F (3:02)

Good to be with you.

A (3:03)

What brings you across the Atlantis?

F (3:06)

Well, you know, my co host is normally based in London and after a while of talking to people across zoom screens, you're just like, no, no, I need to actually work in real life with them. But we've also got cast fest coming up at the end of the month, 25th of April. Very exciting.

A (3:18)

People will be able to come and see us making our podcasts in front of their very eyes. But good to do a little preview now. And also joining us is Sean Coughlan, who is the BBC's royal correspondent. Hello, Sean.

D (3:29)

Hello.

A (3:30)

Right, let's do a little bit of a time. I suppose the first thing that happened, Asma, was a Trump post on Truth Social, which even by his standards was kind of quite divisive and bombastic.

F (3:42)

You know, it's funny you say that, Adam, I used to cover the White House and so I feel like my threshold of what you might consider to be bombastic. It's an evolved perspective, I will say. So, yes, he posted on Truth Social and he essentially said that countries he singled out the UK like the UK who cannot get jet fuel because of a situation going on with the Strait of Hormuz and the war in Iran, should enhance his words. And I'm gonna quote here say, build up some delayed courage, go to the straight and just take it has been the motto we've seen lately from the United States that if you want change. We saw this with Nicolas Maduro, we've seen this now with Iran, that the US has had in the last several months quite an interventionist approach. And so he seems to be encouraging the UK that if you can't get the fuel you needed, just follow our lead and go ahead and take it. He also, of course, called out the UK for refusing, in his words, to get involved with the decapitation of Iran. This is part of, I think, a continu frustration that the president of the United States and his administration has had where they feel that the UK has not stepped up and assisted the United States sufficiently in this war.

A (4:46)

I mean, obviously, everything Trump says, you can interpret it on multiple levels. And there's the interpretation that everyone put on it that you just said there. But I also wondered, is this part of his efforts to kind of internationalize the problem of the Strait of Hormuz and basically get some help from erstwhile allies. And actually, there's a more. There's a more subtle point there about some kind of, like, multilateral multinational thing happening in that part of the world further down the line.

F (5:12)

Yeah, I mean, it's a really good question, right? I mean, is this part of. I mean, he told them to go get your own oil. I mean, I think the thing that's hard with President Trump is that there are often true social posts that he puts out. They don't tend to jive always with official policy, to be honest. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they also evolve. And so to me, this is one post. It falls into a line and a continuation of a pattern that we have seen from the president, which is he has been very frustrated with the United Kingdom writ large in its approach. He's been very frustrated with Keir Starmer in particular. He said so. Right. Saying very publicly at the White House just a few weeks ago, saying he's no Winston Churchill, he feels that the UK has not stepped up in assisting the United States as a whole. Look, I mean, I think a lot of this has been heightened because of the Iran war, but we've heard from the Trump administration, going back many, many months, that they don't feel like Europe as a whole has stepped up, in their view, to pay their fair share when it comes to the Ukraine war and NATO's defense. This has been a constant. And I would say, in many ways, I see this as just the latest message we're hearing from the president in that vein.

A (6:13)

And, Sean, just a little while after that post from Donald Trump on Truth Social, well, we didn't get a post from Buckingham palace, but we got a statement from Buckingham palace about the state visit confirming finally that it's going ahead.

D (6:23)

And that's been a long time coming. We finally had confirmation that it will go ahead, and we heard today that it'll be a trip to, at least to Washington. In the words of the Buckingham palace statement, they didn't give us a date. They said late April, and also there'll be a trip to Bermuda afterwards. It was a fairly, fairly sort of frugal statement in terms of number of words. Just set out that it would go on. But it comes after a long wait, and I think we've been waiting for almost like a break in the weather in the. In the diplomatic row. And each time we thought we might get an announcement, something else bad happened. So this seems a bit of a pause. And now They've got it out there. No doubt there'll be debate about whether this is the right thing to go or not, but at least now we know it is going ahead. And also we might now look back and think it was always really good to go ahead. These dates have been talked about for. For months and months before Christmas. It had been in the mix that he'd be going around this time of year. And if we wanted to know exactly when President Trump was there on hand to let us know. And while the palace was reticent about saying when exactly it would be there, President Trump was able to tell us on Truth Social that it was the 27th to the 30th of April. So he did the job for, like, he's managed to play both good cop and bad cop in the same person. So.

