So.

In an unrelated universe, there was a turkey farmer, who had recently taken over the running of the turkey farm. Being a reasonable kind of chap, he worried about the turkeys' wellbeing, and wanted them to like him. So he made a lot of encouraging noises and assured them it would all be OK.

Unfortunately, when Christmas came the vast majority of the turkeys refused to vote for it. As a result, they were seen as apathetic - surely, if they cared as much about being turkeys as the turkey farmer did, they'd want to show their involvement in the process of turkey farming, from the point of hatching right up to the inevitable hatchet?

The turkeys were supposed to elect  the best turkeys amongst them to serve on the farmer's committee. Unfortunately, when the turkeys stopped doing whatever it is that turkeys do all day - and quite a lot of nights, weekends and little turkeys' birthdays - they realised that this committee was entirely devoted to protecting the interests of the turkey-consuming public (and the committee turkeys themselves, as the hatchet never seemed to fall on them, no matter how naughty a turkey they became), rather than the interests of the 'ordinary' turkeys themselves. And, as they were obligated to be turkeys, and to live under the conditions that the turkey farmer dictated, then surely it would be madness to vote for Christmas. It didn't matter who was organising the Christmas party - it inevitably went the same way for the turkeys - so why not just wish that they'd become ducks or geese instead, go back to turkeying and wait for the blade to fall when least expected?

But when the Inspector of Turkeys And Other Professional Headless Fowl came round to make sure that the turkey farmer and his committee of docile turkeys were treating the rest of the turkeys fairly and consistently, the turkey farmer was at least able to claim that the turkeys must be happy, because about one in six, bizarrely, kept putting their faith in Christmas. So that was OK.

It’s a clever and amusing analogy, but not entirely accurate, given it is not for culling or consumption that the RCVS exists but for reasons of reputation and resolution. I would contend that if the RCVS didn’t exist then it would have to be invented and would be so by demand from the veterinary profession as much as from the public. The same cannot be said for the turkey farm, but then I say that as a vegetarian!

You do however touch on an emerging theme developing from comments I am receiving, both personally and publicly stated, and that is that people can understand why you would vote in BVA elections, just like the BMA for doctors, but they cannot see why you would vote for the regulator; doctors don’t vote for the GMC after all.

I am interested to know whether this begins to explain the dismal turnout because in reality people are very engaged in the work we do, as we can see from recent interest and disquiet around postnominals, but perhaps very few people see elections as relevant to our role.

Nick

(Posted on his behalf by Ian Holloway)

It's not an analogy, it's trite nonsense.

But I think you illustrate the mismatch between what the RCVS thinks it does for its members, and what its members actually view as its primary function.

We keep getting told that the role of the RCVS is to protect the public from us. Which implies a great deal, and gives us a sense of our place. If we choose not to vote because, quite simply, the RCVS doesn't measure up to our standards, we're branded as apathetic and unwilling to be proactive.

Put it this way: given the absolute shambles that has been the running of the RCVS in recent years (prior to your time, Nick) and its apparent invisibility when contentious issues hit the public domain, how many of us do you think would actually vote even to keep the Council running? The actions of the DC are only one reason why we don't engage.