anyone on here vote in police elections ? ha ha

[phillywilly]

so i take it no one walked down to their local voting station and wasted 5 mins of their life voting in faceless up their own arse ponces  to oversee the police budget (minus their £65000 wages )
surely the best person for that is the police chief ? so why ,in these days of cutting everything back to the bone do the taxpayers have to now fund all these waste of space persons ?- i thought cameron said at the last gen election he was doing away with the quangos ,well david you just made another 20 or so of them !
christ and to think that untill last month i have been a life long tory myself  :eek
rant over  :evil :rolleyes

[JZS 600]

+1 on that, the best person to know what's needed is the one closest to the coal face, not some grandstanding twat.

[Phil]

I knew it was going on but I'm not sure if this PCC idea is good or not. Having a boss we elect seems a good idea, as long as they know what they are doing.
If they dont, are they subject to the same yearly appraisals as regular police or do they stay in the job until the next election?
I totally disagree with the idea of these people belonging to political parties, they should be independent.
I didnt vote because I'm oncall on my job and got bothered,  had 4 hours sleep that night, then got home from work and fell asleep  :z

In the end, an independent ex-detective was elected.

It all seems a shocking waste of money at a time when they are cutting back on the money for the actual police to do the job.

[Farjo]

I wrote "Waste of money" across my ballot paper because I've always voted.

[fireblake]

The problem with it being political is that the folk who are die hard Tories or Labour will vote for their political representative irrespective of whether they can do the job. 2years from now we'll have G4S in charge of the custody suites and cells. 5 years they'll be doing what PCSO's do and in 10 years it'll be like Robo cop, maybe no robotic coppers but with companies doing the Policing for profit and pleasing share holders.

Just a thought

Mickey

[richfzs]

:agree Farjo - I spoilt my ballot paper too.

[Grahamm]

The results from Hampshire and the IOW are interesting because they show the value of the Alternative Vote system (which we were allowed to use for this election, presumably because the Government didn't think it was important enough...!)

After the first round Michael Mates (Conservative) was in the lead with 52,616 votes, but that was only 24.8% of the votes cast.

Simon Hayes (Independent) was in second place with 47,632 votes and 22.5%

However after the second place votes were counted (Mates with 13,188 and Hayes with 33,037), Simon Hayes was elected with 55.1% of electors preferring him over 44.9% for Michael Mates.

Now if we'd had First Past the Post, Michael Mates would have been elected even though over 75% of the voters didn't want him, instead we got a candidate which over 50% of the voters *did* want!

PS of course I still think the whole thing was a total waste of time and money...!

[chris.biker]

I think it a silly idea and as for voting I had no idea who the people were behind the names and party labels and to vote on party lines is not the right idea. On the subject of party lines I thought I was already paying my share to government and feel with everything passed over to others to be responsible for they should take a pay cut. I shocked the polling station staff when I ripped my slip in half.
What these elections have made clear is how out of touch government is.

[dr bong]

I voted to help make sure the labour candidate didn't get in, job done, the leftie lost  :lol

[phillywilly]

I think it a silly idea and as for voting I had no idea who the people were behind the names and party labels and to vote on party lines is not the right idea. On the subject of party lines I thought I was already paying my share to government and feel with everything passed over to others to be responsible for they should take a pay cut. I shocked the polling station staff when I ripped my slip in half.
What these elections have made clear is how out of touch government is.

chris ,- you are spot on ,as i said cameron wanted to get rid of quangos before he got p.m. but overnight last week he just gained another 20 or so bloody quango,s who are on bloody good money -paid by tax payer, have no idea how to budget the police force for the best, are all political and no public (90 %)in some cases couldnt be arsed to go and vote in
sack them all cameron and spend the bloody money on bobbies on the beat

[spoonlamp]

Billy Connolly once said "The desire to become a politician should automatically ban you from ever becoming one - don't vote it just encourages them!" While I agree with the sentiment I think you're missing out on an opportunity for greater local control (or at least voicing your opinion) in not voting in something like this. It's not like not voting will be taken into consideration - the system has been put in place and will continue to be used. Yes, it was something I thought "who gives a f**x about this?" and "they'll all be as bad as each other", but in the end I actually went to the websites of each candidate, read their stuff and made a decision on that. Process? Dismiss them one at a time and see what's left. Easy enough in this case, one of them kept putting stuff in caps lock, another couldn't be bothered to make sentences, another was too busy convincing us that even though he represents X political party that won't affect his decisions. In the end I voted for the one (and I don't even remember which) who seemed the least manipulative in their text, seemed to have at least some managerial/budgeting experience and was against the continued attempts of privatisation of the police force by the government.


