Police Commisioner elections...

Absolute joke in every way.

Cost over £75 million, and for what? Turnout was under 20%. The government, as always, hs alot to answer for.

Zero votes in some parts of Newport

Absolute joke in every way.

Cost over £75 million, and for what? Turnout was under 20%. The government, as always, hs alot to answer for.

You are spot on with the above - One polling station in Newport = NOBODY Turned up to Vote

This Country

Zero votes in some parts of Newport

Shambles.

Did you know that the Lib Dems are asking for a recount in one area (Corby?) because they didn't get enough votes to get their £500 deposit back? Embarassing.

I forgot they were even on until about 7PM last night and I wasn't sure whether they'd still be open or even where the nearest station was so I didn't bother.

One in Gloucestershire also had zero votes...

Not quite on a par with the total shambles and chaos caused by the so-called regional asembly's election the last lot came up with.

Probably the single greatest waste of everyones taxes and time in the history of monumental f**k ups. Every region got one, even though the North East actually voted against having one but unfortunatley the shower of fuckwits forgot to give them any powers whatsoever. I remember meeting the head of planning for an East England County Council and during meeting asked what I should do about the regional assembly arseholes who kept writing to me for details of our proposals, she replied, Ah just ignore them we do!!

Whatever happened to them, left UK before the present government had done anything.

As for the PCC, I agree, can't see what's wrong with the present system.

So the government spent £75 million giving people the opportunity to vote and decide on something important to their own local community.
It was free to vote, in the same places it always is for every election.
People could not be bothered to vote, so it is the governments fault?

At least independents won 1/2 the posts. Perhaps this system should be adopted for all elections.

So the government spent £75 million giving people the opportunity to vote and decide on something important to their own local community.
It was free to vote, in the same places it always is for every election.
People could not be bothered to vote, so it is the governments fault?

At least independents won 1/2 the posts. Perhaps this system should be adopted for all elections.

Of course it's the governments fault.

The point is it didn't NEED to cost £75 million, it didn't need to happen at all. Is this a wise expenditure? Most people would have wanted £75 million spent on the current police force and recruiting new officers. Not this nonsensical, american, idea of politicising policing. A terrible concept that the PEOPLE don't want.

The public didn't vote because they weren't aware of what or who they were voting for. In a democracy people need to be educated about candidates and policies; they simply were not.

Waste of money and time in every possible way.

What the hell is wrong with senior police officers of each area sitting around a desk and interviewing the candidates.The electorate knew f**k all about the candidates so why the hell we have been asked to vote for it is anyone guest.

This is not democracy, this democracy in it's most frivolous form. If we go down the democracy route for everything we will be voting on each cabinet role very soon. This is uneeded and unwanted democracy and makes a mockery of democracy if I am honest. Democracy.

I don't see why it was necessary.

We, the public, know bugger all about the realities of policing. We don't know where the money should be spent.

If everything was democratic with policing it would just be all the money spent on whatever crime was flavour of the month of the Daily Mail and not much else.

I don't see why it was necessary.

We, the public, know bugger all about the realities of policing. We don't know where the money should be spent.

If everything was democratic with policing it would just be all the money spent on whatever crime was flavour of the month of the Daily Mail and not much else.

Exactly. Give £7.5 million to the local Chief Constable and he'll do a hell of a lot more than the government will with £75 million.

Another tory cock up.

I don't see why it was necessary.

We, the public, know bugger all about the realities of policing. We don't know where the money should be spent.

If everything was democratic with policing it would just be all the money spent on whatever crime was flavour of the month of the Daily Mail and not much else.

True

A complete waste on money & yet another example of these MP;s crusade to create even more jobs for the boys/girls & relatives of the so called elite to receive massive salaries that the ordinary taxpayer funds, all these mainstream parties are totally out of touch with reality & the british public.
Its nepotism like what happens in S4C

So the government spent £75 million giving people the opportunity to vote and decide on something important to their own local community.
It was free to vote, in the same places it always is for every election.
People could not be bothered to vote, so it is the governments fault?

At least independents won 1/2 the posts. Perhaps this system should be adopted for all elections.

Of course it's the governments fault.

The point is it didn't NEED to cost £75 million, it didn't need to happen at all. Is this a wise expenditure? Most people would have wanted £75 million spent on the current police force and recruiting new officers. Not this nonsensical, american, idea of politicising policing. A terrible concept that the PEOPLE don't want.

The public didn't vote because they weren't aware of what or who they were voting for. In a democracy people need to be educated about candidates and policies; they simply were not.

Waste of money and time in every possible way.

Thank you very much for making my mind up for me. I forgot you were so intellectually superior to everyone in the UK that you had the ability to make such a decision for them. The reason I didn't vote was not because I didn't want such system, its because even if I had voted those in power would not have changed anything anyway. That is why. In America, they often get what they voted for and if it turns to crap then tough luck because its what they wanted. Just you wait and see if Colorado goes down the pan with this law if its cleared under federal law, the media will blame the people who voted it in.

The great thing with America's system is change occurs, people therefore get involved knowing they can be influential and thus by changing things they trial things and can work out what is best for their areas and communities. In the UK change rarely happens on such a scale, politicians are scared of change, a lot of the people are scared of change and those who are not know the politicians wont change a thing anyway because they have too much to lose in terms of self interest.

America's way of voting is engaging and amazing. More people would vote here if they could have such influence but people don't bother in the UK because the current system is corrupted from the top down. Numerous petitions have surpassed the 100k mark and most of them have been ignored or politicians have made up their minds for us. Always the same.

So the government spent £75 million giving people the opportunity to vote and decide on something important to their own local community.
It was free to vote, in the same places it always is for every election.
People could not be bothered to vote, so it is the governments fault?

