Around 25 Politics and Medical students voted narrowly against the current round of strike action, with panellists overwhelmingly in agreement that the strikes disadvantaged the NHS.
However, there was support for Wes Streeting as health secretary in a debate on healthcare policy.
The second motion, “This house supports the strike action taken by the British Medical Association (BMA) to better doctor pay conditions”, was supported by the attendees with a nine to six vote against the motion, with eight abstentions.
The pre-debate vote was for the motion by 14 votes to four, with six abstentions.
The majority of the panel opposed the strike action with the exception of Keiron Hakimnia, who is the president of the Health Policy and Management Society (HPM), the UCL BMA representative, and a UCL Labour member.
The debate was organised with the UCL Labour and Liberal Democrat Societies, but not the UCL Conservative Society, who were unable to attend according to the debate moderator Azsvin Mariathasan.
Nilay Sah said that the strikes taken by the BMA — the most recent between 14-19 November — were disadvantageous to the country by damaging doctor-patient trust and were “diverting resources away from the NHS”.
The Lib Dem representative, Henry Jakob, conceded that the strikes were “not ideal”, but added that the “Liberal Democrat position is that everyone has the right to strike”.
In July 2024, the BMA accepted a 22.3% pay offer from the new Labour government, agreeing to end the resident doctors’ strike.
Panellists from across the political spectrum articulated their frustration at the union for, as they saw it, reneging on this deal by starting a new round of strikes, with Jakob calling it “hypocritical”.
Although resident doctors have received pay rises totalling nearly 30% in the past three years, the BMA has argued that resident doctors’ pay is still a fifth lower than it was in 2008, once inflation is accounted for.
The BMA are also concerned about speciality training places for doctors at the end of their foundation years — a matter particularly concerning for medical students.
This year, there were 30,000 applications for 10,000 places, and only 2,000 new places have been promised by the government.
Sah said he understood and supported this element of the BMA campaign and sought to make clear that the motion wording related to pay specifically.
Another Labour representative, Matthew Palmer, stated that “the BMA failed to appreciate the situation this government inherited in 2020”.
Hakimnia argued doctors “aren’t being paid fairly for the work” and doctors will “all make decisions that will better ourselves” as “that is what human beings do”.
Panellist Radu Polschi argued the U-turn by the BMA was “a bit ridiculous” but also defended the reasons for striking, saying that “you have to reward people for the level of effort” it takes to become a doctor, as otherwise there will be no incentive for them to stay in the job.
The first motion, “This House does not believe Wes Streeting sufficiently understands the challenges facing the NHS”, again saw the hall being swayed by the speakers.
The post-debate vote was overwhelmingly in favour of Streeting, with a 24 to three vote against the motion and two abstentions — a dramatic change from the pre-debate vote against the health secretary.
The panellists appeared to agree with the policies of Streeting’s NHS, like the 10 Year Plan for the health service, NHS digitisation, and abolition of NHS England.
However, Sah raised the issue of social care, one that has been neglected by governments of all stripes. The current government’s commission on the issue is only due six months before the next general election can be called.
All panellists were concerned by the issue of NHS funding, with Jakob urging the government to break its manifesto pledges on tax to fund the health service.
Some speakers attacked wider government problems, like economic policy, with Sah blaming “Rachel Thieves” for the country’s economic malaise.
Concerns were also raised about the government’s sense of urgency, with Sah describing the falls in waiting lists as “moderate” and also complaining about the perceived lack of progress in abolishing NHS England.
Polschi said that he supported privatising the NHS so healthcare could be de-linked from political influence and funding issues, when asked by the president of UCL Labour.
Last year, medics voted in favour of privatising the NHS, although this time Polschi was not supported by other panellists or audience members in this belief.
He said, “We are going to have to bite the bullet somewhere. That may well mean that a lot of people may die as a result of the abolition, to use your word, of certain services in the transition period, but they are dying now. I was in A&E yesterday and an old man died in front of me.”
Later in the debate, he sought to quash comparisons with the high prices and inequality of the US healthcare system, making reference to European insurance-based systems.
However, both the European and American systems all have some degree of government influence and funding, making it unclear what form of healthcare provision he would prefer, given his dislike for political influence in healthcare.
He did not offer a solution regarding how healthcare would be funded for those without the ability to pay if the NHS was abolished.
The Labour speakers, Hakimnia and Palmer, also reminded the house of the Conservatives’ poor performance with the NHS in the last government, alongside global pressures the government is currently facing.
After the debate, the moderator, Mariathasan, and the HPM president, Hakimnia, told The Cheese Grater that they were happy with the civil nature of the debate, and were glad that they could bring Medicine and Politics students together.