Vote for your Police & Crime Commissioner today

[Lynton]

I've voted in every election since I was 18 & have always been of the opinion :-

"If you don't vote, you cant complain"

However, in this particular election I can't decide whether to abstain from voting or deliberately spoil my vote

I think this whole business is just increasing our tax bill to pay for another layer of "suits full of b****r all"

Quite agree.
Must admit to having a look. We have 5 in Norfolkshire. Con / Lib / Lab / UKIP and an "independent" who in my opinion looks a little dodgy.... Read through what they are going to do... yeah right..

 

[gramps]

1st one nominated for Wiltshire, turnout of voters there around 15% ... estimates in some areas around 10% - seems most people view it as a complete waste of time & money.

 

[andya700]

Didn't vote, complete waste of time. We received only one leaflet, clearly titled - "your Conservative candidate for police commissioner" - so that wouldn't be at all political then?
I did see a little piece on Meridien news last week, where they filmed a bit of a debate with our candidates, fielding questions from the public.
Quite frankly they all came across as total idiots, with three of them saying that they did not intend to claim their £80K salary if elected - why?
This to me, seems like another attempt by government to totally undermine the confidence of the police, to put in place some "police tsar" who knows nothing about policing, but will have a lot of say in how policing is carried out.

 

[Spuff]

Seems to me it was easy enough to find details about the candidates. If the Government had spent millions on spoon feeding information there would have been an even greater outcry about that.

My reasons for voting were twofold. Like Garry, I personally feel a lot of people have made a lot of sacrifices to give us the right to vote. We like to get in enough wars in the name of democracy so I might as well use one of its main "features". Of course, this does not imply that anyone not voting is not appreciative of aforementioned sacrifices. They are simply using another feature of democracy!

Secondly, my vote was to try and prevent someone (party political) that would state this as part of their policy, quote:

“If elected every police station in xxxx will proudly fly the Cross of St George and will promote xxxx's celebrations of St George’s Day."

 

[srichards]

Two candidates here. One tory, one labour. Both said roughly the same. Neither were worth voting for. Unless there is a 'none of the above' option then if you don't want any of the candidates you cannot indicate your displeasure with the options. Only thing left is to not vote. So I didn't. I didn't want either of them. The whole PCC thing is a stupid waste of money, like elected mayors.

 

[onomatopoeia]

The whole PCC thing is a stupid waste of money, like elected mayors.

The people of Bristol voted for an elected mayor. This is probably due to the uselessness of Bristol City Council and their inability to make decisions or do anything. The campaigning for the mayor yes/no vote was interesting - I summarize:

Against : The mayor will be an elected dictator, this is bad!
For : The mayor will be an elected dictator, this is good!

Living just outside Bristol, I didn't get to vote on the mayor, but there was a steady stream of voters at the polling station I was at yesterday evening and when I went into my local polling station at 9.30pm on my way home last night to vote, another 5 people came in while I was there. It's only a small village so all of us arriving at once was a veritable tsunami of voters.

 

[crofter]

Whoever wins in your area is bound to be a member of the same freemasons lodge as the chief of police, all pals together.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Its a total pretence of democracy if no one has any idea who is who and what is what.
All the more reason to cast a vote of 'no confidence' and void the vote, 80% like that and surely that would void the election...or something similar.

what a sham!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Whoever wins in your area is bound to be a member of the same freemasons lodge as the chief of police, all pals together.

Aye, it stinks.

 

[Garry Edwards]

It may have been 'organised' in a shambolic way, and it may be a great pity that the system allows and even encourages political control of the police, but it isn't pointless and it isn't a sham.

If the new PCC's do their jobs properly, they will hold the police accountable, for the first time.
If they don't do their jobs properly, they will be held accountable by the electorate.

In the past, the various police forces were 'supervised' by committees made up almost entirely of local councillors and the like. A decision that turned out to be a bad one would end up being the responsibility of nobody - the Chief Constable isn't responsible if the decision is actually made by the committee, even if he strongly advised them to make that decision. The committee isn't responsible either, as they simply followed the advice of an expert...

Typical possible scenario from the past:
A decision is made to contract certain work to a private Company, let's call it G4T. The Chairman of the old police authority wants that to happen, for whatever reason, if he isn't actually a director or shareholder of G4T he can probably get away with not declaring his interest, whatever that interest may be. If he needs to declare his interest but 'forgets' then he can put that right at the start of the next meeting, when the decision has already been made.

