RCVS voter turnout 2014

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Malcolm Ness — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:20:07 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]voting cards for the European Elections, no double codes, obvious what it is and will be used.[/quote]

Nigel Farage for RCVS council!!

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Neil Wheadon — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:16:44 GMT

Dave has a very good point Added to my post in this thread was the very real issue in that I didn't get a voting paper as far as I was aware and I simply haven't had the time to look into it as it was at the lower end of priorities. We have sitting on our table voting cards for the European Elections, no double codes, obvious what it is and will be used. Neil

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Dave Leicester — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:49:52 GMT

I did not receive my ballot papers through the post. In order to to vote I submitted 2 separate emails requesting they were sent out, and ultimately rang the RCVS directly. Only then did I receive an email with my security codes.

Speaking with colleagues, several suffered a similar experience. I'd be interested to learn what percentage of the profession actually received their ballot papers in the first place. Anyone having to jump through that many hoops would need a high level of commitment, and a strong desire to make their vote count. Under the circumstances, a little voter apathy would go a very long way.

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Joyce Whitehead — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:34:20 GMT

May I suggest a less apathetic reason for not voting? Our practice, in common with all I'm sure, receives vast amounts of paper in the post each day. Some of this is, of course, junk mail and heads straight for the recycling bin. Others are addressed to individual vets, and this is obviously sorted and put into their post trays. Now I'm not the quickest to get through the pile of new drug info, vet times, vet practice etc in my tray, and tend to have a mass catch up. Obviously I pick out anything requiring immediate attention. Therefore my voting paper was lurking in there until a reminder email from Arlo (thanks!) yesterday. I have now voted. As the RCVS presumably has email addresses for most of us, couldn't a reminder be sent by them too? It is cheap and easy on a database, and may well have more effect on those who had simply forgotten. I do like the online method of voting however, and sat and read through the various manifestos after work last night.

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:19:20 GMT

As far as national(as opposed to RCVS) elections are concerned, I can't decide whether young people are less politically motivated than we are, or whether the falling turnout is due to traditional conservative voters having been disenfranchised for the last 20 years.If the latter, I'd expect an improved turnout next month!

Wynne

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Bob Russell — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:58:39 GMT

If this were caused by apathy I would expect the figures to match last years. The same members would be expected to vote as always do. I look forward to seeing Arlo's survey result.

Is this a protest? Sadly if it is it is probably the most ineffective way.

Perhaps the protest votes next year should go to our esteemed down-under colleague with a penchant for raw meat!

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Anthony Todd — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:38:01 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Whatever it is, the turnout is pitiful.[/quote]

True, but would it be better if the candidates were, yourself, MN, MW and others, for example?

I think there'd be an avalanche of voters and we'd all know exactly what those candidates thought 'cos we'd soon tell them, and threaten them with the sack if they didn't do wot we told 'em to sort art!

Come on, we've got 12 [twelve] months FFS.

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

J G Wray — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:27:59 GMT

We've already seen the RCVS rationalisation of a poor turnout as being based on apathy (Mr S RCVS Councillor), a negative portrayal of RFPs. Where is the evidence that this is the case? The Yorkie-Lurvin Mr Cooper is baffled by choice, and sees compulsion as an option to up the turnout and some seem to be saying the system is not set up for representation so why bother, an evaluation of the evidence rather than absence of evaluation ( as in apathy).

Whatever it is, the turnout is pitiful. The profession notices and those who evaluate RCVS' performance will take note. This year RCVS will at least be able to say that their campaign to get diversity into the candidate list has shown results, but I would quite like to know if the RCVS' activities in this area crystallised the candidates desire to stand and for the unsuccessful whether they will maintain that enthusiasm to have another go next year and the year after, vindicating RCVS. This might be worth asking of the unsuccessful that have been on this forum either after the election or next year if they're back.

We had a higher turnout last year which led to the "target" for 2014 pitched there for all to see on the ERS website, yet it doesn't look good with a day to go. I think we should be wary of “targets" and the rhetoric “communicated” around these. If the turnout falls short of the target, it will be impossible to find the source of these targets and even more impossible (is that possible?) to find out what the consequences of failure will be for those who propagated this sort of nonsense and ask them why they did so... In explanation, perhaps they might cite special circumstances; a poor turnout because of, well, I don’t know, can anyone help?

JGW

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:19:59 GMT

I vote in all elections too, it's what our ancesters fought for. The RCVS are totally different. Well meaning folk stand and all will do their best. However they are individuals. By voting in 6 new faces every year their views are diluted by the other 18, even if they are all of identical views. As vets voting we simply cannot vote for substantial change unlike a change of government. For us to enable change within the RCVS requires a change in the voting system and I would suggest that we are able to vote for the president of the college who has a mandate dictated by his/her agenda and the electorate has the power to retain/remove dependant on their performance. The present system of 'it's your turn' simply isn't democratic. The 24/7 debate is the first real example of a profession rising up and wanting their voice heard. If the RCVS council responds then the system maybe is working. if nothing changes despite the huge uprising in feeling then all we are doing is paying lipservice to a process. Neil

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Stephen Courtney — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:11:14 GMT

I see voting as a duty, and have done so every year except one when I genuinely forgot. I read manifestos at least till i got bored or disagreed with something, but this year chose younger GP vets in practice - ie coalface members.

I am unhappy about the heavy weighting towards university and other appointed council members, and although I vote religiously, I truly believe i am wasting my efforts, that even the most enthusiastic and charismatic reformers if voted in will be unable to hold sway against the vested interests of appointed folk.

For what it's worth i also vote in general, local and European elections - part of the civic contract I was brought up to believe in. I think I am wasting my time there, too....

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:08:36 GMT

Sorry for the double post I also feel that having a candidate stand year on year with an agenda having nothing to do with the RCVS and an inability to attend meetings makes the whole process a bit of a 'laughing stock'. Am I alone in this thought? Neil

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:47:57 GMT

It's the first year I haven't voted and Richard for me hit the nail on the head. Too many candidates, all saying similar things and I'm not interested in following every nuance of discussion on this site. I also feel that me voting is effectively like sticking a pin in a dartboard, so diluting peoples votes who properly understand the candidates. I feel a low turnout isn't such a bad thing in this respect Neil

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Jo Dyer — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:16:40 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]STILL only 2500 who signed in support.[/quote]

2825 as of today George(and JGW), get it right!

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:07:52 GMT

To be fair when we were asked to submit questions for the candidates I expected them to answer them all rather than pick 2 they have a nice, rehearsed answer for. If each cannot spare half a hour to answer a couple of dozen questions it's seems poor. Equally the guys who didn't interact on here. If they want to go into a political role they need to engage in debate and discussion with us, rather than run away because we weren't that 'nice'.

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Anthony Todd — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:21:05 GMT

There are a few posters on here that really really should stand next year!!

I was unimpressed by the predicable,platitudinous, emollient, generic, non-specific utterings of most candidates who, with a simple change of key words could be applying for the Parish Council or the Golf Club Committee.

The diverse incisive and reasoned utterings of quite a few posters on vetsurgeon.org impress me much more, time for all of them to stand.

We know who you are! You stand out like the proverbial!

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

George Cooper — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:54:47 GMT

I suspect that, to the vast majority of the profession, the RCVS and the election process is viewed as irrelevant to their daily job in hand. They have graduated, sought a position, earn a living, and on a normal day to day basis that is all they need or want, except for the pursuit of further knowledge, in terms of membership of the profession. It is only when something pulls them up short and either threatens the status quo or invades their comfort zone that they feel the need for involvement. The recent initiative by Jo could well have been fuelled by a sense of "mass hysteria" of being swept along in the moment coupled with the ease by which they could participate - and yet it was STILL only 2500 who signed in support. I wonder if voting were to be linked to the payment of the retention fee we might then see more meaningful results and involvement. A second point, to me, would be to stress that we need vote for any FROM a single vote to six. I did find, as have others, that reading all those turgid expressions of enthusiasm for the position was one of the best cures for insomnia yet discovered, though when the glass of amber liquid tipped itself all over the latest canine addition to the Cooper household that was comfy upon my knee when I did doze off and lost control of my grip, I did wish that I hadn't bluddy well bothered!

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:23:24 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I don't think we want candidates actually canvassing, do we? [/quote]

Oh I dunno. I thought Mr Nell's efforts last time or the time before were admirable. He didn't get in mind

JGW

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:53:48 GMT

I don't think we want candidates actually canvassing, do we? Answering questions is better.

The manifestos, as usual, were pretty well useless, except that some of them definitely ruled the candidates out.

The ones who didn't bother to pop up on vetsurgeon.org were also of course ruled out.

The answers to questions here were most illuminating, but not always in the way the candidate intended I think! Sometimes the way the candidate evaded the question, or tried to second-guess some motive behind the question, was impressive: on the whole those candidates I also ruled out, although I did wonder if such skills could be what a Belgravia House operative needs.

I found two candidates I could approve of and another who seemed to have much in his/her favour despite regrettable views on one matter. That's not bad.

I'm not sure I want to encourage anyone else to vote. Suppose they disagree with me?

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:38:24 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]There was nothing apathetic about Mrs Dyer's petitioners.[/quote]

No, there wasn't. But of course more people will vote for an issue that directly affects their daily lives, than whether or not David, Neil, Camilla or Sue are elected to Council. (random choice of names).

[quote user="J G Wray"]Do you think RCVS should provoke this sort of thing more often, to rouse the "apathetic"?[/quote]

I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but yes

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:23:24 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"] I guess it boils down to genuine apathy![/quote]

You are a RCVS Councillor

There was nothing apathetic about Mrs Dyer's petitioners, supporting a petition generated by RCVS de facto behaviours. So there's one formula for engagement of the profession. Do you think RCVS should provoke this sort of thing more often, to rouse the "apathetic"?

JGW

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

emma_j — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:06:36 GMT

I'm someone who doesn't normally bother to vote (apathy/too much faff) but I did this year, because of the various issues that have been discussed on this form and I've become aware of this year. It was however quite a time commitment to read all the manifestos, listen to the question/answer, read the candidate's threads on here, then sit down and get on the website and actually vote.

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Bob Russell — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:13:52 GMT

I suspect most just want to be left to get on with their jobs in peace. As long as there is no perceived threat why change things? This is probably why things got into such a mess under the previous Registrar. There was little accountability!

Years lacking in communicating with members takes time to correct.

Perhaps vets prefer to deal indirectly with the RCVS (via petitions and forums).

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

bob lehner — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:04:41 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Intuitively one would have to agree - but I wonder if the very large number of candidates most of whom are not well known names has simply bewildered the electorate OR could it be that the formidable task of reading through 19 statements has put people off. [/quote]

Yes - sadly I would agree with this - by the time you have read through say 15 candidates' statements you have probably forgotten most of what was said.

A shame really, as one might think a wider spectrum of candidates would generate more interest.

Bottom line, I'm sure, is that your average vet in practice is really not that interested in the whole business.

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:45:26 GMT

I often wonder how many of the candidates are actually canvassing for votes. I get the feeling that there's a tradition of 'here's my manifesto and read it' because campaigning and 'grovelling' for votes is seen as somehow cheapening the whole thing. Aside from the threads here on VS.org to solicit votes and the recent webinars, there's not really a lot of what could be considered campaigning.

That said, it's interesting how in the UK, people 'stand' for election, whereas in the USA, people 'run' for election. Perhaps that illustrates a difference in how elections are viewed in the respective countries.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: RCVS voter turnout 2014

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:30:01 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Surprises me. I mean, intuitively if there are more candidates out there canvassing, you'd expect there to be more votes.[/quote]

Dear Arlo,

Intuitively one would have to agree - but I wonder if the very large number of candidates most of whom are not well known names has simply bewildered the electorate OR could it be that the formidable task of reading through 19 statements has put people off. Last year's election seemed to better supported.

I always find it depressing that despite all these discussions, forums and internet debates that so few members of the College participate even to the extent of spending a few minutes to put a couple of crosses on a ballot paper. I don't accept the 'none of these' argument - out of 19 there must be someone you can support (and there are some exceptional candidates this year). I guess it boils down to genuine apathy!

Yours,

Richard S.