staff. And at the moment, that goodwill is wearing thin.
The public, watching the crisis unfold, is left to wonder whether the new government will be able to bridge this gap — or whether the NHS will remain trapped in a cycle of disruption and dysfunction, regardless of who occupies 10 Downing Street.
What remains clear is that the crisis is no longer about just pay or politics. It is about trust, respect, and the future of one of Britain’s most cherished institutions. The next moves by both the BMA and the Department of Health will likely shape not only the course of the NHS but also the public’s faith in Labour’s ability to lead a meaningful transformation of the nation’s healthcare.
