As a campaigner with a strong interest in the European Elections, I am really happy to see a number of counties moving towards selection of a Liberal Democrat candidate for the Police Commissioner elections in November.
This is because in the European Elections an important message for Liberal Democrats is that we are effective on crime. Crime crosses state borders within Europe. We need co-operation and integration to ensure that our police’s powers to bring criminals to justice, the rule of law, and important civil liberties cross borders too. The other parties won’t make the commitment that we will to tackle cross border crime.
Standing a Liberal Democrat candidate in November is a chance to publicise our strong policies on crime – that it is not about being tough or soft but about being effective. Getting this message across in November will help us get it across in 2014 and 2015.
Being effective on crime was the key message in the brilliant policy paper “We Can Cut Crime” produced when Nick Clegg was Home Affairs spokesman in 2007. The paper needs updating and the Federal Policy Committee should make this priority work in good time before November.
Public focus on police powers of surveillance raises a clear opportunity for Liberal Democrat candidates for Police Commissioner to distinguish themselves against the Tory and Labour candidates who come from more authoritarian political traditions.
Lib Dem candidates should say loudly and clearly,
“I’m the candidate who will make sure, as you Commissioner, that you are not spied upon.”
That is because whatever an Act of Parliament says a police officer can do, it is another matter as to whether a police choose to use that power. Police have many powers that officers decide they don’t need to use in any given case. This professional discretion is very important.
A liberal candidate for Commissioner can properly say,
“I am against people’s emails being read without a warrant. If Parliament passes an Act that allows it, my police force will not do it. If we have good reasons to intercept communications we will get a warrant. I will not have local people spied upon as a matter of routine. As a Liberal Democrat, I will protect your privacy better than any of the other candidates.”
* Antony Hook was a Liberal Democrat MEP for South East England (2019) and has practised as a barrister since 2003. He is currently Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Kent County Council.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Searching for PC Bodger
Covid, measurement and public health
Application made for 15 large events at Ludlow Castle over coming summers
Latest general election voting intention opinion polls
Dundee West Church Christmas Concert tomorrow! #dundeewestend
Simon R
Paul Holmes
Mary Fulton
24 Comments
Apart from the challenge of imposing operational limitations on an organisation for which you are legally prevented from so doing, there is a huge flaw to your political argument here. At best there are two areas where the Lib Dem candidate might win (Avon and Somerset and Dyfed Powys). These are far from certain. However in 39 areas the Lib Dems are most likely to lose and this could take down their ideas with it, leaving them weaker than before 15 November. It is already very suspect to argue for advancement in Europe and Westminster based on an election which the text makes clear you don’t expect to win. The alternative is to ensure that in each of the 39 areas, that instead of wasting the deposits and cost of running a fruitless campaign, that you develop your arguments in the best way possible and then look for the Counties where good Independents are standing and ensure that they hear your ideas. In Sussex for instance where I am standing, I am keen to hear from all points of view. I have challenged all political parties not to put candidates up, because I believe that Policing should be kept free from party politics. I think my developing manifesto will chime with many of the principles of your party (it should do, I have supporters from within the party, just as I have from all of the 3 other main parties). My (rather old fashioned) view is that the electors in 2014 and 2015 will be looking for priniciples as well as policies. I believe that as a matter of principle as well as pragmatism that in at least 39 areas your best policy is to not put forward candidates, and use your position to argue for the policies you believe are correct (bearing in mind that operational policing will remain the jurisdiction of Chief Constables and a few hot headed PCCs who will bring their office into disrepute much quicker than they might imagine).
great to see the PCC elections getting the attention they deserve but antony, in calling for an update on the crime policy paper written in 2007, you surely meant to acknowledge the Policing Policy paper launched very recently by Tom Brake MP – link above?
Here’s Tom’s paper on policing: http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs
Nathan,
Yes Tom’s paper is very good and I wrote on LDV when it was published that it will be a useful reseourse for police commissioner candidates.
