Peter Fellowes may now call me hopelessly naive, but

the motion proposed in SW LMCs was a bad motion, which is the primary
reason it was not supported by N&E Devon LMC to go forward to the LMCs
conference.  Nor should it have been.  Linking PCGs to TRs would be
certain of failure as well as crass.

However, Peter, if there are certain things that we require in order to
have just treatment of all or of certain doctors as we go forward into
PCGs, let us list them, demand them, by motions and any other means one
wants, and by all means go to the barricades if need be.

"GPs refuse to run NHS unless paid more than HA chief Executive" is a
very understandable argument.

"GPs insist on as comfortable a consulting room as the chief
executive's office" is another, and one which most patients would be
inclined to see as benefiting them when they visit us.

 "GPs insist on total funding per patient equalling at least £xx in
1999, £yyin 2000 and so on" or will not run NHS is another.

"GPs insist PCG meetings are held either electronically or instead of a
surgery, in daytime", is another which would even gather support from
our HA and SOcial Services, who always want to hold meetings at
suregery times - presumably these hours of the day are the most
efficient for taking administrative decisions<g>


"GPs insist that workload shall not increase above 60 hours per wte GP
per week" is another.  But not one I have heard proposed.

It is not surprising that Mr Milburn loses patience with trivia.  The
current gov are not yet the corrupt and devious lot the last ones were,
but it is no doubt possible to train them to be.  Alternatively, if you
know what is needed to recruit GP enthusiasm, IE fair dealing in
detail, bring it out and we can all vote for it.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%