We are being frog marched into saying that we accept A (but object) because
it a better option than B. If the majority vote A (for fear of B) we will be
seen to have accepted it and this will be a win for HMG ("you agreed to do
it").
Am I alone here in thinking that the managment of this ballot is a complete
dog's dinner? Should there not be two questions? :
1) Do you accept A? (Bear in mind that if you do not then you will be given
option B) Yes or No
2) If you do no accept A and B is imposed do you wish to take further
action? Yes or No
Then, depending on the result our representatives should discuss with us the
various scenarious in which it might be appropriate to act (or not) to
demonstrate our strong objection to this (surely illegal?) unacceptable
behaviour which has not been the result of negotiation but is pure
imposition.
If we remain united it does seem very likely indeed that HMG will come a
cropper. A confrontation in which we withold a potentially large number of
actions (on which the whole of their reforms absolutely depend) would I
imagine break this government. We are more popular than they are. We are
also in the right. To accept either option would be a disaster. Later on
(but not so far away) when private enterprise has more grip our hand will be
very much weaker.
If we are not presented with a third option then I fear this amounts to
imcompetence on behalf of our representatives. I am happy to be corrected by
someone who has understood this better than I have.
Laurie
-----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
**********************************************************************
This message may contain confidential and privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail
or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. Please inform us that this message has
gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is used daily by over 100,000 staff in the NHS. Over a million
messages are sent every day by the system. To find out why more and
more NHS personnel are switching to this NHS Connecting for Health
system please visit www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail
**********************************************************************
