To think the BMA have misjudged with another doctor's strike? Thread 2

[Locutus2000]

Rolling this over as people still seem to have something to say but no new poll.

Original post

AIBU to think the BMA have misjudged with another doctor's strike?

Last year they got more than anyone else in the NHS along with an improved deal. Nurses and other AHPs received lower rises.

BMA have just announced another 'resident' doctor strike continuing to chase pay restoration to 2008 levels.

Having just had the major win with changes to IMG prioritisation and the clamp-down on PAs it feels a bit tone-deaf and I can't see Streeting going for it.

I think everyone will be able to draw their own conclusions in that case. It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop.

Anyhow, our supper is ready.

This is so ridiculous 😂

Poster date and time? Not seen one post about that.

The RLMT is nothing to do with the BMA Why are you bringing that up?

RLMT it is a governmental concern. Even if they do not care about unemployed doctors (they do), they care about unemployment and cutting down legal migration.

If they do nothing they will be a one term government and the way things are going it will be not be a good outcome for the UK.

These MP stories are as irrelevant as they are fantastic.

In the (likely) event that an MP did not have workforce data, they would be unable to reply; if they had data - bearing in mind that a growing dependence on immigration is predicted - they would have no obligation to reply, and they would certainly not reply in the form as described ad nauseam on this thread.

But given the complexity of the issues it is vanishingly unlikely that a communication of this sort would survive first contact with an MP's office staff.

https://w4mp.org/w4mp-guides/in-the-constituency/casework-guides/protocol-clarified-on-representing-constituents/

Glad that you find MPs answering emails amusing.

Why do comments state "edited" when no edit is allowed?

I understand @Sevillian ’s puzzlement, because MPs are generally forbidden to reply to those who live outside their constituency. Parliamentary rules, as I am sure you know.

Apologies, @Marchesman . I had missed your post

@poetryandwine

From the link above

"MPs do not have an obligation to act on every matter constituents raise with them, whether they be their own constituent or the constituent of another MP. If you receive a letter or email from an individual who is not your MP’s constituent, you should inform them that they should contact their own MP."

I have had many replies. It really does not bother me what the doubters think. They are detailed replies, not admin responses.

If you are so offended by MPs responding to my emails report my post and ask MNHQ to contact me and I will forward the emails to MNHQ for them to verify.

You are all so transparent it is laughable.

The RLMT is nothing to do with the BMA Why are you bringing that up?

Oh for the completely ditzy reason that the thread title concerns the BMA. Not whether MN posters' DC have secured training posts/ been the victims of injustice perpetrated by loathsome IMGs (excellent word loathsome; copying it).

Of course they did not have to respond to me but they did so obviously nothing to stop them replying to me if they so wished. All the .MPs I emailed have an interest in the subject matter.

I dare you to contact MNHQ to verify the emails exist.

No chance. MNHQ is not a go between. I'm sure it has far better things to do.

What you claim is against parliamentary rules. So again, just no. Possibly an admin response from the office of the Sec of State but no more. This isn't how it happens in the real world.

There are very few posts about BMA on this thread. Mostly vitriol about UKMGs.

You have no idea how stupid you sound. Of course MPs reply to people other than their constituents especially if subject matter is of interest.

Why would MNHQ know?

Hunting in a pack tonight. There is usually two of you but a treat to have three. All as ignorant as each other.

Because I would forward the emails to MNHQ to prove I am not lying. Not exactly rocket science but happy to help you understand.

It would be easier just to screenshot, say, half a dozen of the letters and post the photos.

PS Redacting identifying information, obviously

No need, I have weighed the evidence and reached a conclusion about your credibility.

The GMC, in all of its models, anticipates a growing dependence on foreign graduates for at least the next ten years - which you would know if you took the trouble to read the appropriate document.

In these circumstances, no one in their right mind would attempt to reduce the proportion of foreign graduates in the workforce. Even the most obtuse MP would be able to work that one out.

They are emails not letters. Why do you think you are so important that I would share anything with you?

I don't care if you don't believe me. I have no respect for anyone that launches multiple attacks on UKMGs especially those that say they work in the NHS.

The emails exist and are supportive which I am thankful for.

Wow you sound so self important. I don't believe a word you say about your background.

There is no way, in this political climate that UKMGs will be unemployed in favour of IMGs so bad mouthing UKMGs on here is futile. It should go back to RLMT then if there is capacity in specialist training IMGs can apply. Just like 195 other countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/02/nhs-in-england-told-to-slash-recruitment-of-overseas-trained-medics

Why do you think you are so important that ‘Mumsnet HQ’ would agree to get involved as some kind of guarantor for you, taking the time to validate the emails and respond to individual queries about them?

There could be many, from people who are aware of Parliamentiary rules for replying to emails from non-constituents and are interested in why you are an exception.

My suggestion that you simply screenshot post a decent sample of redacted emails is much simpler.