So, first he proposes that certain police functions should be outsourced to a private sector Company. Once that has been accepted, various private Companies are invited to tender. Only one does, probably because only one wants it, or only one was provided with all the info they needed to submit their tender, or because the others knew that they wouldn't get the job so didn't go to the expense of tendering - so he proposes that G4T get the contract. He might organise for the decision to be taken when certain other committee members won't be present and so can't vote against it.

Over time, it all goes pear shaped - not his fault, it wasn't anything to do with him, he was just the Chairman and he didn't even vote for it personally...

In the future, only one person will make major decisions on this kind of thing. If the PCC leaves it to the Chief Constable, it will still be the responsibility of the PCC, just as it will be his/her responsibility if he makes the decision himself/herself.

This kind of accountability has to be a good thing, surely?

 

[munch]

"In the future, only one person will make major decisions on this kind of thing."

How is this more democratic than having a police authority made up of members from various poilitacal parties?

 

[Johnd2000]

The police have always been, and will always be, a political force. The new commissioners are just there so someone other than a career copper will take the blame when they screw up.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Garry Edwards]

"In the future, only one person will make major decisions on this kind of thing."

How is this more democratic than having a police authority made up of members from various poilitacal parties?

Because democracy involves choice. By choosing to vote for the candidate of our choice we end up with someone who has been elected by a majority. That has to be better than a committee that nobody voted for surely?

 

[Neil B]

Apathy & animosity are two of my favourite words

 

[neil_g]

Apathy & animosity are two of my favourite words

Unfortunately my crystal ball didn't tell me there was a vote on this.. Must need servicing or something?

 

[Yves Geza]

It's possibly worth any amount of public money for the voters of Humberside to demonstrate they are tough on punchy should-be criminals, tough on the causes of punchy should-be criminals!

 

[srichards]

I wonder if there is any correlation between the perceived efficacy of a force and the number of candidates standing/turn out? Where forces are doing well I'd expect few candidates and low turns out as many will think it isn't broke so there's nothing that needs doing. With lots of candidates standing in certain places it makes me assume that there must be something wrong in those force areas to warrant such an interest.

There were only 2 candidates in Staffs. Turn out was about 10-12% so the population really didn't have any kind of axe to grind anyway.

 

[munch]

But we did vote for the members of police authority. Not directly granted, but the authority is made up of elected councillors. So we do away with a group of people making decisions and replace that with one person elected by 15% of the population and people think that is more democratic.

 

[Dem]

Well, even if we happen to feel that the whole concept is wrong, by voting we can influence the result.

If we have political affiliations then we can vote for the political candidate of our choice.

If we are able to vote for a non-political candidate then we can try to keep politics out of the police in our area, if that's what we want to do.

It's possible, because of the shambolic 'organisation' of this election, that the turnout will be extremely low. This means that every vote that is cast becomes much more significant. People have fought and died for the right to vote, it seems to me that we should not waste a right that people have fought for us to have.

By voting you give the process legitimacy, however I acknowledge your comment about people's sacrifices to ensure we have a right to vote.

If this was a true democracy, there would always be a 'none of the above' or similar choice on the ballot paper.

In this instance HMG have basically said 'we know you don't want this but we don't give a stuff, here are your options'.

By not voting people have said that they won't be bullied, even under the pretence of 'choice'.

If we had a choice then 'maintenance of the status quo' would have been one of the options - and people could have voted accordingly.

Again, if we lived in a democracy then HMG would acknowledge the meaning of the low turnout and reconsider this policy. They won't, however, as they are not listening.

How on earth can these hypocrites say they are not worried by the low turnout and that the process still has legitimacy but that a workforce cannot strike due to not 'having the majority mandate'.

A spoilt ballot is an option but not the solution. If it is necessary that a workforce has to demonstrate a majority mandate then surely such a low turnout for these PCC elections must mean that they be declared null and void?

 

[acetone]

I did not know who the candidates for Lancashire were until today, not had one single piece of info in the letterbox, so I'm sorry Gary but I did not vote as I had no idea what anyone stood for.

In principal believe it's a good idea, the more we can pick and choose the more democratic we are, but we need to know what/who we are voting for, otherwise it's pointless.

First election I have not voted in since 1978

 

[Bernie174]

If the new PCC's do their jobs properly, they will hold the police accountable, for the first time.
If they don't do their jobs properly, they will be held accountable by the electorate.

On point 1.
PCC's have no operational control over a Police Officer/Force. So to say they will hold it accountable is utter rubbish.

So for example, PCC goes to meeting, the assembled masses (both of them) say, we want Police to deal with dog poo (I kid you not, it already happens!). PCC duly goes to see Ch.Const and says, get your chaps out cleaning up dog poo, and sticking people in the book for not picking it up.

CC tells PCC to go away, and does what he should be doing, deploys his boys & girls dealing with crime which is their responsibility (which it it's self would be a first for many years!).
Or
CC Says, yes Mr PCC, and does as he's told. Meanwhile crime goes on unabated.

Is option one realistic? Probably not, CC's will have to grow a pair.
Is option 2 realistic? Certainly is, happens already. Along with one of my 'forward' thinking Ch Supt's who years ago sent the new boys from Training down the High Street to find out what the Public wanted from their Old Bill. In an area renowned for Street Robbery, Burglary and Motor Vehicle crime, they decided parking in the High Street was the pressing issue Police should deal with.
So we did. Took area complaints months to deal with the whining from the public over that one, cause what they meant was, "I want everyone else to get a ticket, so I can park in the High Street".



On point 2.
No, the PCC is accountable to a Police and Crime Committee, aka, a Police Authority. So nothings changed, except we now have a highly paid politician where Politicians have no place to be, in Policing.
Yes, they can be voted out in an election, every 4 years, but in that time, they can do a huge amount of damage.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Again, if we lived in a democracy then HMG would acknowledge the meaning of the low turnout and reconsider this policy. They won't, however, as they are not listening.

By that argument the new MP for Manchester Central also has no legitimacy. Turnout was 18%, being a parliamentary election everyone knows what it is for and there would be mailshots paid for for all the candidates.

 

[Dem]

By that argument the new MP for Manchester Central also has no legitimacy. Turnout was 18%, being a parliamentary election everyone knows what it is for and there would be mailshots paid for for all the candidates.

Maybe with only 18% they don't?

The question here is, how low is too low and the whole thing is discredited?

 

[Spuff]

If this was a true democracy, there would always be a 'none of the above' or similar choice on the ballot paper.

In this instance HMG have basically said 'we know you don't want this but we don't give a stuff, here are your options'.

Well , the Government could have had a vote or referendum on whether an elected PCC was a good idea in the first place. But the argument against these types of referenda tends to be along the lines of "you've democratically elected a Government to make these types of decisions for you". The whole system would grind to a halt if we had to have a referendum on the desirability of every new process.

But it is an interesting point on "how low do you go" turnout-wise before a result becomes meaningless. In recent years however, turnouts seem to have been getting lower as more people disengage or become disillusioned with politics. It would be interesting to see the age groups voting in the PCC poll - I bet the 50+ group would massively outweigh the youngsters.

A few interesting historical voting stats below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/nov/16/uk-election-turnouts-historic

 

[odd jim]

I think the British public proved more by NOT voting than the ones who did.

15% average turnout shows the government how out of touch they are - point proven.

It's matters not who got elected, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Complete waste of money.

 

[pepi1967]

I think the British public proved more by NOT voting than the ones who did.

15% average turnout shows the government how out of touch they are - point proven.

It's matters not who got elected, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Complete waste of money.

Agreed.

 

[TriggerHappy]

I think the British public proved more by NOT voting than the ones who did.

15% average turnout shows the government how out of touch they are - point proven.

It's matters not who got elected, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Complete waste of money.

Precisely. If 85% of voters have no interest/chose not to participate then that should speak volumes about the attitude of the public towards the position and/or the candidates. It baffles me that they haven't included a "none" option so people can express their displeasure at the position/candidates without the wiggle room of a poor turnout, but I suppose wiggle room is what politicians love :bang:

 

[gramps]

It baffles me that they haven't included a "none" option so people can express their displeasure at the position/candidates without the wiggle room of a poor turnout, but I suppose wiggle room is what politicians love :bang:

From what I hear quite a number of spoiled ballot papers made that clearly known!

 

[onomatopoeia]

Precisely. If 85% of voters have no interest/chose not to participate then that should speak volumes about the attitude of the public towards the position and/or the candidates. It baffles me that they haven't included a "none" option so people can express their displeasure at the position/candidates without the wiggle room of a poor turnout, but I suppose wiggle room is what politicians love :bang:

If you don't like the candidates, find like minded people and one of you stand. There should be no shortage of like minded people, given the dissatisfaction expressed here.

People seem to forget that engaging with the democratinc process is not just voting. There have to be candidates to vote for. They are not magicked out of the ether. The other side of the democratic process is standing for election.

 

[Garry Edwards]

If you don't like the candidates, find like minded people and one of you stand. There should be no shortage of like minded people, given the dissatisfaction expressed here.

People seem to forget that engaging with the democratinc process is not just voting. There have to be candidates to vote for. They are not magicked out of the ether. The other side of the democratic process is standing for election.

Very true.
But standing for this election involved putting up a £5000 cash deposit, among other things.
And there was no government funding for election expenses. One of the independent candidates (who didn't win) says that he ended up £33,000 out of pocket.

Because of this, I suspect that only the political candidates can only afford to stand, or at least in most cases. Personally I was happy that so many of the political candidates were beaten by independents, despite the fact that most force areas didn't even have any independents - that should be telling the politicians (of all parties) something...

 

[TriggerHappy]

If you don't like the candidates, find like minded people and one of you stand. There should be no shortage of like minded people, given the dissatisfaction expressed here.

People seem to forget that engaging with the democratinc process is not just voting. There have to be candidates to vote for. They are not magicked out of the ether. The other side of the democratic process is standing for election.

I'm all for being politically active beyond just ticking a box on a piece of paper whenever it's asked, but I'm not going to run for a position at the personal cost of £5000 if I don't even believe in the position in the first place.

That said, I wonder how a candidate would have done if they'd have said something along the lines of "I don't agree this position should ever have been made, as such I will do absolutely nothing and will give the whole salary to a charity". I imagine there could have been considerable support actually.

 

[Bernie174]

It baffles me that they haven't included a "none" option

Which is the crux of the issue. Not one person I know, Police connected or otherwise can see any point or purpose in these PCC's.
With public confidence running at round 70% in favour of Police, frankly, the idea that now we suddenly need something that must remain independent to be politically controlled is laughable.
Then there's the cost, it has been and will continue to be an utter waste of money. Unfortunately, it will be an ever growing cost. PCC's on £70-100,000 Then there's expenses, offices, deputy PCC's, staffing. Thats on top of the cost of the old PA's, which continue to exist, just named something different.

 

[DemiLion]

Then there's the cost, it has been and will continue to be an utter waste of money. Unfortunately, it will be an ever growing cost. PCC's on £70-100,000 Then there's expenses, offices, deputy PCC's, staffing. Thats on top of the cost of the old PA's, which continue to exist, just named something different.

I think that you may be a bit confused. The Police Authority staff will become the PCC's staff. There is no parallel existence.

 

[odd jim]

I think that you may be a bit confused. The Police Authority staff will become the PCC's staff. There is no parallel existence.

Indeed, the PCC simply controls them. The old boss is replaced by a political boss, though not in my area as he's "independent". An "independent" ex Tory. Hmmmm.

 

[Bernie174]

No Demi, I think it's you thats confused, perhaps a plane spotter told you?

The truth of the matter, is, as often the case easily available...

In November 2012, all Force areas in England and Wales, except London, will be electing a "Police and Crime Commissioner", who will be responsible for working with a range of community safety and criminal justice partners in local areas to develop and deliver policing plans and priorities.

These Commissioners will be scrutinised by a Police and Crime Panel - a joint committee of all the authorities in the area, with certain legal powers to hold the Commissioner (not the Force) to account.

In this case on this site.
http://www.cfps.org.uk/publications?item=7002&offset=175

So a new name for the PA, the make up is slightly smaller, but the way it comes into being is the same as it is now. What it is not, is a PCC 'staff', that is something different, and what is going to add cost to the already expensive waste of money.

You could also read the legislation on the subject as well.

 

[DemiLion]

No Demi, I think it's you thats confused, perhaps a plane spotter told you?

The truth of the matter, is, as often the case easily available...



