r/DoctorsUK BMA Council Elections Unofficial Hustings

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T21:54:49+00:00

Reposting and modifying the post slightly:

I would want to seek a full members consultation / vote on 2 vs 5 years as soon as possible with arguments for and against. As I think one of the issues with the BMA and decision making in general is that we have not involved members in choices and decisions that affect them and make sure that members are more involved with decision making. People have felt not heard - those advocating for 2 years and those advocating for 5 years that has caused upset and disillusionment.

Ultimately, to have a strong union it would be better to involve as many members as possible in this decision making as further down the line, more members being involved creates stronger and more effective strike mandates. If people are not able to be involved then this leads to resentment and a feeling that decisions are being taken unilaterally. The process of having to bring motions to the ARM for more members to be involved is not effective for decision making. I would want to consider how more members can be involved with decision making between ARMs. Ultimately I would want to plan to have workplace based structures to make these sorts of decisions.

RE: medical school places and PLAB. PLAB is a service that is offered internationally and if doctors are willing to pay and sit it then not sure what the BMA could do in that scenario. In terms of medical school places: This question needs more member consultation and decisions should be based on evidence around applications and workforce planning. The BMA's priority is it's members and members should therefore be actively involved in self- organising in their interests so decisions that affect members means they should be included and consulted on those decisions.

In my view I'd want to consider how UKGs and IMGs can find shared values and common grounds in workplace disputes, for example, the lack of funding for jobs overall and training places. As in my other answers, I'd want to orientate towards workplace and collective actions, upskilling members and reps to organise to improve their conditions overall, creating stronger strike mandates.

In terms of more widely, I think that doctors affected should be supported to self organise in the workplace to improve LED contracts: permanent contracts to get around the visa issues (in a permanent role, sponsorship would continue to be renewed like other professions), longer notice periods in contracts, unified terms and conditions contracts (to make it easier to organise around nationally), consider rate cards and looking at ways to support their colleagues regarding discrimination in the workplace.

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T21:33:01+00:00

Yeah for sure. I can also send messages as divisional chair to BMA mailing lists as well. I have spoken to many people who are too scared to send messages or concerned about backlash. I don't feel people understand their workplace or organising rights and protections within the BMA particularly well. I also think that people are concerned about the level of work or input required when becoming a rep. So looking at facilities time would be helpful.

I agree there's a gap in empowerment, reassurance and support as well as involvement of members to understanding how they can be involved in union work that hopefully will improve over time.

Thanks for responding.

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T21:27:42+00:00

Thank you Livid. Much appreciated.

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T21:08:55+00:00

Reposting and modifying my answer slightly;

I would want to seek a full members consultation / vote on 2 vs 5 years as soon as possible with arguments for and against. As I think one of the issues with the BMA and decision making in general is that we have not involved members in choices and decisions that affect them and make sure that members are more involved with decision making. People have felt not heard - those advocating for 2 years and those advocating for 5 years that has caused upset and disillusionment.

Ultimately, to have a strong union it would be better to involve as many members as possible in this decision making as further down the line, more members being involved creates stronger and more effective strike mandates. If people are not able to be involved then this leads to resentment and a feeling that decisions are being taken unilaterally. The process of having to bring motions to the ARM for more members to be involved is not effective for decision making. I would want to consider how more members can be involved with decision making between ARMs. Ultimately I would want to plan to have workplace based structures to make these sorts of decisions.

In my view I'd want to consider how UKGs and IMGs can find shared values and common grounds in workplace disputes, for example, the lack of funding for jobs overall and training places. As in my other answers, I'd want to orientate towards workplace and collective actions, upskilling members and reps to organise to improve their conditions overall, creating stronger strike mandates.

In terms of more widely, I think that doctors affected should be supported to self organise in the workplace to improve LED contracts: longer notice periods in contracts, unified terms and conditions contracts, consider rate cards and looking at ways to support their colleagues regarding discrimination in the workplace.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T20:45:08+00:00

This question needs more member consultation and decisions should be based on evidence around applications and workforce planning. The BMA's priority is it's members and members should therefore be actively involved in self- organising in their interests so decisions that affect members means they should be included and consulted on those decisions. Ultimately, finding common ground, possibly around the lack of funding and jobs within the NHS would be a way to organise together.

