Talk:2012 England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections

Page Location and Name

Official title is 'Police and CRIME Commissioners' and they will only be England and Wales (excluding London)

Would police_and_crime_commissioner_elections,_England_and_Wales,_2012 be a better location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.228 (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Who votes?

It is not clear whether only police staff vote or the whole population. --82.67.63.50 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is now clear from the lead paragraphs. Sussexonian (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What to do with this article?

As party nominees are being chosen, the question arises how to display the candidates' names, and eventually voting results. I see no point in creating 40+ pages each containing one election, with most attracting little public interest. So I would suggest simply that an Election box, preferably a Compact Election Box, could be placed on the page and populated with confirmed candidate names. As far as I can see the Conservative Party willl name its candidates during July and that would be a possible time to make this change. The results part of the page would look something like Manchester Council election, 2011. I may even make an Election Box capable of showing the second preference results. Comments? Sussexonian (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well in general as campaigning starts there should be enough material on each election to create a separate article on it, if someone should choose to write some. There will be some fairly significant local press coverage, with some national names commenting on particular candidates, etc. Whilst keeping them all under the current article makes sense at the moment, it might be difficult to maintain. That in mind, as well as some discussion about these elections as a set (how they came about, criticism and support, that sort of thing) then the rest is likely to be a summary of the results; the candidates and nominees wouldn't have to be on this page but the individual pages. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment that even in a General Election, very few stories about individual candidates find their way onto constituency articles, so I would not expect so many here that couldn't be accommodated on this page. But we can wait and see ... Sussexonian (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes and Suggestions to Article

I have over the past couple of days made some changes to the article which I hope make the page look better. I have added a info box to head the article which pictures of the three main party leaders as well as the usual election info. I entirely with the layout for each of the elections in England and Wales as its not necessary for 41 separate pages as I fear there is going to be overall little public intrest. I do have some suggestions which would help to make the page look a lot better

• A election map be made of the 41 Police force areas within England & Wales where Police and Crime Commissioner elections are to be held which also exuludes the Metropolitian & City of London Police Force Areas as no elections are being held in these areas and be added onto the page. This can be either a map of England & Wales or two separate maps of England & Wales however I feel the latter is optional.

• Could the Union Jack be replaced with Flags of England & Wales in the info as this election is not UK-wide, I have personaly tried to do this but seems to only let one flag appear at any one time, if not then Union Jack I suppose will have to stay in place.

• Can the page be linked in to other election pages for the United Kingdom as it is polital

• More coverage of news and events related to the elections as we lead up to Polling day on November 15

• Some photos if possible

(MOTORAL1987 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC))

Hey Motoral. First of all, thanks for the changes you've made, they are very constructive. I'll try and fathom how to include the flags of England and Wales and get back to you on that. If this article isn't already linked to local election articles, I'll get that sorted by the end of today doktorb _words^deeds 15:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Doktorbuk Thanks for uploading the new map which will come in very handy for the upcoming elections, just one thing about that map why is there no outline for Wales when there is a outline border for England. Also thanks for looking at the England and Wales Flag issue andfor adding links. This is a great improvement!! (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC))

Adding UKIP to the info-box would make some sense, as UKIP is fielding 23 candidates.(CatCalledJim (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

The work has already been done. If it meets the rules, it should stay. JRPG (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is nearly three weeks until the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections, so we have plenty of time before we can say the work is done. I am only arguing for the improvement and the reliability of this article. It just doesn't make sense how UKIP are fielding the same number of candidates as the Lib Dems yet they are not even in the info-box.(CatCalledJim (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

I removed the UKIP section on the infobox as it made the page look untidy however I am happy too see them back on the info page if the English Democarats are made as a fifth party in the info box but as they are only standing five candidates I dont see it being nesseury.(MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

On this point I was wondering whether there's a danger of over emphasising the parties in this election. Although it makes sense for other elections it's clear that independent candidates are going to do unusually well (although I don't know if any will win) because of the specific nature of the posts being elected. I wonder if there is a way to highlight the independent vote (which will likely outstrip Lib Dem and UKIP's vote nationally. Obviously one problem is that they are all different but I think to write them out of the picture will give an unfairly distorted picture. Not sure what the best way to do that is though... 87.112.83.16 (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In particular, does it really make sense to have an 'Independent' party in the info-box? Jrmh (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Political Opinion (Especially Plaid Cymru)