In this case on this site.
http://www.cfps.org.uk/publications?item=7002&offset=175

So a new name for the PA, the make up is slightly smaller, but the way it comes into being is the same as it is now. What it is not, is a PCC 'staff', that is something different, and what is going to add cost to the already expensive waste of money.

You could also read the legislation on the subject as well.

For simplicity, and to draw parallels to the existing system:

Chairman of the Police Authority will be replaced by The Police and Crime Commissioner

The Police Authority (17 members 9 'elected' and 8 co-opted [inc Mags]) will be replaced by the Police and Crime Panel, who will be the balance to the single Commissioner and which is made up of members of the relevant local authorities in proportion to the votes cast for those LA's.

The Authority Staff will transfer directly to the Office of the PCC. The is no parallel secretariat - the one that already exists will carry on as before. What is in the PCC's gift is the decision to expand or contract the infrastructure of the office as it stands at the moment (or at least until the 21st).

I was referring to this comment made by you:

Then there's expenses, offices, deputy PCC's, staffing. Thats on top of the cost of the old PA's, which continue to exist, just named something different.

Which is completely incorrect.

As mentioned above, the infrastructure of the PA will transfer directly to the PCC. Any extra cost will be represented by the PCC's salary and any additional staff that he takes on over and above those that already exist. If it's for political purposes, then those staff should be self funded.

 

[Bernie174]

Which is completely incorrect.

No Demi, your interpretation is incorrect.
The only thing that has changed is there is now a PCC between what was the PA and the CC of the Force. The PCC decides budget (which is a fallacy given the restrictions on raising Council tax and the cuts from Central Government). That is still subject to agreement by the P&CP (aka PA by another name).
The 'power' to sack a chief constable is something the PA always had anyway, and the only change is that power in the first instance is the PCC's. However it has to be approved by the P&CP. In other words, it's a toothless power, unless the PA by another name agrees.
The 'secretariat' is still going to be required by the so called new P&CP, and while some of it may go to the PCC, he will no doubt have a 'pressing need' to waste more of our tax on an expanded empire, there's little doubt that the PA by another name are still going to need much the same level of support.
So, in summary, the PA still exists, in a slightly less powerful way, it's role being one step away from where it was. However, they do have the powers to sack the PCC, so in effect they have also gained a little.
So, no, my words "Thats on top of the old PA's which continue to exist just named something different" are more than valid, and your assumptions aren't.
But then not a surprise given you believe plane spotters. What happened to your threat to sue me by the way? Or did 'our solicitors' laugh at you?

 

[DemiLion]

No Demi, your interpretation is incorrect.
The only thing that has changed is there is now a PCC between what was the PA and the CC of the Force. The PCC decides budget (which is a fallacy given the restrictions on raising Council tax and the cuts from Central Government). That is still subject to agreement by the P&CP (aka PA by another name).
The 'power' to sack a chief constable is something the PA always had anyway, and the only change is that power in the first instance is the PCC's. However it has to be approved by the P&CP. In other words, it's a toothless power, unless the PA by another name agrees.
The 'secretariat' is still going to be required by the so called new P&CP, and while some of it may go to the PCC, he will no doubt have a 'pressing need' to waste more of our tax on an expanded empire, there's little doubt that the PA by another name are still going to need much the same level of support.
So, in summary, the PA still exists, in a slightly less powerful way, it's role being one step away from where it was. However, they do have the powers to sack the PCC, so in effect they have also gained a little.
So, no, my words "Thats on top of the old PA's which continue to exist just named something different" are more than valid, and your assumptions aren't.
But then not a surprise given you believe plane spotters. What happened to your threat to sue me by the way? Or did 'our solicitors' laugh at you?

It's not my interpretation or assumption, it's how it works in the real world. Considering where I work, my comments are from experience and observation, not gleaned from some passed-over dinosaur's forum.

Now if we can quit the insults, perhaps you could stick to the facts of what is happening and not make up things according to your bias?

 

[viv1969]

I think the British public proved more by NOT voting than the ones who did.

15% average turnout shows the government how out of touch they are - point proven.

It's matters not who got elected, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Complete waste of money.

 

[Nikon Man]

We still have police? most of the ones I see are on tv making police "catch me a thief in a chopper" type program. You now the one where they chase two kids on a stolen push bike for hours with chopper coppers, armed response units, oh and a dog or two with big teeth.:nuts: