Police Elections

A statement of the obvious and none the less true for it.:)

Well I think you will find a very large number of people who have never read either of those papers ( self included ) who would strongly dispute that contention.

The number of people holding an opinion is not, in itself, a reliable indicator of the correctness of that opinion.

It is as possible for a very large number of people to be wrong as it is for an individual, such as yourself.

It was good to see that 12 or was it 13 Independents won.

Our Independent only just missed 51% on first count and so won very easily on second.

That says everything, given the chance, even on a low turnout the established political parties were not wanted on the PCC issue.

Hi Charlie,

Now lets see what happens over the next four years…. that will really prove whether or not it was £100M well spent.

Yes, it is all we can do. And I hope that it does prove a success and then perhaps in 2016 there will be a larger turnout.

Our Independent only just missed 51% on first count and so won very easily on second.

It was nearer to 15% across the country, Paul!!:D We had 16% and and at least elected an Independent – how about you?

Hi Charlie,

Sorry for slow response, I think my home town hit a stunning 17.5% turnout, and East Sussex as a whole elected a Commissioner allied to the Conservative party – though only after “2nd choice” votes had been counted as she had insufficient majority on “first choice” votes.

Was it all worth £100M – somehow I doubt it, and has been said elsewhere, with a 15% turnout on average, typically split across 3 or 4 candidiates in most cases, few of the elected commissioners should feel that they really have a “people’s mandate”.

Now lets see what happens over the next four years…. that will really prove whether or not it was £100M well spent.

More Bobbies, Less Riot Police, No Commissioners Required

Usually low turnout in The UK is conveniently described by the media establishment as ‘voter apathy’ while the truth is often that voters are not partial to the candidates that are running, are resident in a ‘safe seat’ or have lost faith in our democracy. Spoiling a vote here in the UK has you labelled almost as a moron. I for one have made a very deliberate decision to no longer cast my vote at general elections and will not do so until I believe that an intelligent, appropriately qualified and trustworthy candidate is on the ballot are not afraid to make sometime radical decisions on reforming the global economic system. I feel like casting my vote would give unwarranted legitimacy to a moribund, entrenched, purely political class who have lost touch with their duties as elected public servants. Cabinet secretaries and ministers, sometimes ill-qualified and poorly experienced to fulfil their particular postings, have frequently been seen to mismanage aspects of our governments policies while helping to facilitate the banking crashes (and the so far doomed recovery attempt) that has contributed to what could become the longest period of global economic recession in history.

So I sadly fear I may never see the inside of a polling booth again…but at least today for a change I was not alone, the majority of voters consciously decided to stay away. This is not a convincing democratic mandate by any definition of the term.

There is an urgent need for global and national discussion on zero growth economic models that end the endless cycles of boom-and-bust while mitigating climate change, sustainably managing the Earth’s resources, creating true social justice and developing equitable trade with developing countries. Corporate tax evasion, legal or otherwise needs to be reigned in. Changes such as these are needed urgently to prevent the looming crisis ahead. Already we face a real risk of further cuts to precious aspects of the civil service (including the Police) and a slow retreat from a welfare state that has defined HM Governments contract with its citizens since the world renowned social changes that followed WW2. Unfortunately the powerful corporate and banking concerns, and their allies from the political classes, will no-doubt resist any challenge to the status quo. As the people of Britain continue to pay for the cover-ups, corruption and mismanagement that led to the 2008 crash and subsequent bail-outs we may well see our nation become a second class state.

Without an agreed plan for a transition to perhaps the most radical global economic and political changes since WWII the nations of the world may well face the threat of uncontrollable economic, social and political collapse. Such collapses have in the past, and very well could again, lead to wars over resources, the rise of extreme political parties and domestic unrest as the power vacuums created by unpopular and falling governments are filled by the kind of despots that have historically risen to seize power at these times.

To me the debacle over these police elections is a total joke at a time when money is tight, public services are being cut and the mismanagement of successive governments has left the competence of our entire political system in question. What amounts to political control of the Police is in my view is a clear breach of the democratic tradition of ‘separation of powers’. The end of true community policing began when Police were utilised as a political tool to violently break the miners strike. Many years later the attitude to the Police in many of the communities effected by this violence remains openly hostile. The precedent had been set and the role of Police in demonstrations and political protest has increased as the public’s rights to free assembly, peacefully protest and expression has been gradually eroded by the state. The police has increasingly been transformed from the approachable bobby on the beat, trusted by the community and well respected by most, to the tooled-up, armoured political tool of oppression.

Crime commissioners voted into office with strong views on public gatherings, marches and other protests in their areas creates the possibility that political decent could be further curtailed in some parts of the UK at a time when industrial action and protests are likely to increase. So as well as the millions of wasted pounds set aside for the crime commissioners scheme how exactly will this serve our great democracy?

Since however low the turnout is, does not disqualify the winners it makes no difference, does it?

In past elections I have “spoilt” the ballot paper, which I suppose is as near as our system allows us to get to a no preference vote.

