South Yorkshire PCC

[timmullen1]

11.9% in Barnsley as per BBC Sheffield on Twitter

[Merseymike]

Oct 31, 2014 11:01:29 GMT timmullen1 said:

Oct 31, 2014 10:48:24 GMT Merseymike said:

It wasn't like that before.

There were 17 members - 3 magistrates, and 8 councillors from the five boroughs. The six independent members weren't self-defined - the posts were publicly advertised and there was a pretty gruelling two stage procedure before being chosen.

We weren't 'representatives' - but were there to make sure that the 'lay' voice was considered, and all of us had some sort of interface with the police before and an active interest in the issues. We were also much more likely to be able to make a noise when necessary because we weren't beholden to a party position.

Indeed. I think we need more of this, not less - there are lots of people out there outside party politics who have a great deal of insight, knowledge and expertise, and I would like to see them used far more. As it is plain to see, just because we elect people says nothing about their quality and ability - and that goes for all the parties! America is obsessed with electing everything in sight yet that process encourages various types of swivel-eyed loon and tends to reflect vested interest. If there is one thing I am sure of its that the Bennite/Carswell obsession with elections needs avoiding.

One thing I would add is that there does need to be more autonomy from the Home Office than previously existed; I was told by a former Vice Chairman of Staffordshire Police Authority of the time they were given pre-completed voting papers by the Home Office "observer" when choosing a new Chief Constable and any dissenting votes went the way of Vatican Conclave ballot papers.

We certainly weren't!
I was only involved with one appointment and it was very open - and the selected candidate was an outsider.
Of course, that would be totally unacceptable, but its easier to get an individual (a PCC, perchance?) to follow a set line, particularly if they are from a party in power, than a diverse selection panel

[timmullen1]

Oct 31, 2014 11:03:59 GMT Merseymike said:

Oct 31, 2014 11:01:29 GMT timmullen1 said:

One thing I would add is that there does need to be more autonomy from the Home Office than previously existed; I was told by a former Vice Chairman of Staffordshire Police Authority of the time they were given pre-completed voting papers by the Home Office "observer" when choosing a new Chief Constable and any dissenting votes went the way of Vatican Conclave ballot papers.

We certainly weren't!
I was only involved with one appointment and it was very open - and the selected candidate was an outsider.
Of course, that would be totally unacceptable, but its easier to get an individual (a PCC, perchance?) to follow a set line, particularly if they are from a party in power, than a diverse selection panel

Sorry, I was in no way trying to defend the grotesque concept of PCCs, merely trying to add a suggestion on how things could be improved under a new system. I'm certain Staffordshire were not unique as sometime during the Thatcher period Derbyshire went to court as their preferred candidate was repeatedly rejected by the Home Office who ultimately prevailed in having the local choice rejected.

[Pimpernal]

Confirmed South Yorkshire PCC turnouts:
Barnsley: 11.9%
Doncaster: 15.2%
Rotherham: 18.0%
Sheffield: 14.5%

Total 14.9%

[iain]

Barnsley: 11.9%
Doncaster: 15.2%
Rotherham: 18.0%
Sheffield: 14.5%

Looks good for UKIP

[timmullen1]

Per @britainvotes

Doncaster vote result (South Yorks PCC):
LAB - 15310
UKIP - 11380
CON - 4730
EDEM - 2314

(via @timvealgb)

[mboy]

If people understand SV (which is a fairly big *IF*) then that looks like a UKIP win...

[Davıd Boothroyd]

I would say that's not encouraging for UKIP. Doncaster should be one of their stronger authorities (Rotherham is the strongest). And there will be considerable leakage of second votes under SV.

[Pete Whitehead]

I don't think so. It looks like even with a bit of leakage we should be able to carry Doncaster but narrowly carrying Doncaster would mean narrowly not carrying South Yorkshire

[timmullen1]

Oct 31, 2014 12:22:01 GMT mboy said:

If people understand SV (which is a fairly big *IF*) then that looks like a UKIP win...

On the flip side of that (and reports on Twitter suggest that Conservative and ED votesare transferring to UKIP) it's still pretty positive for Labour that their vote has not disintegrated in one of the two areas in which UKIP were supposed to dominate.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Sheffield result is 32,867 votes for Labour, UKIP with 14,686. (Other parties not known)

That's 56% of the vote for Alan Billings.

[Andrew_S]

UKIP need a big win in Rotherham to have a chance.

[Tony Otim]

I suspect the margin in Sheffield is too big unless Labour absolutely tank in Rotherham.

[Andrew_S]

On leakage, I suspect it'll be a lot less with just the die-hards voting than it would be with a much higher turnout.

[timmullen1]

Sheffield raw votes per @britainelects

Sheffield vote result (South Yorks. PCC):
LAB - 32867
UKIP - 14686
CON - 7198
EDEM - 2937

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Barnsley:

Lab 10,877
UKIP 6,609
C 2,672
ED 1,288

[mboy]

Labour take Barnsley with other 50% of the vote, UKIP second.

UKIP would have to win Rotherham by miles (like, 75%) to win now I think.

[timmullen1]

Barnsley in percentages:

Barnsley result (South Yorks. PCC):
LAB - 50.7%
UKIP - 30.8%
CON - 12.5%
EDEM - 6.0%

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Total without Rotherham

Lab 59,054 (52.3%)
UKIP 32,675 (28.9%)
C 14,600 (12.9%)
ED 6,539 (5.8%)

UKIP has to lead Labour by 5,240 in Rotherham to take it to a second round.

[Pimpernal]

Vote Tory get Labour...