Too serious? 

[GringoRojo]

Sack Cameron too (and his pet monkey). And frankenstein's Miliband while your at it.




I didn't vote either

[Farjo]

Spoonlamp, only people like you should have the vote. I too went to the website, however in my area only a Labour and a Concervative candidate stood - no other party and (importantly) no independents. Plus, for various reasons, I cannot see why we need elected police chiefs and think it's a bad idea.

[DILLIGAFF]

I voted by post and your comments prompted me to find out who won................




[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)][size=1.077em]Former senior policeman Kevin Hurley has shocked the Conservatives to become Surrey's first police and crime commissioner.[/size][/color]
[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)][/size][size=1.077em]The former Scotland Yard borough commander defeated Tory Julie Iles in the second round of voting.[/size][/color]
[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)][/size][size=1.077em]As an Independent he campaigned on a "zero tolerance" policy and has pledged to "put some backbone" into policing.[/size][/color]
It was his "zero tolerance" promise? that got my vote. Interesting also to note that there was a massive 9.9% turnout at the polling stations.




Of course he has no chance of fulfilling his promises once the yooman rights brigade get hold of him.

[D4Delta]

I totally agree with Spoonlamp. In Hampshire we were able to go on line and see who we were voting for. My 1st. choice got in. Don't agree with PCC's but as we have them anyway I didn't want to waste my vote.

[John Silva]

I did the same as Spoonlamp visited the individual websites and chose from there.
A 18.8% turn out in Bristol to vote.

Well done to Sue Mountstevens she is a Bristol-born businesswoman who ran her own chain of bakeries in Bristol, Bath and Somerset area.

IMHO who ever makes good cakes cant be bad.  :lol

[Pat]

I did the same as Spoonlamp visited the individual websites and chose from there.
A 18.8% turn out in Bristol to vote.

Well done to Sue Mountstevens she is a Bristol-born businesswoman who ran her own chain of bakeries in Bristol, Bath and Somerset area.

IMHO who ever makes good cakes cant be bad.  :lol

I suppose a donut maker is the ideal candidate for keeping plod happy! 

[DryRob]

I spoiled my vote as I don't think that the police should be politicised.

I know they are replacing local authorities (and apparently saving money) but why didn't they pilot this idea somewhere first like they normally do? I agree with the idea of one person in charge of the police being accountable but why not just have them report to the local MP's and/or council with the public sitting in?

Would have been interesting to see what the turnout would have been if they gave the option of "don't bother"

[mtread]

I voted for the best independent, and gave my second vote to the second best independent. I don't think party politics should have any role in this choice. As far as money is concerned, I thought this elected single commissioner was replacing a larger (unelected) board ?
And as for zero tolerance, I'd be very wary of that. What does it exactly mean ? The police have to have leeway. Does zero tolerance mean I'll be done for doing 31 in a 30 ?  :rolleyes

[Pat]

I voted for the best independent, and gave my second vote to the second best independent. I don't think party politics should have any role in this choice. As far as money is concerned, I thought this elected single commissioner was replacing a larger (unelected) board ?
And as for zero tolerance, I'd be very wary of that. What does it exactly mean ? The police have to have leeway. Does zero tolerance mean I'll be done for doing 31 in a 30 ?  :rolleyes

Usually it means anything other people do....

Moving away from it being a good idea or not, the main thing I don't understand is why run up all the extra expense of having seperate elections for the posts & not just wait until the normal local elections come around in May & combine the police commisioners election with that?