The ArgusRevealed: Sussex Police boss’s election campaign expenses (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Revealed: Sussex Police boss’s election campaign expenses

The Argus: Sussex Police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne Sussex Police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne

By Tom Harper and Neil Vowles

The county’s first police commissioner bankrolled her election victory with £20,000 of her own money, spending more than eight times her nearest rival.

Some of Sussex’s richest men also helped to fund Katy Bourne’s £37,000 election campaign, including billionaire racehorse owner Dr Jim Hay and food packaging heir Hans Rausing.

Her rivals said Ms Bourne’s spending gave her an unfair advantage as she battled for the £85,000 a year commissioner role during November’s election.

Election expense documents obtained by The Argus show Ms Bourne spent more than £30,000 on campaign literature, nearly £300 to hold public meetings and £3,000 on accommodation, staff and admin costs.

Second place Labour Party candidate Godfrey Daniel spent £4,600, UKIP candidate Tony Armstrong spent £1,500 and independent candidate Ian Chisnall spent less than £375.

Ms Bourne won with 59,635 votes, Mr Daniel came second with 40,765 and Mr Chisnall third with 38,930.

Former Roedean School pupil Ms Bourne, who is married to ex-HSBC banker Kevin Bourne, also paid the £5,000 deposit with her own funds.

She received a total of more than £15,000 from local and national Conservative groups.

Rival candidates

Wadhurst-based Tetrapak billionaire Hans Rausing, one of the country’s richest men with a £4 billion fortune, donated £250 to her campaign while billionaire racehorse owner Dr Jim Hay, who lives in the £25 million former home of Harold Macmillan in Horsted Keynes, gave her £1,000.

Rival candidate Mr Chisnall said he was not able to compete with the level of funding bankrolling Ms Bourne’s campaign and would have liked to have seen a £5,000 limit for all candidates.

He said: “There are two levels on which there are challenges - people do not necessarily understand what my values are and what I stand for, and there is the mechanism of delivering information to people and having enough people on the ground to do so.

“Political parties are at an advantage and it is a very unequal situation.

“There are ways in which they could balance it out, but they won’t change the system.”

Raising funds

Ms Bourne said: “Like the other candidates, I had to raise my own funds for the election campaign.

“Everything I raised was donated by supporters in Sussex.

“I put together a team of volunteers who helped me deliver leaflets, knock on doors and raise campaign funds.

“Together we worked tirelessly to get a strong message across to residents and I’m delighted the hard work paid off.”

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:57pm Mon 11 Feb 13

risingphoenix says...

As ever in politics, its money that talks...

But of course an election isn't open to corruption - or is it?...

Hang on a minute though...isn't it the job of the PCC to stamp out that type of behaviour ?

Oh well...nothing changes - except the size of the 'funding'!
As ever in politics, its money that talks... But of course an election isn't open to corruption - or is it?... Hang on a minute though...isn't it the job of the PCC to stamp out that type of behaviour ? Oh well...nothing changes - except the size of the 'funding'! risingphoenix
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Mon 11 Feb 13

BrunswickSquare says...

I think that there are three things to say here:

1 Mrs Bourne's expenditure was within the limits imposed by law.

2 Her fundraising was solely in Sussex.

3 If the other parties / candidates didn't want to spend anywhere near the limits did they consider that it wasn't an election they were going to win?
I think that there are three things to say here: 1 Mrs Bourne's expenditure was within the limits imposed by law. 2 Her fundraising was solely in Sussex. 3 If the other parties / candidates didn't want to spend anywhere near the limits did they consider that it wasn't an election they were going to win? BrunswickSquare
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Mon 11 Feb 13

mimseycal says...

Other candidates, in specific the independents had to fund the campaigning themselves ... fair election?
Other candidates, in specific the independents had to fund the campaigning themselves ... fair election? mimseycal
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 11 Feb 13

tdtjet says...

Oh and not forgetting she then invents a new part time post. Then after no doubt an exhaustive selection process finds the most suitable candidate for the invented job is a fellow conservative.

More money 'legally' directed out of the peoples purse into the pocket of politicians.

I wonder how many hours they will put in between them.
Oh and not forgetting she then invents a new part time post. Then after no doubt an exhaustive selection process finds the most suitable candidate for the invented job is a fellow conservative. More money 'legally' directed out of the peoples purse into the pocket of politicians. I wonder how many hours they will put in between them. tdtjet
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Hove Actually says...

tdtjet wrote:
Oh and not forgetting she then invents a new part time post. Then after no doubt an exhaustive selection process finds the most suitable candidate for the invented job is a fellow conservative.

