Personal Musing On The PCC Candidates

November 9th, 2012

Personal Musing On The PCC Candidates

Okay, look – this is just my opinion.  My personal opinion.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I don’t claim the opinion belongs to any other organisation, or group, or anything like that.  It’s just me.  That said, I’m going to talk about who you, dear reader, might consider voting for in the election this coming Thursday.  I’m sure you are absolutely on the edge of your seat wondering what the end of this mysterious story is, right?  Well, I’ll ruin it for you.  The spoiler is that at the end of this I’m going to suggest you vote Conservative.  But it’s not the destination, its the journey.  Let us begin.

Name:  Ansar Ali (Independent)
Website:  http://ansarali4cambspcc.org.uk/wp/press-release/
“We need to prioritise and target what the public feel is the most beneficial services for them,” said Mr Ali.
“I will be fighting very hard. We are the second lowest funded police service in the country. That is unacceptable. I want fairer funding for Cambridgeshire.”
Comments:
He’s been a BBC broadcaster, a “community advocate” (are there people who advocate the lack of communities then?), a county councillor, a justice of the peace and a “senior manager” for 30 years in the public sector.  His main platform point seems to be that he was on the police authority.  So, in my view he is the “more of the same” candidate.  If you’re happy with what has gone before, great!   Because he’s been part of it.  If you think there are enough police in your neighbourhood, that crime is handled correctly and that victims are properly prioritised right now, then he’s your man.  Because he has been part of the authority who oversaw it all.  But then if you like everything as it is right now, why vote at all?

Name:  Paul Bullen (UKIP)
Website:  http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-static-items/2806-paul-bullen-cambridgeshire
“My personal view is we should not be cutting the budget. We can’t keep cutting and cutting,” said Mr Bullen.  ”We need to sit down and go through the figures.” He said that depending on what the accounts say, the precept may need to be raised.
Comments:
It’s interesting to hear UKIP, who I had thought were on the right enough to understand that money does not grow on trees, would be taking an anti-cuts position.   Are we really suggesting there is no waste, no duplication, no efficiency-savings, and no new ways of doing things which might be more cost-effective?  I quite liked his “more police on the beat, tough on the causes of crime” line, but it’s a pretty obvious line, isn’t it?  I mean, who is going to say: “Let’s have fewer police on the beat and let’s be gentle on the causes of crime?”  Nobody!  Oh wait.  I forgot about Rupert Moss-Eccardt.  He might. More on that later.

Name:  Stephen Goldspink (English Democrats)
Website: http://www.yournextmp.com/candidates/stephen_goldspink
Mr Goldspink said he thought there was room to save money by making the force more efficient and “by improving the management”.
“My view is I would look at the budget with a fine tooth comb and reappraise the priorities of spending. I will look at how the money is spent,” he said.
Comments:
I couldn’t find an actual website for Stephen’s PCC platform.  There might be one and Google just wasn’t playing nice, I don’t know.  But I did find the Your Next MP site as linked above.  You have to wonder how many other jobs the multi-talented and ambitious Mr Goldspink plans to stand for?  President of the Society of St. George?  Elected Fire Chief?  Chair Of Friends Of The Park in Little Puddlingham?    It could be almost anything.  He’s going to “reappraise the priorities of spending” – so there’s a meaty policy to get fired up about.  But seriously, You can skip this one, if you like.  He’ll be standing for something else before you can say: “England, my England.”

Name:  Farooq Mohammed (Independent)
Website:  http://www.pcc-cambs-farooq.co.uk/
“As far as Cambridgeshire Police is concerned, it is the most underfunded county in the country. Resources are very stretched,” said Mr Mohammed.
He said it may be acceptable to make cuts to backroom staff to invest in front-line policing, but cuts should not be made “for the sake of cutting”.
Comments:
Doesn’t he sound sort of like a policy cross between Paul Bullen and Ansar Ali?  I mean, he’s ticked the “we’re really underfunded” box and the “anti-cuts” box.  I love this comment that cuts should not be made “for the sake of cutting.”  As if there are people sitting in a room giggling maniacally and cutting at random. They’re cutting because they’ve run out of money, Farooq.  The last thing we need are more people whinging about how unfair it is that we have run out of money.  These are precisely the sort of people who spend too much money.  Nor does all this complaining make the money magically reappear.  We need people who will find new and innovate ways to save while still delivering an excellent service.  We need people to look for waste, duplication and to be creative in the application of the funds we do have.  But, I suppose, if you just want to hear a good old bit of nagging, Farooq sounds like a nice enough guy.  He’s even offered to spend his first two years salary on a breakfast club for malnourished kids.  Which is great if you think offering to buy votes is a reasonable way to do business.  Personally, I don’t much like it.  But the kids who eat the nourishing breakfast probably will.  So there’s that.  If you really must vote Independent, then I think Farooq is the better choice.

