Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

An On MRCVS — Wed, 08 May 2019 14:54:46 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I still struggle to make the leap from 'reasons not to vote for people' to 'vote for Lonsdale instead'.

In other words, abstain, and the poor voter turn out sends the message that candidates are failing to engage with the voters properly. Vote Lonsdale, and it could mean a groundswell of support for feeding dogs raw meaty bones.

[/quote]

It's unapologetically a protest vote, I promise. (A very small leap.)

As for why being anonymous? My employer once got a phone call from the RCVS about a post i wrote here (many years ago), so I am somewhat cautious about what I write under my real name. If that renders my opinions suspect, I accept that.

I further recognize that the RCVS has undergone great change in the last several years, and I am unlikely to get a similar phone call these days. But once bitten, twice shy, and all that.

Returning to the point of low voter turnout, it does nothing more than enshrine the status quo. I don't feel that abstaining sends any particular message. Well, not one that the status quo is inclined to listen to.

The incumbent effect is extremely powerful, and as long as the 'usual suspects' got voted in comfortably, it was enough to complain about the voter turnout, rather than do anything about it.

I'm aware that this above probably makes me sound like a rabid populist, or one of those conspiracy theorists. While text on a screen is worth exactly what you pay for it, I would like to say that I am only attempting to answer the 'why vote Lonsdale' question. I am not a populist, communist, anarchist, idealist, or any other word ending in -ist.

Well, I do quite like the discussions here. Perhaps that makes me a Guthrie-ist?

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 08 May 2019 10:08:52 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]This is not the right place to discuss raw feeding[/quote]

Laughed out loud. You're right. But you started it - all I said was that a vote for Lonsdale might indicate support for RMB

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]there is no evidence for any of your statements[/quote]

As I wrote them, I was giving myself a mental slapping for not supporting with references. Just pushed for time right now.

So yes, let's not continue the discussion about RMB here. Either start a tangent, or I will start one later today, with some evidence for those statements.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Bob Russell — Wed, 08 May 2019 09:57:46 GMT

There are stacks of papers and articles that confirm the bacterial risk etc of raw diets. They are high risk and should be nowhere near a human kitchen.

E Coli, Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Mycobacterium bovis. Bacterial counts so off the scale that meat would be condemned even if it was to be cooked.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Dinu Catilina — Wed, 08 May 2019 09:34:32 GMT

This is not the right place to discuss raw feeding but there is no evidence for any of your statements and nutritionally complete diets are a trope trompeted in all sorts of places when really even in humans nutrition is not fully understood yet.

Not to mention the Hill's scandal lately or the studies showing the degree of contamination with all sorts of things in the commercial foods.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 08 May 2019 08:35:27 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] Vote Lonsdale, and it could mean a groundswell of support for feeding dogs raw meaty bones.[/quote]

Is that really a problem? Humans are moving away as much as possible from processed foods so why is it the best options for dogs?[/quote]

Presume you mean why ISN'T it the best option for dogs (not shouting BTW).

The answer to that is that:

Raw diets seem to carry more of a risk of human infection with various pathogens.
There is a risk of injury to animals eating RMB
There is the question of whether owners are prepared or able to feed a nutritionally complete diet based on RMB (ie compared to a commercial diet which should and mostly do contain a nutritionally complete diet).

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]Arlo, on a separate note, don't you think the ANON account is being abused lately? I can understand sensitive topics but it has been recently used to just have a dig at one or another. See the CVS topic, a dig at homeopathy which is fine but grow of pair of gonads (see, being inclusive) and use your name, a dig at that polish lass who should have known better. [/quote]

Yes, agree. I deleted homeopathy dig. CVS? Can't remember that one, will go and have a look. And yes, not appropriate for the polish lass thread. This one OK, because I can understand someone not wanting to discuss their voting preferences by name.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Dinu Catilina — Wed, 08 May 2019 08:16:28 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]In other words, abstain, and the poor voter turn out sends the message that candidates are failing to engage with the voters properly.[/quote]

Nobody cares about the voters who abstain as long as they get in, regardless of what they run for.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] Vote Lonsdale, and it could mean a groundswell of support for feeding dogs raw meaty bones.[/quote]

Is that really a problem? Humans are moving away as much as possible from processed foods so why is it the best options for dogs?

Arlo, on a separate note, don't you think the ANON account is being abused lately? I can understand sensitive topics but it has been recently used to just have a dig at one or another. See the CVS topic, a dig at homeopathy which is fine but grow of pair of gonads (see, being inclusive) and use your name, a dig at that polish lass who should have known better.

By the way, not this time but the previous elections I did vote for Longsdale as well. Ahh, ohhh, only if... the wet dreams... lol

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 08 May 2019 07:38:58 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]Well, at least we know that you were the only one who was curious![/quote]

Well, that or you answered the question so eloquently that it just shut everyone up!

Whoever you are, I very much agreed with your points about candidates having an unofficial constituency, but that doesn't make them bad/suspect. And that DOES strike me as a perfectly sane reason not to vote for them.

And I also agree with you somewhat about a good test for whether someone deserves your vote being how hard they have fought for it, a good indicator of which being how much support they have garnered (either for their candidacy, or as in Jo's case for an issue they had already campaigned about).

I still struggle to make the leap from 'reasons not to vote for people' to 'vote for Lonsdale instead'.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 07 May 2019 21:58:28 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Someone who voted for him PLEASE enlighten me why.

[/quote]

Well, at least we know that you were the only one who was curious!

[/quote]I'm curious as to why you are posting anonymously.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

An On MRCVS — Tue, 07 May 2019 20:23:07 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Someone who voted for him PLEASE enlighten me why.

[/quote]

Well, at least we know that you were the only one who was curious!

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

An On MRCVS — Sun, 05 May 2019 16:08:42 GMT

Hello, all! I'm here to talk about the Lonsdale vote. As you and many others rightly suspect, for me, it was very much a protest vote.

That said, this is the first year i HAVEN'T voted for Tom Lonsdale. For so many years i could not find 6 candidates i was willing to vote for. So many of them were proposed by 'the establishment.'

I was usually fine with 3 or 4 candidates, even though you could always tell from who proposed their candidacy if they were the BSAVA, BVA, SPVS, or University candidate. I believe it's only now that one of the corporate groups has a member who was campaigning that people are getting their undergarments in a twist.

(I am aware that many corporate groups have had members on Council for many years, and I do also understand that the scale of corporate ownership is greater than it has ever been before.)

Almost everyone on Council is there with a 'constituency', even if they say until they're blue in the face that they are not.

Now, I do not say that these candidates are bad or corrupt people. Far from it. Establishment doesn't mean they are inherently suspect.

I simply do not believe a member of Council will vote against the interests of their employer, or that part of the profession that appointed them. That applies equally to University appointees and corporate employees. The University would never appoint them if they thought for a moment they would be mavericks. Equally I do not believe a corporate would support the candicacy of their employees if they were not going to be a safe pair of hands.

I would like to emphasize again that i don't mean to imply that such candidates are dishonest. But how many of them would bite the hand that feeds them? (To date, how many of them have?)

What was left? The elected candidates who are looking to represent the first opinion vets. And yet, so many of these manifestos over the years were more rehashing of the 'proud general practictioner' or 'voice at the coalface' or other more patronizing clichés.

The notable exceptions to the above have been the candidates who were able to bring together a real grassroots swell of support. In this group I place the candidates who polled close to or over 2000 votes - this is inherently difficult and normally requires a significant online and offline effort. I submit that these candidates "ran" for office, rather than "stood" for office, to use the American term. Niall Connell is the most famous of recent examples, but campaigning is much more the norm now than it was recently.

I would like to state that I mean no criticism of the campaigning vets, and I believe that Niall will in fact make an outstanding RCVS president. I believe he has been elected with a significant mandate for long enough that he is able to act reasonably independently. And if you are not an 'establishment' candidate, this is what you need to do to be elected to Council.

Linking to that thought, I'm actually really pleased it was a very competitive field this time. It was a great pleasure that i had a very difficult choice this time.

Good luck to Niall, Jo, and Linda. I believe they will do well on Council. I urge our profession to continue to elect similarly enthusiastic, creative, and talented people to Council.

(My, that was longer than I had intended to write!)

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Matthew Plumtree — Fri, 03 May 2019 09:21:44 GMT

I have to say that the anarchist in me is tempted to vote for him just to see what would happen

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

bevs2251 — Fri, 03 May 2019 07:47:20 GMT

Would be ironic but unlikely. It is a single vet practice on the fringes of Western Sydney (better known as Boganville) - not what the corporates are after

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Matthew Plumtree — Thu, 02 May 2019 22:24:10 GMT

[quote user="bevs2251"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

And what about the 422 votes for the antipodean single non-issue candidate. I would just love to hear from anyone who voted for him .... WHY?

