NMC elections

[Guest guest]

I expect NMC registrants will have now received their election papers

for the new NMC Council members. I do not know who is standing for NMC3

in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, only that they had difficulty

getting enough people to stand there (there are, after all, fewer than

a 1000 registrants on NMC3 in N Ireland or in Wales).

The line-up for England does not seem to include any educationalists,

which is a shame as the key purpose for the NMC (as their strap line has

it) is to 'protect the public through standards,' and it achieves that

by setting and overseeing educational standards. It would have been

equally sad to see no practitioners, but a balance is needed; the folk

who are standing will need to get on to a sharp learning curve to

understand the inner workings of curricular and learning outcomes etc.

I was disappointed, too, that a couple of them seem to think they have

the trade union function of 'representing practitioners views,' which is

not at all what the NMC is meant to be about. It is meant to be about

protecting the public, first and foremost; it does not have any other

function, although developing the profession in order to maintain

standards is important.

The other thing that is a bit confusing, when there are only five names,

is to be invited to list the preferred 6 candidates, in order of

preference. My understanding of it is that you do not have to vote for

that number; i.e., if you only want to vote for two of the, just mark 1

and 2. If you do not want someone at any cost, leave that blank,

because even if you mark them 5, that vote could be transferred in at

some stage. I will be leaving a blank against the one person whose name

I know on the list, as (along with CPHVA) she was active in campaigning

to close the health visiting register.

Does anyone have any other thoughts about it? It is hard to get engaged

in voting about a register from which I, personally, feel quite

disconnected.

[Guest guest]

I think Orr is standing in Ireland

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 January 2006 12:00 Subject: NMC electionsI expect NMC registrants will have now received their election papers for the new NMC Council members. I do not know who is standing for NMC3 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, only that they had difficulty getting enough people to stand there (there are, after all, fewer than a 1000 registrants on NMC3 in N Ireland or in Wales). The line-up for England does not seem to include any educationalists, which is a shame as the key purpose for the NMC (as their strap line has it) is to 'protect the public through standards,' and it achieves that by setting and overseeing educational standards. It would have been equally sad to see no practitioners, but a balance is needed; the folk who are standing will need to get on to a sharp learning curve to understand the inner workings of curricular and learning outcomes etc. I was disappointed, too, that a couple of them seem to think they have the trade union function of 'representing practitioners views,' which is not at all what the NMC is meant to be about. It is meant to be about protecting the public, first and foremost; it does not have any other function, although developing the profession in order to maintain standards is important. The other thing that is a bit confusing, when there are only five names, is to be invited to list the preferred 6 candidates, in order of preference. My understanding of it is that you do not have to vote for that number; i.e., if you only want to vote for two of the, just mark 1 and 2. If you do not want someone at any cost, leave that blank, because even if you mark them 5, that vote could be transferred in at some stage. I will be leaving a blank against the one person whose name I know on the list, as (along with CPHVA) she was active in campaigning to close the health visiting register. Does anyone have any other thoughts about it? It is hard to get engaged in voting about a register from which I, personally, feel quite disconnected.

[Guest guest]

Hi Had sent mine off before I got your e-mail. It would be have been useful to know who it was. I hope I haven't voted for her. The info given doesn't really tell you much about the candidates, difficult to make a descision without background knowledge. I only knew one of the names on the list and wasn't keen to vote for her-even though she is a health visitor! There didn't seem to be a lot of choice. I felt that in the other part of the register there where very few grass roots practitioners represented-most appeared to be very senior and in managment positions. I BWMaggie Fisher Whittaker <jonwhittaker@...> wrote: I think Orr is standing in Ireland -----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 January 2006 12:00 Subject: NMC electionsI expect NMC registrants will have now received their election papers for the new NMC Council members. I do not know who is standing for NMC3 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, only that they had difficulty getting enough people to stand there (there are, after all, fewer than a 1000 registrants

on NMC3 in N Ireland or in Wales). The line-up for England does not seem to include any educationalists, which is a shame as the key purpose for the NMC (as their strap line has it) is to 'protect the public through standards,' and it achieves that by setting and overseeing educational standards. It would have been equally sad to see no practitioners, but a balance is needed; the folk who are standing will need to get on to a sharp learning curve to understand the inner workings of curricular and learning outcomes etc. I was disappointed, too, that a couple of them seem to think they have the trade union function of 'representing practitioners views,' which is not at all what the NMC is meant to be about. It is meant to be about protecting the public, first and foremost; it does not have any other function, although developing the profession in order to maintain standards is important. The other thing

that is a bit confusing, when there are only five names, is to be invited to list the preferred 6 candidates, in order of preference. My understanding of it is that you do not have to vote for that number; i.e., if you only want to vote for two of the, just mark 1 and 2. If you do not want someone at any cost, leave that blank, because even if you mark them 5, that vote could be transferred in at some stage. I will be leaving a blank against the one person whose name I know on the list, as (along with CPHVA) she was active in campaigning to close the health visiting register. Does anyone have any other thoughts about it? It is hard to get engaged in voting about a register from which I, personally, feel quite disconnected.

[Guest guest]

That is very good news, if so. best wishes

Whittaker wrote:

I think

Orr is standing in Ireland

-----Original

Message-----

From:

[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Cowley

Sent: 24 January 2006 12:00

Subject: NMC elections

I expect NMC registrants will have now received their election papers

for the new NMC Council members. I do not know who is standing for

NMC3

in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, only that they had difficulty

getting enough people to stand there (there are, after all, fewer than

a 1000 registrants on NMC3 in N Ireland or in Wales).

The line-up for England does not seem to include any educationalists,

which is a shame as the key purpose for the NMC (as their strap line

has

it) is to 'protect the public through standards,' and it achieves that

by setting and overseeing educational standards. It would have been

equally sad to see no practitioners, but a balance is needed; the folk

who are standing will need to get on to a sharp learning curve to

understand the inner workings of curricular and learning outcomes etc.

I was disappointed, too, that a couple of them seem to think they have

the trade union function of 'representing practitioners views,' which

is

not at all what the NMC is meant to be about. It is meant to be about

protecting the public, first and foremost; it does not have any other

function, although developing the profession in order to maintain

standards is important.

The other thing that is a bit confusing, when there are only five

names,

is to be invited to list the preferred 6 candidates, in order of

preference. My understanding of it is that you do not have to vote for

that number; i.e., if you only want to vote for two of the, just mark 1

and 2. If you do not want someone at any cost, leave that blank,

because even if you mark them 5, that vote could be transferred in at

some stage. I will be leaving a blank against the one person whose

name

I know on the list, as (along with CPHVA) she was active in campaigning

to close the health visiting register.

Does anyone have any other thoughts about it? It is hard to get

engaged

in voting about a register from which I, personally, feel quite

disconnected.

[Guest guest]

Hi all

I was dissappointed about the range of choice of candidates and manifestos however...

how can one influence whoever gets in ...?

how can those who have the passion, time and commitment prepare themselves or others to suceed to be nominated for the next elections...?

how can people be supported to engage with the processes and the systems, however flawed, that exist and be able to contibute their knowlege and skills towards the things that matter ...?

regards

-----Original Message-----From: Cowley [mailto:sarah@...]Sent: 24 January 2006 16:19 Subject: Re: NMC electionsThat is very good news, if so. best wishes Whittaker wrote:

I think Orr is standing in Ireland

-----Original Message-----From: [mailto: ]On Behalf Of CowleySent: 24 January 2006 12:00 Subject: NMC electionsI expect NMC registrants will have now received their election papers for the new NMC Council members. I do not know who is standing for NMC3 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, only that they had difficulty getting enough people to stand there (there are, after all, fewer than a 1000 registrants on NMC3 in N Ireland or in Wales). The line-up for England does not seem to include any educationalists, which is a shame as the key purpose for the NMC (as their strap line has it) is to 'protect the public through standards,' and it achieves that by setting and overseeing educational standards. It would have been equally sad to see no practitioners, but a balance is needed; the folk who are standing will need to get on to a sharp learning curve to understand the inner workings of curricular and learning outcomes etc. I was disappointed, too, that a couple of them seem to think they have the trade union function of 'representing practitioners views,' which is not at all what the NMC is meant to be about. It is meant to be about protecting the public, first and foremost; it does not have any other function, although developing the profession in order to maintain standards is important. The other thing that is a bit confusing, when there are only five names, is to be invited to list the preferred 6 candidates, in order of preference. My understanding of it is that you do not have to vote for that number; i.e., if you only want to vote for two of the, just mark 1 and 2. If you do not want someone at any cost, leave that blank, because even if you mark them 5, that vote could be transferred in at some stage. I will be leaving a blank against the one person whose name I know on the list, as (along with CPHVA) she was active in campaigning to close the health visiting register. Does anyone have any other thoughts about it? It is hard to get engaged in voting about a register from which I, personally, feel quite disconnected.

[Guest guest]

I know we've been sidelined as a profession, but the NMC vote has

to be done. Part of the reason why HVs disappeared was because

nurses were given the power to end another profession's

registration.

This may be all the democracy we get, unless there's any chance to

be a bit more participative in between times? Now there's a

thought...

H Wood

Private email address: hwood@...