General News Discussion

[kaosmark2]

Similarly, it's difficult finding any real information about the mayoral candidates in Bristol. I voted against having a mayor, but I still want to make an actual decision about which one we get lumped with.

Still more around than the Police Commissioners

[TheGayTent]

one of our local ones that looked decent on paper revealed on Facebook he wants to remove Community Patrol Officers.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

The gov decided not to fund the leaflets for candidates, so everything is mainly online

ffs

[eFestivals]

The gov decided not to fund the leaflets for candidates, so everything is mainly online

ffs

it's cos the govt knows that the tory candidates will win by default. Voting is a day out to the blue rinse brigade, they tend to vote tory, and they'll be the only grouping who vote in any numbers.

And once those elected commissioners are in place, central govt will be able to claim that policing issues are nothing to do with them - exactly as they've done with free schools, and (tried to?) do with the GP commissioning for the NHS (which originally had a clause in which said that the Health Minister is no longer responsible for public health).

Once the non-responsibility is accepted by the passing of time, the budgets for these things can be ripped to shreds.

It's of course a continuation of what nu-labour did, but that was a continuation of Thatcherism ... but even she bottled it from going this far!!

Vote for a police commissioner, and destroy democracy. No matter how low the turnout, the tories say the vote counts. Which is rather funny. Just listen to their words when the next high profile strike vote happens.

[fred quimby]

it's cos the govt knows that the tory candidates will win by default. Voting is a day out to the blue rinse brigade, they tend to vote tory, and they'll be the only grouping who vote in any numbers.

[5co77ie]

it's cos the govt knows that the tory candidates will win by default. Voting is a day out to the blue rinse brigade, they tend to vote tory, and they'll be the only grouping who vote in any numbers.

[abdoujaparov]

it's cos the govt knows that the tory candidates will win by default. Voting is a day out to the blue rinse brigade, they tend to vote tory, and they'll be the only grouping who vote in any numbers.

And once those elected commissioners are in place, central govt will be able to claim that policing issues are nothing to do with them - exactly as they've done with free schools, and (tried to?) do with the GP commissioning for the NHS (which originally had a clause in which said that the Health Minister is no longer responsible for public health).

Once the non-responsibility is accepted by the passing of time, the budgets for these things can be ripped to shreds.

It's of course a continuation of what nu-labour did, but that was a continuation of Thatcherism ... but even she bottled it from going this far!!

Vote for a police commissioner, and destroy democracy. No matter how low the turnout, the tories say the vote counts. Which is rather funny. Just listen to their words when the next high profile strike vote happens.

[eFestivals]

In principle, I agree with police and crime commissioners. The police currently have zero democratic accountability and introducing an elected person or body to which chief constables must answer is, in principle at least, right.

so politicising the police is right, rather than the control being via a number of different people with different views whereby a consensus can be reached via the common views?

Management by committee isn't perfect, but it's FAR more perfect that things being run by a politicised individual, and where that individual will react to the people shouting the loudest rather than the police acting on what is right and fair towards the law.

Personally, I'd like to see the budgets for the police made more local and "ripped to shreds" as you put it. We spend far too much on law enforcement (we have the highest per capita spend on criminal justice in the OECD), despite the fact that crime has fallen for the last 20 years and there is less chance of being a victim of crime now than at any point in the last 30 years. We need less money spent on law enforcement and more on dealing with underlying social issues....

My gawd, I can't believe that you're so naive.

I agree with you about the crime figures (because unlike most of the country, we both know that's true). In theory I might even agree with you about the need for the police budgets to be cut and the money diverted to social issues.

And yet if an elected police commissioner cut the budgets what would be saved would not be spent on social issues, because that police commissioner does not have the power to divert those funds to a non-police project.

But even if he did, that's not what would happen. The usual tory suspects would whip up the usual ill-informed and selfish hysteria, which labels all recipients of govt money as worthless and undeserving scum. Much better that those savings are given back to the already too-wealthy working folk who are ensuring those social problems in the first place.

We won't see improvements via the false idea of "local democracy". Successive govts have shown how that's designed to work - it's designed to let them off the hook when things go wrong, and to ensure that they force an unwanted solution on that locality if that locality has the cheek to do anything outside of the govts liking. Nothing has changed since Thatcher abolished the GLC because even the tory voters in London knew what a fantastic job Ken was doing.

[abdoujaparov]

so politicising the police is right, rather than the control being via a number of different people with different views whereby a consensus can be reached via the common views?

Management by committee isn't perfect, but it's FAR more perfect that things being run by a politicised individual, and where that individual will react to the people shouting the loudest rather than the police acting on what is right and fair towards the law.

[eFestivals]

I disagree. The police are politicised now, but it is done behind closed doors. Miners strike anyone? The notion that the police are politically independent is potty. I would rather have transparent political accountability than the current arrangements any day. The reality is that police authorities are dominated by local politicians - they dont represent a consensus and their relationship with the police is far too cosy. The police have been demonstrated, beyond any shadow of a doubt over the last couple of years, to be incompetent, corrupt, biased and self-serving. The last thing they need is to be sheltered from democratic accountability.

I don't think the police are free of politics, but via the centralised system we currently have, with local and (supposedly) independent-from-govt police forces, when political influence is asserted onto them it's transparent, and we're able to see it and hold the govt to account - Miners strike anyone? The fact that we-the-people don't hold them to account for things such as that is the fault of the people, not the system.

Because of the current independence of police forces, they by-nature resist political pressure. When they have to submit to it, they often make a noise about it. Because they're run by committee, the opportunities for corruption in the police's fair aims are more limited.

The core problem with the police is not one of democratic accountability, it's one of legal accountability. Nothing of that will be changed by an elected commissioner.

In any event, you're not quite right. PCCs will have responsibility for potentially large crime prevention and diversion budgets (like the current Home Office Positive Futures programme) and they will have discretion to move money out of operational policing into that kind of preventative work. They are the sorts of choices local electorates ought to be forcing PCCs to take.

There will never be any votes in that. That's the central reason for the change!!

[abdoujaparov]

I don't think the police are free of politics, but via the centralised system we currently have, with local and (supposedly) independent-from-govt police forces, when political influence is asserted onto them it's transparent, and we're able to see it and hold the govt to account - Miners strike anyone? The fact that we-the-people don't hold them to account for things such as that is the fault of the people, not the system.

Because of the current independence of police forces, they by-nature resist political pressure. When they have to submit to it, they often make a noise about it. Because they're run by committee, the opportunities for corruption in the police's fair aims are more limited.

The core problem with the police is not one of democratic accountability, it's one of legal accountability. Nothing of that will be changed by an elected commissioner.

[eFestivals]

We will have to agree to differ. I take a fundamentally different view. The police are subject to direct political pressure from government, which the public doesnt not see and cannot influence. ACPO is in bed with the government and does absolutely nothing, on the whole, to challenge that political direction. The current political independence of the police is a sham.

The core problem for the police is both democratic and legal accountability. The former because currently there is none. The latter because, as you suggest, they are too good at dodging it.

the police have always been the govts army and always will be. There's no getting away from that, that is their primary purpose.

Local democratic accountability will never be able to change anything of the lack of legal accountability, and that lack of legal accountability will mean that the commissioner themselves will not be able to hold the police to account even if they want to (outside of there having been a conviction, which in general doesn't happen).

And as soon as any commission makes the 'wrong' decision, you can be sure that the govt will be in like a shot.

The status quo will remain and we'll get the same three chords of corrupt bias and self-serving, and nothing will be able to change locally - after all, with such big 'constituencies', who will win these elections?

But now the govt are off the hook too.

The principle is fine - i'm all for democracy, and the more local the better. But policing and how the laws of the land should be implemented is not a localised issue.

It's a smokescreen, it's a PR stunt. Nothing will change for the better. We'll get the same policing with the same types in charge (but without the balance created by a number of them), no meaningful local accountability but now with no central democratioc accountability either, and all with the added costs of an elected commissioner system.

[abdoujaparov]

The principle is fine - i'm all for democracy, and the more local the better. But policing and how the laws of the land should be implemented is not a localised issue.

