RCVS Elections oh dear!

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Kate Richardson — Fri, 06 May 2011 13:26:51 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Who would vote for me? [/quote]

I would

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Bob Russell — Fri, 06 May 2011 13:15:13 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The RCVS is paid for by us and should be the great and the good, guiding the profession forwards with wisdom and care whilst putting wrongdoers under the spotlight![/quote]

I've got a small problem with this statement and I am no apologist for the RCVS. Guidance with wisdom and care from the Great and the Good smacks of leadership by some benignly autocratic, not democratic and responsive organisation. Mr Russel might look for a Wizard of Oz to nurture and protect the profession and may even be happy to invest that organisation with gravitas in respect of dealing with Government and the Public, but I do not share his view. We are a self-regulating profession and I want to see a RCVS which is responsive, not just to the changing profession ( demographics) but also to the view that society has e.g. on disciplinary matters. The profession is leading bodies like RCVS and BVA not the other way round. BVA is still stuck in the rut of the mixed practitoner/LA practitioner mindset and is a bit of a basket case as a result. RCVS is so utterly detached from the understanding that it is the profession which interacts "millions of times a year" with the public that it doesn't adapt tothe knowledge. RCVS knows the profession does this it just fails to adapt. It sort of half does things and cannot recognise its limitations. As a result RCVS is confused. This is obvious and ifa spotlight gets shone on it from a third party, like Defra at EFRACOM it looks bloodysilly. If a serious review of veterinary regulation were undertaken by Defra, the sponsoring ministry, I believe the RCVS, not the VSA would be found wanting and they, not the profession, repeat, not the profession who are the ones held in regard ( not the RCVS), will be the authors of their own demise.

RantingJGW

[/quote]

Quite right, my view about the great and the good is me showing my age and how I would like things to be. I like the idea of being regulated by people that are better vets than me, care as much or more than I do about patients and the profession etc etc. I accept in the real world the people I genuinely respect most in the profession are unlikely to get bogged down in the politics of the RCVS.

I suspect the RCVS is almost irrelevant to 99% of the profession 99% of the time and unheard of by 99.999% of the general public. Perhaps it doesn't really matter who is on the committee after all!

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

plantagenet — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:54:12 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]I take serious exception to the constant denial of the RVCS being there to represent the profession - they are. They are supposed to be the leaders of the profession and the committee elected by the profession is supposed to champion the profession's position.[/quote]

Absolutely - nail on the head.

They should be there to represent us, our views, our needs, our profession.

None of them seemed to be going to work for me, so I didn't vote.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 06 May 2011 10:25:18 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

[I would vote for you Martin but as a sole practitioner could you spare the time? If you need someone to propose or second you I will be happy to oblige.

[/quote]

Thanks Eamon, yes I'm sole charge and apart from not being interested in politics that's one reason why I've not had time for such things but I'm at a time of life that retirement is looming and looking at easing into it. A bit of committee work may ease the transition.

PS I did of course mean RCVS not RVC in my previous post, I certainly don't have the brains for the latter!

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

J G Wray — Fri, 06 May 2011 07:33:21 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The RCVS is paid for by us and should be the great and the good, guiding the profession forwards with wisdom and care whilst putting wrongdoers under the spotlight![/quote]

RantingJGW

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Eamon McAllister — Thu, 05 May 2011 23:12:37 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

I Bu**er all signs of wisdom or good guidance coming from them at the moment! Bland, unexciting and expensive - a bit like some brands of dry dog food!

[/quote]

I'm surprised you didn't vote RMB after all then Bob. I've been asked to join the committees of more than one of our more august professional associations (RVC not included I admit) rather surprising as it may seem to some (well most probably) on the basis that I have an opinion on everything (which is usually controversial) and I'm not scared to express it plus I suspect the adage that its better to have your enemies on board rather than against you. I've turned these offers down as I'm a totally non-political animal but never say never: maybe its better to change the system from within. Who would vote for me?

[/quote]

I would vote for you Martin but as a sole practitioner could you spare the time? If you need someone to propose or second you I will be happy to oblige.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Tim Cheyne — Thu, 05 May 2011 19:49:14 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

...... I wonder what the turnout would have been if there was a box marked "None of the above "?

[/quote]

Not a bad idea, Wynne, but even without that box it is still possible to register that you have voted without supporting any candidate by spoiling your ballot paper; ticking all the boxes or ticking none. On several occasions I have not used all six votes, not that it made any difference! This time I was a little discomforted by the several candidates who, for one reason or another, declared themselves unable to answer questions for periods during the forum; made me wonder whether I was being unreasonable in expecting them to give up their valuable time to represent the profession on RCVS Council.

Tim.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 05 May 2011 14:48:37 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

I Bu**er all signs of wisdom or good guidance coming from them at the moment! Bland, unexciting and expensive - a bit like some brands of dry dog food!

[/quote]

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Bob Russell — Thu, 05 May 2011 13:46:57 GMT

I agree completely with Richard, well put!

The RCVS is paid for by us and should be the great and the good, guiding the profession forwards with wisdom and care whilst putting wrongdoers under the spotlight!

Bu**er all signs of wisdom or good guidance coming from them at the moment! Bland, unexciting and expensive - a bit like some brands of dry dog food!

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2011 12:49:08 GMT

My biggest objection to what is currently considered best practice is their mania for putting politically appointed lay people in charge-just because everyone else is daft enough to do so

Wynne

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Mark Holmes — Thu, 05 May 2011 12:22:07 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

I think a lot of the apathy stems from the current permanent officials taking the stance of being a regulatory body OVER the profession whereas the Vet Surgeons Act primary objective was to set up the profession as a protected title (membership of the RCVS based on qualification criteria determined by it) and then to have a mechanism to remove the bad apples - i.e a system within the profession which is why the RCVS staff are paid by us and not the civil service.

I take serious exception to the constant denial of the RVCS being there to represent the profession - they are. They are supposed to be the leaders of the profession and the committee elected by the profession is supposed to champion the profession's position. I quite agree the committee and the RCVS is not there to defend the individual member but it is supposed to promote the profession and as a spin off, the ideals of animal health.

The Registrar and other permanent staff are employed to carry out the committee's decisions, not the other way round. Quite a lot of what is being passed as 'good practice' and 'for the good of the animal owning public' is little more than a thumb suck from someone in a hidden office or trying to take a situation from another profession and make it a problem with the veterinary profession. Can one a have a vote of no confidence in the Registrar or any of the permanent staff? They are after all employed by us.

[/quote]

I think this is a perfect example of why there should be additional stars!

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Richard Carter — Thu, 05 May 2011 11:37:00 GMT

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2011 10:46:14 GMT

I agree with Evelyn My initial reaction was that there was no-one I could really support. Eventually I found 4 I could consider supporting,e-mailed them privately to clarify a few issues, and ended up voting for 3-the 4th lost my support by not having the courtesy to reply-hope a more inspiring set of candidates next year will increase turnout I wonder what the turnout would have been if there was a box marked "None of the above "?

Wynne

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Bob Russell — Thu, 05 May 2011 09:51:54 GMT

[quote user="alison howell"]

I didn't think most of them gave any clear opinions on anything - too waffly. I can't see what the point of the election is - it doesn't seem to make any difference to anything. What if RMB man did get in - what would he actually be able to change? Also I wasn't feeling impressed with RCVS recently so didn't feel like supporting them by voting.

[/quote]

Sorry - suggestion was only a bit of mischief! Something to wake up the committee and get them to consider us mere mortals in the real world that are too busy/stressed/poor to apply for election.

The committee gives the impression that they are distant from the profession. They should be fighting to protect the good in the profession (most of it) from attack. I have seen little of that, whilst protecting the general public from the bad!

Uninspiring, complacent - not surprising the turnout was so poor.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Alasdair Mathieson — Wed, 04 May 2011 22:12:26 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]I didn't get excited by any of the candidates.

[/quote]Me neither. Hence I didn't vote. A Monster Raving Loony MRCVS or Miss Whiplash [ was that her name? ]MRCVS would get my vote. The poor turnout is because everyone knows that nothing changes, other than the annual subs go up.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

vs0u — Wed, 04 May 2011 21:52:59 GMT

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

sarah mason — Wed, 04 May 2011 21:13:39 GMT

I was too busy trying to sort my fee renewal out..

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 04 May 2011 17:56:55 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Could it have been that many people did not like any of the candidates?

[/quote]

Exactly. There wasn't even anyone: I was mates with at college, knew from a skiing conference or was just a jolly good all round bloke/lass so couldn't even take the friends/nepotism route either (which I have to confess is my usual basis for voting as manifestos are usually a pile of male bovine dung). I also even thought of voting RMB just to liven things up a bit but couldn't bring myself to do so as Tom Lonsdale might have taken it as a vote of approval.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 04 May 2011 15:47:27 GMT

[quote user="fluffygirl"] Adi Nell sent a mailshot out - at least I received one from him.[/quote]

Yes, as I remember, he sent one last year, and I thought he should be applauded for making the effort. Didn't know that he'd done it again this year. Still, it doesn't seem to have helped him (he didn't get elected), and that surprised me.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

fluffygirl — Wed, 04 May 2011 14:15:07 GMT

Other than the RCVS materials, did anyone get any campaigning communication direct from any of the candidates this year (ie an email asking for your vote, or a direct mail, or anything else?)

Adi Nell sent a mailshot out - at least I received one from him.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Tim Cheyne — Wed, 04 May 2011 10:31:52 GMT

No, but as an overseas member the candidates might not have considered that worthwhile or, as often happens, the letter was lost in the post and might yet arrive!

Tim.

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Anthony Todd — Wed, 04 May 2011 10:14:39 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]15.9% (3,887 voters) and 7.6% (723 voters) respectively. The previous turnouts were 18.8% (in 2010) and 11.2% (in 2009).[/quote]

Shivers, that's a drop of 20% and more isn't it.

I would have voted for the candidate who is in practice and posts often on here but I forgot when the polls closed....!!

Next year, with a banner giving closing date somewhere, and a "how to vote" card somewhere too.

And can we have a preferred vet surgeon.org candidate?

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 04 May 2011 09:57:19 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] I didn't look at or take part in the RCVS Candidate debate thingy on vetsurgeon.org. I read the comments though - errrr! Perhaps it should take a different format next year. In previous years, with a more relaxed attitude, there was more interest and a higher turnout. Younger and new Councillors got elected, but not this year I see. Tant pis![/quote]

Funnily enough, I was discussing this very point the other day. The change to the Q & A format for the initial questions this year was very much my idea. My thinking was that there are only a limited number of questions that can be asked, and perhaps this was limiting the number of members that participated in the forum. If we asked people to submit questions in advance, then nobody would know which questions had already been asked, and perhaps more would take part.

I also thought that some of the less polite, mickey-taking posts that we saw last year weren't right for an online election debate, and perhaps by getting people to submit questions in advance, we would set the tone for a more serious discussion later.

With hindsight, I'm beginning to wonder whether that was a mistake. In the same way that car crashes always draw rubbernecks, a bit of a ribbing probably makes for more compelling reading.

Still, I don't think the change to the Q&A format could have accounted for a 3% drop. After all, we didn't see an immediate 3% increase when we started doing the forums. I'm genuinely intrigued as to what could have caused the drop off. Was it perhaps the very fact that the majority of serious candidates have already sat on council before, so were perhaps less likely to inspire members to vote (either because they didn't campaign hard enough for your vote, or because all leaders become less inspirational with time).

Other than the RCVS materials, did anyone get any campaigning communication direct from any of the candidates this year (ie an email asking for your vote, or a direct mail, or anything else?)

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 03 May 2011 21:05:06 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]I didn't get excited by any of the candidates.[/quote]

Sorry to hear this. Perhaps the question/answer format failed to allow them to "sparkle". Mind you RCVS don't really care about being interesting. The stuff from Ms Hern is eyewash - she's not elected.

I have a suggestion to increase turnout. How about a £100 discount on registration fees if you register an electronic vote?

JGW

[/quote]

Allow me to rephrase, then. None of the candidates represented any of my interests. None of them offered anything more than generalities in their manifesto - even the ones who promised to represent the front line first opinion vets.

I decline to vote for "least worst", thank you.

When I vote for a candidate, I want a list of accomplishments, a list of goals, and how they made the goals into accomplishments. Sparkle? I don't want sparkle, I want clear statements, clear initiatives, and clear results.

I am aware politics doesn't operate like that. I will still vote based on the above criteria.

(edit: sorry, not trying to vent at you - I take my voting rights very seriously and I don't think we should be bribed to vote. Ok, I'm off to take a chill pill now :D )

Re: RCVS Elections oh dear!

Tim Cheyne — Tue, 03 May 2011 19:42:07 GMT

Following the results, on another thread here, I asked......

<quote>......given the present results, the poor voter turn out, the lackadaisical response and the trite replies in the election forum organised by Arlo, does the veterinary profession really want, or merit, self governance?......<endquote>

Well? Let t'battle commence! Incidentally I did vote and have done so every election for years but have rarely obtained satisfaction with the results.

Tim.