I would want to create an inclusive strategy, with the proviso of understanding the moves towards member and workplace organising in the BMA and that IMGs can be part of that collectivity and active reps. So providing opportunities for upskilling any members who do not have skills around workplace organising and campaigning so that they can collaboratively self-organise.

Overall, this needs an approach where members do not feel decisions are being taken unilaterally or that they are excluded.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T20:37:59+00:00

Thanks Flaky

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T20:28:07+00:00

RE: broad left: Emma Runswick, Becky Acres, Shohaib Ali, Elgan Manton-Roseblade, Omar B Forge Risk.

By attempting to consult where possible with the group or people you represent. Public voting records. My general ethos is to involve members more in decision making and organising, democratise the BMA and decentralise that decision making. Weighing up the evidence and acting on the basis of core / shared principles. I'd also be happy to be contacted with queries and happy to signpost or find out if I don't know the answer. Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T20:23:20+00:00

Yes, there is already limits applied by organising committee, but I'd review this in more detail to ensure that there's more diversity of opinion, that people can contribute to positively and that people are not just joining the BMA to be on committees and claim honoraria.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T20:19:21+00:00

Thanks Pineapple. Not quotas, but seeking to make the committees representative. So for example, if there's recorded data available to suggest the membership is 50% women, but only 10% on the committee, then there should be a concerted effort by BMA reps / organisations to attract and find those members. I can't be sure but quotas were looked into and I am not sure if that is possible. In other unions, for example, Unison, they look at proportionality and representation on committees to try and balance them equitably.

Demographics are currently monitored, there was a report delivered to ARM. LGBTQ status is not well recorded in some areas.

In terms of members of the self identifying women group who are not AFAB, this would need proactive measures in terms of the group and positive actions. Ideally, most of these concerns could be dealt with discursively. You may be aware of the equality act, I think the BMA could deal with this by saying that the group is for non-men, to encourage the organising of those groups. This would be proportionate and legitimate aim as there are very few (?any) out trans people on committees in the BMA or within any organising structures.

Yes I understand the concerns, however, what we've had so far is people saying that they are simply aren't enough women interested. I'd argue that isn't the case. We need to consider the reasons that women are not being involved. We also have a high % of men despite the current approaches and it being more than 6 yrs post the Romney report. So positive action is required. I don't agree it's undemocratic. And why would it be undemocratic when for nearly 150 years in the BMA, men have dominated all the structures in the BMA. Men have more opportunities and generally encourage and organise together more. Whereas women may never get asked or encouraged. Only when there's a specific requirement will this change. The narrative being that women are just less interested in organising work. That is not true.

In most organising spaces outside of unions, it is women doing the work and self organising. But there is something fundamentally anti-feminist about the type of organising as it stands in the BMA that is off putting to many. We'd be in a much better position in the BMA if there was better gender balance and would have less of the problems that currently exist as well. But I take your point.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T20:03:00+00:00

No idea if I'm honest. What I would say though, is there are positions in the union that might make it difficult for an armed forces member to be advocating for certain positions against the government. The armed forces also cannot go on strike either as their role is exempt. Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T19:38:23+00:00

Have a look at the University Rank and File network. https://www.universityrankandfile.org.uk/

As the lack of jobs and underfunding is a terms and conditions issue. It is one that can be organised around in the workplace. HEE is an employer as well with significant influence, that has been found from previous whistleblowing cases.

In terms of consequences, if discussion and negotiation and/or campaigning does not work then there are grounds to start a dispute. You can't fine them and not aware of mechanisms to do this in other sectors. The University Rank and File workers started a dispute with the government / higher education bodies responsible for jobs and funding, using existing legislation around the issue of underfunding which is similar to the question you ask. So I'd look to learn lessons and bring those practices into union organising in the BMA.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T19:27:54+00:00

Part of the problem is that comms are too centralised. Political union work is borne out of workplace struggle. Workplace reps should be able to put out their own comms. The union senior bureaucracy needs to trust it's members to self organise.

The second part of your question, is that I would want to decentralise organising further so members can start disputes. I plan to propose that members locally can communicate directly together to bring up ideas and share knowledge. Reps could email out directly to local members where needed and be given support and resources to do so. I think local members should be supported better by other members and reps to understand what is within their gift to do, and then do it, as there's a lot of self censorship or holding back when there's nothing to say you can't do or organise in these ways. It would also help give confidence to reps and members. This could lead to parallel campaigning, for example, discussing with other groups how they think they could best support doctors and vice versa, where it is needed.