It's a smokescreen, it's a PR stunt. Nothing will change for the better. We'll get the same policing with the same types in charge (but without the balance created by a number of them), no meaningful local accountability but now with no central democratioc accountability either, and all with the added costs of an elected commissioner system.

[eFestivals]

Having been to three PA meetings, in three different force areas, the notion that there is any diversity of thought or opinion is entirely false

I'm not suggesting there's diversity of thought. I've suggested the exact opposite.

But there's balance in numbers, that you don't get from an individual. It stops the more-stupid ideas getting pushed too far forwards, which is something I worry about with an individual commissioner.

Getting diversity of thought or opinion isn't the purpose of doing it anyway. If there was any risk of that whatsoever you can be sure it wouldn't be happening.

[abdoujaparov]

I'm not suggesting there's diversity of thought. I've suggested the exact opposite.

But there's balance in numbers, that you don't get from an individual. It stops the more-stupid ideas getting pushed too far forwards, which is something I worry about with an individual commissioner.

Getting diversity of thought or opinion isn't the purpose of doing it anyway. If there was any risk of that whatsoever you can be sure it wouldn't be happening.

[kaosmark2]

The core problem with the police is not one of democratic accountability, it's one of legal accountability. Nothing of that will be changed by an elected commissioner.

[eFestivals]

there's no balance in numbers if they are all of the same mind

it's not those of the same mind that is the worry. We live with those already, and although it's far from perfect things would be an awful lot worse if there's a single nutter in charge.

Having a commissioner risks it being that single nutter. At best we'll end up with someone of the same mindset as those on a police authority anyway.

Why do you think these elections will end up voting in a liberal minded, socially aware person who will change things for the better?

There's no police commission constituency - aside from the met; haven't you wondered why they don't get to vote for their commissioner? - which will return anyone but the standard tory, even if there was 100% turnout. It's only because of that certain fact that we're being allowed this vote.

The brake on pushing too stupid ideas too far ought to be the ballot box.

yeah, because Hitler explicitly stated in his election speeches that he'd murder 10M Jews.

[abdoujaparov]

Out of all the brain dead things to pass your lips that is the best. How incredibly naive

[abdoujaparov]

I do find the defence of the status quo interesting. The police currently are inefficient, sometimes corrupt, self-serving and accountable to noone. Police authorities are toothless bodies, consisting largely of the great and the good, most people dont know they exist or what they do. They dont hold chief constables to account (illustrated by the fact that one has never been sacked by a police authority), local people have no say over the composition of the authority or what it is.

Police and crime commissioners offer the chance for a democratic alternative, with chief constables actually accountable to someone, and local people able to exercise some influence. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing - which is what we currently have. And yes, nutters might get elected. But nutters may well run current police authorities (and nutters definitely have been chief constables)....

[eFestivals]

I do find the defence of the status quo interesting.

I'm not defending the status quo.

I'm pointing out that this change is not a change for the better. And it's not a change for the better because it's not been designed as a change for the better, it's been designed as a way o the govt dodging responsibility for yet another aspect of what the govt ultimately is in charge of (no matter what perfect method of local accountability might be come up with, law and order will always be something which the govt is ultimately in charge of).

And yes, nutters might get elected. But nutters may well run current police authorities (and nutters definitely have been chief constables)....

The chances of there being 10 or so nutters appointed to any police authority is exceedingly slim. So slim in fact that it's never happened yet.

What checks and balances are there on the single individual who will be in charge from Friday? None at all - aside from within central govt!!!!

Which is of course the same checks and balances that exist on any crime commissioners who dares to try to do anything not to the liking of central govt - and that's precisely why nothing of policing will change for the better via any crime commissioner, because central govt are still the ones in charge.

And yet central govt will now be able to present the illusion of not being in control via the existence of elected crime commissioners - and democracy is lessened by that, not increased.

A 1% turnout or a 100% turnout, nothing will change for the better about the police - but the rich git who will have sole charge of the police locally will insist that him and his cronies get a better service than the oiks.

[abdoujaparov]

I'm not defending the status quo.

[eFestivals]

well that's how it reads...by arguing against a change you are, by default, arguing for the status quo

only to the extent that the change is a change for the worse. It brings no benefits while making the police less accountable, not more accountable.

