In England, nursing education and training is currently undergoing a fundamental change in terms of its delivery and funding. While the debate regarding the loss of the National Health Service (NHS) bursary rages on, albeit with ministers occluding their ears firmly with their fingers, one aspect of government policy that has been off the mainstream agenda for some time is that of the Nurse Associate (NA). However, last month a debate at London Southbank University (LSBU) kicked it back from long grass and into our living roomsnot just figuratively but literally, if you live-streamed the event via Periscope and Twitter. In this paper I will discuss the positions of those involved in the debate from my own perspective-as an undergraduate student nurse currently studying at King's College London. The concept of the NA is not a new one. In fact, many NHS trusts currently employ individuals in similar roles but under the guise of different job titles (Cavendish, 2013). This convolutes the debate and leads to confusion as to what will and will not become part of the role nationally, but streamlining and formalising the training of such positions would seemingly be a sensible strategy and is advocated within Health Education England's (HEE) Shape of Caring Review (HEE, 2015). However, as with many new initiatives, while admirable and well-meaning, it is the unintended consequences that are often overlooked. Like all nursing students, I have been encouraged to 'look for the evidence', 'question' and 'critique', and LSBU's debate was very much part of this process for me. Chaired by Professor Warren Turner, the Dean and Pro-Vice Chancellor of LSBU's School of Health and Social Care, and with Professor Leslie Baillie posing the pro-NA position and Dr Elaine Maxwell opposing, the event finally swayed my allegiance firmly into one camp.