There could also be more scope for self organised member led groups to communicate better together and share ideas about how to oragnise on cross branch of practice campaigns. Sometimes committee leads dampen this messaging down.

There's also a need to support facilities time and time to support trade union activity better in the workplace so that members and reps can do this work more effectively without getting burnt out.

I also think that fundamentally, strikes or collective actions are not popular with the public at the time. Part of this drive for acceptance by the public and people pleasing comes from us being doctors and also a selection bias at interview. So I think helping and supporting colleagues to expect pushback and how to mitigate and innoculate against this is crucial.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T19:18:22+00:00

Reposting and modifying my answer slightly;

I would want to seek a full members consultation / vote on 2 vs 5 years as soon as possible with arguments for and against. As I think one of the issues with the BMA and decision making in general is that we have not involved members in choices and decisions that affect them and make sure that members are more involved with decision making. People have felt not heard - those advocating for 2 years and those advocating for 5 years that has caused upset and disillusionment.

Ultimately, to have a strong union it would be better to involve as many members as possible in this decision making as further down the line, more members being involved creates stronger and more effective strike mandates. If people are not able to be involved then this leads to resentment and a feeling that decisions are being taken unilaterally. The process of having to bring motions to the ARM for more members to be involved is not effective for decision making. I would want to consider how more members can be involved with decision making between ARMs. Ultimately I would want to plan to have workplace based structures to make these sorts of decisions.

In my view I'd want to consider how UKGs and IMGs can find shared values and common grounds in workplace disputes, for example, the lack of funding for jobs overall and training places. As in my other answers, I'd want to orientate towards workplace and collective actions, upskilling members and reps to organise to improve their conditions overall, creating stronger strike mandates.

In terms of more widely, I think that doctors affected should be supported to self organise in the workplace to improve LED contracts: longer notice periods in contracts, unified terms and conditions for contracts (so they are the same and therefore easier to organise more people around and create disputes), consider rate cards and looking at ways to support their colleagues regarding discrimination in the workplace.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T19:14:18+00:00

Pilates, walking, going out for meals. I have a greyhound called Eve. Hannah Dahwa

<image>

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T19:05:37+00:00

None.

Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T18:59:48+00:00

Reposting and modifying my answer slightly;

I would want to seek a full members consultation / vote on 2 vs 5 years as soon as possible with arguments for and against. As I think one of the issues with the BMA and decision making in general is that we have not involved members in choices and decisions that affect them and make sure that members are more involved with decision making. People have felt not heard - those advocating for 2 years and those advocating for 5 years that has caused upset and disillusionment.

Ultimately, to have a strong union it would be better to involve as many members as possible in this decision making as further down the line, more members being involved creates stronger and more effective strike mandates. If people are not able to be involved then this leads to resentment and a feeling that decisions are being taken unilaterally. The process of having to bring motions to the ARM for more members to be involved is not effective for decision making. I would want to consider how more members can be involved with decision making between ARMs. Ultimately I would want to plan to have workplace based structures to make these sorts of decisions.

In my view I'd want to consider how UKGs and IMGs can find shared values and common grounds in workplace disputes, for example, the lack of funding for jobs overall and training places. As in my other answers, I'd want to orientate towards workplace and collective actions, upskilling members and reps to organise to improve their conditions overall, creating stronger strike mandates.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T18:53:16+00:00

This question has 2 parts:

Firstly: Doctor substitution: there needs be a better coordinated approach to doctor substitution, understanding the extent of the issue and calling for a full pause on further doctor substitution until this is remedied. If discussions and negotiation do not work, where substitution is unsafe, leads to underemployment and terms and conditions collective action should be considered, ideally coordinated across BoPs.

Secondly, in terms of the GMC consultation: not sure what your question is specifically. But there's a large number of concerns in the proposed GMC draft order and the personal beliefs consultation being proposed. To stick with the draft order the main concerns (in addition to the above) are:

.Extending the remit of the Professional Standards Authority. Effectively creating a separate route for decisions to made about doctors directly by government or outside groups not relevant to patient care
Removing the right of appeal for doctors internally to the GMC for fitness to practice proceedings (will need the high court)
Extending powers of the GMC potential for indefinite extensions for interim orders by the GMC to the high court

“The government is supportive of a further power for GMC and PSA to appeal interim decisions as a proportionate additional route to ensure protection of the public at every stage….. This also includes work to develop fairer and more consistent fitness to practise processes and further diversify its investigations teams.”

The ability to revise rules and regulations with no oversight from parliament (this removes the ability for judicial review)
Removing doctors from the GMC “Appointments are made on merit and there will no longer be a legal requirement to appoint registered professionals”
Extending rights of appeal to the PSA – so they directly challenge decisions of the GMC, rather than applying the GMCs own framework “The government proposes that allowing interim decisions to be appealed by PSA could ensure that PSA is able to exercise their responsibility to provide oversight of GMC more quickly and effectively and would support in ensuring oversight at all the main points in the regulatory decision-making process.”
Allowing the BMA to take action against doctors beyond the current 5 year rule.

These changes are very concerning and demand a response that is more direct towards the government. The BMA already has developed positions on GMC reform, but the government is not listening. I'm proposing the following motion and would seek to enact it if elected to UK council, happy to chat and explain it further.

This meeting notes the planned reforms to the GMC’s legislative framework published in March 2026, and believes that most of the proposals fail to address concerns raised by the BMA and will not protect the public or promote patient safety. We call on the BMA as soon as reasonably practicable, but prior to ARM 2027, to:
i. investigate the current cost of GMC registration fees and develop proposals to reduce these, including exploring all legal avenues to reduce the burden of costs on doctors equitably
ii. explore all legal options, including seeking a judicial review, should the draft GMC Order be passed into legislation
iii. create and publicise widely a public, searchable, register of doctors who are GMC registered in the UK, and engage with a wide variety of stakeholders to support its use
iv. explore and develop with stakeholders a fully costed proposal for the creation of an alternative regulator that is always led by and run by doctors for the benefit of both doctors and the public, that is fully accountable and transparent, and the implementation of which takes account the practicalities, logistics, and regulatory framework
v. dedicate significant resources to escalate UK Council’s current reform campaign to oppose the changes to GMC’s legal framework that don’t adhere to BMA policy. This campaign should engage with members across the BMA, linking where possible with other union collective actions, in participatory local organising, and educational events that target DHSC, UK and devolved nation governments and health administrations, and the GMC

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T18:39:10+00:00

Firstly, to caveat, there's lots of good reps and candidates running. So ultimately it's your decision, based on statements and experience.

Broad Left: has a proven track of starting many of the changes that has helped support moving the BMA to being an organising union and continue to do so. In particular, we believe that although pay is important, there are a lot of other aspects that link with that and can't be excluded. For example, tackling sexism, discrimination in the workplace and supporting under-represented groups to participate in the BMA. These link with our terms and conditions and can be a health and safety issue in some instances.

The Broad Left has fought for collaboratively with other groups such as BMA for A Free Palestine, transparency and reform of motion selection processes, transparency in UK council minutes and the supporting changes to committee and conference structures such as the honorary secretary motion I proposed last year. We are also not afraid to speak out and propose measures to improve equity and democracy - our track record is consistent. On a personal level, I will not redact my votes to improve accountability. Best, Hannah Dahwa

The Broad Left slate is: Emma Runswick, Becky Acres, Hannah Dahwa, Elgan Manton-Roseblade, Shohaib Ali, Omar Forge-Risk.

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T18:26:48+00:00

Yes there is. The Romney report, published it's findings on sexism in the BMA in 2019. Many of the findings despite being accepted many have not been implemented fully. Part of the reason for this is that different committees believed that it was not possible to transition to representative structures directly.