Could we have a section on the political opinion towards on the upcoming PCC elections as only Labour and the Conservatives are fielding candidates in all 41 Police Forces Area as this is a major issue in itself, especially would like to know the political opinion of the smaller parties especially the views from Plaid Cymru has they are not fielding a single candidate in Wales and there is no mention at all of why they are not taking part on the main article so I think a section on this is much needed as there are mixed very mixed political feelings on weither these elections should even be taking place. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC))

You might also be interested in this. JRPG (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And this JRPG (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The following is from a left wing blog, but if there is any truth in this it sounds important

"I cannot see how the new system improves in any way upon the old one. Under the ‘Police Authority’ system, decisions are taken by democratically elected Councillors. They work in partnership with Chief Constables, and have the power to hire and fire. This is no different to PCCs, save that a PCC earns around £70,000 per annum before pension, and in so far as has been made clear by the woeful publicity campaign by the Home Office, will be working with less operational oversight than the current committee system. The entire process has cost well in excess of £100m." --Andromedean (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File on 4 Merging of police forces.

This radio item was extremely interesting showing that previous home secretaries AND the police themselves are in favour of merging police forces. It should be available as a podcast soon but if anyone wants to use the source before I get round to its, please do so. JRPG (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Duration of office

There is no mention of the duration of office. Is it four years like the London Mayor? I feel we should mention this somewhere in the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The duration of office is four years with a salary of £65,000 to £100,000 but the next PCC elections are planned for May 2016 so they fall at the same time as other local elections so for this term only it will be just three and a half years.(90.210.23.255 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

Infobox inclusion criteria

I think it would be good before the election to agree on what the criteria should be for a party to be included in the infobox - that would be better than having arguments after the election where people's criteria just happens to allow the inclusion of their preferred party. I suggest a cut-off point of 5% on average across the areas that a party is standing in, as most parties, perhaps because of the size of the deposit needed to stand a candidate, are not standing in every area. One alternative is to have a cut-off point of 5% of all votes cast, but I don't think that would be fair on all the parties apart from Labour and the Conservatives. What do other people think? Kookiethebird (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Should be raised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom page. JRPG (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

General consensus for summary boxes is 5% for the election before/result, as required. This is not an election we've had before so there's a good reason to put no box at all, or a box with as many parties as we could possibly fit. My personal preference is the "main three" plus UKIP, as Farage's party is standing as many candidates as the LibDems so there's a notability claim. No other party deserves mention. doktorb _words^deeds 16:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall results table

Once the elections are over, it would be good to have a table giving the total votes for the whole country for each party and candidate, say for each one that gets at least 5,000 votes. Kookiethebird (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Information on candidates

I have removed information that should not be included such as what they stand for e.g "having never been a member of a political party. His main pledges are Justice for All, and a focus on crime prevention and reduction of re-offending rates by partnering with voluntary organisations and the NHS" as this kind of information is both irrelevant and should not be on the wikipedia article. The same could be said about this "an Eastleigh Borough Councillor with family connections to Hampshire Police", so what if he has family connections to the Hampshire Police, why does that need to be included?

I have also cut down certain people's job titles e.g former Chairman of Devon & Cornwall Police Authority, former Liberal Democrat Chairman of Devon County Council and Resources Chair and Board Member APA and replaced it with former Lib Dem Cllr as that is how they are described in the articles.

I have done the same here: "* Jonathan Arnott is the UKIP candidate. He is 31 years old, born and lives in Sheffield, and is General Secretary of the party" why do people need to know he is from Sheffield and is 31, that is why he has a wiki article so people can find out this information and so I have replaced it with * Jonathan Arnott, General Secretary of the UK Independence Party — is the UKIP candidate

Removed this person: *Ian Kealey was selected as the UKIP candidate, but has withdrawn. as they have since withdrawn. 86.1.26.36 (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with including a few basic details about each candidate. We don't need to duplicate their entire Wikipedia articles in this page, but a one-line description is fine. Most of the information you describe as irrelevant I think is actually quite pertinent to this article. Also, abbreviated descriptions like "Lib Dem Cllr" should be avoided when "Liberal Democrat Councillor" is perfectly readable. I agree that some of the descriptions could be rewritten for style/POV issues, but just deleting swathes of descriptions is not helful. Prouder Mary 10:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Photos & Turnout!

it would be great if we could have some photos of polling stations taken during tomorrows elections and added onto the page and also might be nice to have some photos of some of the higher profile candidates like Lord Prescott and some others to name. Also a secion on voter tournout and public opinion might also not be a bad idea to add to the page either. It will be intresting to see what in tomorrows elections! (94.11.64.207 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Results boxes, turnout and winners

I've created two quick templates to go with the results boxes: Template:Election box supplementary vote turnout and Template:Election box supplementary vote win. As the election boxes for supplementary voting are two columns bigger, the normal boxes aren't wide enough. For reference, here are the Wiltshire results, which use both templates at the end.

Also, make sure you edit the 'fullwidthvotes' tag to (at least) the total votes for the winning candidate (here 35319), as they're set to 18000 by default.

If you're getting code errors in the result tables, ensure you are not using commas with the Election box supplementary vote template. Use just digits (ie. 16198 rather than 16,198)!

Wiltshire Commissioner election, 2012 (BBC News)
Party		Candidate	1st round		2nd round			First round votes  Transfer votes
			Total	Of round	Transfers	Total	Of round
	Conservative	Angus Macpherson	28,558	36.2%	6,761	35,319		​​
	Labour	Claire Moody	16,198	20.6%	4,959	21,157		​​
	Independent	Colin Skelton	11,446	14.5%				​​
	Liberal Democrats	Paul Batchelor	10,130	12.9%				​​
	UKIP	John Short	7,250	9.2%				​​
	Independent	Liam Silcocks	5,212	6.6%				​​
Turnout			78,794	15.8%
	Conservative win

~~ Woodgreener (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a column labelled "none" on this and other boxes ? - Racklever (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the losing candidates each have a small number of transfer votes. There should be no yellow on all but the top two candidates' vote bars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.249.175 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Second round

Can I just point out that the second round should not show the first round votes for the third and lower placed candidates, as they have been eliminated by this stage. The way to do this is to delete the "r2votes=0" from candidates that didn't actually make it into the second round; being eliminated isn't the same as getting through to the second round and then getting 0 transfers. Otherwise it counts some people's votes twice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Section 57 "direction"

"Section 57 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 directs that the voting system would be First past the post if there are only two candidates for a specific Commissioner region." - how could this be anything else? A majority is a majority, especially when there are only two candidates. Second preferences make no sense and would not be counted. So the voting paper shouldn't have any box for a second preference. If it did, would a mark there be a spoil? Presumably the papers for North Yorks, Dyfed-Powys and Shropshire had a conventional layout. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. With only 2 candidates, SV obviously reduces to SV. AIUI, voters were presented with a typical FPTP ballot paper and told to mark one candidate with a cross. Bondegezou (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

SV = Supplementary Vote and FPTP = First-past-the-post voting, as I understand it. But yes. Thanks for the info. I suppose all ballot paprers are designed in the same way and printed centrally? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Spoiled Ballots

While updating the Lincolnshire section on this article I decided to input a statistic on the table showing the number of spoiled ballots (1,890) in the election. However the only way I was able to do it currently was to input "Spoiled" as a candidate, which is fine, but makes the table look rather messy, could this be changed?

Given that many more people in this election appear have spoiled their ballot papers (possibly for political reasons) I think this should be part of the general template for each section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.220.116 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Tend to agree. Were spoilt papers scruntinized and categorised - how else would one determine that the ballot paper was inadequately designed for such a novel (for UK) voting system? I think it has been suggested in the media that the high number of spoilt papers was in some way a protest by those who thought a political carve up was wholly inappropriate. (Poor old Prescott seems to think he was standing in another general election?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Having been at previous SV election counts a large number of spoils is unsurprising, especially when there's minimal publicity about the system itself. The official results don't register protests and don't really give an indication of where the problem is accidental. I haven't seen spoils being added to previous SV election results pages and it would be POV to start adding them here. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think counting spoils here, or anywhere, is POV. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be to state that the level of spoiled ballots was significant in this election, when it had not been significant in other elections. Given that the existence of these posts as politically elected posts, and the conduct of the election, are both matters of political debate, I am inclined to agree that it is POV to add spoiled ballots to the table. A section on spoiled ballots could usefully be added to the general discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

But it's simply adding more information, a figure. To claim that the figure is significant would be POV. But you seem to be saying that doing something out of line with the general format of wiki election results tables makes it significant - are you? How does one decide that any figure is significant or not significant? But certainly agree about adding a separate section. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources have already noted that the level of spoiled ballots is significant. I added one such citation to the lede earlier; plenty more are easy to find. So I think a section discussing this (as per Sam B.) is appropriate. I also think the results tables should include spoiled ballots simply because that is part of any election result. Bondegezou (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Complete sense here, surely? And why do we use that counter-intuitive cross, instead of a confirmatory tick anyway! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I arrived at this page having failed to find collated information about the spoiled ballots elsewhere and expecting comprehensive stats here. Timanfaya (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As did I, there's already a {{Election box rejected}} template for use in election boxes, why not use it here, especially as the high ballot spoiling figures are being discussed widely in reliable sources? -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly sensible. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I also hoped to find information about spoiled ballots papers here, given that news items reported low turnout and spoiled ballot papers as significant. As I understand it spoiled ballot papers are reported by the returning officer, why should the Wikipedia elves then choose to omit the data? Also, looking at the current table for Greater Manchester (where I voted) the total for all first round votes adds up to the turnout figure. As I know that I cast a spoiled ballot paper (whatever my reason for doing so) this data must be incorrect. I would generally expect the turnout figure to be greater than the total number of first round votes for all paper based ballots. Nimpo (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A very sound point, and one that seems to raise rather serious questions. And not just for Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard reporting of election results reports how valid votes were cast, not the invalid ones. Have a look through Category:Directly elected mayors in the United Kingdom and you won't find a single election result with the spoils included, despite using the same voting system, despite having spoils (I saw many at the counts in the last elections for both the Newham and London Mayors) and despite those posts having their critics. It's undue to start altering the format for particular points. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But I disagree with your conclusion. I am surprised that spoils are not included in all election results tables. Certainly, one might expect "null data" to be reported in something as haphazard and political as a scientific experiment? So why not here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

When election results are officially reported by the returning officer, the number of spoilt votes is always reported. It is a standard part of the official data. I really can't see what would be inappropriate about including it as standard in the format, for here and for the directly elected mayors and for all the other elections. Meanwhile, this article's content should reflect RS coverage and that means discussing the low turnout and the high number of spoilt ballots. Bondegezou (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is not the case that returning officers invariably give the number of spoiled ballot papers when reading out the results. Statistics for spoiled ballots in Parliamentary elections are available from 1979 onwards in general elections (although not all constituencies returned them), but there is no systematic record from byelections. In local elections, London Borough elections have statistics since 1990 only; there are no systematic statistics from any other local elections. See also Table 14.19 in F. W. S. Craig's "British Electoral Facts" 1832-1987 p. 171-2 for the patchiness of general election spoiled ballot statistics. 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But if figures are available, from WP:RS, why should they not be given? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding my 2penneth, I've updated Clive Loader, Leicestershire's new P&CC to mention spoilt votes, the traditional method of rejecting all candidates, and that an academic is questioning whether the elections were worth holding. En passant, the fileon4 broadcast Too many chiefs? says immediateley before the election both parties wanted to keep independent forces whilst the police chiefs themselves wanted to merge -to be able to make the efficiency savings without manpower cuts. I strongly suggest anyone interested should listen to this. JRPG (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if no-one listens, should this differecne of opinion be added to this article? Your addition to Clive Loader looks fine, although it wouldn't be WP:OR to add a percentage, would it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A related point on this issue: the figures given for turnout in these tables are not consistent in whether or not they include spoilt ballots. This may be down to how individual Authorities report their results. For example, if you look at Cambridgeshire, the turnout given is higher than the sum of the first round votes for candidates (add them up for yourself!): the 2898 difference is spoilt papers. The percentages given are correct though (proportion of valid votes cast). For the next Authority, Cheshire, the turnout figure IS the total number of first round votes (there were 2415 spoilt ballots in addition to this figure according to numbers from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/nov/16/pcc-election-results-police-crime-commissioners giving an overall turnout of 111,317 not 108,902 as stated). For the sake of accuracy and consistency, one or other approach should be taken - as others have reported, the numbers of spoilt papers (deliberate or otherwise) were a factor of 10 higher in this election than is normal for UK elections, so it makes quite a big difference Personally, I think it's misleading that Turnout is presented as if it's the sum of the first round votes column when it might not be. PondBob (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new sub-template for turnout that gives you somewhere to put the number of spoilt ballots. The turnout figure and percentage should be the turnout including the spoilt ballots if this is used. JonEastham (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Zero Tolerance Policing ex Chief