A (7:41)

And also he said there'll be a state. Well, we knew there was gonna be a state banquet, but he said what day the state banquet will be in, the White House will be as well.

D (7:46)

That's right. I mean, I will say there'll be. That King Charles will address Congress and that, again, will be an interesting political moment. What speech, what will he touch on, what will he carefully avoid? You know, which buttons will he press and which ones will he keep hidden away?

A (8:01)

On the Buckingham palace statement, it opens with a phrase like, oh, on the advice of His Majesty's Government, this state visit is going to happen. Is that how those statements are always phrased? Or is this particular one like, oh, it wasn't ours, it wasn't our choice?

D (8:15)

I think you call this a sort of distancing technique, you know, where you frame it very carefully by saying, someone else has asked us to go and we're going there on behalf of the country, on behalf of the government. And I think they've always said that. I think that that's always been their sort of quietly held position, that state visits are carried out on behalf of the government. Where they go to, how long they spend there, all the rest of it is, is effectively decided by the government. And in this case, they've made that really, really clear. And so if anyone wants to shout, don't shout at them, they're saying, we're going because we have to. It's our job to build bridges. And if there are diplomatic bruises from previous encounters, we're here to sue them, make sure everyone's nice to each other. So they're going in as the sort of the friendly cops.

A (9:01)

And I suppose Asma people have in their mind a sort of stereotypical Donald Trump event where he's just firing off on all cylinders about all subjects, and it doesn't matter who he's with, he's happy to embarrass whoever if it suits his purposes. But actually, when it comes to the British royals, he does tend to be a little bit more respectful than if it was a British Prime Minister. Sam?

F (9:22)

Yeah, I mean, he's had deep admiration, I would say, for the British Royal family for years. In fact, I was, I was talking some time ago to a former Trump administration adviser who said to me that, you know, there are few people who Trump sees as a real peer. And I think they said it was Xi Jinping, perhaps, maybe Putin, and also the British Royal family. The Queen was in that list of people he really sees as a peer, deeply respects. He has referred to the King as a man he deeply respects, used similar language as well for the late Queen, you know, referring to her as a wise woman. This is something that you've seen from the President over the last several years. I will say he's had a deep admiration for the British Royal family. He also loves the pomp and circumstance. Right? I mean, he loves the sort of, what would you say, the royalty of it all. He loves being pageantry of it all, coming here and being feted in that

A (10:12)

two families that love buildings with gold.

F (10:15)

You said that. But. Yes, and so I think that's certainly part of it. But I will also say to me, what I think is really interesting from a diplomatic perspective is you're in this moment where the UK and us, let's say, special relationship, isn't really going that well. Right. I mean, there have been clear cracks in the political relationship between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer. But you all have, and you are in the unique position of having what I would describe as like a chief diplomat who can go and smooth this relationship over. I mean, we, we in the US do not have someone who can do that, who can try to be above the politics of the moment and say this relationship is historic, it's important for our nations. And this is why. And I'm just really intrigued in the role that the Royal Family can play, because, you know, politics come and go, Republican and Democratic Party leadership will come and go, but there's this continuity that in many ways can provide, I think, the role of a diplomat, and there's really nothing on par with it. Look, I'm not saying we want the royals back in the US but I

A (11:14)

think it's a really unique 250 year experiment without them. I Mean, Sean, I mean, okay, the palace is quite inscrutable on these things, but if you had to brain brainstorm how they would, they would be walking this diplomatic tightrope when the King and Queen get there. What are some things that they might be thinking about?

D (11:32)

Well, I think they might think that last September went really well when Trump came to Windsor and Trump was clearly very starry eyed about the whole thing and was wowed by the spectacle and exactly that he seems to almost set, be able to see separately between the political argument with Keir Starmer and the sort of other relationship with, with a king. It's like a special, special relationship. He feels like his own little track and he talks very fondly of him and they, he sees him as being someone sort of special in his life. I suppose they want to play on that. That's where you're on leverage. You want to recognize that Trump seems to sort of stand a few inches taller beside them. And he loves the reflect glory. He likes the fact that it's, in a way, you know, the American is now sort of, in its own way borrowing some of the language for these events. He talked about a state banquet, state dinner. There's a sort of strange borrowing from the event he experienced. And I think you want to lean into that a bit. And I think also probably lean away from the complicated words like Epstein and also the Iran war, which could still be. We don't know what state it's going to be and it's not that far off.

F (12:39)

Can I jump on that? Because I thought it was really interesting that we saw the congressman, Democratic congressman from California, Ro Khanna, who's been very vocal as it relates to these Epstein files, write a letter. I mean, the BBC is reporting this, encouraging the king to perhaps meet with some of these Epstein victims when he's in the United States. You think that's totally unlikely?

D (12:57)

I think it's very unlikely. But it's, you know, we don't know, but I'd say extremely unlikely.

F (13:02)

Okay.

D (13:02)

There's a legal process going on. It's not, I just don't think there's something that's going to happen. Also, state visits are incredibly tightly timetabled, that they are trains that run on a ferocious timetable. And people move quickly through these various events. This will have been set out on some sort of microscopic grid, second by second, what time people come through doors, what time they put down their knife and fork, what time they, you know, they laugh at the first joke. It'll all be timed. Everything will be sorted out in Advance. And even though Trump has capacity to. To defy the expected, I think this will be a very tightly controlled thing. There won't be sudden moments where you could go off and meet.

A (13:41)

Yeah. There will not be a joint regal presidential press conference, for example.

D (13:45)

I think they.

A (13:46)

I mean, I'd love to see that.

F (13:47)

No, that'd be amazing.

D (13:48)

I think we would love it. They're like, yeah. SW prospects of what wonderful thoughts you

A (13:53)

might have about Buckingham palace has a lot of experience of sending out subtle signals that make a point, don't they? So if Buckingham palace feels they need to make a point about, I don't know, Trump's threats to Canada or Trump's threats to transatlantic cooperation, a way will be found to signal that we'll be left in no doubt, even though it will be done in a sort of deniable sort of way.

D (14:21)

It might be some subtle symbol. And people often say there's nothing accidental in the royal world. You know, might be people look at the color of ties and they look at the. The color of flowers or a certain sort of hint or whatever. But sometimes it can be quite brutal in terms of. There's a famous story about when Ceausescu, the former dictator of Romania, came to Buckingham palace, that the Queen has to meet everyone that's. At the queen of the times on the throne, but when he came along, she hid behind a bush so she shouldn't have to see him. And I think there are sort of. There are. You know. You know, you have to. There's so far. You go to be polite and then you draw a line somewhere. So I think. I mean, King Charles has been at this game a very, very long time. He went to the White House when Nixon was president, when. When he was a young man. And, you know, and Nixon, there was all talk about the. Then Prince Charles becoming friends with Nixon's daughter was the taught. So that shows how long ago this all is. He's seen them all come and go. He's seen every single president since then. So he's. He knows what the game is. He knows not what to say. You know, he's. He's not going to wander carelessly into any of these sort of minefields. And speeches he'll deliver will have been written carefully with the Foreign Office, who will scrutinize every word and say if there are any buttons being pushed, it will have been agreed, that's what we're going to do. And it might be. I mean, in Canada was slightly different because he was there as King of Canada and sends Quite a strong message on behalf of the Canadian people and rejecting the aggression of the United States in the United States. He's there as a guest on behalf of the Foreign Office. It'll be a very controlled, very careful, very warmly calibrated speech to try and show all things we have in common, how much we all love each other and all hold hands and smile, I think.

A (16:10)

And Asma, welcome to being a journalist in Britain. Trying to decode what the Royal family mean, because as soon as I saw the statement saying the King and Queen are going to go to the US and then the King will go to Bermuda, I thought, well, one part of my brain was logistics, like, well, same part of the hemisphere makes sense, two for the price of one on the trip. The other part of me was, oh, they can also say they're not going specifically just to visit the us, they're also visiting another part of the Commonwealth. And then maybe both those things are true at the same time.