More money 'legally' directed out of the peoples purse into the pocket of politicians.

I wonder how many hours they will put in between them.
Much more than an MP
Much less than a Taxpayer
[quote][p][bold]tdtjet[/bold] wrote: Oh and not forgetting she then invents a new part time post. Then after no doubt an exhaustive selection process finds the most suitable candidate for the invented job is a fellow conservative. More money 'legally' directed out of the peoples purse into the pocket of politicians. I wonder how many hours they will put in between them.[/p][/quote]Much more than an MP Much less than a Taxpayer Hove Actually
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Hove Actually says...

tdtjet wrote:
Oh and not forgetting she then invents a new part time post. Then after no doubt an exhaustive selection process finds the most suitable candidate for the invented job is a fellow conservative.

More money 'legally' directed out of the peoples purse into the pocket of politicians.

I wonder how many hours they will put in between them.
Much more than an MP
Much less than a Taxpayer
[quote][p][bold]tdtjet[/bold] wrote: Oh and not forgetting she then invents a new part time post. Then after no doubt an exhaustive selection process finds the most suitable candidate for the invented job is a fellow conservative. More money 'legally' directed out of the peoples purse into the pocket of politicians. I wonder how many hours they will put in between them.[/p][/quote]Much more than an MP Much less than a Taxpayer Hove Actually
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Mon 11 Feb 13

JoeBlow says...

BrunswickSquare wrote:
I think that there are three things to say here:

1 Mrs Bourne's expenditure was within the limits imposed by law.

2 Her fundraising was solely in Sussex.

3 If the other parties / candidates didn't want to spend anywhere near the limits did they consider that it wasn't an election they were going to win?
Re: your number 2.

"She received a total of more than £15,000 from local and NATIONAL Conservative groups."
[quote][p][bold]BrunswickSquare[/bold] wrote: I think that there are three things to say here: 1 Mrs Bourne's expenditure was within the limits imposed by law. 2 Her fundraising was solely in Sussex. 3 If the other parties / candidates didn't want to spend anywhere near the limits did they consider that it wasn't an election they were going to win?[/p][/quote]Re: your number 2. "She received a total of more than £15,000 from local and NATIONAL Conservative groups." JoeBlow
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Mon 11 Feb 13

fredflintstone1 says...

So she spends £5k of her own money (tax deductible?) to net a job worth £80k. Seems a shrewd piece of business.

She then appoints her own deputy without wasting money going through a formal selection procedure.

Haven't really noticed that she's giving value for money though.
So she spends £5k of her own money (tax deductible?) to net a job worth £80k. Seems a shrewd piece of business. She then appoints her own deputy without wasting money going through a formal selection procedure. Haven't really noticed that she's giving value for money though. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Mon 11 Feb 13

JKW says...

I think we should concentrate on the fact the katy Bourne was the best person for the job and also the good work she has done since November..I also read that her Husband fought for his Country in the Falklands Conflict which The Argus has failed to mention..good old 'RedRag'
I think we should concentrate on the fact the katy Bourne was the best person for the job and also the good work she has done since November..I also read that her Husband fought for his Country in the Falklands Conflict which The Argus has failed to mention..good old 'RedRag' JKW
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Mon 11 Feb 13

keeshond8 says...

JKW wrote:
I think we should concentrate on the fact the katy Bourne was the best person for the job and also the good work she has done since November..I also read that her Husband fought for his Country in the Falklands Conflict which The Argus has failed to mention..good old 'RedRag'
What on earth has the fact that her husband served as an army helicopter pilot for a fortnight in the Falklands got to do with the performance of Katy Bourne?
The Argus is quite entitled to inform its readers that she outspent the other candidates in Sussex. Just be thankful that it didn't research its story further and reveal she outspent every other candidate in the country.
[quote][p][bold]JKW[/bold] wrote: I think we should concentrate on the fact the katy Bourne was the best person for the job and also the good work she has done since November..I also read that her Husband fought for his Country in the Falklands Conflict which The Argus has failed to mention..good old 'RedRag'[/p][/quote]What on earth has the fact that her husband served as an army helicopter pilot for a fortnight in the Falklands got to do with the performance of Katy Bourne? The Argus is quite entitled to inform its readers that she outspent the other candidates in Sussex. Just be thankful that it didn't research its story further and reveal she outspent every other candidate in the country. keeshond8
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Mon 11 Feb 13

fredflintstone1 says...

