Ship of Fools: Police Commissioners

Thread: Police Commissioners Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024150

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

In the UK we have elections on the 19th for a new role of Police Commissioners.

As far as I understand it the purpose of Police Commissioners is to pick up the big red phone when the Police Chief admits defeat.

Anyone have any idea what the planned purpose is and if they will think it will work? Is it something we ought to vote, or should I just watch TV?
If say the BNP get in, does it have any serious effect other than being embarrassing or will they be able to change the shape of the whole police force*?

Have you received any information about the candidates? we received one flier (from labour) and UKIP had a table (I didn't visit) in the town centre.

*do I get points for avoiding Godwin

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

Have you received any information about the candidates? we received one flier (from labour) and UKIP had a table (I didn't visit) in the town centre.

*do I get points for avoiding Godwin

You can get information and candidates' election statements from this website. Just stick in your post code. It worked for Norfolk, anyway.

[ 12. November 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Down our way (Gwent) the PCC election is on Thursday 15th!

We have four candidates. Two independent ex-police candidates, a Conservative who appears a bit short on substance and a Labour party lawyer who is very political (like the others aren't??)

I'm wary of having a policeman as Police Commissioner: they have to work closely but also critically with the Chief Constable: it would be like appointing the Prime Minister from the ranks of the senior civil service: good people, but not the right good people. The Conservative is about the best of the local Tories, but he's too callow, so it'll have to be the Labour man.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QB] Down our way (Gwent) the PCC election is on Thursday 15th!

Good point, I really do need to make my mind up.
5 looks like a 9 when you're on a bike, passing a bus stop poster.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

In Ontario, Canada, the role of a municipality's Police Commission is to set the budget for the police, define local priorities for enforcement, apply for crime-prevention funds from provincial initiatives and if necessary administer a police services contract.

Ontario municipalities have the option of:

1) Forming their own police force.
2) Contracting another municipality to do it and not sitting on the force's Police Commission.
3) Having a joint-costs arrangement for a joint force with another municipality, with a joint Police Board.
4) Contracting with the Ontario Provincial Police for service, which still allows the local Police Board to set enforcement priorities, direct the OPP to enforce local bylaws and apply for prevention initiative funds. Contracts are fixed-price agreements for five years.
5) Do nothing, in which case the OPP assumes jurisdiction and bills the municipality for its yearly costs. The OPP will not enforce municipal bylaws and will not apply for prevention initiative funds.

Prevention Initiatives fund things like roadside alcohol and breathalyzer checks during Christmas and New Year's. Another favourite is the road from the Fall Fair since patrons may have overindulged at the Beer Tent.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Unless one makes the effort to phone and ask for some printed material, one has to go on to a website that tells one next to nothing about the candidates.

The whole election is an ill-thought-out smokescreen in the semblance of democracy.

I shall turn out to vote for the mayor (i disagree with the idea but if we have to have a mayor i will have my say and refuse to accept a ballot paper for the police job so as not to be included in any low turnout figures. - this is the first time, ever, i have not voted when having the right to do so.)

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole election is an ill-thought-out smokescreen in the semblance of democracy.

Well it's more democratic than the current set up.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

The turnout is likely to be so low that the outcomes will be almost arbitrary. Then the winners will ply what they believe to be their trade for a term, and both they and the voters will have a better idea of what they are actually supposed to be doing, and what their limitations are. It could be quite chaotic.

Once people know what they want and what they can have, they'll be more energised to vote for something, but at the moment we seem to be in a thick fog of ignorance, because we don't have any precedent.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole election is an ill-thought-out smokescreen in the semblance of democracy.
Well it's more democratic than the current set up.

But is it? I used to be an independent member of my local police authority a few years back. I applied for the position, which was advertised in the local newspaper, and was appointed against strong competition after a lengthy interview process. There were 16 members, 5 independent like me, the rest a mix of local councillors and magistrates.

The authority was non-political in practice, and I thought very effective in holding the police to account. My own experience, coming from a non-policing background, was that the weak link in the tripartite system for police governance was the Home Office, which employed as stupid a bunch of people as it has ever been my misfortune to meet. I could tell any number of stories, but perhaps the most telling was the missive that informed is that 'all police forces must be performing in the top quartile by this time next year'.

I shall be spoiling my ballot in the forthcoming election by writing a little diatribe on the ballot paper against this silly and ill thought out scheme. I have read all the information put out by the candidates, and most of them have not the faintest idea what their powers will be, and keep promising things they won't have any power to deliver.

I suspect central government didn't like police authorities because they were too effective at telling the Home Office/ministry of Justice where to go. If we didn't think their plans would benefit Borsetshire, we didn't agree to them, and under the tripartite system, they couldn't make us. Central governments never want true localism. They want one has-been party member in place instead, to do what they want, or to be too clueless to object.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm going to be spoiling my paper also.

We have 4 candidates: two party apparatchiks (Labour and LibDem), one ex-copper (Con) and bloody UKIP. If there'd been an independent, I'd have voted for them, but as it is - none of the above.

Moth is right: while this superficially passes the Benn test, it's taking a broadly democratic system and turning it into a narrow one.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I'm torn. I was largely against the whole thing, then something a mate said made me think. He's an academic, and his whole career is around social history and policing, and he's quite an activist. Which means I'm not longer against it in principle, but willing to consider it.

However ... here we've got 4 party-political candidates to choose from, and the Conservative will win because it's absolutely unthinkable that he shouldn't. If the Tories put up a used condom around here it will still win.

