 |
 |
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