Ask many people what they think of the Lib Dems’ approach to law and order, and you’ll be told – erroneously – that we’re a soft touch. Our approach, traditionally evidence-based and less punitive than the populist authoritarian policies of Labour and the Tories, takes longer to explain. When we fail to do so, we risk being seen as the party that panders to criminals.
Of course, that isn’t the case. We believe in policy that actually works to reduce crime and recidivism, using all possible means to rehabilitate those who resort to illegality, while reiterating the importance of the rule of law and appropriate sentencing. Our long-held commitment to community justice panels and restorative justice, our attempts to preserve access to justice despite cuts to legal aid, and our good work in amending the (initially very Tory indeed) Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act all testify that we continue to be the standard bearers for a liberal justice system in government.
But the baffling statement by the Federal Executive this week, on Police Commissioner elections, flies in the face of our commitment to that system. I completely understand that during a challenging financial time for the party, no central funds can be spared to help Lib Dem candidates in these elections. I don’t honestly think anyone was expecting to hear otherwise.
It’s the tone of the FE’s statement that is worrying. It was possible to send out something that reflected the financial considerations and the desire for the subject not to become too much of a ‘political football’, yet still actively encourage Lib Dem members to stand. I cannot accept that by standing under the party name, they would be making the situation any more politicised than it already is.
Instead, the tone was discouraging, implying that Liberal Democrats would want to support independent candidates. Given that one of the major concerns throughout the Bill’s passage was that this would be an opportunity for ‘bang ‘em up’ right-wingers to hijack the debate, the likelihood that liberal-minded independents will magically appear is, it would seem, negligible. But more than that, surely we believe that operational policing is better served by an approach in line with our philosophical values. And surely the best way of achieving such policing is to put in liberal candidates who have a chance of winning.
What will be achieved if Lib Dems don’t stand? The best possible outcome is that no one will notice. We cannot seriously expect a public vote of thanks for a high-minded decision not to participate. More likely is that people will assume we’re just not that interested in one of the most important issues affecting local communities.
This can’t be allowed to happen. We must field candidates in these elections. After all, we’re the Liberal Democrats, not the Liberal Loiterers.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Brexit is 'stifling' exports and imports
Sinderins Community Hub at Logie sheltered lounge #dundeewestend
Jago Hazzard on the complicated history of Turnham Green
Suitably inspired, I return to Suffolk
Investment, investment, investment.
Definitely a Lib Dem conference!
Ed Davey tries to name all the Lib Dem MPs while on a roller coaster
Roland
Tom B
Karen Pratt
Caron Lindsay
Andrew Tampion
19 Comments
It is a tricky one. I can’t see why Police Commissioner elections should be political *at all*, though obviously they will turn out that way.
The decision could be favourable to us – “We want a Commissioner, not just another politician”.
From my point of view, Police Commissioners shouldn’t really be party political…
wait, the party isn’t seriously considering fielding candidates already? this troubles me.
@Harry – most Lib Dems (including me) would agree with you. In fact, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have these Police Commissioners at all – they’re a modified version of Tory policy. But this isn’t a perfect world, and we all know that come these elections, the Tories and Labour will both be fielding candidates. As I said in the article, in those circumstances I cannot see how our standing politicises the situation any further.
@Kevin McNamara – I’m sure many local parties are considering it, but the tone from the Federal Executive was, as I say in the article, discouraging at best.
Tom
You are starting to persuade on this and I wold agreed that the tone was all wrong (perhaps it was a cunning ploy by the FE that if they sounded discouraging, people would respond by trying to organise campaigns to prove them wrong….).
However, it might be useful to know exactly what regions are going to covered and what the role of these individuals is….Given that operational policing is supposed to be a matter for the police and most criminal policy is set nationally, what can they actually do other than check up on what the police are doing (and for that, I would rather see someone who knows policing inside out whether or not they are a paid up Lib Dem). Ironically, we do, of course, have one high-profile ex-policeman who would bring a lot to the role but he seems otherwise engaged…
From my perspective, I think the best way of phrasing it would have been to expect us to put up candidates but also make it clear that an appropriate independent could be supported as an alternative. At the moment, I think the fear that many people have is that there will not be anyone (whether Lib Dem or independent) to put the case for evidence-based, liberal but effective policing. That indeed, would be a huge shame.
Mark,
This Home Office document sets out in clear terms what the role of the PCC is (and how he/she will work with the Chief Constable): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/police-commissioners-protocol?view=Binary
PCCs will be elected in every force area and their role is to receive and allocate all funding, including government grants/precepts, relating to policing and crime reduction. Alongside the election of PCCs, there is the establishment of Police & Crime Panels, which will hold PCCs to account.
I think when people realise the importance of the PCC role, they will be shocked to find out that a political party currently in government does not think it worthwhile or necessary to put up candidates.
Tom
I do think we need to do more to aggressively promote “what works best, not what sounds toughest” when it comes to criminal justice. But does that not apply mostly to sentencing which – correct me if I’m wrong – police commissioners will have no influence over? Other than using the evidence to argue against prioritising “more police officers on the street” (I’m sure that’ll be popular!), are these elections really any use in shaping the law and order debate?