So I'm also seriously considering spoiling my paper. The only thing that's holding me back is that the Labour and Lib-Dem folks are at least anti-G4S, although I expect they'll have no influence there anyway.

Which means the choice is between two different ways of pissing into the wind.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I intend to spoil my ballot too as I think it's just pseudo democracy and utterly irrelevant.

I do like the fact that they're police and crime commissioners. I'm not that bothered about commissioning police but it might be fun to commission some crime.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

The 'partisanness' is the worst thing for me. If they have to stand, let them all be independant. What relevance is their political party; is there any chance that most commissioners aren't going to be picked along the same lines as MPs/councils.

After the mayoral referendum debacle where most cities decided they didn't need the expense of extra elections, there's no wonder we don't get to decide whether we want Police Commissioners.

What a waste of time and money. [Frown]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole election is an ill-thought-out smokescreen in the semblance of democracy.
Well it's more democratic than the current set up.

Would you be in favour of having the Home Secretary directly elected, separately from Parliament?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
The 'partisanness' is the worst thing for me. If they have to stand, let them all be independant. What relevance is their political party; is there any chance that most commissioners aren't going to be picked along the same lines as MPs/councils.

After the mayoral referendum debacle where most cities decided they didn't need the expense of extra elections, there's no wonder we don't get to decide whether we want Police Commissioners.

What a waste of time and money.

"Independent" can easily be a false label, and the candidate subject to unknown, sometimes unaccountable and occasionally downright undesirable influence. Often it means "Too pigheaded to be adopted by any party with its head screwed on". I admit however that there have been exceptions, usually when the local Labour party has ballsed up the selection process.

The virtue of having party candidates is that you get some idea what you will get. It's probably the only one, but it's worth something.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I have a choice of 6 candidates, Labour, Conservative, UKIP, English Democrat and two independents, one a(n ex-)police officer and the other the ex-vice chair of the police authority. The Conservative candidate has relevant experience, the Labour candidate .. does not. I suspect the Conservative will get in - this area has returned Tory MPs with increased majorities even when they were named prominently in expense scandals and the local party tried to get them deselected. It doesn't feel as if there is any choice.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole election is an ill-thought-out smokescreen in the semblance of democracy.
Well it's more democratic than the current set up.
Would you be in favour of having the Home Secretary directly elected, separately from Parliament?

No, but I don't think the Home Secretary is thought of as being as remote as police authorities currently are. Most people at least know that the Home Secretary exists.

Police Commissioners might not work, but I think they're worth a try.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QB] "Independent" can easily be a false label, and the candidate subject to unknown, sometimes unaccountable and occasionally downright undesirable influence./QB]

True enough. It just annoys me that a number of people will probably vote for the party under the candidate's name without even reading what little information we're given. All dependant on anyone voting at all.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

It seems that candidates can promise all kinds of rubbish. One of my local candidates claims he will be empowered to declare

quote:
a “Drug Free Zone” there will be zero tolerance to the illegal taking or possession of drugs in Kent, this to include all illegal drugs “Soft and Hard”.

Really? Why does that sound terribly unlikely?

Incidentally, does anyone else think the English Democrats sound vaguely fascist?

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unless one makes the effort to phone and ask for some printed material, one has to go on to a website that tells one next to nothing about the candidates.

The whole election is an ill-thought-out smokescreen in the semblance of democracy.

...

Indeed so. I will probably vote, but with a feeling of deep unease. It seems absurd to have an election with so little public interest, and this must have been obvious from the start. A waste of money and resources at best, and a random (since so few people can actually make an informed choice) method of filling the post.

The only documentation I have (apart from what I have gleaned from the net) consists of one voting card and an A5 bit of paper saying not much. Nothing from any candidate or from any party. A fair measure of a lack of interest, and is it also an indication of the importance of the post?

I was glad to see this thread, though; I was beginning to think that no one else had given the matter any thought at all.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

One thing I've found amusing is the Labour Propaganda Guff that came through my door about this farce of an election was trying to paint them as the "Tough on Crime" party.

None of the other parties have even bothered going to the expense of campaigning, so far as I can see. Not that it'd make any difference, of course - this area couldn't be any redder if you slit everyone's throat and let them bleed out on the streets...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It seems that candidates can promise all kinds of rubbish. One of my local candidates claims he will be empowered to declare

quote:
a “Drug Free Zone” there will be zero tolerance to the illegal taking or possession of drugs in Kent, this to include all illegal drugs “Soft and Hard”.
Really? Why does that sound terribly unlikely?

Incidentally, does anyone else think the English Democrats sound vaguely fascist?

If s/he gets elected then I'm sure the Chief Constable will shake them warmly by the hand and ask for the resources to achieve this!

The English Democrat candidates seem for the most part to be ex-Conservatives, UKIP and BNP. They are a sad bunch of populists.

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It seems that candidates can promise all kinds of rubbish. One of my local candidates claims he will be empowered to declare

quote:
a “Drug Free Zone” there will be zero tolerance to the illegal taking or possession of drugs in Kent, this to include all illegal drugs “Soft and Hard”.
Really? Why does that sound terribly unlikely?

Incidentally, does anyone else think the English Democrats sound vaguely fascist?

If you mean the English Democrat candidate in Kent, I know him, and vaguely fascist doesn't come into it. He is a total nut job. One of the few bits of fun around election time is when he calls and asks what we think about immigration. I tell him cheerfully that I am totally in favour of it, and that it's what made Britain the wonderful country it is today. That gets rid of him!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

My local English Democrat is the party chairman, and there's nothing little about the fascism. He stands at all elections either for Parliament, Europe or locally, might have a seat on the council, but so does the BNP.

quote:
“It is criminals that should be afraid not good citizens! I will have zero tolerance to political correctness in [local] policing and focus [Shire] Police on traditional English Law and Order and cracking down on real criminals and gangs. When I say that my priority will be “more police – catching criminals!”, I mean it and I shall not hesitate to use the full powers this office to achieve it!

Really makes you want to vote for him, not?

Sadly the independent with the Police Authority experience has put out a very stilted personal statement.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Sounds like a police state

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed, quoting from English Democrats campaigning stuff.
When I say that my priority will be “more police – catching criminals!”, I mean it and I shall not hesitate to use the full powers this office to achieve it!

Am I the only person imagining him giving a little foot stomp after "I mean it" like a five-year-old girl in a party dress?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

No, [Big Grin]

But if that's what the party chairman sounds like ...

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

Isn't it the case that the Police Commissioner will have the power to set budgets? I heard something rather disturbing about G4S already taking over some part of police services in Lincolnshire (IT and something else, I think), and there is this sort of vague suspicion that the replacement of police authorities with commissioners might be all about cutting budgets and privatising the police forces.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I had to kick up a fuss at the polling station.

I stated that I did not want the police commissioner voting form, only the mayoral one.

If I took the police one, it would count as a spoilt paper, regardless of what i did with it. I did not want to contribute to the turnout figures.

They had to contact some chief person to discover that I was within my rights.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

I went down to the polling station this morning and watched the tumbleweed roll past as one person behind the desk explained to the other how to find names on the list of electors. It made me wonder if I was the first person to vote and so the first time she had had to locate a name - after all the polls had only been open three hours.

What a waste of time and money. The only people to benefit will be he Commissioners themselves, with their nice £70,000 a year jobs (pay varies by area), and perhaps the village halls which will appreciate the rental income from providing the polling stations.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I did my duty and voted for a Police and Crime Commissioner. We didn't have a mayoral election. Maybe nobody wants to be Mayor of Newport.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Paper duly spoilt with revolutionary fervour. Waste of five minutes of my life.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I chose not to vote.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I also chose not to vote - which is not like me at all.

Part of our school was used as a polling station and very few people came to vote.

I think the turn out will be very low indeed.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I've been a very very naughty boy. I confessed on Facebook that I voted for a particular candidate in the PCC elections, and this is a response I got from a 'friend':

Did you have a really good reason for not voting for the excellent Christian independent candidate? I have to say that I am very disappointed that any Christian wouldn't vote for him.

This was my response:

I think Christians should be free to vote for whomever we like. This is a democracy not a theocracy. That is my "really good reason" for voting for the person I considered the best candidate for the job.

Really. I didn't realise that Christian tribalism was now attempting to subvert the democratic process here in dear old secular England!

God help us.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Good for you, EE. I have lots of Christian friends, but I wouldn't necessarily trust them to run a cake stall, let alone a police force.

Luther, I think, said "Better a good Turk than a bad Christian."

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I have made a poll on this.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I chose not to vote.

I am very impressed by the way so many posters on this thread are nonchalantly expressing the view that this voting lark is all very well for new-fangled organisations like the College of Cardinals but Not The Way We Do Things Here. The spirit of the Earl of Home has been abroad across the land stirring up Apathy in the UK. One might almost hear the flapping of his wings.

One teensy consideration might be worth thinking about, however. The nuttersphere are going to be out in force today. Some of them can read and write and almost all of them can make an 'X' shape next to the insignia of their preferred candidate. Whilst the rest of you stay at home thinking beautiful thoughts the Kippers, the English Democrats and the Fash are going to be out there exercising their democratic prerogative. Low turn out and, in an insolent pout aimed in the general direction of the Liberal Democrats, a cheap and cheerful version of AV means the sort of people who usually lose their deposit are possibly going to be there or thereabouts when the half a dozen votes are totted up.

Let's just hope that tomorrow morning you don't wake up to find that your local domestic violence and anti-hate crime units haven't been disbanded and the officers reassinged to put together a prosecution of Tony Blair for treason for signing the Lisbon Treaty.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I happen to think that low enough turnout will fuck with the mandate of the commissioners and neuter them. The alternative is to vote for one of two candidates about whom I have one paragraph of information - or to vote for one of various party candidates. I believe doing that will politicise the police - I think that is dangerous.

I will then lobby my MP, and hope others do likewise, to get police authorities reinstated. The bit where I engage with my MP, is about democracy.

FWIW I don't want coroners elected either, or judges. I want folk in those kinds of positions to make decisions based on the existing law and their professional judgement - not on what is the hot topic in the tabloids this week.

[ETA Unlike with mayors, we had no referendum on whether we wanted this change, and I don't recall it being in either ruling party's manifesto or mentioned in either campaign.]

[ETA OK seems I was totally wrong about that, and it was official policy at the time of the election - still think it is a shit idea though.]

[ 15. November 2012, 16:53: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

I went in to vote at around 16:00. One of the Returning Officers is a friend of mine. She told me that I was the 32nd person to vote today. They opened the polling station at 07:00 and nobody came in until 10:00. This tells one a lot about the reaction of most people to this initiative.

