Police commissioner elections were ‘a waste of time’ (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Police commissioner elections were ‘a waste of time’
9:18am Wednesday 21st November 2012 in News
A YORK councillor has labelled the Police and Crime Commissioner elections “a stupid waste of time” but said the city’s residents should still have voted in greater numbers.
Last week, Conservative Julia Mulligan won the race for the £70,000-a-year North Yorkshire and York role, which gives the power to hire and fire chief constables and the responsibility for setting the force’s budget.
She beat Labour’s Ruth Potter, but only 12.8 per cent of the York electorate voted and turnout across the county was just 14.3 per cent, with 6,406 people spoiling their ballot papers.
Coun Dave Taylor, who represents Fishergate, said voters who ignored the election or sabotaged their ballot papers must “be aware of the result of their action or inaction”.
He said: “I’ve never been in favour of forcing people to vote and this election is clearly a stupid waste of time which hardly anybody supported – the fact more than 85 per cent of the North Yorkshire electorate didn’t vote is testament to that.
"However, unless they are Conservatives, I can’t imagine they’re very pleased to have a PCC based way out of York and from that particular party. If they didn’t vote, all they can do is moan about it.”
Comments(20)
Jim
says...
10:10am Wed 21 Nov 12
What people seem to have cared about was the choice of candidates and as under our form of democracy we have the option of exercising or withholding our vote, if there's no suitable candidate what else can you do but withhold your vote?
BL2
says...
10:11am Wed 21 Nov 12
voodoocol
says...
10:40am Wed 21 Nov 12
voodoocol
says...
10:41am Wed 21 Nov 12
nowthen
says...
11:06am Wed 21 Nov 12
voodoocol wrote:Only 13.9% of York residents voted Labour in the last council elections , does that mean that Alexander doesn't have a mandate? I hope so.
Not voting is an action. Not only that but it is an action to which we have a legal right. An action which should in my eyes mean that a turnout of less than 15% invalidates the process as a whole. Julia Mulligan YOU HAVE NO MANDATE.
sambo1943
says...
11:09am Wed 21 Nov 12
cityforthepremier
says...
12:23pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
12:55pm Wed 21 Nov 12
cityforthepremier
says...
1:25pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Buzz Light-year wrote:It's still only 26% of the people who actually bothered to vote.
Um... there's a difference between the proportion of the vote someone gets and *the entire vote*
Digeorge
says...
1:31pm Wed 21 Nov 12
There were other reasons why we didn't vote which included how can you vote for someone when one of your family works for the Police? They do their job regardless as to who would be at the top.
xtc
says...
1:36pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Haywire
says...
2:02pm Wed 21 Nov 12
bob the builder wrote:Robert, I do agree with you on some things (definitely not regarding the insidious, road rage inducing, overtaking lanes on the bypass) - but I predict that you will eventually regret your support for this sorry farce.
I'm with the Prodigy lookalike on this one.
The very last thing we need in this country is a police force in thrall to local political influence.
lowbeam
says...
2:58pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Comment: I would like to ask you one simple yes or no question if I may, Would YOU ever vote for some thing you did not agree with? No?... neither would I which is exactly why and thousands like me did not vote,
But of course if you answered Yes, then you would be the sort of person I would not vote for anyway.
But good look anyway
Time: Saturday November 17, 2012 at 1:49 pm
I got this reply........
Dear Mr------, many thanks for your note. Hopefully over the next few years I'll show that this will make a difference....
Thank you again
Kind regards
Julia
On 17 Nov 2012, at 13:49
now what does that tell you?
meme
says...
3:15pm Wed 21 Nov 12
t least she replied. If we all took the view that because of low turnouts there was no mandate then most of our loccal politicians should not have a mandate. In fact all of them!
If lots choose not to vote that is their democratic right but does not make the vote any less valid. If you choose not to use it then you lose it! simple as that... No good moaning afterwards about the result as the labour candidate did!
If she had won she would have taken the opposite view.Political posturing its called!
Its a shame there was no Independent as I am sure he/she would have walked it as I voted for one party on the basis I knew the other would be terrible in the role. Not really the best of reasons but the best I could come up with at the time!
Lets see how this woman does? We may all be pleasantly suprised or the opposite. At least we should give her a chance
MrsHoney
says...
3:30pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Personally I did vote, although I disagreed with it being political, seeing as they made it that way I didn't want a Labour candidate winning.
As for people complaining about there not being enough information, I searched on the web to find out about it. I'm sure these same people spend enough time surfing Facebook and the like to give up a little time to find out about it. As it was, Ruth Potter hadn't even bothered to update her profile at that point so she was really putting a lot of effort in!
York1900
says...
5:20pm Wed 21 Nov 12
because the over seeing crime and police panel was all ready stuffed with 7 Conservatives so they only needed 1 other to block any thing the PCC wanted to do or approve
So the only way of showing you had no faith in the election was not to vote or spoil your vote
The voters do not like been used to put some one in a job that puts costs on to there tax bills and only one person would get the full help of the crime and police panel
So all the tripe that government came up with was only to put some one in a over paid government job
.
Caecilius
says...
5:45pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Well, his understanding is deficient, then. I'm sure that, as a politician, that's how he wants us to behave - and indeed it seems pretty close to the way things work within York's ruling Labour group - but it's not democracy. I don't want any political interference with the police from any party and, even if I'd been asked to vote on a measure that I actually agreed with, I wouldn't give either Labour or Conservatives the time of day. By "sabotaging" my ballot paper, as Coun Taylor puts it, I was sending that message loud and clear. Let's hope a lot more people do it in future - who knows, we might even achieve some genuine democracy in this country, or at least expose the current sham for what it is. Which is what the political class dreads.
andylaw3107
says...
12:00am Thu 22 Nov 12
Caecilius wrote:If you read the second paragraph of his quote, you'll note that his view is far less simple and controlling than you make it sound. The third paragraph merely states that only Conservatives could be happy with the result - he isn't saying anyone who doesn't support Conservatives is a fool not to have voted for Ruth. And as for the first paragraph, I think Dave was likely commenting that the people who either didn't vote or sabotaged their vote did so consciously - I think he is actually defending people's rights to do so (and highlighting that they did so to send a message), not condemning them for their 'action or inaction' (referring to 'spoiling' or 'not voting' respectively).
So Coun Taylor's understanding of "democracy" is that everyone should meekly accept the imposition of political control on the police, or any other arbitrary decision by the government of the day, and then dutifully turn out to vote for either (a) a member of the Labour Party or (b) a Conservative to implement it.
Well, his understanding is deficient, then. I'm sure that, as a politician, that's how he wants us to behave - and indeed it seems pretty close to the way things work within York's ruling Labour group - but it's not democracy. I don't want any political interference with the police from any party and, even if I'd been asked to vote on a measure that I actually agreed with, I wouldn't give either Labour or Conservatives the time of day. By "sabotaging" my ballot paper, as Coun Taylor puts it, I was sending that message loud and clear. Let's hope a lot more people do it in future - who knows, we might even achieve some genuine democracy in this country, or at least expose the current sham for what it is. Which is what the political class dreads.
I can't speak for Dave, but neither can you. Quotes can be read in many different ways, dependent on context and juxtaposition. The way this article is written is a little ambiguous; you shouldn't judge people when you don't know what they really meant.
York1900
says...
6:44am Thu 22 Nov 12
You find this in most media that the report can be made to read many ways
You just have to make you own mind up to as how much spin as been put on it from all sides
A word missed out here and there can make a report read completely differently but yet have all the facts
.
bob the builder says...
9:52am Wed 21 Nov 12