Trouble is your spoilt vote would be counted in the statistics for the turnout and thus potentially used to justify this shambles.

Yes, give all policing over to G4S.

As they can’t cope with a spoting event that is clearly going to be, surprise surprise, big, call in the forces to cover for them.

Send a platoon down my road, one full mag should sort the neighbourhood nicely though they could bring a couple just to make sure. I’d support that. In fact I might just be tempted to join up again.

You got it in one, Silver Fox. 🙂

Just a couple of quick responses.

Firstly I infer that the PCC might well act against G4S’s proposals and in favour of what is right for policing in the area.

Secondly ““Maintaining a profit is not a burden that was on the police force when they maintained the services in-house.”, as that statement from a union official is stating the b****g obvious. Public service has no accountability to the tax payer who pays for it so over-employment is rife. Ancillary staff to the frontline police force should be as minimal as it needs to be and just the same applies to education, health, social care etc etc.

Come on, you know as well as anyone the whole damn operation will be cost driven, not requirement or need.

I see many arguments claiming private sector to be more efficient than public sector, reality, private sector takes over any public sector work, cuts staff and wages, service standards fall and the bosses take a bundle of taxpayers money of to some tax haven somewhere.

Brilliant solution.

Simple fact private sector is, indeed has to be profit driven, service is good when that is an essential part of producing that profit.

When private sector is glad handed essential services, that is a recipe for easy profit for the employers and increased prices allied to reduced services to all who need those services.

Public sector should supply the services we need, private sector the services we want, but crucially have a choice whether we use them or not.

I am all for any farming out which enables the police to spend their time catching criminals. Central government set the budget but it is up to the PCC to determine the spending priorities in their area.

That isn’t what actually happens though.

The PCCs can only determine spending priorities if they have any cash to spend, the way that budgets are being hacked many forces are struggling to maintain basic minimum services.

Over-employment within the public sector is only ‘rife’ on the pages of the Daily Heil and the Daily Express these days, with the notable exception of mid-to-upper management.

Well I think you will find a very large number of people who have never read either of those papers ( self included ) who would strongly dispute that contention.

Public service has no accountability to the tax payer who pays for it so over-employment is rife.

No element of government expenditure is directly accountable to the tax payer, or ever has been.

Scrutiny of public expenditure is one of the things that is done on our behalf by the MPs that we elect.

Over-employment within the public sector is only ‘rife’ on the pages of the Daily Heil and the Daily Express these days, with the notable exception of mid-to-upper management.

But they’re usually The Right Sort so they don’t count, apparently.

Surely that would only be a concern if the police service per se was to be privatised. I am not aware that there are any proposals for this. Are there?

I suggest to you that you examine carefully the extent that it’s already been privatised.
We’re not just talking about a few admin jobs here.
I know the spinners among you would like to think that, but people who are under arrest and who’s liberty may well be at stake are now dealt with routinely by G4S staff.
Their emphasis on profit is already slewing the way things are looked at.
You don’t have to believe me, I don’t care if you do or if you don’t.
I don’t care that much about any of it–I don’t even like the Police–in Lincs or anywhere else.

But if you’re a concerned citizen like many of you are–it’s worth having a look at.

Andy

Surely that would only be a concern if the police service per se was to be privatised. I am not aware that there are any proposals for this. Are there?

““Maintaining a profit is not a burden that was on the police force when they maintained the services in-house.”

While there’s no one more keen than me to see self serving public servants trimmed down to tolerable minimums…
However, the converse of this is that the profit motive becomes more important than offering an unbiased Police service. I could give some examples of this happening already, but I don’t feel comfortable in doing that on an open forum.

Just a couple of quick responses.

Firstly I infer that the PCC might well act against G4S’s proposals and in favour of what is right for policing in the area.

Secondly ““Maintaining a profit is not a burden that was on the police force when they maintained the services in-house.”, as that statement from a union official is stating the b****g obvious. Public service has no accountability to the tax payer who pays for it so over-employment is rife. Ancillary staff to the frontline police force should be as minimal as it needs to be and just the same applies to education, health, social care etc etc.

I am all for any farming out which enables the police to spend their time catching criminals. Central government set the budget but it is up to the PCC to determine the spending priorities in their area.

It won’t make a single jot of difference to how many real coppers are out there–or on the beat.
All it does is to layer in an extra strata of management.
The first thing G4S did in Lincs was to announce sixty redundancies. This was subsequently blocked by the Police Authority as unworkable due to the fact that many of the departments had been very severely cut in a previous round of redundancies and were considered to be at absolute minimums.

Since then there has been a lot of head scrtaching I think on the part of G4S, in relation to meeting minimum contract requirements–especially response times to triple nine calls–and minimum staffing to meet that.

The perception however is that to meet the financial targets (and thereby to win the contract) set out by central government, G4S cut their contract proposal far below what they could afford, to get the work.
I think in business, this is known as a loss leader.

Here’s a few ‘interesting’ pieces from Auntie Beeb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-20053993

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-19543105

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-18439018

Andy.