In this area, not one of the (four) candidates made any attempt to make themselves known to the electors - if you didn't go online, you were left in complete ignorance. I happened to know about one candidate because his card had been placed on my car windscreen whilst parked in Abergavenny, 25 miles away.

My friend told me that everybody (all 32 of us!) who had come into the Polling Station was saying the same thing; "Why do we need this PCC at all?"

Why indeed.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Bugger, Gildas beat me to it.

I suppose we're lucky hereabouts. The nuttiest we have is an retired police sergeant who wants more bobbies on the beat.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Let's just hope that tomorrow morning you don't wake up to find that your local domestic violence and anti-hate crime units haven't been disbanded and the officers reassinged to put together a prosecution of Tony Blair for treason for signing the Lisbon Treaty.

…which was my main reason for voting. And I want to be able to say to whoever is elected either "it wasn't you I voted for - so not in my name", or "I voted for you, so pull your socks up and get on with the job"

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

But the only sensible candidate to vote for to ensure the nutters don't get in is the Tory guy ... and I feel that I need to be marched at gun point to the polling station to vote Tory at this present time.

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

I voted a couple of weeks ago - by postal vote. The information on all 10 candidates (4 party political, 2 "independent" but Lib Dem councilors, 4 independent) was available on line, which was just as well as nothing has been delivered to the house.

A couple of the independents are real nut jobs. One has been discovered to have a string of County Court Judgements against him for debt, which apparently does not disqualify him from standing for this job.

I didn't think that an ex-policeman was the best candidate for the job either. The police, like many groups, can become very introspective and need a bit of reality check. (An IT group used to say that they could run a wonderful computer system - if it weren't for those pesky users.)

2 of the candidates seemed to have some userful life experience of running things and making things happen, so they got my votes in the funny voting system that applies.

I am not sure what difference the person elected will make. However, if I hadn't voted, I wouldn't feel I had a right to moan in the future.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I will feel I have the right to moan, as I voted for a party that didn't propose introducing this system in the first place.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Well, I'm supposed to be going away tonight, but I'm going to do my best to find the time to spoil my ballot before I do. Every candidate here is party-political, and that just feels profoundly wrong.

I've considered voting tactically, just to stop the Tory bloke who's pro-G4S, but there's absolutely no chance he won't win anyway around here.

Posted by GeoffH (# 133) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole election is an ill-thought-out smokescreen in the semblance of democracy.
Well it's more democratic than the current set up.
But is it? I used to be an independent member of my local police authority a few years back. I applied for the position, which was advertised in the local newspaper, and was appointed against strong competition after a lengthy interview process. There were 16 members, 5 independent like me, the rest a mix of local councillors and magistrates.

The authority was non-political in practice, and I thought very effective in holding the police to account. My own experience, coming from a non-policing background, was that the weak link in the tripartite system for police governance was the Home Office, which employed as stupid a bunch of people as it has ever been my misfortune to meet. I could tell any number of stories, but perhaps the most telling was the missive that informed is that 'all police forces must be performing in the top quartile by this time next year'.

I shall be spoiling my ballot in the forthcoming election by writing a little diatribe on the ballot paper against this silly and ill thought out scheme. I have read all the information put out by the candidates, and most of them have not the faintest idea what their powers will be, and keep promising things they won't have any power to deliver.

I suspect central government didn't like police authorities because they were too effective at telling the Home Office/ministry of Justice where to go. If we didn't think their plans would benefit Borsetshire, we didn't agree to them, and under the tripartite system, they couldn't make us. Central governments never want true localism. They want one has-been party member in place instead, to do what they want, or to be too clueless to object.

I spoit my voting paper

Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :

The Polling Station is in my Church; a mid 1990's affair that the Church does own and control but is also used as a community centre, which is why elections are there rather than closing the local Primary school (Sorry children, I did enjoy it when my infants school was closed on polling day in the 1980s but you'll just have to go)

I don't know how much we get paid, but its nice to get paid and our PCC very much like rub-along time* of having community things go on in our Church

I was there at 08:15 and was told by a friend who's one of the Clerks, I was the first one. I voted for the independent as he won BBC Midlands Today Unsung Hero 2011. Seemed as good a reason to vote for him as anyone else!

*I was going to call it outreach opportunities but that's too strong a phrase as we don't stand there “being Christian” amongst the polling booths or Zumba class.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I rather liked Jeremy Hardy's advice on twitter:

quote:
Only vote for a police commissioner who will project a bat symbol on the sky

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

If I took the police one, it would count as a spoilt paper, regardless of what i did with it. I did not want to contribute to the turnout figures.

It's true the spoiled ballots contribute to the turn out figures but the number of spoiled ballots is also recorded and gives a measure of disaffection.

I spoiled mine, so as we're both in Bristol maybe it cancels out!

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Let's just hope that tomorrow morning you don't wake up to find that your local domestic violence and anti-hate crime units haven't been disbanded and the officers reassinged to put together a prosecution of Tony Blair for treason for signing the Lisbon Treaty.
…which was my main reason for voting. And I want to be able to say to whoever is elected either "it wasn't you I voted for - so not in my name", or "I voted for you, so pull your socks up and get on with the job"

I decided to go for it for a similar reason, I don't know if the UKIP was nutty UKIP or just odd. But it really was a very partially informed decision tbh on the website (thanks Barnabus62) they all looked like used car salesmen.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

In my rather unscientific circus poll, of 12 people we currently have: 7 pissed off, 1 indifferent, 1 not in an area with an election. 3 happy to vote. Of the pissed off category, only 1 voted and they voted independent whilst the rest split evenly between spoiled their ballot or didn't vote.

All the happy voters, voted for party candidates.

If we get under 20% turnout, a lot of spoiled ballots and mostly non-party affiliated PCCs I will claim Nate Silver's crown.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

I'm in the pissed off category as I don't think this should be a political role. I decided to vote Labour as a protest vote, I usually vote Lib Dem here (and probably will continue in other elections as the local party is good and our Lib Dem MP is very lefty and usually votes against the government). Obviously by voting Labour I have myself politicised it but felt it was the best opportunity to fight the changes that are taking place.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I wrote on my paper "this is not the way to run the police". I do not like doing this, but I felt that this protest was the best I could do. I can only hope that the proportion of spoiled votes may serve to undermine the authority of the person elected, and help to abandon this farce.

The polling station is just down our road, so I do get a sense of how busy it is. The answer seems to be - as busy as the Marie Celeste. I think I hit the rush time, as there was 2 of us in the station at the same time. There were 6 officials there, at whatever cost.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

I didn't vote and neither did Mr S. I feel vaguely guilty for not voting, because I normally do. However, none of the candidates has even bothered to shove a leaflet through our letterbox.

Why should everyone have to look up the candidates online? There are many, many people who don't have web access and this setup leaves a proportion of the country disenfranchised. It's poorly thought-out and badly implemented.

[ 15. November 2012, 19:38: Message edited by: Starbug ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think the lack of mail out is to do with budgets, we are used to campaigns the parties run funded very heavily. But yes I agree the assumption of IT ease for the whole electorate is a problem.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I believe doing that will politicise the police - I think that is dangerous.

Do you not think the police is already politicised?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Somewhat, I don't want to make it worse.

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

I voted at about 9 pm. I was the 59th voter out of a possible 900...what a waste of money.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Just a query for the people who've said "no point voting cos we always return party X around here". Is that definitely the case? Surely the police comissioner's area is substantially larger than that for any single MPs constituency. It seems unlikely that any one police area has got a uniform set of MPs....

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think if there is a turn out below 10%they should ditch the posts but give the winning candidate the opportunity to chair the local police authority.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

In the end, I spoiled my paper. They were shutting the polling station when I got there and there was only one of the four booths that still had a pencil in it. It was facing the desk so the administrator must have been able to tell I was writing on it and not just voting. I was polite enough though....

ETA - definitely less than 100 people had voted.

[ 15. November 2012, 21:03: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yeah, really - universal blue last election here, one small patch of gold. Pretty much true blue normally.

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :

I've just come back from 15 hours of running a polling station, and it was the quietest day of voting I've seen. Still, I got paid for reading a book, which can't be bad. Turnout is difficult to call for my patch as there are quite a few postal voters, but throughout the day there were only 75 voters, which is by far the lowest we've ever had. IMHO if there had to be a vote it should have been delayed until May 2013 and combined with the many local Council elections, which would have saved costs and increased turnout. By rushing the PCC elections we may have an extra 6 months of a Commissioner, but they will lack a credible mandate.

The reason there was so little information about is that the government decided to cut the £5million budget it usually puts into elections to pay for candidates to have a free mailshot via the Royal Mail. So no one really knew who they were voting for, unless they were motivated enough to research it online.

Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on :

I've also been staffing a polling station since 6:30am (7:00 - 22:00) today. The turn out was near enough 15% but almost universally the comments were anti elected police commissioners. The whole election must have cost a packet. [Confused]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Official turnout for my district, normal parliamentary constituency, is 10.34% The full figures haven't turned up on Twitter yet. I think staying away was the right thing to do.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Manchester had a turn out for the PCC election of 13.5%

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

And in our poll:

quote:
Happy to vote - voted for a party candidate 15% (4)
Happy to vote - voted for an independent candidate 0% (0)
Happy to vote in theory - forgot to vote 0% (0)
Pissed off - voted for a party candidate 19% (5)
Pissed off - voted for an independent candidate 19% (5)
Pissed off - spoiled my ballot on purpose 12% (3)
Pissed off - chose not to vote 19% (5)
Pissed off - forgot to vote 4% (1)
Indifferent to / unaware of election - did not vote 4% (1)
Did not have a ballot for a police commissioner in my area - did not vote 8% (2)

It appears that our unscientific polling is not far off [Smile]

Especially given adjustment for the fact that two of sample would need to be excluded because they are outside the voting area.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I chose not to vote.
I am very impressed by the way so many posters on this thread are nonchalantly expressing the view that this voting lark is all very well for new-fangled organisations like the College of Cardinals but Not The Way We Do Things Here. The spirit of the Earl of Home has been abroad across the land stirring up Apathy in the UK. One might almost hear the flapping of his wings.

But the elected commissioners are replacing a body appointed and partially staffed by democratically elected councillors. So the choice isn't between voting and not voting, but between a quasi-presidential system and a quasi-parliamentary one.

ETA: it also seems to me that a body made up of elected councillors from different parties, as well as laymen, reflects a greater diversity of opinion and is therefore more representative than a single winner-takes-all figure.

[ 16. November 2012, 06:56: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... the elected commissioners are replacing a body appointed and partially staffed by democratically elected councillors. So the choice isn't between voting and not voting, but between a quasi-presidential system and a quasi-parliamentary one.

When people vote for councillors they vote for people to run the council. I agree with you about the role of the commissioner being quasi-presidential but the current system is not quasi-parliamentary as the chair of the police authority is appointed by those nominated to the police authority by parties in the councils party, not be people who have been voted onto the police authority.

I detest nominee bodies and regard the European Commission is an extreme example of what happens when those who have power are not voted for directly. And I'm as pro-European as anyone on the Ship.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

This is surely the ultimate indictment on the process.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I voted, and for the Labour candidate because there was one and I'd struggle, as a member, to justify not voting for the party candidate.

I don't want PCCs; I don't want them overly politicised. But I don't want my parish council to be party political and it is. I don't want to be part of the EU but we are and so I vote in the European elections.

The right to vote is, to my mind, far too important to ever justify not voting.

Thurible

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I voted, and for the Labour candidate because there was one and I'd struggle, as a member, to justify not voting for the party candidate.

I don't want PCCs; I don't want them overly politicised. But I don't want my parish council to be party political and it is. I don't want to be part of the EU but we are and so I vote in the European elections.

The right to vote is, to my mind, far too important to ever justify not voting.

Thurible

I agree - which is why in this case there should have been a "no to PCC" option on the ballot paper. Or a separate ballot on the question first.

Turnout is averaging around 15%, so you can win outright on first preference votes on less than 10% of the electorate's say so. That's not much of a mandate really. For something that's actually a structural change in an important issue, there should have been a threshold based on the size of the overall electorate.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Turnout is averaging around 15%, so you can win outright on first preference votes on less than 10% of the electorate's say so. That's not much of a mandate really.

I struggle with this. It's the same argument used to question the legitimacy of a strike when only X% have voted. People all have the opportunity to vote and, if they can't be arsed to (or want to come up with self-justificatory reasons why they're not going to), that's their problem.

Thurible

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

In general I'd agree, but in this case many people felt they should not vote because they didn't agree with the whole concept - which is not just apathy. I also think it's important to vote which is why I spoiled the paper (for the first time ever).

I would have much preferred to have a "no PCC in this area" option as a proper democratic choice. Now my spoiled paper won't be distinguished between

1. People who weren't arsed
2. People who were arsed but really wanted to say "no" to the whole thing
3. People who wanted to vote but cocked it up because the paper was very unusual (by English standards anyway)

Several areas have indicated spoiled papers in around 4% of votes cast. Does anybody know how many papers are usually spoiled? It can't normally be that high can it?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
For something that's actually a structural change in an important issue, there should have been a threshold based on the size of the overall electorate.

I don't see why a quorum (say, 50% turnout) shouldn't apply to every election. If not enough people are interested in what's being voted for, then IMO it shouldn't happen.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I'd just make voting compulsory - with a "none of the above" option.

Thurible

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Some interesting stats on the BBC

quote:
In Hampshire there were 5,595 spoilt ballots of 211,886 cast, the BBC politics reporter for South of England Peter Henley says. Of those, 1,904 had two marks in first column, 1,900 were blank, 1,733 uncertain, 51 wrote name.

So maybe I will get to find out how special my choice of spoiling the paper was. Not that it was at all innovative.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'd just make voting compulsory - with a "none of the above" option.

I don't agree, because I think it's important to leave people the freedom to choose not to engage with the process if that's what they want.

ETA: to put it another way, "staying at home" is the "none of the above" option.

[ 16. November 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The new way of spoiling a ballot paper is to photograph it and publish it online. There is a collection of spoilt paper pictures at http://pccspoil.tumblr.com/ (not my site.) Slow upload.

Drawing a penis on the paper is neither big nor clever though. (I like the one with the name Sam Vimes added [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The new way of spoiling a ballot paper is to photograph it and publish it online. There is a collection of spoilt paper pictures at http://pccspoil.tumblr.com/ (not my site.) Slow upload.

I love the one that says "The answer is never 'more politicians'".

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

ETA: to put it another way, "staying at home" is the "none of the above" option.

No, it's the "can't be arsed" option.

Thurible

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The new way of spoiling a ballot paper is to photograph it and publish it online. There is a collection of spoilt paper pictures at http://pccspoil.tumblr.com/ (not my site.) Slow upload.
I love the one that says "The answer is never 'more politicians'".

I can't decide if I prefer the one that says "I'm not paying someone £28000 to do bugger all" or the one that's been coloured in a with a crayon and covered with My Little Pony stickers. [Big Grin]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Which is functionally the same thing. Staying at home means you don't want to vote for any of the candidates. Crossing the "none of the above" box also means you don't want to vote for any of the candidates. Same thing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It is not the same thing because a spoiled ballot paper counts towards the turnout. Not voting does not.

This is why I made a fuss at the polling station by asking ONLY for the mayoral ballot paper.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
This is surely the ultimate indictment on the process.

That goes some way to explaining how an Independent got in, though how independent a former head of the force's CID branch remains to be seen. The Bettws ward is post-war, good quality council housing (mostly sold-off now) and used to be solid Labour, but Welsh Labour and their support have got so complacent that a decent campaign by A N Other gets them elected instead.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

Around here, the turnout was 17.1%, and the Conservative got in. 722 people (of whom I was one) spoiled their ballot papers.
There was a rather fun letter in the local paper this week suggesting that people should vote for the Italian detective Montalbano (I wish I'd thought of Sam Vimes, as mentioned above!)

Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :

Less than 12% turnout in my neck of the woods...and the Conservative got in. (There were only 2 candidates, 1 Con and the other Lab.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

Conservatives in here, hardly a surprise as Cambridge itself is a little Liberal oasis in a sea of blue. The next general election might be fun though, as Cambridge used to be Labour.

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
IMHO if there had to be a vote it should have been delayed until May 2013 and combined with the many local Council elections, which would have saved costs and increased turnout.

That's when the Tories wanted to hold the vote but the LibDembs refused to agree and wanted the vote held separately.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I had to kick up a fuss at the polling station.

I stated that I did not want the police commissioner voting form, only the mayoral one.

If I took the police one, it would count as a spoilt paper, regardless of what i did with it. I did not want to contribute to the turnout figures.

They had to contact some chief person to discover that I was within my rights.

I have written to the returning officer to complain about the lack of training of polling station staff.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I have emailed the electoral commission saying I hear they are doing a review into the election, and suggesting they do a survey to see how many people didn't vote because they didn't want the election in the first place.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Good idea, Doublethink - I'll follow your example. After much thought, I went for the no-vote option rather than the spoilt-paper option. In my area, the only candidates were from the major political parties, which means an inevitable politicising of the police service. And I'm not giving my vote to that.

I'm with Thurible on this one. Really the only way that voting has a future in this country is to make it compulsory with a 'none of the above' option - and make 'none of the above' binding. In other words, make it a 'RON' - re-open nominations. And keep doing it until the people have a candidate they're willing to elect.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I'd be pro that - with the Australian system of doing it on a Saturday and making a bit of a party of it.

I also think that basically what they should have done, if they wanted to introduce this so much - was hold referenda on its introduction, as they did for directly elected mayors. Probably to be held at the same time as the council elections.

I think they didn't do it, because the mayoral referenda went so badly for them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Turnout is averaging around 15%, so you can win outright on first preference votes on less than 10% of the electorate's say so. That's not much of a mandate really.
I struggle with this. It's the same argument used to question the legitimacy of a strike when only X% have voted. People all have the opportunity to vote and, if they can't be arsed to (or want to come up with self-justificatory reasons why they're not going to), that's their problem.

Thurible

Thurible, I really don't agree with you on that one. However self-evident we may think our cause is, it's always up to those who advocate change, or doing something, to make the case for it. No one can tell whether those that don't vote 'can't be arsed' or are saying 'no'. But even 'can't be arsed' means 'you haven't persuaded me'.

I think there are very, very strong arguments in favour of having a minimum threshold. If less than x% vote (which should never be less than 50% and should sometimes be 66% or 75%) that should be taken as 'no' irrespective of the split between the votes of those that actually did vote.

I don't agree with Leo's view that having got to the polling station, he thought he was making more of a statement by trying to refuse to be counted at all, rather than spoiling his ballot paper. By not being counted, he can't be distinguished from the 'can't be arsed's. By spoiling his paper, he's much more explicitly saying 'no'. Even so, I can see where he's coming from.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

from the Guardian
The Conservative candidate Angus Macpherson became the first police commissioner in Wiltshire on a turnout of just 15.3% – of which 3.3%* (2,682) were invalid.

*The % of % is a bit confusing
I think it's 84% non-voting, 0.5% spoilt, 5% Con, 3% Lab, 7% Other
So it's a significant proportion making the active effort.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

By contrast in a general election its usually less than 0.5% I think.

Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :

Both I and my Other Half spoiled our ballot papers with the message that the new posts should not exist.

I do wish we had been imaginative enough to have written Sam Vimes' name on the papers!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I've got something for you who didn't vote, spoilt your papers and all the rest.

Like it or not there are now Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales. If you aren't happy with policing, go to your Police and Crime Panel, who holds the PCC to account, and that is true whether you voted or not. There is now a directly elected person to approve the policing plan and budget, hold the chief constable to account and hire & fire the chief constable as necessary, rather than some indirectly appointed councillor who isn't smart enough to chair key committees at the town hall.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Yeah, I use my MP for that - being as how they are directly elected an all - or alternatively talk to my local councilor. If I am really pissed off and want to "hold the police to account" I go to the IPCC.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

In other news, the former appointed chair of the West Yorkshire Police Authority has been elected the new Police and Crime Commissioner.

The staff of the old Police authority will transfer to the PCC, leaving the new commissioner doing the same job that he did before. So the only difference is that the the same person doing the same job is now elected at great cost.

Well not the only difference.

The old salary £30,000. The new one £100,000. Bargain.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I didn't vote. Deliberately. I knew zilch about any of the candidates and the website didnt help.

I was minded to vote for the only Independent, since I object to the politicisation of the Police.

Good thing I stayed away. The only Independent was discovered by me after the event to be a member of the EDL.

The whole thing was a farce and a shambles IMO

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The new West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson spoke on Radio Leeds yesterday morning. Interview here, starts at 2 hours 6 minutes into the show. The bit where he talks about his salary, why he deserves an extra £70,000 a year, is just after 2 hours 16 minutes.

quote:
Burns-Williamson:
It will be me as the elected Police and Crime Commissioner directly accountable and clearly taking on much more of the strategic risk and decision making.

Good, that's clear then.

Interestingly this was said by the then Chair of the Association of Police Authorities:

quote:
However, we are disappointed that the SSRB has rejected the strong arguments in favour of performance related pay for these posts...

Whilst PCCs will face the ballot box once every four years, they will be the subject of few, if any effective checks in between election. We believe that a scheme of performance related pay for PCCs, to be awarded by the Commissioner's scrutiny watchdog - the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) - could provide both an effective check, and an appropriate assessment for the PCCs performance in between public polls."

His name? Mark Burns-Williamson.

Before the election he said pay should be performance related. After he's been elected he is struggling to justify the extra pay.

Vive la différence.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Thanks for that link balaam and I think Mark Burns-Williamson is onto something, probably inadvertently!

He mentions that PCCs should receive higher pay because of the additional accountability but goes on to state that they should receive Performance Related Pay (PRP) too.

One of the problems in the public sector is that PRP really isn't commensurate with the responsibility and hardly reflects achievement of objectives. On the other hand, the basic salary and other terms and conditions often mean that what PRP there is available is not much of an incentive to perform really well (at my place of work it was 2.7% for the 10% rated 'outstanding', although senior civil servants receive up to 10% of salary).

It would make a lot more sense (to me at any rate) to recognise the altered structure and pay more than the £30,000 the predecessor's got, say to £50,000, but pay generous PRP so that if they do meet all their objectives they get a very handsome salary indeed, maybe in excess of the £100,000 mentioned.

YMMV, no doubt.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
When people vote for councillors they vote for people to run the council. I agree with you about the role of the commissioner being quasi-presidential but the current system is not quasi-parliamentary as the chair of the police authority is appointed by those nominated to the police authority by parties in the councils party, not be people who have been voted onto the police authority.

It's slightly forced but my analogy was

Parliament > Local council
Cabinet > Police authority

In the UK that doesn't quite work because the Cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister rather than Parliament, but I think that is not always the case in Parliamentary systems that produce coalitions.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

How do you measure performance for PRP in a post where the profit for the year is not obvious, clear and what the business is about? I know people introduce all sorts of indicators, but then it's either objective, jumping hoops and ticking boxes, or subjective, pleasing ones boss. Since we elect the Police Commissioners and they are supposed to be accountable to us, logic would suggest an annual vote on how much we think they ought to get. Not only is that ludicrous, but it would cost more than the salary and what would the turnout be?

So what are the indicators?
- No. of crimes solved in the year? - that's the Chief Constable's job.
- No. of jobs privatised? - I hope not.
- No. of Chief Constables sacked? - !!!

There was a post I encountered a few years ago in the field of teenagers transitioning from school to work where one of the performance indicators was 'number of pregnancies'. Before you ask, this wasn't a fertility cult. The better score was the lower. But is some person from the Council really capable of going round behind school bikesheds and clubs tapping teenagers on the back and saying 'No' or dishing out condoms with 'I think you might need one of these'.

How on earth can it be reasonable to evaluate anyone on something over which they have no control?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

How on earth can it be reasonable to evaluate anyone on something over which they have no control?

It happens all the time in schools.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

...and that's why I am no longer a teacher. I still have arbitrary deadlines and ludicrous performance targets, but I don't have to try and persuade other people to meet them...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

How on earth can it be reasonable to evaluate anyone on something over which they have no control?
It happens all the time in schools.

That it's all too widespread doesn't mean that it's either reasonable or just. Well, that's what I think, anyway.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

To my surprise, I got a non-computer generated answer from the electoral commission:

quote:

Dear [Name Removed]

Thank you for contacting the Electoral Commission. We have a statutory role to report on these elections and while we are not planning a specific survey for why people didn't vote, we are collating the emails we receive which is currently a lot more insightful than any survey. We will take your comments into consideration when drafting the report

Many thanks,

[Name Remove]

So people clearly taking the time to engage in different ways I think.

Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on :

I know it was a while ago, but can anyone remember the link for the on-line petition against the Police Commissioner ballot? People are asking me how to sign but I can no longer find it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The first thing that happened here, when the result was known, was that the chief constable resigned.

The commissioner who was elected declared herself to be an 'independent' but is,in fact, a libdem.

So much for keeping politics out of it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The first thing that happened here, when the result was known, was that the chief constable resigned.

The commissioner who was elected declared herself to be an 'independent' but is,in fact, a libdem.

So much for keeping politics out of it.

Are you sure of that Leo? I voted for the same police area, and on my ballot paper there was a different expressly identified LibDem candidate who was not the person to whom you are referring.

I also don't think - if this is the case - we can condemn a person for having at some point in the past regularly voted for one party's candidates or even have been a rank and file member of one, if what they are saying is that they are not now tying themselves to that party's directions. After all we all know, and have been repeatedly reminded, that our directly elected Mayor was in the past a parliamentary candidate for one of the main parties. There've been accusations both as to whether he's still secretly linked to them or has betrayed them.

The big fiasco, as you and I and everyone else in this city also well know, is the fools of themselves another of our main party groups have made of themselves since the mayoral elections.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The first thing that happened here, when the result was known, was that the chief constable resigned.

The commissioner who was elected declared herself to be an 'independent' but is,in fact, a libdem.

So much for keeping politics out of it.

In the past the chair of the Police Authority was often a former councillor. As such they would usually have political party affiliations, which any chief constable would know about. The job hasn't suddenly become partisan, but the subject of a direct vote, more accountability and a higher salary.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The first thing that happened here, when the result was known, was that the chief constable resigned.

The commissioner who was elected declared herself to be an 'independent' but is,in fact, a libdem.

So much for keeping politics out of it.
Are you sure of that Leo? I voted for the same police area, and on my ballot paper there was a different expressly identified LibDem candidate who was not the person to whom you are referring.

Not entirely sure and I have recycled all the papers. But she stod as an independent and was later endorsed by the LibDem mayoral candidate.)

(As for the elected mayor, it seems that his membership of the Merchant Venturers is more salient than his Libdemery.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0