At least independents won 1/2 the posts. Perhaps this system should be adopted for all elections.

Of course it's the governments fault.

The point is it didn't NEED to cost £75 million, it didn't need to happen at all. Is this a wise expenditure? Most people would have wanted £75 million spent on the current police force and recruiting new officers. Not this nonsensical, american, idea of politicising policing. A terrible concept that the PEOPLE don't want.

The public didn't vote because they weren't aware of what or who they were voting for. In a democracy people need to be educated about candidates and policies; they simply were not.

Waste of money and time in every possible way.

Thank you very much for making my mind up for me. I forgot you were so intellectually superior to everyone in the UK that you had the ability to make such a decision for them. The reason I didn't vote was not because I didn't want such system, its because even if I had voted those in power would not have changed anything anyway. That is why. In America, they often get what they voted for and if it turns to crap then tough luck because its what they wanted. Just you wait and see if Colorado goes down the pan with this law if its cleared under federal law, the media will blame the people who voted it in.

The great thing with America's system is change occurs, people therefore get involved knowing they can be influential and thus by changing things they trial things and can work out what is best for their areas and communities. In the UK change rarely happens on such a scale, politicians are scared of change, a lot of the people are scared of change and those who are not know the politicians wont change a thing anyway because they have too much to lose in terms of self interest.

America's way of voting is engaging and amazing. More people would vote here if they could have such influence but people don't bother in the UK because the current system is corrupted from the top down. Numerous petitions have surpassed the 100k mark and most of them have been ignored or politicians have made up their minds for us. Always the same.

You literally couldn't have misnderstood me any more than that.

Firstly, what I said about the people not wanting it is based on the facts (13-20% turnout, some stations receiving no votes etc) combined with interviews of those in the papers and on the news. Equally, the audience on Question Time two weeks ago made it clear that they weren't happy about the elections. These are just several ways to gauge public opinion. It is not based on my own personal view as you implied with your puerile sarcasm.

Secondly, why are you rambling about the American voting system? I said the idea of POLITICISING POLICING (ie having a commisioner) is an American one. Simple as that, I never criticised their political mechanisms nor did I mention them. Very strange.

(N.B Not voting because 'nothing will change anyway' is lazy. Going to the polling station and, as many do, defacing your slip will show a greater level of discontent and it is guaranteed to be read. Most importantly you are partaking in the democratic system in some form as opposed to sitting on your arse saying 'nothing will change').

So the government spent £75 million giving people the opportunity to vote and decide on something important to their own local community.
It was free to vote, in the same places it always is for every election.
People could not be bothered to vote, so it is the governments fault?

At least independents won 1/2 the posts. Perhaps this system should be adopted for all elections.

Of course it's the governments fault.

The point is it didn't NEED to cost £75 million, it didn't need to happen at all. Is this a wise expenditure? Most people would have wanted £75 million spent on the current police force and recruiting new officers. Not this nonsensical, american, idea of politicising policing. A terrible concept that the PEOPLE don't want.

The public didn't vote because they weren't aware of what or who they were voting for. In a democracy people need to be educated about candidates and policies; they simply were not.

Waste of money and time in every possible way.

Thank you very much for making my mind up for me. I forgot you were so intellectually superior to everyone in the UK that you had the ability to make such a decision for them. The reason I didn't vote was not because I didn't want such system, its because even if I had voted those in power would not have changed anything anyway. That is why. In America, they often get what they voted for and if it turns to crap then tough luck because its what they wanted. Just you wait and see if Colorado goes down the pan with this law if its cleared under federal law, the media will blame the people who voted it in.

The great thing with America's system is change occurs, people therefore get involved knowing they can be influential and thus by changing things they trial things and can work out what is best for their areas and communities. In the UK change rarely happens on such a scale, politicians are scared of change, a lot of the people are scared of change and those who are not know the politicians wont change a thing anyway because they have too much to lose in terms of self interest.

America's way of voting is engaging and amazing. More people would vote here if they could have such influence but people don't bother in the UK because the current system is corrupted from the top down. Numerous petitions have surpassed the 100k mark and most of them have been ignored or politicians have made up their minds for us. Always the same.

You literally couldn't have misnderstood me any more than that.

Firstly, what I said about the people not wanting it is based on the facts (13-20% turnout, some stations receiving no votes etc) combined with interviews of those in the papers and on the news. Equally, the audience on Question Time two weeks ago made it clear that they weren't happy about the elections. These are just several ways to gauge public opinion. It is not based on my own personal view as you implied with your puerile sarcasm.

Secondly, why are you rambling about the American voting system? I said the idea of POLITICISING POLICING (ie having a commisioner) is an Anerican one. Simple as that, I never criticised their political mechanisms nor did I mention them. Very strange.

(N.B Not voting because 'nothing will change anyway' is lazy. Going to the polling station and, as many do, defacing your slip will show a greater level of discontent and it is guaranteed to be read. Most importantly you are partaking in the democratic system in some form as opposed to sitting on your arse).

Disagree. If the 3-4% that had defaced their slips had instead stayed at home that would have lowered turnout to less than 15% which would be even more embarrassing that it is currently.

With 4% defaced slips the government will just claim that they were just defaced due to not understanding how the voting system used works.

The government claim that the 80% who didn't show up didn't because they didn't understand it. It's good to show that you DO understand and you disagree.

Spoiled votes are a long-established way of showing your disapproval of the candidates, or indeed election, whilst still taking part in the electoral process. It's important because it differentiates those who have political greivances and those who simply cannot be arsed to vote.

If you don't turn up, you're grouped with those who couldn't be bothered. It's good to show discontent and protest.

Didnt know about it, didnt understand it, waste of money clearly

But the public were too busy voting for the next celebrity to do the bush tucker trial