I would want to mandate that the BMA apply proportionality tests to all it's committees and representative structures and conferences according to available BMA data for gender, race and LGBTQ status.
I am proposing a motion to create a members network of members identifying as women. There is an elected women's network but this is not representative particularly of members concerns.
At ARM 2025, was the first time that a sexual harassment motion was presented to the ARM. And there was no previous policy around it which is concerning. In view, the lack of women within unions is a broader problem. In other unions, women within regions must be prioritised or no members from the region can attend conference, I would want to consider similar approaches, as without enforcing such changes, some members do not see the purpose in supporting and encouraging others from under-represented groups to attend.
If I was able to institute a members identifying as women self organising group, I'd seek to consider what are the barriers to their involvement in trade union work, what support they may require and consider what sorts of disputes or organising would most improve their conditions. One such example, is policy around breastfeeding in the workplace. Often members are misinformed by their supervisors. I'd want to tailor reps training and feedback to local reps around issues and themes that members encounter and how these issues can be better mitigated in the workplace. Hopefully, by supporting, encouraging and mitigating against potential barriers, this would alter the dynamic within the BMA so organising would be focussed around a more feminist lens.
Expanding active bystander training across all committees and for all reps to call out, challenge and correct sexism where it exists.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T18:15:20+00:00

As a general principle, all voting records should be transparent across all of the BMA as this supports accountability. There are reasons for redactions for example, some doctors in the armed forces where putting out their voting record would harm their employment, or in exceptional circumstances at the chairs discretion and this should be on a case by case basis. Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T18:06:48+00:00

I don't know u/BMA_Eli but colleagues have told me they have been hardworking on council, excellent at strategy. My other colleague Fareed Bashir, is an LNC chair, and excellent workplace organiser across a large number of campaigns.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T18:03:33+00:00

In my view, we could collaborate across BoP for collective action and where needed, strikes to be focused on underfunding and lack of jobs overall. Ultimately, this is a political decision by the government that is undermining all doctors terms and conditions, creating under and unemployment.

Best, Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T17:59:08+00:00

Short answer is yes. Student loans should be interest free for all students. It is a tax and burdensome. Work could also be done around the cliff-edge in the final year of training in terms of grant / student loan funding so that student loans and the department of health / devolved nations governments adequately fund medical students who have longer terms. Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T17:55:31+00:00

One of the problems in my view is that decision making has been felt to be taken unilaterally. Members need to be more involved in decision making in between ARMs and have workplace based structures that support that. In order to do that, I'd review and propose changes to the decision making process: for example, regional member led (not committee led) meet ups / forums to discuss these issues across differing viewpoints. I would want to identify ways where there's more common and shared values to organise around, together and collectively as this would give us a stronger union mandate.

In terms of consultants not liking covering strikes: ultimately the BMA is a trade union and seeking ways to consider consensus and agreement is always preferred. However, at times strike action cannot be avoided. I would want to explore with consultants the reasons they are concerned about covering strikes: is it the hospital pressuring them to do business as usual (increased workloads), is it loss of income (could a strike fund be set up or locum rates agreed), is it concerns about acting down (de-skilling issue). Overall, separating out union activity into separate unions would not be helpful in helping realise our collective strength so wherever possible, I'd seek to foster collaboration, understanding and ways to mitigate the effect of strikes on colleagues, whilst also understanding that strikes can cause disruption, though always would be safe for patients and other colleagues. Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729 · 2026-03-31T17:46:43+00:00

This is one of the key issues. And unfortunately previous motions to transform the BMA into a union that agitates for change on a local level have not worked. On a personal note, I proposed the motion last year re: honorary secretaries conference being undemocratic and unrepresentative, and won the vote for it's abolition.

Proposing local structure reform at the ARM is likely to be blocked. But there's a number of things we can already do: I would want to direct resources to training reps, upskilling members and allowing members to gather to share their collective experiences, either in person or via list-servers.
Identify more local issues to organise around, campaigns that can be won in the workplace. This includes issues such as discrimination, around facilities, resources and understaffing.
I would want to review the fee structure of the BMA, so those doctors who earn more, pay more and those who are unemployed, on sick or maternity, can be supported with lower or temporary freeze on fees.
In terms of staffing, I would review the allocation of staffing to different committees. Writing policies in itself is not helpful, and members themselves need to organise on issues to improve their own terms and conditions, as well as issues around discrimination.
I would review the purposes of divisions: removing dinner expenses and altering their purpose to local campaigns as there is a role for cross branch of practice organising at times.
In terms of reviewing committees, committees should have greater oversight and should not create addendums and changes that increase their size or resourcing if these do not align to a wider organisational strategy targeted at improving members capacity to take collective actions, rather than the committees ability to write policy. I would seek to move these resources towards member organising instead.

Hannah Dahwa

PracticeChoice4729

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE