Topic: Boycott the Police Commissioner vote?

[AA1122]

That's what the former chief of Police says:

Boycott police commissioner vote - ex-Met chief Blair

Former Metropolitan Police chief Lord Ian Blair says people should not vote in elections for police and crime commissioners next month.
Each commissioner would have to control too large an area, he said.
And he told the Sky News Murnaghan programme the only way to stop the proposal was to refuse to take part in the elections.
Home Secretary Theresa May said the commissioners will, for the first time, have a democratic mandate over police.
Voters in all parts of England and Wales outside London will elect a person to oversee each police force on 15 November.
The police and crime commissioners will replace police authorities in 41 areas and will be paid a salary between £65,000 and £100,000.
Local police authorities made up of councillors, currently control police budgets, set priorities and have the power to recruit or dismiss their area's chief constable.
The Home Office has launched a media campaign to drum up interest in the elections.
'Swept away'
Lord Blair, who left the Met in 2008, said he had always encouraged others to vote before, but that he did not want people to vote this time.
He had previously expressed reservations about the plans but told the Murnaghan programme: "I've never said this before but I actually hope people don't vote because that is the only way we are going to stop this.
"If they were going to break policing up, do it in a completely different way, small cities and small towns, perfect. But that is not what you have got.
"How can one person represent the conservative shires of Oxfordshire and Slough? What is this?"
Continue reading the main story“
Start Quote
The arrival of police and crime commissioners will mark the most significant democratic reform of policing in our lifetime”
Home Office
Lord Blair also said the government had gone about introducing commissioners in the wrong way.
"Remember the police authorities are being swept away, they are being replaced by a police and crime panel who can't even talk to the chief constable.
"This is just a very strange issue to come forward with at such a difficult time for the country."
Election 'farce'
Mrs May told BBC 1's Politics Show that the current system of police authorities "have no democratic mandate to do this job of overseeing the police".
And she said that contrary to some reports, the candidate manifestos were not just available online, but also in print if people requested them in that format.
She went on to say that the public were being informed of the elections by the government's media campaign and also by the candidates themselves, who were campaigning for votes.
There have already been warnings about the possible low turnout by the public.
The Electoral Reform Society has predicted turnout for these elections will be as low as 18.5% - compared with 65% in the 2010 general election.
Its chief executive Katie Ghose warned the elections were in danger of "turning into a farce".
A Home Office spokesman said: "The arrival of police and crime commissioners will mark the most significant democratic reform of policing in our lifetime.
"For the first time the public will finally have a say on key decisions about crime and policing in their area.
"We expect the public will exercise this important new democratic right and vote."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20020451


I was having this discussion with my friend earlier in the week. What is the point in electing this person when nobody knows enough about the candidates to make an informed decision on who to choose?

I personally think it is a bad idea and do not want to spend my time researching which candidate is best for my area, I'm busy enough. I really don't want to see this proposal rolled out further into healthcare; as I don't believe the general public are well informed enough to make the decisions. Then there are a whole raft of other issue about it becoming a popularity contest, the voting system used, the commissioner being a scapegoat or the ethics of campaigning power.

I was wondering what RAWKites opinions were? Good idea, bad idea?

[Anthony]

I can see the point he's making but, in my view, if you want to protest against this you shouldn't join the remaining 70% of the country who won't bother getting out of their chairs - you'll get lost in the apathy.

Instead, go to the ballot station, get your paper, and write "I do not agree with the concept of an elected Police Commissioner" or "I do not know enough about any of these candidates to vote for any of them" on it. If the number of spoiled ballot papers was anywhere near the number of votes for the successful candidate they would have to take notice...

[timiano]

Is there a point in boycotting when the apathy will achieve the same?

[jaffod]

Is there a point in boycotting when the apathy will achieve the same?

I suppose there is when you think about it. If 25% are inclined to vote but then decide not to then you have 100% not voting instead of 75%.
 Personally my ballot form went straight into the bin and I honestly wouldn't walk to the bottom of my garden to vote for any of the c*nts.

[Alan_X]

The adverts for this say everything you need to know about the motivation for police commissioners. All about yobbos and street crime and aimed fair and square at the Daily Mail/tabloid vote.

Politically motivated shite. Won't the police be focusing on any other crime? God forbid they might be tackling white collar crime or prioritising on the basis of an objective assessment of need. To quote Malcolm Tucker: "a political class that has given up on morality and simply pursues popularity at all costs..."

[Anthony]

Is there a point in boycotting when the apathy will achieve the same?

Apathy demonstrates they can do anything and you won't care, Active Boycott shows you disagree with what they have done and have your eye on them.

(Still, could be worse - I'm in London and already have Boris!)

[24/7]

Even the police are against it.

However, we have, historically, as a society, fought hard to get the vote out to as wide a cross section as we can so I feel duty-bound to attend and exercise my right.

The fact that I have no intention whatsoever of backing any of the puppets-on-the-strings will not prevent me from turning up at the polling station.......just because I can.

I know there's a viewpoint of "a spoiled vote is a wasted vote" but in this case there's no clear-cut benefit of this exercise, as Alan has beautifully pointed out.

So I'll either cast a blank paper or stick an 'x' in all the boxes or just write something pithy on the paper and nullify it.

Futile gesture, maybe, but imagine how embarrassing it will be to have a 20% turnout with the majority of those votes spoiled.

Doesn't matter who gets "in", I can't see this system lasting long, maximum a generation, minimum by the end of the next term of government.

[Red Beret]

The day they make voting compulsory in the UK is the day I never vote for a party again.  Spoiled papers all the way.