The Electoral Reform Society blog

News Blog

17th November 2012

Government responsible for feeble mandates

We’ve had the lowest turnout in British history, but what does that mean for mandates?

We’ve crunched the numbers and just 1 Police and Crime Commissioner has a mandate delivered by more than 1 in 10 potential voters.

It’s clear our new Commissioners worked hard getting elected under incredibly difficult circumstances, and the Government did them no favours. These feeble mandates were guaranteed from day one, and the 41 winners will have to find a way of living with them.

The Government must now accept its share of responsibility. The stated intention of this policy was to reconnect the public and the police, and that objective has simply not been met.

Mandate Highlights

Avon and Somerset’s Sue Mountstevens (Ind.) only PCC with a mandate from more than 1 in 10 potential voters(10.1% eligible voters backed the candidate)
The lowest mandate belongs to Essex’s Nick Alston (Con.) with a mandate of less than 1 in 20 voters (4.7% eligible voters backed the candidate)

	*Winning Party*	*Turnout*	*Mandate*	*Winner*
Essex	Con	13.06%	4.7%	Nick Alston
Devon and Cornwall	Con	15.14%	5%	Tony Hogg
Cambridgeshire	Con	14.77%	5.3%	Sir Graham Bright
Hampshire	Ind	14.60%	5.5%	Simon Hayes
Thames Valley	Con	12.88%	5.5%	Anthony Stansfeld
West Midlands	Lab	12.00%	5.9%	Bob Jones
Humberside	Con	19.15%	6.0%	Matthew Grove
Norfolk	Ind	14.51%	6.0%	Stephen Bett
Staffordshire	Con	11.63%	6.0%	Matthew Ellis
Cheshire	Con	13.74%	6.1%	John Dwyer
Surrey	Other	15.36%	6.2%	Kevin Hurley
Cumbria	Con	15.63%	6.4%	Richard Rhodes
Sussex	Con	15.82%	6.5%	Katy Bourne
Suffolk	Con	15.41%	6.7%	Tim Passmore
North Wales	Ind	14.83%	6.8%	Winston Roddick
South Wales	Lab	15.19%	6.8%	Alun Michael
Wiltshire	Con	15.83%	6.9%	Angus Macpherson
Greater Manchester	Lab	13.59%	7.0%	Tony Lloyd
Merseyside	Lab	12.90%	7.0%	Jane Kennedy
Gwent	Ind	14.00%	7.0%	Ian Johnston
Lancashire	Lab	15.05%	7.1%	Clive Grunshaw
West Yorkshire	Lab	13.34%	7.1%	Mark Burns-Williamson
Lincolnshire	Ind	15.28%	7.2%	Alan Hardwick
Derbyshire	Lab	14.35%	7.3%	Alan Charles
Durham	Lab	14.40%	7.4%	Ron Hogg
Gloucestershire	Ind	15.96%	7.4%	Martin Surl
Cleveland	Lab	14.73%	7.5%	Barry Coppinger
South Yorkshire	Lab	14.50%	7.5%	Shaun Wright
North Yorkshire	Con	13.30%	7.7%	Julia Mulligan
Bedfordshire	Lab	17.75%	7.8%	Olly Martins
Hertfordshire	Con	14.10%	7.8%	David Lloyd
West Mercia	Ind	14.50%	7.8%	Bill Longmore
Northamptonshire	Con	19.50%	7.9%	Adam Simmonds
Warwickshire	Ind	15.23%	7.9%	Ron Ball
Nottinghamshire	Lab	16.42%	8.1%	Paddy Tipping
Leicestershire	Con	16.36%	8.3%	Sir Clive Loader
Dyfed-Powys	Con	16.40%	8.3%	Christopher Salmon
Dorset	Ind	16.30%	8.8%	Martyn Underhill
Kent	Ind	15.99%	8.9%	Ann Barnes
Northumbria	Lab	16.45%	9.2%	Vera Baird
Avon & Somerset	Ind	18.77%	10.1%	Sue Mountstevens

Nov 2012

Tags: Police and Crime Commissioners

2 Comments

Comments

keithunder

The poor SV voting system must contribute to this as well. Both in terms of who comes first and second but also contributing to who won! You have to make a guess as to who comes in first or second, or risk wasting your vote. In Humberside for example the winner got only 31.52% of the total valid vote! The conservative was only 633 votes ahead of the 3rd candidate an independent with 40000 votes for the other candidates combined. It is ridiculous that you are only limited to 2 preferences, which is fine if there are 3 candidates, but not otherwise!
Peter Morley

The continued growth of SV shows the contortions the Govt has to go through to avoid the problems of FPTP (which they clearly recognise) without admitting the use of numbers with preferential voting, There is widespread recognition that not only can the wrong two be carried forward for the run-off but the voters even have to guess who they might be. How transparent is that?
Peter Morley