It's a serious question. He campaigns from Australia on: 'all commercial pet food is evil and causing death and disease'.

[/quote] He (Tom Lonsdale) campaigns in Australia also, has done for 30+ years. He had a run in with Dr Jill Maddison (Prof Dave Church's wife, both now living in UK) at a conference lecture once years ago - called her a shill for the pet food industry ! He's still around, although currently has his vet practice up for sale.

[/quote]

What odds a corporate buying it and making it flog Hills/Royal Canin? If any corporate CEOs are reading, please do it for the craic!

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

bevs2251 — Thu, 02 May 2019 06:35:37 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

And what about the 422 votes for the antipodean single non-issue candidate. I would just love to hear from anyone who voted for him .... WHY?

It's a serious question. He campaigns from Australia on: 'all commercial pet food is evil and causing death and disease'.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 01 May 2019 11:52:01 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]Disappointing that 75% didn't vote,[/quote]

I think it has probably reached peak voting numbers with 25pc. After all, general elections often struggle to get more than 60pc turnout. I think linking it in to renewal payments and prompts after handing over cash was a good idea, along with email prompts.

[/quote]

Far better to have a lower informed number voting.

Companies have been changed for the worse using the chairmans block vote which has diluted out the votes of those that know

Neil

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

David Mills — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 23:46:19 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]it was really about diluting corporate representation with functional people from the coal face[/quote]

Having spoken to quite a few people who voted, this is a common theme. Not to demean those who were elected in any way of course.

But I do think the profession may have woken up to the corp influence especially on council. There was a time a couple of years back when it was packed with vetsnow and others.

It does worry people. Rightly so.

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]Disappointing that 75% didn't vote,[/quote]

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

grumpyoldman — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:19:22 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]Ooh Clive, you're such a tease [/quote]

Its ok everyone knows your not a politician or in anyones pocket, I hope it all goes well .xxx

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Jo Dyer — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:06:35 GMT

Big thanks to everyone who voted for me and congrats to Niall (never in doubt!) and Linda.

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Congratulations to all three and (no pressure) please make sure the profession is protected and not manipulated into disaster. [/quote]

I will certainly continue to do my best to ensure that the voice of the practising veterinary surgeon, the means by which RCVS fulfils its aim of 'enhancing society through improved animal welfare', is heard. And I will always argue against the proposed change to the definition of 'Under Care'.

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]2/3 for me, so not bad[/quote]

Ooh Clive, you're such a tease

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

grumpyoldman — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:35:29 GMT

2/3 for me, so not bad ,it was really about diluting corporate representation with functional people from the coal face and outside London. Disappointing that 75% didn't vote, cant grumble about something being crap if you do not at least try and change it or halt its march down a particular pathway. I do not think that employees from the MEG should be on the council at the same time, too much of a conflict of interest and they will have people other than a conscience whispering in their ears.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Niall Connell — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:42:24 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Hip hip ...

www.vetsurgeon.org/.../rcvs-president-elect-re-elected-to-council-after-record-turnout.aspx

I don't know so much about Linda, but fantastic that Jo Dyer and Niall Connell are in, and congratulations to all three.

Made me think ... has there ever been a situation where the RCVS President-elect is NOT elected back onto Council, and what happens then?

[/quote]

Thanks everyone for the good wishes and congratulations to Linda and Jo. I believe there has been one instance of a president elect not getting back onto Council but I couldn't bear to know the details. If it did happen, the contingency is that the Senior Vice President does a second tour of duty.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Iain Richards — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:23:08 GMT

Good news indeed. One is sorry for some of the excellent folk who didn't make it.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Clive Ansell — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:27:50 GMT

Congratulations indeed, good outcome, in fact my 3 choices.

There were only 6 serious candidates anyway to me. The one down under, the corporate man, and the God squad one - no way.

As for voting for TL, the only reason I can think of would be some form of protest vote.

RE: Three cheers for Niall, Jo and Linda

Bob Russell — Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:57:41 GMT

There is either a 'circling the wagons' by the homeopath/eccentric/nutter brigade or there has been a protest vote. Perhaps a bit of both.

The improved turnout is the bit that pleases me most. I believe members of the profession are starting to realise there may be a threat from some commercial interests on the committee. Hopefully it is an expression of concerns regarding the daft proposals to allow remote 'diagnosis' and prescribing.

Congratulations to all three and (no pressure) please make sure the profession is protected and not manipulated into disaster.