What will happen to your ballot form if you fail to choose from
Section A?? Are the remaining points counted? I assume that this
should not be seen as a spoilt ballot.
Paul Bromley
On 20/02/2008, Michael Leuty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 20/02/2008, Adrian Midgley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > One might think that a body elected to represent or lead a group were in
> > less of a position to lead them in open defiance of government and
> > paying customer if they could not persuade their constituents to even
> > answer a question than if they were.
>
> In one sense the logic of the questions is impeccable. If we don't
> accept the imposition of A then the Government will impose B. We are
> invited to choose which would be less damaging (using our judgement
> and skill) and then answer the tie-breaker "I didn't really want the
> option I voted for because..."
>
> However, option A is clearly less worse than option B as any fule kan
> see. The question should be "do you wish us to accept option A on your
> behalf or do you wish us to enter into a formal dispute?"
>
> What I think we are complaining about is that the ballot does not
> allow us to give a clear instruction to the GPC. I can tell you the
> result now.
> Option A - 70%
> Option B and spoiled papers - 30%
> "Less worse" and not "desired choice" - 98%
>
> The GPC now appear to be shifting their position to "give in now,
> fight later". I wonder how many GPs think that is the right thing to
> do. Opinion on GP-UK is clear, no doubt DNUK is sold, even EMIS list
> is becoming exercised over the situation.
>
> Adrian is right that we need to express our opinion locally through
> our GPC rep and our LMC meetings.
>
> One possible point in favour of the GPC's apparent position is that
> our difficulties appear to have arisen directly as a result of Gordon
> Brown. GB has a reputation for being difficult, uncommunicative, and
> making off-the-wall decisions. This will not endear him to his party.
> His party are the only people who can stop him.
>
> In our democracy there is a rough and ready set of checks and balances
> which help to stop too much overt unfairness. For every issue there
> are lobby groups who put their points across. By some inscrutable
> process, ministers weigh up the issues and come to a reasonably fair
> decision. If their decision is too biased then protests are made in
> various quarters - through MPs, committees, the press. When the
> pressure becomes intolerable then ministers have to give way - as
> happened to Alistair Darling recently over capital gains tax.
>
> What seems to have happened is that negotiations were going along
> nicely when Gordon Brown came along and insisted on imposing tougher
> conditions, with even tougher conditions if not accepted. The infamous
> clunking fist.
>
> It may be that the correct course is a campaign, through MPs and the
> press, to make it obvious to all and sundry that this is another
> unacceptable case of Gordon's Fist. This may be more effective in the
> long term than appearing too militant. But entering a formal dispute
> may be a good way of pointing out to everyone how unacceptable the
> Fist has been.
>
> The message is getting across to some extent. Nigel Hawkes made a
> comment in the Times the other day about the Government "needlessly
> picking a fight with GPs which it will win by dint of stamping hard."
> This will not have gone unnoticed - and we might care to point it out
> to our MPs. Clunking Gordon Brown is picking on our hard-working GPs
> and stamping hard on them.
>
> I think the best way forward now is to enter a formal dispute and cry
> piteously for all to hear that Gordon is being nasty to us. If you
> agree, write to your GPC rep and tell him or her.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> Michael Leuty
> Nottingham, UK
>
--
Best Wishes
Paul Bromley
www.informatiks.com
Custom EMIS LV Software.
vuE | GPLabels | GPDocs | eGFRChecker
|