Whatever the motive, what it provides is the potential for real accountability for the police - something which currently does not exist.

It provides no potential for any accountability. The police forever remain the govts army; nothing of local voting changes that.

For any meaningful changes to happen, it first requires that someone wanting those changes gets elected; they won't (a simple look at English voting patterns for a century or more proves that).

And then it requires that person-who-won't-get-elected to take on the govt and take control of the police off the govt - like any govt is going to allow that to happen. .... a simple look at the detail of what a crime commissioner is allowed to do and when the govt can step in makes that patently clear.

Really? How do you know? Since they're not elected, dont have a public platform or a manifesto, the fact is that you dont know what any of their views are. The danger, in fact, isnt that they're nutters, but that they simply agree with everything the chief constable tells them - and that very much is the case.

there is balance created by numbers - the whole principle of democracy itself!!!

The best democracies run via the cabinet principle, that one person does not have all of the best ideas no matter what there position of power. That principle is being removed from oversight of the police by the introduction of a single person and the removal of a number of people.

OK, the current group is not elected, but for an elected official to have a different mindset to the current lot they need to get elected with that different mindset - they won't (see above for voting patterns).

And if a Chief c**t is able to rule over the PA, then he'll be able to dominate a single individual even better - particularly when that single individual won't have a different mindset (but he/she still might have some nutty ideas within that same mindset).

Not true...as I pointed out earlier there will be police panels and, ultimately, the ballot box. What checks and balances are there in place for chief constables and police authorities now? Answer, none

Not true. There is central govt - you know, the same central govt that will still hold all of the cards as they do currently.

Can CC alter social an economic policy which creates crime in the first place? Nope.

Can a CC increase the police budget? Nope.

Can a CC say "go soft on this crime" if govt thinks different? Nope.

Can a CC over-rule a HO instruction (the correct term for that slips my mind). Nope.

Can a CC stop the local police force being used against another miners strike? Nope.

Etc, etc, etc. All the things which matter don't change a jot - except for the one that that REALLY matters when we're talking about something when central govt set the laws, set the punishments, and sets the crime agendas. Accountability - because no CC can be accountable for them, because no CC has power over them.

time will tell whether this is right or not...I hope it isnt, but the danger of it turning out this way is not a reason to do nothing

crime commissioners have NO remit for the criminal justice system, and therefore their ability to influence anything which really matters towards crime is zero.

Wow, a (little c) conservative CC - cos that's what every single one of them will be (no different to those on the current PAs) - is going to make a massive difference by insisting that police patrols are increased around the area where these (self defined) worthy types live, at the expense of the areas where crime might be rampant.

if that is how it turns out, perhaps...but there is no certainty that that is how it will turn out

PMSL - there is absolute, beyond all-doubt certainty that that's how it will turn out.

Are govt more or less accountable for the railways since they created a system where control is handed off to someone else? Is that someone else properly accountable?

Are govt more or less accountable for water since they created a system where control is handed off to someone else? Is that someone else properly accountable?

Are govt more or less accountable for schools since they created a system where control is handed off to someone else? Is that someone else properly accountable?

Are govt more or less accountable for the NHS since they created a system where control is handed off to someone else? Is that someone else properly accountable?

Etc, etc, etc. There are the precedents of all the similar things like this which successive govts over 30 years have done previously. In no cases has it increased accountability; in every case it's lessened accountability.

Possibly...but that happens now with the 10 representatives of the establishment who sit on the police authority, but you have no way of influencing or removing them...

actually you do - because they're currently half made up of elected officials. The elected officials change. The police do not.

The rest are just the same as we'll get as CC's - quango life-ers. Yeah, they rock the boat, don't they? PMSL.

[5co77ie]

Should be news but isn't - how the Tory party are scrapping Environmental renewable energy projects in favour of anti-green carbon heavy ones:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/energygate?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=link&utm_term=energy&utm_campaign=energygate

[abdoujaparov]

only to the extent that the change is a change for the worse. It brings no benefits while making the police less accountable, not more accountable.

[eFestivals]

Time will tell who's right.....

It will.

As history does already.