u/Omar_Elsobky

Unfortunately, this is exactly why I am urging doctors across Scotland to vote for our candidates.

It is deeply disappointing to see a BMA official discouraging people who want to contribute to medical politics in Scotland from putting themselves forward. The BMA is a democratic trade union. Members have every right to nominate themselves, stand for election and allow their colleagues to decide who should represent them.

Disagreement is part of democracy. Telling people that they “shouldn’t be representing doctors” because you disagree with them is not how we should conduct that democratic process.

I urge everyone eligible to vote in Scotland to support candidates who will challenge this kind of behaviour and defend an open, inclusive and genuinely democratic BMA.

The BMA Scottish Resident Doctors Committee elections are now underway!

We are delighted that two Better Together candidates have already won local seats, and we now need your support for our endorsed IMG candidates standing in the Scottish RDC elections:

🇪🇬 Mohamed Elbanna
🇮🇶 Zain Alabdeen Al-Mosawy

If you are eligible to vote in Scotland, please support Mohamed and Zain and encourage your colleagues to vote too.

We want to ensure that IMG voices are strongly represented, while building a BMA that represents and brings together all resident doctors.

Every vote matters. Every voice matters.

🤝 BETTER TOGETHER — representing all doctors, together.

How is this article supporting IMGs when it primarily defends a policy that many believe disadvantages them?
Who is the intended audience? Is this message genuinely aimed at IMGs—many of whom are unlikely to be reassured by it—or is it intended for the wider public so that the BMA appears inclusive while defending a controversial policy?

The contrast with previous BMA decisions is striking:
2023: ARM passed a motion supporting equal access to training, yet many IMGs feel little was done to drive its implementation.

2025: The BMA’s policy on medical training prioritisation was later deferred by Council.

2026: The five-year NHS/HSC experience policy is now being actively defended and promoted, with significant effort devoted to explaining and supporting it.

Many IMGs will reasonably ask why some policies appear to receive sustained advocacy while others that were seen as beneficial to IMGs did not.

Finally, describing support for IMGs by highlighting initiatives such as three months of free BMA membership risks missing the central issue. The concerns many IMGs are raising are about access to training, employment, career progression and job security—not membership offers.

Real support is measured by outcomes, not by messaging.

https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/supporting-uk-graduate-prioritisation-working-for-imgs?utm\_campaign=602424\_13072026%20NON%20MEMBER%20NEWSLETTER&utm\_medium=email&utm\_source=The%20British%20Medical%20Association%20%28Comms%20Engagment%29&dm\_i=7IPW,CWU0,19868D,1RX38,1,0,0,0

📢 Important Announcement

I am pleased to announce that I have been invited by the Nigerian Doctors in the UK (NDUK) Association to participate in a 90-minute panel discussion on the proposed Medical Prioritisation Bill.

NDUK is one of the key stakeholder organisations that the Government will engage with as part of discussions around this legislation. The outcome of this event will help inform NDUK’s position on whether they should react to or adapt to the proposed 5-year NHS experience requirement.

The discussion will take place as part of the NDUK 7th Annual Conference & AGM on:

📅 Saturday, 1 August 2026
🕗 08:00 – 19:00
📍 The Hope Centre, Sheffield, S2 5BQ

I will be joined by:

* Charlotte Lawthom (Better Together)
* Barrak Al Mowsawi (Better Together)
* Rohan Krishnan (Better Together)
* Babatunde Ogundipie (IMG Voice)

This is an open meeting, and everyone is welcome to attend. I encourage anyone with an interest in the future of the medical workforce and the Medical Prioritisation Bill to join the discussion and contribute to this important conversation.

🔗 Register here: https://www.nduk.org/nduk-conference-2026

🎉 400 signatories in just 4 hours!

This is an incredible start and demonstrates the strength of feeling across the profession. Thank you to everyone who has signed, shared, and supported this initiative so far.

This petition is proudly endorsed by Better Together, a growing community of doctors committed to fairness, unity, meaningful representation, and safe workforce planning for all doctors.

However, the next 48 hours are critical. Momentum matters, and every additional signature helps ensure our collective voice is heard.

📢 How you can help:
• Share the petition with at least 10 colleagues directly.
• Post it in IMG, resident doctor, and medical professional groups.
• Re-share at different times of the day to reach colleagues working different shifts and in different time zones.

This petition calls for a united profession built on fairness, meaningful representation, safe workforce planning, and recognition of the vital contribution made by IMG doctors. It is about bringing doctors together, not dividing them.

📝 Sign the petition:
🔗 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdcVBNYqSNaGO0nX89GOJJleSB7ECNNZ1FTsICHuyZ1BMtOZw/viewform?usp=header

🤝 Join the Better Together community:
🔗 https://chat.whatsapp.com/BX3srqwBkxw79NoKnTvzAH

Every signature matters. Every share matters.

One Profession. One Voice. Stronger Together.

#BetterTogether #IMGDoctors #ResidentDoctors #MedicalWorkforce #BMA #NHS

📢 BETTER TOGETHER – ARM ELECTIONS 2026 📢
We are pleased to announce the candidates endorsed by Better Together (BT) for the 2026 BMA Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) committee elections.

Better Together is committed to representing all doctors, regardless of grade, specialty, background, or place of qualification. We believe in constructive engagement, strong representation, and ensuring that every doctor has a voice within the BMA.

Our endorsed candidates are standing across multiple committees, including the Resident Doctors Committee, ARM Agenda Committee, Organisation Committee, International Committee, Medical Ethics Committee, Board of Science, and Professional Regulation Committee.
🗳️ IMPORTANT: You must be an attendee of the BMA Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) to be eligible to vote in these elections.

Medical politics affects all of us—training, workforce planning, pay, professional regulation, working conditions, and the future direction of our profession. Whether you agree with us or not, engagement matters.
We encourage all ARM attendees to:
✅ Read the candidates’ statements
✅ Speak to candidates directly
✅ Participate in debates
✅ Cast your vote
✅ Make your voice heard

The future of our profession should not be decided by a small number of people. It requires active participation from doctors who care about the NHS, our colleagues, and the patients we serve.

🤝 Interested in getting involved?
Join the Better Together community and take part in the discussion:
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BX3srqwBkxw79NoKnTvzAH
Whether you are a student, resident doctor, SAS doctor, consultant, IMG, or UK graduate, you are welcome to contribute to the conversation.

One Profession. One Voice. Stronger Together.
#BetterTogether #BMA #ARM2026 #MedicalPolitics #DoctorsVoice #OneProfessionOneVoice

My concern with this analysis is that it relies on several assumptions that are not guaranteed by the offer.

Firstly, the calculation assumes that current LED doctors will be the ones benefiting from these new training posts. However, every year a new cohort of F2s enters the system and competes for training numbers. A doctor whose LED post is converted into a training post is not automatically awarded that training number and may instead find themselves competing against new applicants for a reduced pool of non-training jobs.

Secondly, the analysis treats the maximum 4,250 converted posts as if this is a temporary effect. It is not. If an LED post is converted into a training post, that LED job is gone permanently. The doctors displaced by those conversions will need to find alternative employment elsewhere in an already saturated market.

Thirdly, the offer itself does not guarantee permanent LED employment. The wording refers to an expected move towards permanent contracts rather than a firm commitment. “Expected” is not the same as “guaranteed”. Therefore, it is difficult to rely on permanent employment pathways as a safeguard against displacement.

Finally, the central question remains unanswered: how many of the 4,500 training posts will be genuinely new posts, and how many will come from converting existing LED, trust-grade or locum positions?

Until that breakdown is provided, it is impossible to determine whether this offer creates new opportunities or simply redistributes existing jobs while shifting unemployment from one group of doctors to another.

The issue is simple:

Are the 4,500 training posts genuinely new?

If they are new, that’s a positive step.

If they come from converting existing LED or Trust Grade posts, then one doctor’s training number could come at the cost of another doctor’s job.

That isn’t expansion.

That’s redistribution.

I cannot support a deal that asks some doctors to sacrifice their jobs so others can benefit.

No doctor should be expected to vote for their own unemployment.

#VoteNo #BetterTogether #OneProfession #Doctors

My take on the current offer:

My main concern is one specific aspect: the 4,500 new specialty training jobs.

The offer states that these do not include GP slots and that they will be created over the next 3–4 years. However, it remains unclear how many of these posts will be genuinely new and how many will come from converting existing LED, trust grade, or locum posts.

This matters.

Let’s assume in year 1 that a number of LED posts are converted into training jobs. At the same time, LEDs are supposedly moved towards permanent/substantive contracts.

Fast forward to year 2: where will the next wave of training jobs come from if LED posts have already been made permanent? This is a question that, so far, has not been clearly answered.

We should also remember that the rejected April offer involved 100% LED conversion, and LED conversion is already part of the NHS 10 Year Plan.

The clause indirectly stopping future strike action appears to have been removed, which is welcome. However, on pay, we already have a 3.5% increase through the DDRB process, meaning the additional increase is effectively around 2.9% on top of what was already happening.

Personally, I would vote no to this offer as it currently stands. I cannot support an offer that may put some of the doctors who elected me at risk of unemployment.

Please read the offer very carefully before voting.

https://www.bma.org.uk/our-campaigns/resident-doctor-campaigns/pay-in-england/government-offer-to-resident-doctors-in-england-to-end-the-dispute-on-jobs-and-pay-june-2026

As an elected BMA councillor, I can confirm that infamous point 3 in this letter has been misunderstood by some colleagues.

The term “appropriate postgraduate training pathway” refers to both:

• CCT through an NTN training pathway
• CESR / General Portfolio pathways

I can confirm this based on discussions with Emma Runswick, the BMA Deputy Chair and signatory of the email.

Point 3 is not calling for the cancellation of CESR or general portfolio pathways, nor is it suggesting that only NTN doctors should be able to reach specialist registration.

The issue being discussed is appropriate recognised postgraduate training and competency-based specialist registration pathways — whether through traditional training or portfolio equivalence routes.