Name:  Ed Murphy (Labour)
Website:  http://www.yournextpcc.com/elections/pcc-2012/places/cambridgeshire/ed-murphy
“Cuts of 20% are far too much. It is putting neighbourhood policing teams at risk,” said Mr Murphy.
“Labour will be fighting against 20% cuts. We have so far managed to protect neighbourhood policing teams, but in policing terms, the previous chief constable predicted Armageddon if we carry on with cuts.”
Comments:
I found it interesting that in my Google search for a website for Ed, I came upon a link to the peterboroughlabourparty.co.uk under which Google helpfully suggested “This site may harm your computer.”  I don’t know about that, but I reckon there’s at least a fair chance it will eat your soul.  Now look, there are a lot of things that Police & Crime Commissioners will be able to do and should try to do – but to attempt to be some kind of socialist campaign tool in parliament just isn’t one of them.  His key item on the BBC Cambridgeshire website was to moan about national cuts.  Without even pointing out that it was his party which spent all the money, I still can’t see how all this sabre-rattling will actually keep anybody safer.  Oh, and he really, really, really hates G4S.  Inspiring, huh?

murphys law
“This site may harm your computer!”   ROFL.

Name:  Rupert Moss-Eccardt (Liberal Democrat)
Mr Moss-Eccardt said: “Now the authority has set a precept of 2% [in council tax] and the government has pre-empted the vote for a PCC by indicating that the incoming PCC will not be able to raise it more.
“We will look at the collaboration of back office services with nearby police forces.”
Comments:
I was briefly on the same council as Rupert.  He always seemed like a lovely guy.  But I simply cannot imagine him as a police & crime commissioner.  Almost anybody would be a better vote than this.  Except maybe Ed Murphy.  And I’m not even sure about that.  I mean, Ed Murphy might or might not be a union puppet, and he might or might not waste endless time trying to lobby government in vain.  And he might or might not be an authoritarian socialist, red in tooth and claw.  But at least he wouldn’t advocate giving dangerous criminals a “nice hug” and some kindly words.  Or suggest they were, actually, victims themselves.  I don’t know if Rupert would either, but he is a Liberal Democrat.  Right?

Name:  Sir Graham Bright (Conservative)
This is the person to vote for.  The End.    Oh, you want more?  It’s here.

PCC--montage - 1

test Filed under PCC | Comments (13)

13 Responses to “Personal Musing On The PCC Candidates”

  1. Ian W on November 9, 2012 3:43 am

    So most of the candidates want more money – do PCCs get a magic money tree all of their own?

    Geez hardly inspiring words, surely someone could’ve put “achieve savings through operating efficiencies, rather than crude salami slicing; in order to prioritise front line policing in the challenging financial climate” or something similar re the resourcing.

    The Labour candidate in my area is obsessed with gaining more funds, it seems that it’s the national party political angle, totally defeating the localism justification for PCCs.

  2. Big Sue on November 9, 2012 9:05 am

    The radio hustings was really interesting.
    I thought Sir Graham performed best,although several of them were okay.
    You are right about the liberal democrat.WHat a wet rag!

  3. bob on November 9, 2012 9:22 am

    Steve

    Your own google searches show the problem the ordinary voter has. By not allowing free mail shots for this election, the Government has effectively forced voters to carry out unreliable web searches in order to decide who to vote for.

    The only leaflet through my door has been one from the Tory, and I rang the number on it to ask if he would be appearing at any hustings in Wisbech. The candidate rang me that evening and said he wasn’t appearing at hustings but there would be a radio debate with other candidates on Thursday 8 November. This was helpful, and the broadcast was the only opportunity I have had to hear the candidates. It is also worth noting that reception for Radio Cambs in my part of Wisbech is so poor in both FM and DAB, I had to listen online.

