-----Original Message-----
From: David Roberts <[log in to unmask]>
To: INTERNET:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 17 August 1998 23:30
Subject: Re: PCGs and Scotland


Message text written by INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
>ex-Fundholders and LMC members <

Not "may" but "Will" be. And they weren't just LMC members.  Some very
notable GMSC members, too.  Why do you think fund-holding took off?  Apart
from HMG priming the pump, of course.   Back in the formative days of
fund-holding as a member of Leics LMC I was able to force on the "menu" a
debate on the demerits of fund-holding and proposed opposition to it.
Despite adequate postal notice, the Chairman saw fit to place it at the end
of the meeting, allowed me 3 minutes to put the case, called "time" firmly
and vigorously and allowed numerous others to speak against at length.
Exit from LMCs and consequent incentive to reform the whole
unrepresentative, undemocratic GMSC system.   So use your votes next time
!!!!
David Roberts

I disagree with you, David. It is democracy which has put you on the GPC. It
was democracy that allowed you to call a special meeting of the BMA two
years ago to air your views. Democracy allows you a voice. It is up to you
to persuade others to your way. Our political machine may be frustratingly
slow, and may seem inactive at times, but I don't know of a better or fairer
way of organising ( although I like some of the differences of LMC structure
in Scotland, and no doubt their version of PCGs will also have some
attractions). My frustration is often because there is too much democracy
for "rapid response" political manoeuvres and negotiation. Minority
interests, such as those of dispensing doctors, have to be taken into
account in a true democracy.
 I was also opposed to fundholding, but the profession was fairly evenly
split. If the GPC is  to have sole negotiating rights representing all GPs,
then  we have to do just that, and represent everyone's interests! The
problem is the many shades of grey, with few things in black and white, and
the need to operate through committee structures which are often cumbersome
and slow. There is no other way to let everyone have their say.
 Good leaders can steer "democracy" their way. There is nothing to stop you
running for chairman? I don't think you would find it easy to pull everyone
together. The chairman's role is often difficult, be it LMC or GPC.
 It is too easy to kick those who try to lead our political machine. It has
been the very real worry that if strong action is recommended then the
troops will not be there to provide back up, that has limited the
effectiveness of the GMSC (GPC) leadership. Stop carping and demonstrate the
solidarity which will enable tough negotiation. You are now in a prime
position to air your viewpoint, and can influence our leaders. This mailbase
has influenced our leaders, by demonstrating strengths of feeling,
willingness to take action, and effective press support . In my experience
the GMSC has always been prepared to listen. It is one thing to disagree as
I often do, and to try and influence changes of policy by reasoned argument,
but when the chips are down John Chisholm has my full backing. I hope he
will have yours.

                                  Peter Fellows. GPC




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