JKW wrote:
I think we should concentrate on the fact the katy Bourne was the best person for the job and also the good work she has done since November..I also read that her Husband fought for his Country in the Falklands Conflict which The Argus has failed to mention..good old 'RedRag'
I don't know how you can state she was the best person for the job. The political class moved in on what should emphatically have been a non-political appointment, and the rules were drawn to make it very difficult for independents to stand.

What good work exactly? Please be more specific. I really haven't noticed it.
[quote][p][bold]JKW[/bold] wrote: I think we should concentrate on the fact the katy Bourne was the best person for the job and also the good work she has done since November..I also read that her Husband fought for his Country in the Falklands Conflict which The Argus has failed to mention..good old 'RedRag'[/p][/quote]I don't know how you can state she was the best person for the job. The political class moved in on what should emphatically have been a non-political appointment, and the rules were drawn to make it very difficult for independents to stand. What good work exactly? Please be more specific. I really haven't noticed it. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Mon 11 Feb 13

tdtjet says...

The point is its a made up job, adding an extra layer of needless cost, then she goes on and makes up another deputy roll within her made up roll and fills this roll with someone who already has many work commitments, that no doubt hw would have told us he was 100% dedicated to. So how can they both now state the are 100% devoted to this roll, or are we spending over £120k pa for two part timers.

This entire Police commissioner fiasco just sums up all that is wrong in Politics, the apathy at the elections shows what people think.

To my regret I voted Conservative at the last election as I have always said unless you vote you cannot moan about the leaders you get.

Trouble is how can you vote an individual into a high paid roll that you know is useless?

That said if she had mentioned in her campaign she would immediately spend extra money giving fellow party members unnecessary jobs I am sure a lot more people would have voted elsewhere. No doubt thats why she omitted to mention it.

I would love to know what you consider the 'good work that she has done since November'. I for one have seen no change in Policing in either the area I work or live in that time.
The point is its a made up job, adding an extra layer of needless cost, then she goes on and makes up another deputy roll within her made up roll and fills this roll with someone who already has many work commitments, that no doubt hw would have told us he was 100% dedicated to. So how can they both now state the are 100% devoted to this roll, or are we spending over £120k pa for two part timers. This entire Police commissioner fiasco just sums up all that is wrong in Politics, the apathy at the elections shows what people think. To my regret I voted Conservative at the last election as I have always said unless you vote you cannot moan about the leaders you get. Trouble is how can you vote an individual into a high paid roll that you know is useless? That said if she had mentioned in her campaign she would immediately spend extra money giving fellow party members unnecessary jobs I am sure a lot more people would have voted elsewhere. No doubt thats why she omitted to mention it. I would love to know what you consider the 'good work that she has done since November'. I for one have seen no change in Policing in either the area I work or live in that time. tdtjet
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Isaac Rinkfern says...

I thought it was supposed to be an election, turns out that it was in fact and auction.

Am I unfair to think that, usually when someone gives you thousands of pounds that they may expect something in return.

Oh yeah, that'll be why the Deputy then.
I thought it was supposed to be an election, turns out that it was in fact and auction. Am I unfair to think that, usually when someone gives you thousands of pounds that they may expect something in return. Oh yeah, that'll be why the Deputy then. Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: 0

8:30am Tue 12 Feb 13

Party Line says...

The myth around PCCs is that they are more democratic than Police Authorities, which is not the case. The Sussex Police Authority had, in addition to 8 independents, 9 councillors who provided a representative mix of the political make up of Sussex, both geographically - West Sussex, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove - and on party lines. Granted, they were not elected specifically to maange policing, any more than they are elected solely to manage education. It's unclear why policing has been singled out for a less representative style of governance.

In terms of Katie's deputy: Steve Waight initially (and before the formal nomination date) indicated that he would put himself forward as candidate for the Tory nomination for PCC. However, this would have split the West Sussex Tory vote and allowed the East Sussex nominee to win. Steve stood, Katie won the Tory nomination (and hence the PCC role) and he is now her Deputy. That's politics!

What is means is that both the PCC and her Deputy are West Sussex Tories and there is no voice for East Sussex and B&H.

Katie's dismissal of the Police and Crime Panel's concerns about her deputy show that she has no intention of being held to account by them - the law only requires her to 'consult' with them.

