Is it possible to change Coalition policy? Council leaders certainly hope so if the letter to today’s Times is to be believed. Over a hundred have supported – and no doubt many more councillors, deputies, backbenchers and the like might have done so had there been more time to hone the message and gather support.
The issue should be core to the localist agenda – although we need to be rather clearer about what we really want.
Not so long ago the police were governed (at least in non-operational terms) by the police committees of county councils. There was not much wrong with this system except that most people did not know much about it and the Police were hardly forthcoming in their engagement with the politicians. Two thirds of the committees were councillors and one third were magistrates.
Michael Howard intervened and created the current free-standing police authorities (except in London, which was later reformed under Labour). These, after some vigorous parliamentary battling, were to have a bare majority of councillors (normally nine) as against 5 ‘independents’, appointed by the Home Office, and 3 magistrates.
The ‘independents’ are at best a mixed bunch. None has a mandate although they often claim to speak for the people more knowledgeably than those of us who have actually talk to them on the doorstep. One once declared in my hearing that he was there ‘to support the Chief Constable’.
The public, despite these exciting reforms, are no more knowledgeable about who to contact if they did not like the way they are policed than before – despite the huge expansion in scrutiny activity since the police authorities were made free-standing and needed to justify their existence..
So, goes Tory ‘thinking’, if the public don’t get what the police authority does, why not elect the head of the police directly?
Obvious, isn’t it? Well no. The problem with policing is not that no-one knows what a police authority does, it is that the police authority is 50% unaccountable (because of the ‘independents’ and magistrates) and that the police are anyway unaccountable because they have operational freedom – although operational freedom also allows the police to make a mess of phone-tapping investigations.
Directly elected police commissioners will do one of two things: either they will start directing how the police do their policing – which is arguably more scary than the status quo – or they won’t. In which case they will form apparent rather than real accountability: believed responsible, but essentially impotent. Oh: and they are likely to be right-wing nutters to boot.
Meanwhile, our own English Party bureaucrats have completely lost the plot on the issue and insisted that the only people who can stand for this essential bit of local government are parliamentary candidates.
What would work better? It’s very simple: councillors setting police budgets, sticking up for local people and challenging performance.
It’s not Coalition policy. It’s not Party policy. But is it a lot less daft than either.
2 Comments
Agree completely and hope our peers can do something to block this stupid plan.
Well said!
As to whether it’s possible to change Coalition policy or not that probably depends on what model if follows. As I see it there are two possibilities, ‘autocratic’ and ‘market’.
Autocratic is that used by strong men everywhere. The top man controls a small number of deputies that report to him follow his lead or are fired. Each in turn controls more deputies all the way down. It’s leverage endlessly repeated and the great ‘advantage’ is that the top man (it’s almost always a man) doesn’t need a majority; leverage is the key.
Market is what happens where there is a balance of forces – supply and demand. Classically price is set at the margin. Millions of barrrels of oil are produced and sold every day but it’s the tiny percentage that are surplus or deficit that set the price for the whole lot.
So the question for the parliamentary Lib Dems is which model are they following in reality.
If autocratic, Cameron and his fellow travellers get to call the shots despite having onnly minority support. On many individual issues his support is really very, very minority because smaller, more esoteric things don’t swing votes, they’re just part of the deal when you vote for a party.
If market, the Conservatives have to understand that on most things they are a minority and can get only part of their programme through – picture the election swingometer in action for specific issues.
Mostly the Coalition seems to work like an autocracy as seen fro this distance. That’s certainly how Clegg seems to work within the Lib Dems despite the supposed democratic structures. And far from being all about “I agree with Nick”, it seems to be more of a case of “I agree with Dave” in practice.
Funny that the Tories don’t really like markets! But then most of what they ever said about them was self-serving disinformation for the consumption of the gullible.