Adam – perhaps there will be few opportunities to promote an evidence-based approach to policy more generally, but surely we cannot pass up the opportunity to associate ourselves with robust, sensible local policing. If people can see Liberal Democrats having a positive effect on their local community through creating a plan to cut crime, they will be more willing to give a hearing to our policy more widely. And as I say in the article, if they see us totally failing to demonstrate interest in policing locally, it certainly won’t do us any good.
I absolutely couldn’t agree more with the author of this article.
The idea that by not standing a candidate will make these elections “non-political” is a na�ve attempt to shut the stable door after the party-political horse has bolted. It’s already clear that the Tories have already lined up some party-political candidates including Colonel Tim Collins in Kent, and Labour probably won’t be far behind. Frankly, if we don’t have a horse in the race – and get that horse chosen early – we will become an irrelevance.
There is a huge raft of areas where Liberal Democrats can make a unique and valuable contribution to tackling crime – by picking solutions that WORK, not just solutions that look good on the front page of The Sun or the Daily Mail. Fighting for liberal solutions on crime and fighting against knee-jerk conservatism is part of the irreducible core that defines what it is to be a Liberal. Throwing in the towel at this early stage would be unforgivable.
I strongly agree with the author of the piece that we should be standing candidates.
Federal Executive seem to have joined the ranks of those who believe that political parties are “a bad thing”, a corrosive attititude that is damaging our democracy.
If we do stand candidates, personally I’m unsure whether we should or not, then I would hope we really go hard core liberal in our campaigns. We make clear that we do indeed have a soft stance towards drugs, favour rehabilitation and lighter sentences. The worst case scenario would be standing and attempting to be Labour/Tory lite
Given that the Lib Dems have blown £25m of public money delaying the elections in order to give their candidates a better chance of winning, surely the very least they could do is actually put some candidates up.
As an opponent of this whole madcap scheme, I’m starting to think that it might be a good idea to vote for the most extremist, divisive, and downright unsavoury candidate who stands in my area, however repellent they may be to me, purely so as to discredit the process as much as possible in the hope that the first elections will be the last.
If centrist parties are going to sit it out and leave the field wide open for extremists, it looks like I won’t have any other choice.
With a £5000 deposit, how many actual independents do we expect to see running?
Tactically this has been handled in a shockingly naive manner – even if the party does field a candidate now the first thing the opposition will do is point out that it’s split on whether or not they should be standing anyway – what a gift!
If worrying about losing deposits is the reasoning behind this then the rightful accusation will be that the party hasn’t got the guts to take its policies to the electorate.
Tom: it was an odd tone and did not reflect the tenor of the debate. Most on FE feel strongly that we should contest these elections and the vote (as I have said elsewhere on Lib Dem Voice today) was to ensure that this could happen if local parties wanted it. NB the possibility of an English party or Regional Party veto was expressly set aside – not least because local parties acting individually or in concert are constitutionally expected to field candidates.
So I suggest everyone gets cracking and starts the selection process. In some areas this will be straightforward (there are already co-ordinating committees in some counties). In other areas, someone is going to have to convene a meeting of local party reps to get the ball rolling. But roll it must.
It seems to me highly unlikely that official Liberal Democrat candidates have even the slightest chance of winning any of these elections. The choice of the supplementary vote system for 3 or more candidates (like the London Mayor contest) instead of AV does not help.
Therefore I think it is our duty as a party to use all our efforts to achieve the election of the candidate most likely to pursue a sensible and broadly liberal approach – or least likely to pursue the opposite. In some cases this may mean getting behind a really credible local independent candidate or even (less likely) a candidate representing another political party and we should in these special circumstances tolerate that.
Avoidance of a swathe of “hangers and floggers” across the land is far more important than our amour propre on this occcasion.
“It seems to me highly unlikely that official Liberal Democrat candidates have even the slightest chance of winning any of these elections.”
I bet people told Navnit Dholakia that when he first stood for council elections. Probably he should have waited for some sympathetic independents to come along.
“Most on FE feel strongly that we should contest these elections and the vote”
Chris – I understand that. However by the vote and subsequent publicity on the issue of funding these campaigns they have really undermined any candidates and campaigns (which will be difficult enough).
Was there any debate on that point, what points did you (as Cllr rep) raise and how did you vote?
@ balbs says…’If worrying about losing deposits is the reasoning behind this then the rightful accusation will be that the party hasn’t got the guts to take its policies to the electorate.’ It’s not guts we lack its money! Apart from the £5000 deposit there is the cost of printing and postage for our election communication for ,in our case, a whole county. It’s even more expensive than a General election where there is a freepost delivery available. With no funding from HQ I cannot see how local parties can afford this exceptt in our strongest areas. Perhaps those who think fielding Police Commissioner candidates is a priority should set to and raise some money to pay for a campaign – Local Party Agent