Just to pre-empt any article creation, this "party" is nothing more than a branding mechanism to allow an independent (Kevin Hurley) to get a political description onto the ballot paper. It's better to redirect this to any future article on Hurley rather than create a separate page. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

We currently have an article Zero Tolerance Policing ex Chief, though I tend to agree with you. I'll create an article for him and merge it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Map needs updating - Devon & Cornwall

Devon & Cornwall went to the Conservatives. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no source that indicates that. From what I've read second preference votes are still being counted. --Mirrorme22 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with mirrorme22, and although one candidate has a 30,000 lead, there are 110,000 second preferences to be counted. There have already been several upsets where an independent is the 2nd candidate. Chris55 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

PCC stubs

I've created stubs for all remaining PCCs now. They'll need expanding, referencing, etc, but at least they're now all present. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Police and Crime Commissioner template

Just wondering, is it worth creating a Police and Crime Commissioner template? There's not a huge number of them so it wouldn't be overly large. Any thoughts. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Assume you mean a Navbox rather than an Infobox. Seems reasonable to navigate by them, would you just have their names or also the force they represent? Keith D (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I meant a navbox. :) I hadn't originally planned to add the authorities, but I guess we should include both. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, perhaps something like the Current US Governors navbox? --Mirrorme22 (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ok, have created a template. Let me know what you think. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. My only comment is that Ian Johnston (police officer) isn't the PCC for Gwent - its a different Ian Johnston (thanks to User:Britannia For Us for spotting this).--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks for that. I've changed it now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

PAROs

The people responsible for announcing the results (and possibly certifying the final results) are called PAROs (Police Area Returning Officers). The names of each Paro were listed by the Electoral Commission here

The details are:

Police force area	Lead local authority	Date and start time of count	PARO (Police Area Returning Officer)
Avon & Somerset	Bristol	16/11 – 12pm	Stephen McNamara
Bedfordshire	Luton	16/11 – 10am	Trevor Holden
Cambridgeshire	East Cambridgeshire	16/11 – 12pm	John Hill
Cheshire	Halton	16/11 – 2pm	David Parr
Cleveland	Stockton-on-Tees	16/11 – 11am	David Bond
Cumbria	South Lakeland	16/11 – 11am	Debbie Storr
Derbyshire	Amber Valley	16/11 – 12pm	Peter Carney
Devon and Cornwall	Cornwall	16/11 – 11am	Kevin Lavery
Dorset	Poole	16/11 – 9.30am	Paul Morris
Durham	Durham	16/11 – 12pm	Colette Longbottom
Dyfed-Powys	Pembrokeshire	16/11 – 9am	Bryn Parry-Jones
Essex	Chelmsford	16/11 – 10.30am	Steve Packham
Gloucestershire	Stroud	16/11 – after verification	David Hagg
Greater Manchester	Manchester	16/11 – 12pm	Sir Howard Bernstein
Gwent	Newport	16/11 – 9am	Tracey Lee
Hampshire	Southampton	16/11 – after verification	Mark Heath
Hertfordshire	Broxbourne	16/11 – 11am	Mike Walker
Humberside	East Riding of Yorkshire	16/11 – 11.30am	Nigel Pearson
Kent	Dover	16/11 – after verification	Nadeem Aziz
Lancashire	Blackburn with Darwen	16/11 – after verification	Graham Burgess
Leicestershire	North West Leicestershire	16/11 – 12.30pm	Christine Fisher
Lincolnshire	Lincoln	16/11 – 2pm	Andrew Taylor
Merseyside	Liverpool	16/11 – after verification	Ged Fitzgerald
Norfolk	Norwich	16/11 – 2pm	Phillip Hyde
North Wales	Flintshire	16/11 – 9am	Colin Everett
North Yorkshire	York	16/11 – TBC	Kersten England
Northamptonshire	Kettering	16/11 – TBC	David Cook
Northumbria	Sunderland	16/11 – 11.30am	Dave Smith
Nottinghamshire	Rushcliffe	16/11 – TBC	Allen Graham
South Wales	Neath Port Talbot	16/11 – 9am	Steven Phillips
South Yorkshire	Barnsley	16/11 – 1pm	Andrew Frosdick
Staffordshire	Stoke on Trent	16/11 – 2pm	Paul Hackney
Suffolk	Suffolk Coastal	16/11 – after verification	Stephen Baker
Surrey	Guildford	16/11 – after verification	Richard Lingard
Sussex	Brighton and Hove	16/11 – after verification	Lee Harris
Thames Valley	Aylesbury Vale	16/11 – after verification	Andrew Grant
Warwickshire	Stratford on Avon	16/11 – 11am	Paul Lankester
West Mercia	Shropshire	16/11 – 10.30am	Claire Porter
West Midlands	Birmingham	16/11 – 9.30am	Stephen Hughes
West Yorkshire	Wakefield	16/11 – 11am	Joanne Roney
Wiltshire	Swindon	15/11 – overnight	Stephen Taylor

