Well, this is an interesting matter.

I do think it a bit strange a number of posters, some of whom I know and respect, seem to be saying "cos the committee say so". I thought the whole point of the ballot was to find out what the membership think. (It ISNT a vote of confidence!). But that's, as someone said, a criteria upon which someone has made their decision so no one should knock it. It's as valid a view as the next paid-up member's.

Personally, I found more strange the comment on the "fact" that we've not been privy to "all the information"...oh come on! Where have you been? Mars?

The ballot paper I also think is odd in that it's named...but to be honest better this way than risk non-members and/or multiple votes being cast (...it is photocopiable).

Strange also that the FRA chairman is the recipient of the ballot papers. A potential conflict of interest in that Tony is chair of the (main)committee which is recommending a particular way of voting. However, on this latter-point, I know Tony and he is a chap of the highest integrity so this, for me, is a non-issue (...but does take a perception risk). {And far better Tony than some UKA quango }

Finally, I think it would have been useful to have seen a single page statement by a strong proponent for, and a statement by a strong proponent against. Dave Jones has given the case for why to divorce, but there's no explicit statement as to why stay married (other than the ballot form summary note).

As to which way to vote, I'm sure we've all made our minds up. Let's hope we do get a large turnout.