    The official website for the election gives you the option of having their election addresses posted out. I ticked the relevant box but they have never arrived.

    All this makes it difficult for people to decide who to vote for and without the Radio Cambs broadcast, I would have spoilt my ballot paper in protest. As it is, I have voted for the two candidates I thought gave the most coherent answers on that radio show but it is hardly satisfactory.

    It seems ungrateful to Sir Graham that I haven’t voted for him but I was underwhelmed by his answers and thought he was on the back foot for most of the programme.http://www.stevetierney.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/tango-smileys-extended/tango/smile.png

  4. Fenman on November 9, 2012 10:01 am

    Great piece of writing.
    This is what you do best.

  5. Mike Fens on November 9, 2012 10:14 am

    I vote UKIP for national and euro,various for local council based on the person but the tories obvious for law and order

  6. Edward on November 9, 2012 10:46 am

    I will be voting for Sir Graham Bright. He is the only one that has managed to get a leaflet to me and he seems to have the best manifesto.

  7. Jim on November 9, 2012 11:04 am

    Nobody in my house has ever voted anything other than blue and we are not going to start now.

    The Liberal Democrat sounds like a pillock.

    Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
    He’s not a pillock, he’s a nice guy. But he’s not PCC material (in my opinion.)

  8. Jason Wright on November 9, 2012 11:52 am

    You’re absolutely right. Sir Graham is the man for me. Just look at his attention to detail and thorough knowledge of the communities he seeks to serve. Where is this Wisbeach place? Do you think that picture was his first (and last) visit?

    Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:

    I knew somebody would point out the typo on that photo! The first thing I thought was: “Somebody will enjoy that,” and sure enough! But I’m sure most people are aware that typos can happen – so if that’s the best point-scoring you can do, Jay, I reckon you’re bang out of luck. I’ve met Graham several times in and around Wisbech so I know he’s here often. But Wisbech is one place of many in a large county, so I doubt anybody would expect that he’d be here all the time. That’d be unfair to all those other places, wouldnt it? I know that some of the candidates think that the entire region is just Peterborough, but that’s really not so. I also notice that the other candidates don’t seem to have ANY photos; not in Wisbech OR in Wisbeach. Which says a lot. Smile

  9. Stuart Sandford on November 9, 2012 12:07 pm

    I found that quite helpfull and will be voting for your candidate

  10. Garry on November 9, 2012 12:09 pm

    Sir Graham is a solid reliable candidate and ill be voting for him.

  11. Adam Baddeley on November 9, 2012 5:01 pm

    On the basis of the quotes you’ve given them, the LibDem seems the most sensible of them all i.e. we can’t have any more money. I’m not going to waste time claiming i can do otherwise so I’m just going to look for efficiencies elsewhere. You’ve attributed other polcies to him in your own words but in what you’ve quoted him as actually saying seems quite reasonable.

    He can probably spell Wisbech correctly too.

    Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:
    I’d put him second-to-last. The very last thing this county needs is a Lib Dem in charge of policing. Too weak. But I’m glad he’s there, to leech votes from Labour on the left.

  12. Monica on November 9, 2012 10:48 pm

    Nice article!

  13. Paul on November 11, 2012 11:10 am

    I think your assessments of the candidates is quite interesting. But do you think your man was best served by his responses to Richard Taylor, who I know you respect, in the market square.

    http://www.youtube.com/share_popup?v=JHh-nhoYXqk

    Moderator (Steve Tierney)’s Response:

    No, I think he handled the Richard Taylor incident poorly. I think the whole “new media” phenomenon does catch some people who haven’t got a handle on it yet off guard. I suspect a number of the other candidates might have reacted badly in the same situation, though I accept this doesn’t excuse it. Richard Taylor is an interesting guy and his style is unusual – it doesn’t sit well with everybody. I’ve seen Liberals and Lefties lose their rag with him too. I quite like the fellow, but I don’t think the situation is quite as clear cut as it appears. For instance – Richard seems to have a particular fascination with prodding Graham Bright, to the exclusion of other candidates. Initially I wondered if this represented a bias – but having thought about it I think it’s just a personality clash. Graham doesn’t know how to deal with Richard’s style, Richard – having enjoyed prodding him and getting a response – has continued to push in the same way. All in all, none of it was ideal.

Comments are closed.