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC results

Contrary to what it says on its webpage here the BBC have not yet gotten all its results up yet. But it has got most of them. The results, combined with the PARO list, is here:

Police force area	Lead local authority	Date and start time of count	PARO (Police Area Returning Officer)	BBC results page
Avon & Somerset	Bristol	16/11 – 12pm	Stephen McNamara	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-20353786
Bedfordshire	Luton	16/11 – 10am	Trevor Holden	n/a
Cambridgeshire	East Cambridgeshire	16/11 – 12pm	John Hill	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20348310
Cheshire	Halton	16/11 – 2pm	David Parr	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20346070
Cleveland	Stockton-on-Tees	16/11 – 11am	David Bond	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19508112
Cumbria	South Lakeland	16/11 – 11am	Debbie Storr	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19510818
Derbyshire	Amber Valley	16/11 – 12pm	Peter Carney	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19506238
Devon and Cornwall	Cornwall	16/11 – 11am	Kevin Lavery	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19521181
Dorset	Poole	16/11 – 9.30am	Paul Morris	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19505764
Durham	Durham	16/11 – 12pm	Colette Longbottom	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19510224
Dyfed-Powys	Pembrokeshire	16/11 – 9am	Bryn Parry-Jones	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-19505524
Essex	Chelmsford	16/11 – 10.30am	Steve Packham	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19520696
Gloucestershire	Stroud	16/11 – after verification	David Hagg	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19478233
Greater Manchester	Manchester	16/11 – 12pm	Sir Howard Bernstein	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19551775
Gwent	Newport	16/11 – 9am	Tracey Lee	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-19494194
Hampshire	Southampton	16/11 – after verification	Mark Heath	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19504409
Hertfordshire	Broxbourne	16/11 – 11am	Mike Walker	n/a
Humberside	East Riding of Yorkshire	16/11 – 11.30am	Nigel Pearson	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-19550192
Kent	Dover	16/11 – after verification	Nadeem Aziz	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19546124
Lancashire	Blackburn with Darwen	16/11 – after verification	Graham Burgess	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-19510773
Leicestershire	North West Leicestershire	16/11 – 12.30pm	Christine Fisher	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19505550
Lincolnshire	Lincoln	16/11 – 2pm	Andrew Taylor	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-19511574
Merseyside	Liverpool	16/11 – after verification	Ged Fitzgerald	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19551556
Norfolk	Norwich	16/11 – 2pm	Phillip Hyde	n/a
North Wales	Flintshire	16/11 – 9am	Colin Everett	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19507688
North Yorkshire	York	16/11 – TBC	Kersten England	n/a
Northamptonshire	Kettering	16/11 – TBC	David Cook	n/a
Northumbria	Sunderland	16/11 – 11.30am	Dave Smith	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19509836
Nottinghamshire	Rushcliffe	16/11 – TBC	Allen Graham	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-19507103
South Wales	Neath Port Talbot	16/11 – 9am	Steven Phillips	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19509951
South Yorkshire	Barnsley	16/11 – 1pm	Andrew Frosdick	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19549542
Staffordshire	Stoke on Trent	16/11 – 2pm	Paul Hackney	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19525006
Suffolk	Suffolk Coastal	16/11 – after verification	Stephen Baker	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-19532643
Surrey	Guildford	16/11 – after verification	Richard Lingard	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19546116
Sussex	Brighton and Hove	16/11 – after verification	Lee Harris	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19557207
Thames Valley	Aylesbury Vale	16/11 – after verification	Andrew Grant	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19503420
Warwickshire	Stratford on Avon	16/11 – 11am	Paul Lankester	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19505937
West Mercia	Shropshire	16/11 – 10.30am	Claire Porter	n/a
West Midlands	Birmingham	16/11 – 9.30am	Stephen Hughes	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19544007
West Yorkshire	Wakefield	16/11 – 11am	Joanne Roney	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19548700
Wiltshire	Swindon	15/11 – overnight	Stephen Taylor	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-19495666

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reconciliation of sources and stable numbers

The figures in the results tables are those which were reported at the time of initial release. This is fine and dandy. And wrong :-) . The returning officers will release certified results over the coming days and weeks and they will inevitably be slightly different: for example the certified numbers for Cambridgeshire give 91495 as total votes, not the 91501 as originally reported. So there will be cumulative errors as different concepts (no of ballot papers recieved, no of ballot papers counted, no of unspoilt ballot papers counted) get reported

I've started to list the reconciled numbers (e.g. Avon had 234,514 ballots verified and counted and valid, 9,190 spoilt ballots, 243,704 ballots verified and counted, 338 ballot papers not counted, 244,042 ballots verified (initial estimate), 79 ballots removed from South Gloucestershire, 243,963 ballots verified (final estimate)). But that will take time and is difficult as the numbers change (and some of the final estimates are incomplete, e.g. Bedfordshire).

To help, I've listed the BBC and PAROs above: I'll try to add the ITV and certified results over the next week. The reconciled for Avon are below, as is the best I can do for Bedfordshire.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right Anameofmyveryown. Whilst it was good that we were able to use news sources such as the BBC and Guardian to add the initial results, we must update the article with the official results (the certified results published by the PARO) as and when they are available. I've already noted that the results on this article for Suffolk are slightly different to those published by the PARO. There is also inconsistency in how the turnout is worked out. The BBC has calculated it using valid votes. Others use total polled (valid votes + rejected votes). The PAROs use verified votes. Verified votes is not necessarily the same as total polled. Although they should ideally be the same, there is usually a small discrepancy between the two.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the United States. The result as declared on Friday is the final result; the only change could be a legal challenge through an election petition for a recount and scrutiny, but no candidate has said they will do this. The tradition in all UK elections is that the turnout is the total valid votes cast for all candidates as a percentage of registered electorate; spoiled ballots are never counted in the turnout for any other election. It's quite routine in elections for the number of votes counted for candidates, plus the number of spoiled ballots, to be slightly different from the number verified at the first stage of the count. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I know it isn't the United States. My point was the numbers the BBC reported, the numbers ITV reported, the numbers read out on Friday night in the leisure centre by the PARO and the numbers posted and certified by the same PARO Saturday or Monday morning on the council website will be fractionally different - the 91495/91501 change is an example, and we know that the final Avon & Somerset numbers changed by 79. This is normal and happens in every UK election: as you point out, it's routine.

My intent is not to dispute the numbers: my intent is to provide a resource (the list of PAROs, the list of BBC results, the ITV results and the final certified PARO results) that you can use to update the page itself. When that is done, the page will line up with the final official numbers and you'll be done.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer, I wasn't suggest the results could change from that announced by the PAROs on Friday. I was suggesting that some of the news sources may be wrong - they may have jumped the gun and reported the results which were subject to a recount or they may simply have typed the numbers wrong. Most of the PAROs have published their results and they agree with what the news sources reported (and what's included in this article). The few PAROs who haven't done so probably didn't have time on Friday but will do when the offices open on Monday. In Suffolk's case the first round results on the BBC are slightly different to the PARO. The same with Leicestershire: BBC vs PARO. Whose right?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As Sam Blacketer correctly pointed out above, the PARO numbers are the correct ones. As I correctly pointed out above, the numbers the PARO announces on Friday night in the leisure centre may have changed fractionally when the same PARO publishes and signs his final declaration paper the next day. As you have spotted, this may have happened in Suffolk and Leics. The final correct numbers will be the final PARO ones. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Breakdown of turnout for Avon and Somerset

sources:

The turnout is broken down as follows:

Number	Explanation
234,514	Total ballots verified and counted and valid
9,190	Spoilt ballots
243,704	Total ballots verified and counted
338	Ballot papers not counted
244,042	Total ballots verified (initial estimate)
79	Revision after South Gloucestershire Council figure changed to 33,512 from 33,591
243,963	Total ballots verified (final estimate)

Breakdown of turnout for Bedfordshire

sources:

The turnout is broken down as follows:

Number	Explanation
82,129	Total ballots verified (initial estimate)
7,602	Spoilt ballots (=3 + 874 + 26 + 4488 + 2211)
84,170	Total ballots verified (final estimate)

Second round percentages

Shouldn't these also be included where appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Call for a boycott

Peter Joslin, the former Chief Constable of Warwickshire, and one of Britain's longest-serving police officers (and CCs for that matter) called for a boycot of these elections shortly before they took place. I feel we should mention this somewhere in the article, perhaps under a criticism section. Below I've pasted the entry for this I've just made to Joslin's article:

In November 2012 he attracted criticism from the government after urging voters to boycott the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners, saying that it would allow people with little experience of policing to take charge of law enforcement matters. "Here we are changing it so that people with little experience and few qualifications, and certainly little knowledge of the police, could be put in a position where they can go as far as sacking the chief constable." Damian Green, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, branded Joslin's comments as "deeply irresponsible".