D (16:43)

That's right. I mean, things can be true at the same time.

A (16:45)

It's just ambiguity.

D (16:47)

A difficult thing for news, but can it can be the case place. And I think there's. I wouldn't overread much into that and I think that it's logistics, it's part of that, but also I think the price is high. He has a bit of a list of places he'd like to get to and he's there. And effectively within the space of a week, he can get to two big visits. And I suspect the Bermuda one will be more relaxing than the one in Washington with all the potential pitfalls. But these things are quite dramatic and they are. Are quite exciting to watch and it allows everyone to have their views on the relationship aired. And it'll be a whole, you know, it'll be a whole mixture of soap opera and high politics.

F (17:30)

Well, I'll be back in Washington.

D (17:31)

Drama and parades and it'll be. It's the circus, but with politics and with.

F (17:36)

It's a bit of excitement for us

A (17:38)

in Washington and in terms of the politics in the uk, Ed Davy, the Lib Dem leader, was straight out of the traps, criticizing this visit as he's criticized it as an idea and the Greens have criticized it as well. But then I suppose they argue about arguments. That argument has been settled now it's going ahead.

D (17:53)

And also public opinion seems to be divided, perhaps leaning more to canceling the visit. And I saw a YouGov poll fairly recently with more against the visit than being for it. But I think people at the same time Will, it's going to happen now, isn't it? Now? And these arguments will carry on. You know, what does it say about us having to go? And if we didn't go, would it be a bigger call than letting it happen? I think that's ultimately. Once it's been set down the tracks, it's a very hard thing to stop now.

A (18:21)

Asma, at the weekend, I was having a conversation about what we're calling the 250th anniversary of American independence, because that's one of the reasons this state visit is happening.

F (18:30)

I find that so strange, though, by the way, that the state visit includes the British royals coming.

A (18:35)

Yeah. But what I was getting at was what's it called? And then I've just reminded myself it's the semi quincentennial.

F (18:40)

Semi quintincentennial, Yeah.

A (18:41)

I can never forget semi quincentennial. That doesn't roll off the tongue, does it?

F (18:44)

It doesn't roll off the tongue. It's a big moment.

A (18:46)

Do we know what else is happening?

F (18:47)

A lot is happening. I mean, it's a big moment. You go around D.C. even, I was just in Boston recently, and you'll see billboards up to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States. I mean, it's been a question that's been on my mind also a lot, as I spent a lot, a lot of years out as a campaign reporter covering politics in the country. And I think the United States is certainly going through what some would describe as growing pains, internal civil strife around the question of what does it really mean to be an American. Like, we've seen this quite literally explode in terms of some of our political conversations. There's not widespread agreement on who gets to be an American, what it means to be an American. And so I'm really curious as to sort of who and how we celebrate even the idea of America at 250. You know, we've heard that there's going to be a big celebration on the National Mall. I don't know if you've been to Washington, D.C. but the National Mall is this big sort of greasy grass green area in front of the Capitol in the Washington Monument. And there's supposed to be kind of a state fair festival. State fairs. We love state fairs. But there's also, like, fried food, corn dogs. Yeah, exactly. So they're gonna have fare stalls celebrating 50 states, which I think is really exciting. I mean, there's a lot to celebrate, I think, in this moment, but it's also happening I think at a moment of really deep turmoil and political unrest and unease around some of these big questions around American identity, I sort of

A (20:08)

laughed a bit when you talked about America having growing pains after 250 years. But I'm then reminded about our other podcasting cousin. Justin Webb on ameracast often makes the point that you've got to remember America's a young country. Talking of young podcasts, the Global Story, because have you celebrated a year of the new Global Story yet?

F (20:27)

No, I haven't been at the BBC

A (20:28)

for a year, so it's still a young podcast. What is your latest episode? Would you like to do a little plug?

