That's a lazy and overly simplistic view. Yes, politics contributes but it is abundantly clear that some gp practices are considerably better than others. If some can perform well, why can't others? We need to stop deflecting the attention away from local health teams. They could and should be doing better and need challenging
You are assuming that all practices get the same resources, so that any disparity in quality is due to poor practice management. That is not true. Practices in more deprived areas receive less income and find it harder to recruit. Practices in deprived areas average half the number of GPs (per 1000 population) of richer areas, yet patient demand in those areas is highest.
Take 2 practices with 8,000 patients.
Practice A in a wealthy area would typically have 4.5 whole time equivalent GPs.
Practice B in a poorer area would typically have around 2.25 whole time equivalent GPs.
The average demand for GP appointments per year is 5.5 per patient, so 44,000 appointments per year, if you have 8,000 patients.
In Practice A, each GP needs to provide 9,778 appointments a year, or about 217 per week, allowing for annual leave.
In Practice B, each GP needs to provide 19,556 appointments a year, or 435 per week. Even if each appointment lasts only 10 minutes and they never have any breaks, that's 72 hours' worth of appointments every week per GP, without even factoring in home visits, prescriptions, blood results, phone calls, referrals, paperwork and meetings - all those other things take at least 3 hours per day.
Can you see the problem?
In fact, the situation is actually worse than that because Practice B probably actually has a higher than average patient demand.
So challenge away, my friend. Come to my practice and explain how each of my GPs can do 84 hours' worth of work per week. We're all ears.