Of course, Katie could be voted out at the next PCC (should she decide to stand), so that's makes it all OK.
The myth around PCCs is that they are more democratic than Police Authorities, which is not the case. The Sussex Police Authority had, in addition to 8 independents, 9 councillors who provided a representative mix of the political make up of Sussex, both geographically - West Sussex, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove - and on party lines. Granted, they were not elected specifically to maange policing, any more than they are elected solely to manage education. It's unclear why policing has been singled out for a less representative style of governance. In terms of Katie's deputy: Steve Waight initially (and before the formal nomination date) indicated that he would put himself forward as candidate for the Tory nomination for PCC. However, this would have split the West Sussex Tory vote and allowed the East Sussex nominee to win. Steve stood, Katie won the Tory nomination (and hence the PCC role) and he is now her Deputy. That's politics! What is means is that both the PCC and her Deputy are West Sussex Tories and there is no voice for East Sussex and B&H. Katie's dismissal of the Police and Crime Panel's concerns about her deputy show that she has no intention of being held to account by them - the law only requires her to 'consult' with them. Of course, Katie could be voted out at the next PCC (should she decide to stand), so that's makes it all OK. Party Line
  • Score: 0

10:14am Tue 12 Feb 13

whereisthe...? says...

Disgusting. FRAUD IN ALL BUT NAME.

Well done TORIES yet again for another stupid, corrupt and damaging idea.
Disgusting. FRAUD IN ALL BUT NAME. Well done TORIES yet again for another stupid, corrupt and damaging idea. whereisthe...?
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Thetruth666 says...

You gota pick a pocket or two...
You gota pick a pocket or two... Thetruth666
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Grumpy Old Cyclist says...

How come the Greens failed to put up a candidate? Too busy destroying Brighton or just not up to the job?
How come the Greens failed to put up a candidate? Too busy destroying Brighton or just not up to the job? Grumpy Old Cyclist
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Clouded Judgement says...

Next election I do believe that Labour have said that's they will review the PCC job and its role with a view of deleting it!

Best thing Labour have said I a while!
Next election I do believe that Labour have said that's they will review the PCC job and its role with a view of deleting it! Best thing Labour have said I a while! Clouded Judgement
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Sussex jim says...

tdtjet wrote:
The point is its a made up job, adding an extra layer of needless cost, then she goes on and makes up another deputy roll within her made up roll and fills this roll with someone who already has many work commitments, that no doubt hw would have told us he was 100% dedicated to. So how can they both now state the are 100% devoted to this roll, or are we spending over £120k pa for two part timers.

This entire Police commissioner fiasco just sums up all that is wrong in Politics, the apathy at the elections shows what people think.

To my regret I voted Conservative at the last election as I have always said unless you vote you cannot moan about the leaders you get.

Trouble is how can you vote an individual into a high paid roll that you know is useless?

That said if she had mentioned in her campaign she would immediately spend extra money giving fellow party members unnecessary jobs I am sure a lot more people would have voted elsewhere. No doubt thats why she omitted to mention it.

I would love to know what you consider the 'good work that she has done since November'. I for one have seen no change in Policing in either the area I work or live in that time.
Look up "roll" and "role" in the dictionary.
[quote][p][bold]tdtjet[/bold] wrote: The point is its a made up job, adding an extra layer of needless cost, then she goes on and makes up another deputy roll within her made up roll and fills this roll with someone who already has many work commitments, that no doubt hw would have told us he was 100% dedicated to. So how can they both now state the are 100% devoted to this roll, or are we spending over £120k pa for two part timers. This entire Police commissioner fiasco just sums up all that is wrong in Politics, the apathy at the elections shows what people think. To my regret I voted Conservative at the last election as I have always said unless you vote you cannot moan about the leaders you get. Trouble is how can you vote an individual into a high paid roll that you know is useless? That said if she had mentioned in her campaign she would immediately spend extra money giving fellow party members unnecessary jobs I am sure a lot more people would have voted elsewhere. No doubt thats why she omitted to mention it. I would love to know what you consider the 'good work that she has done since November'. I for one have seen no change in Policing in either the area I work or live in that time.[/p][/quote]Look up "roll" and "role" in the dictionary. Sussex jim
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 14 Feb 13

tdtjet says...

OOps sorry, you must be a politician, glad to see you are worrying about the little things and letting the actual issue wash straight over your head.
OOps sorry, you must be a politician, glad to see you are worrying about the little things and letting the actual issue wash straight over your head. tdtjet
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree