 |
 |
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