You had better stand for election then. See you later
Fx

*General Practitioners Committee seeks grass roots GPs for regional 
representative roles*

The BMA’s General Practitioners Committee (GPC) is looking for GPs to 
represent the profession from constituencies across the country.

Nominations are now open for a host of regional representative posts^1 
in England, Scotland and Wales for the 2008-2011 GPC session. Successful 
candidates will serve as a vital link between grass roots GPs in their 
area and the GPC as it continues to campaign on the key issues facing 
the profession and patient care.

_http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/GPCregionalelection_



Laurie Slater wrote:
> In the light of GPC's pathetic, misguided, paternalistic performance I hope
> for and expect a radical change towards a strong leadership who are prepared
> to canvass their members and act on their wishes. My fear is that by the
> time this happens it may be too late. Perhaps the GPCs assumption that the
> majority of GPs are happy to roll over and have their tummy tickled (before
> being put down) is correct. But it would be nice not have to guess this,
> especially when it is so easy to establish with the impending ballot. I am
> still mystified as to why they seem deaf to the question which is on
> everyone else's lips. How can our union can sit by and watch the
> dismembering of General Practice without even ASKING if we want to put up a
> fight? 
>
> This is 'so NOT' what our patients want, nor is the concurrent privatisation
> of the NHS. The process which has started (one London tender has just gone
> to an American company who undercut the local superior GP bid by 20%) is
> simply about money, money, money and these large companies will continue to
> undercut to get their foot in the door. The PCTs will take the cheapest
> option and it is the patients who will suffer because we know that they have
> not a hope in hell of being able to offer a comparable service. Inevitably,
> competing with European doctor imports and cheap, dangerous, non-doctor
> driven front line services, the GP workforce (shortly to be salaried and
> competing with each other for fewer jobs) will have their working conditions
> and their wages slashed and it seems likely that a significant proportion
> will leave to private medicine. Done. All those years of good hard work put
> into setting high quality standards of education and service in primary care
> - gone. The NHS replaced with American style money driven health care, by a
> labour government. Those who can afford to pay will do so and the vast
> majority of patients will suffer (significantly) ... and so far barely a
> whimper from the GPs. I am oh so happy to be corrected if this scenario is
> wrong.
>
> Is it not worth a stand to prevent this happening? At the moment we can
> fight because we have the patient's trust and still exercise a degree of
> control. The trouble is that as time goes on, those GPs who are forced to
> play the same game in order to survive may start to lose their patient's
> confidence, as well as the other levers which we currently have. Most of our
> patients have not an inkling that this is on the horizon (I wonder how many
> of the doctors do) and we need to tell them that they are about to lose
> their family GPs. General practice still is and can continue to be a force
> to be reckoned with if we rally to a common cause. 
>
> If we are not presented with an option to take action in the ballot then I
> too intend to spoil my paper. This makes by far the strongest statement and
> gives out a clear message that we mean business. It will force the GPC to
> listen and act and will make HMG prick up its ears. The right thing to do is
> not always the easiest. Let's stand up together and be counted.
>
> Laurie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fay Wilson
> Sent: 16 February 2008 10:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: unbelievable post from GPC member
>
> I was only passing on what I believed to be the message, I didn't say I
> agreed.
>
> I have generally found a robust approach leads to a more respectful
> relationship but that style doesn't suit everyone and the majority don't
> want to take the risk. Unless we see a big changeover at the elections just
> opening (for 1/3 of the GPCs regional seats) I will assume that the GPC more
> or less represents the profession.
> Fay
>
> Laurie Slater wrote:
>   
>> Still be in the negotiating chamber? Fay, they have just dictated 
>> their own terms.
>>
>> "As long as you chaps can swing your members to "vote" for our 
>> unilateral imposition, you will be welcome back to the table with open
>>     
> arms"
>   
>> There are no bleedin' negotiations. This is an EX-negotiation. If it 
>> wasn't still nailed to the perch ...
>>
>> Laurie
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fay Wilson
>> Sent: 15 February 2008 23:58
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: unbelievable post from GPC member
>>
>> Gillian is no longer a GPC member as her work-life balance did not 
>> permit it. I'm sure she means that if there is an A vote the GPC will 
>> still be in the negotiating chamber and therefore in a better position 
>> to negotiate on behalf of GPs.  I would like to see some sign of 
>> negotiating gains coming forward before I had much comfort in that idea.
>>
>> Anyway James, be consoled: the deal in NI is different with £2 million 
>> for something that is not extended hours (not sure what it is, you 
>> will have to ask your reps) as your administration don't have extended 
>> hours as one of their priorities. So GOK what your option A is. I bet 
>> it is contingent on a pan UK A vote though. You know how these things are.
>> Fay
>>
>>
>> James McGlew wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> --
>>> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:25:41 +0000
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: flexible working and extended hours: wots the truth 
>>> please?! from confused.
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>     A negotiated settlement enables GPC to get others things through
>>>     on A option than would be possible under B. B means that GPC loses
>>>     negotiation rights for far longer than this short term issue.
>>>     B means the loss of national negotiations on GP contracting IMHO
>>>     Gillian
>>>
>>>
>>> This is one of the most depressing posts I have ever read.
>>>
>>> Since when where the GPC's interests put before those of the 30,000 
>>> GPs it alledgedly represents - or are Fay and Trefor totally wrong 
>>> with what they have said here and in DNUK.
>>>
>>> Do the GPC not care about the work-life balance of GPs? Or the 
>>> practices already on the borderline who would go under with 
>>> "imposition A". I also seem to recall that any negotiations were 
>>> stopped - and this was a 'take this or else' command from high.
>>>
>>> I am glad that you do not represent me [Northern Ireland], and I pity 
>>> those who trusted you to defend them.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>> I wrote this.
>>> Be excellent to each other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>   
>>     
>>>     *
>>>     *
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> -- Join the all-new Windows Live Messenger family Click here!
>>> <http://get.live.com>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> --
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
>>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.5/1279 - Release Date: 
>>> 14/02/2008 18:35
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>
>
>