F (20:33)

Well, thank you for that. Yeah, we have an episode. We just were recording an episode with my colleague who's normally I work with Face to face in Washington, D.C. and that's Daniel Bush. He's a new colleague there covering Washington White House politics. He, over the years has interviewed scores of people who know J.D. vance. He's met J.D. vance, the vice president, and there are now reports that he is involved in some of the talks possibly to end this war in Iran. And so it's a look at how J.D. vance sees the world and what it means that this guy who really has had historically opposition to foreign interventions and foreign wars, is now, you know, trying to pick up the MAGA mantle. And a key part of the MAGA movement has been America first opposition to foreign wars. So that'll be our episode, hopefully for tomorrow.

A (21:21)

I'll be listening. Asma, thank you very much.

F (21:23)

Thank you. My pleasure.

A (21:24)

And Sean thanks you, too.

D (21:25)

Thank you very much.

B (21:36)

Have you ever received a call from a stranger regarding student loans? You don't owe an unpaid parking ticket for a car that you don't even own. If so, you might have been the target of a scam orchestrated by criminals thousands of miles away. I'm Tristan Redman, one of the hosts of the Global Story podcast. And we're taking an inside look at the highly lucrative scam factories of Southeast Asia. Listen to the global story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

A (22:08)

Now, in other news, Keir Starmer has issued effectively an ultimatum to resident doctors, formerly known as junior doctors, and more specifically their trade union, the British Medical association, the bma, to call off some strike action planned for next week in their ongoing dispute about pay. And then there was a plot twist because there could be another doctor strike as well. The people who can explain all of this to us, because there's quite a few aspects to it, are the BBC's health editor Hugh Pym, who's here in the studio. Hello, Hugh.

C (22:38)

Hi, Adam.

A (22:38)

And Joe pike is at Westminster. Hello, Joe.

G (22:40)

Hello, Adam.

A (22:41)

Westminster. Has it got a sort of holiday feel because it is Easter recess, or does the news keep coming?

G (22:46)

The news keeps coming, but there aren't many MPs in, in the canteens and corridors of Parliament.

A (22:53)

A very good assessment of the situation. Right, let's talk about. So there's two. Well, there's one definite strike, Catmay, and that is with resident doctors who used to be junior doctors, and then there's a strike that may happen later on with a different category of doctor. So let's talk about the first one first, because we kind of know more about that. Hugh, just sketch out what this dispute is about.

C (23:15)

Thanks, Adam. Well, of course, resident doctors were known as junior doctors, just to confuse everything. But it's the same old, same old dispute that's been rumbling on since March 2023, three years now in England. And it's essentially been about pay. The bma, the doctor's union, saying they've lost quite a lot of money over the years because of inflation. The government saying, well, we've paid you nearly 30%. And then there's a new offer, as from last week, which took it to 35%, they said, over three years, come on, we can't afford any more. So that's the essence of it. And then there are lots of bits and pieces about training places. Now, just to simplify that, that training places in the NHS are for qualified doctors to get them onto a pathway into a specialty area. Like they might want to go into anesthetics or surgery or whatever, a different type of medicine. But last year there were 30,000 applicants for just 10,000 places. So we heard from the BMA that some doctors were facing unemployment, which seems absurd given all the money that's gone into their training. Then it emerged that, that these included applicants from outside the uk. So Wes Streeting said, okay, we'll try and deal with that. So that this year, doctors UK qualified from medical school, doctors will get priority. And that was quite a big move. And he also said, we'll create 4,000 more places. 1,000 of them were due to take effect from the beginning of the new financial year, that is the beginning of April, very shortly, and all wrapped up in an offer went to the BMA last week, week with other bits and pieces. They've rejected it. And Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, has now said, okay, if you go ahead with your strike, if by tomorrow, Thursday Evening. You haven't called it off. You can forget the 1000 new places which would have started being implemented from Monday.

A (25:02)

So, Joe, is this the Prime Minister kind of throwing down the gauntlet? And he did this in the form of an article in the Times on Tuesday morning?

G (25:09)

It absolutely is. And it's not a completely new technique. From number 10 in the department for Health, he did something similar just before Christmas, calling proposed strikes then dangerous. And actually, what he is saying is not that much different from what was said last week by both the Health Secretary, Wes Treating and the boss of NHS England. Of course, the advantage is Keir Starmer has a sizable megaphone, more people notice, including us, and he is trying, I'm told, to get the message across, partly to junior doctors, resident doctors, who haven't been given a say on this deal, government sources argue, but also to explain to patients what the Government's thinking is, especially as if their care is likely to be affected. They argue it's fair that patients understand why.

A (26:01)

But Hugh, just on the technicalities of what the Prime Minister's saying. So he is saying he's going to pull the plug on 1,000 training places that were sort of going to go into the pipeline in a couple of weeks time if something doesn't happen in the next 24 hours.

C (26:17)

That's broadly it, although Downing street were getting onto me and I'm sure other health journalists say, oh, it's not a threat, it's not a threat.

A (26:25)

It sounded quite threat.

C (26:26)

Well, it sounded like it. So what they're saying, technically, is these 1,000 new places were going to start coming on stream from essentially next week, but if there's a strike next week, then it makes it much more difficult to start implementing that, they say. And if there are threats of further strikes, why should they start not implementing this at all? So it's. It's a sort of look, it's a technocratic thing we're not going to do it with. Yeah, Quite a loaded message. Sorry, folks, if you don't accept the deal, here are a thousand places not going to happen. And the BMA's response is, hang on a minute, we need more doctors in the nhs. The NHS is under a lot of pressure, so creating these new posts should not be associated with a row over pay.

D (27:07)

It's.

C (27:08)

It's the government who's put the two together.

A (27:09)

Yeah. They're saying it shouldn't be a carrot and a carrot instinct negotiation, it should just be part of life for the nhs.

C (27:14)

Exactly.

A (27:15)

And also just on the Government's point about the BMA not putting this deal to their members, what's gone on there? Why has it not gone out to all the resident doctors for them to have a say? Why is it just the negotiators?

C (27:27)

That's a very interesting, interesting point. Dr. Jack Fletcher is the BMA representative leader of the Resident Doctors Committee who's been negotiating with the government. Now, there's a supposition that he said, okay, this deal, I'll go back and check whether people like it or not. But that meant the Resident doctors Committee. Now there are something like 50 or 60 people on that and it got a resounding thumbs down. So the BMA's argument is, well, that's 50 or 60 resident doctors elected to be on that committee. If they say no, it's no. What's the point of going out to the wider membership? Of course, the government would say is the wider membership might well say, hey, not a bad offer.

A (28:06)

And just in terms of the time frame. So we're recording on Tuesday afternoon at quarter past four. When does this 48 hour deadline, even though it's not a threat, elapse? When does this need to be resolved?

C (28:17)

Well, it wasn't made clear when on Thursday, so I think we take it to mean close of play on Thursday. But if the BMA pick up the phone at half past eleven at night, I don't, I don't think Downing street are going to go ahead with the, whatever they were planning to do next week. It's been left a bit vague. I think talking to people this morning, it seems highly unlikely that the BMA is suddenly going to come back and say, okay, you, let's talk. Of course, Wes Streeting's position, the Health Secretary has always been my doors open. He's always said, come to me anytime. The previous government, previous health secretaries have said, once you've caught a strike, we ain't going to talk to you. Where Streeting has always said, look, we can get back together, it's very annoying, this strike, but we can sort of sit down around a table in future.

A (29:00)

And Joe, where does this dispute, this long running dispute kind of fit in the political context around the health service in England at the moment? Because I'm aware of you and I haven't talked about health on an episode of Newscast for a little while now. And normally when we do, it's a story like this.

G (29:15)

Absolutely. I think what's important is that at the time of the next election, the UK government want to be able to argue that they have improved the NHS and brought down waiting lists. Wes Streeting, if he were to be possibly a leadership contender over the next few years, he also wants to be able to point to things getting better. And clearly strikes will not help with that. In terms of, of this battle over training places, the argument that people in government have put to me is that there's £300 million to spend here. Either we can spend that £300 million on those 1,000 training places and the adverts for those places need to be out on Thursday, or we use that money for the strike because the strike is very expensive. Normally they cost, I'm told, about £250 million, but because this is Easter and the sort of hourly cover shift rates are higher, it will cost 300 million. A couple of other arguments I also hear. One is people in government pointing to a polling on resident doctor strikes. Some suggestions that the public appetite for these is waning, support is waning. But also we saw in some of the BMA statements reference to geopolitical uncertainty, the war in Iran, what that could be mean for interest rates and the cost that junior doctors, resident doctors and all of us could be facing. And the way that government officials are responding to that is by saying, take the win while you can. We have the money to do this now, but if Rachel Reeves needs to spend money providing support for people in their energy bills, even though we know that will only be targeted, and if the economic situation gets worse in this country, if there isn't growth as the government want to see it, doing this sort of investment in the health service will be more difficult. So the message I've heard from people in government to resident doctors is take that win now, don't wait six months down the line and say, I wish we'd taken it back in March.

C (31:26)

Yeah, I mean, the BMA response, and obviously I'm not here to advocate for the bma, but their response is, well, each time there's been a strike, there's been. There's been more talks or a threat of the next strike, and Wes treating us come up with more bits and pieces like these training places last autumn and a bit more money. And you know that that's the way industrial action works. And it's. Each side, particularly the bma, have got to work out whether what Joe's been saying is, take it, take it now or not. Incidentally, I think this issue about the public support, I mean, it has been falling. I mean, that doesn't seem to have affected the BMA's view of what they're trying to do, which is to get more money for their members to compensate for inflation. In terms of the cost of strikes, I think we need to probe into it a bit. Yes, it costs the trusts more to bring in consultants and pay them overtime for being at the front door of AE and doing overnights and that sort of thing. There is this slightly perverse, well, interesting outcome, which is that AE works a lot better, better during strikes or in some hospitals, because you've got consultants experienced enough to say, look, you're not ill, you can go somewhere else, or whatever. So there are lots of bits and pieces to it, but, yeah, certainly it comes at some sort of cost.

A (32:37)

And, Hugh, this is a very useful question from a newscaster called Chris in York, not Chris Mason in Yorkshire, where I think he might be this week. And Chris says, I feel I'm missing a key piece of context. The union says that doctors real pay has fallen since 2008. How does resident doctors pay compare to the rest of the public sector and to pay in general? Chris, you've asked a very broad question, but let's give you a chance to do a spreadsheet with words.

C (33:04)

Well, let's give a partial answer to Chris. Let's look at how much it's fallen in real terms or not. So the thing is, the BMA used this RPI version of inflation, which I'm sure all newscasters will know is a very broad measure. It's not seen as statistically particularly rigorous for most things, but it's used by some parts of government. So they're saying even after pay rises in recent years, they're still 20% down on 2008 in real terms on the RPI. Various people, including Nuffield Trust and other think tanks, have said, well, actually, if you look at cpi, the more accepted version of inflation, which tends to come up with a smaller figure, then the pay is only down about 6 or 7%, looking at nurses, but since 2010, down 10.7% on one calculation on the CPI and all workers in the public sector down about 6.9. The rest of the economy, I think, has gone up very slightly. So that sort of gives a bit of a comparative picture, if not the whole picture.

A (34:04)

I hope Chris had his notepad out to write all that down, or he's got a very good memory to have it lodged in there.

C (34:09)

Happy to correspond if he wants more details. And I'll go to Feisa, Lisala and his colleagues for anything about the whole economy.

A (34:15)

And then, Hugh, I sort of previewed the fact that there was going to be another doctor strike, potentially. And it's a different category of doctors this time, consultants. And this news broke at lunchtime, actually, while you were on Radio 4 talking about the previous strike.

C (34:28)

It was. And my phone just about stayed alive enough to get the top line of it, but began to fade away after that. But I've got it all in front of me now, Adam. So this is consultants and specialist doctors, the specialists who are pretty senior but have not gone on to get full consultant status. So their pay dispute has been rumbling under the radar a little bit. We've focused on the resident doctors, but consultants have been just as fed up about their pay being eroded by inflation. Now they're very well paid compared to most others in the economy, but, you know, if your pay's really fallen in real terms, you're not going to be very happy about it. So the final straw, I'm told, was the 3.5% that was announced from the pay review body and put into place by Government last week. They said just not enough to sort out our problem. So they're going to have a ballot between 11 May in England until 6 July to see whether they want to take industrial action. They may say no. They did take action over pay a couple of years ago and it's very possible they will bring their actions together with the resident doctors, but they would still make sure emergency services would be covered. But we don't know whether more than half and the 50% turnout level can be reached for the consultants.

A (35:41)

And so when will we know?

C (35:43)

I think if it's the 6th of July, normally we know that night.

D (35:47)

Right.

C (35:47)

So it's coming up to that sort of time in at Westminster of quite sort of febrile end of term stuff. So if they announce a strike, then two weeks notice, if lots of ifs here, could be around about 21st of July.

A (36:00)

And I mean, my knowledge of doctors strikes is not as good as yours. What's the history of consultants going on the picket line?

C (36:09)

Well, they did strike for a couple of days. I mean, this has been going on since March 23rd in late 23. But they didn't all walk out of all care. So the residents were out and the consultant said, look, we'll do emergency care.

A (36:24)

Yeah.

C (36:24)

But a whole shed load of planned treatment was. Was canceled. Now the NHS has got a lot better on strike days at carrying out planned operations and procedures. 95% they're getting to if there was a joint strike or they sort of rumbled on, moved on with one. One week, one the next it could be that rather more operations are cancelled and that hits government waiting list reduction plans. Right.

A (36:48)

We shall see on that second potential strike. Joe, we are now firmly in the election period for the elections in Scotland, Wales and in local authorities in England. I mean, we've just been talking about an industrial dispute in England. What have the other political parties been saying about this?

G (37:04)

Well, of course, the SNP and Plyde haven't said anything because health is. Is devolved. Nigel Farage has said that Keir Starmer has taken a strong position. It is the right position, he says. Kemi Badenok of the Conservatives has called on Keir Starma to ban doctor strikes and not use training places as, quote, a bargaining chip. Meanwhile, I've not found anything yet from the Lib Dems or Greens on this. Most of the press releases and comments I've got from them today are their opposition to the King's state visit to

A (37:36)

the US which takes us back to the start of this episode of Newscast. But that's pretty much it for this episode now. Hugh, thank you very much. Thank you, Adam and Joe, should we do a little bit of diarizing before you go?

G (37:46)

Yeah. What do I need to put in my diary?

A (37:48)

Oh, so I'm glad that no one's told you about this Thursday. You and I are gonna record the inaugural edition of election cast 2026.

G (37:57)

What a treat.

A (37:57)

Yes. Where we'll be looking at the elections in England, Scotland and Wales, which we're gonna do every Thursday, which will then appear in People's podcast feeds on a Friday.

G (38:06)

Sounds great.

A (38:07)

As a little bit of bonus cephalogical

G (38:09)

content I'm writing in my diary right now.

A (38:11)

Joe, thank you very much.

G (38:12)

Cheers, Adam.

A (38:13)

And that's all for this episode of Newscast. We will be back with another one very soon. Bye bye.

F (38:18)

Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

E (38:20)

From one newscaster to another, thank you so much for making it to the end of this episode. You clearly do do, in the words of Chris Mason, ooze stamina. Can I also gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Tell everyone you know, and don't forget, you can email us anytime@newscastbc.co.uk or if you're that way inclined, send us a WhatsApp on 033-01-239480.

F (38:52)

Be a short.

E (38:53)

I promise we listen to everyone.

B (39:06)

Have you ever received a call from a stranger regarding student loans? You don't owe an unpaid parking ticket for a car that you don't even own? If so, you might have been the target of a scam orchestrated by criminals thousands of miles away.

G (39:19)

Way.

B (39:19)

I'm Tristan Redmond, one of the hosts of the Global Story Podcast, and we're taking an inside look at the highly lucrative scam factories of Southeast Asia. Listen to the Global Story on BBC com or wherever you get your podcasts.