Proposed merge with South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge. MRSC (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

WP:CFORK only content is duplication. All sources are about the election, so scope fits original article. Too early.. preempting a new commissioner is WP:CRYSTAL (more than WP:POVFORK). I'm guessing the topic has the green light satisfying WP:POLITICIAN for notability, but WP:SPINOFF applies. We can revisit when there's a office new holder. Widefox; talk 10:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support merge. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose now that a by-election is to be held. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. None of those things apply. Not a fork, or a prediction, or point of view, or a spin off. The post and post holder are distinct things and the post is not an election. MRSC (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But given that we have Shaun Wright (the postholder), Police and crime commissioner (the post), and England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 (the election to the post), what is the point of this additional article now? What purpose does it serve that is not served by the other articles? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what's the point? If there's no attempt to expand, observers may think that readying an article for a replacement is WP:CRYSTAL or even POVey. We can do that when there's a new postholder, not now.

Technically, it seems to be a WP:RELAR (rather than CFORK), and so technically maybe SPINOFF may or may not apply. All 3 have overlapping scopes. BUT, if we go by your own logic, if the post is not an election, and the sources are about the election, the article is unsourced. Come on, the scopes overlap, which is OK.

Anyhow, without any new content it's just not a useful article, best to be a redirect (with possibilities), which serves the reader best IMHO. As the sources are about the election, that seems the appropriate merge target. The elections are notable, is the position actually notable, and got any content to fill this article out? Widefox; talk 20:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The post and the elections are clearly different things, especially when we consider this article covers all the elections across England & Wales. There is now a second election to that post, so it's clearly not a content fork of this election. Number 57 11:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415053336/http://www.leamingtonobserver.co.uk/2012/02/09/news-Former-MP-James-Plaskitt-wants-top-police-job-29525.html to http://www.leamingtonobserver.co.uk/2012/02/09/news-Former-MP-James-Plaskitt-wants-top-police-job-29525.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331183925/http://www.thecrimecommissioner.com/ to http://www.thecrimecommissioner.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620214208/http://www.labour.org.uk/pcc to http://www.labour.org.uk/pcc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810163931/http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/elections/Avon%20and%20Somerset%20PCC%20Master%2015%20Nov%20Stage%20_0.pdf to http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/elections/Avon%20and%20Somerset%20PCC%20Master%2015%20Nov%20Stage%20_0.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/elections/election_results/Avon%20and%20Somerset%20PCC%20Master%2015%20Nov.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405142013/http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/elections/election_results/updated%20pcc%20counts%20upated%2012.00.pdf to http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/elections/election_results/updated%20pcc%20counts%20upated%2012.00.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122182850/http://www.kentparo.org.uk/pdf/PARO%20Declaration%20of%20First%20Count%20correct%20as%20of%20Friday%2C%2016%20November%202012%2015%2027.pdf to http://www.kentparo.org.uk/pdf/PARO%20Declaration%20of%20First%20Count%20correct%20as%20of%20Friday%2C%2016%20November%202012%2015%2027.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122182702/http://www.kentparo.org.uk/pdf/PARO%20Declaration%20of%20Second%20Count%20correct%20as%20of%20Friday%2C%2016%20November%202012%2017%2025.pdf to http://www.kentparo.org.uk/pdf/PARO%20Declaration%20of%20Second%20Count%20correct%20as%20of%20Friday%2C%2016%20November%202012%2017%2025.pdf
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121030143107/http%3A//www.york.gov.uk/news/latestNews/PR3015 to http://www.york.gov.uk/news/latestNews/PR3015
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130114050748/http://www.ukipsheffield.co.uk/2012/10/arnott-to-stand-for-police-commissioner/ to http://www.ukipsheffield.co.uk/2012/10/arnott-to-stand-for-police-commissioner/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)