Not just you Paul.
I am almost certainly not going to stand for re-election to GPC because of
all this.
It is crazy to ask the profession to express a preference for one or other
of two impositions that will damage General Practice.
-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bromley
Sent: 13 February 2008 14:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Abstention?
Surely the ballot should be asking if you accept option A or not, and not
whether you are accepting A or B. If the threat is that B will be imposed
then so be it, but surely we should not be VOTING for option B.
If we are not happy with EITHER options, then surely the way that this looks
as though it is going to be worded is crazy. They should be asking are we in
favour of the ONE proposal on the table?? I cannot see how a ballot asking
re 2 bad options can show what the profssion feels, or is that the
intention??
Or is it just me??
Paul Bromley
On 13/02/2008, Adrian Midgley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Paul Miller wrote:
> > 'Please do not unintentionally spoil your poll paper by writing
> > "none of the above" or crossing out BOTH Option A and Option B.
> > THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE OPTION. Either A or B WILL be forced on the
> > profession and you are invited to select which with your reasoning.
>
>
> Actually, there only needs to be one item, with the invitation to vote
> for it or not.
>
>
> The impression I get from the desperation that the apex[1] of
> government seems to be demonstrating here is that things must be worse
> than they look with the economy.
>
> Perhaps we can't actually afford to do sensible things such as buying
> the Afghan poppy crop with an EC CAP-like intervention. Few other
> explanations seem to account for the current policy on drugs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] for some value of pointy headedness
>
--
Best Wishes
Paul Bromley
www.informatiks.com
Custom EMIS LV Software.
vuE | GPLabels | GPDocs | eGFRChecker
|