I think this link works to Tom’s paper:
http://issuu.com/tombrakemp/docs/trusted_professional_and_effective?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage
Ian,
In your county of Sussex the Liberal Democrats are the clear second party. The election us under Supplementary Vote rather tha First Past The Post so I think the result could be very interesting.
The person who, in my view, is likely to win the Liberal Democrat nomination in Sussex is a very srong candidate and I am looking forward to canvassing for him.
I am sorry you regard it as improper to think about building up support in one election to assist in future elections.
My experience of the electorate is that they like to carry over their impressions of candidates and parties in that way. People seem to find what a party has to say in one election to be useful evidence as to what view they should form of a party’s candidates generally.
I think that is a reasonable position for the public to take. I also think it is reasonable for political campaigners to bear it in mind as we approach elections, all of which are deeply important.
My understanding of the electoral system is that it only helps the second most popular candidate if they are able to achieve a level of consensus amongst the supporters of the third and fourth placed candidates at the expense of the most popular candidate. It is a matter of record that taken across Sussex as whole based on 2010 that Lib Dems came second compared to the Conservatives. What is less clear is the extent to which this will be repeated in 2012 and if the chances of the voters rejecting the party and knocking it back into third place or worse, are as meaningful as they are and the prospect of the system propelling your candidate from second to first as slim as they are, then I would suggest that your funds and arguments could be better spent in other ways leaving your electoral reputation intact and your groups supporting the winning side.
Sussex remains a clear 2-horse race between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives even after the difficult local elections in 2011.
I expect that will be confirmed in the 2012 local elections in a few weeks.
Ian,
Sorry but I am a bit confused by your argument. This goes along the lines of “the Lib Dems might not win any contests so they shouldn’t bother standing”. So, if I have understood your logic correctly, your view is that those who are not the clear winners at this stage should not stand. But that rule doesn’t apply to you it seems! Afraid to say the forecasts I have seen don’t exactly look good for Independent candidates, including the Sussex area. I appreciate you have a right to stand, just think it is a shame that you do not want that right to also apply to someone with some good experience standing under the Liberal Democrat banner.
And in terms of principle, Liberal Democrats have much to be proud of in our community based approach to crime and justice – be it the Community Justice Panels pioneered when Somerset was under Lib Dem control, or the Acceptable Behaviour Contracts pioneered under a Lib Dem administration in Islington – or when the Lib Dem council in Liverpool constructed alleygates across the city, slashing the rate of domestic burglary.
>The election us under Supplementary Vote rather tha First Past The Post
Whose idea was that? Where is the ‘no to AV’ campaign on this issue?!! How will the poor ordinary voters who apparently couldn’t be expected to cope with AV get their heads round SV? !!
On topic: Ian, you may be a brilliant choice for Sussex, but until all the candidates’ names are in for each force area, (by which time it may well be too late to say “oops, we need to field a candidate”) how will anyone know if there IS a good independent candidate in any given place?
The Lib Dem candidate won’t spy on you. Or then again…
http://livingonwords.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/clegg-backed-internet-snooping.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10188696
But a spokesman for Mr Clegg said: “The Deputy Prime Minister agreed at the NSC that the Government would look at proposals to address the police’s technological gap to deal with serious criminals and terrorists. But he also made clear that they could only proceed if they took into account and protected civil liberties.
“The full details of those proposals have not yet been brought forward by the Home Office. When they are, they must be carefully scrutinised to get the balance between security and liberty exactly right.”
Mr Clegg has written to the National Security Council to say Lib Dems will not support separate plans to extend powers for civil courts to hear evidence in secret without changes.
Hi Cassie, the choice of the SV was made by the Government so that is the Lib Con coalition.
Hi Rob, the real argument I have is that no political parties should stand and that is based on conviction that with a PCP, all of the political parties and Councils will be represented in the decision making tent, but what will be lost is the balance of Independents compared to existing PAs. Clearly as an Independent I would prefer not to have to take on too many parties and Labour and Conservatives are already in the frame. I would love the Lib Dems to do what they suggested nationally would be their principled position and not fight the seats but apparently that is all about to change – for reasons I don’t understand except that they cannot help themselves?
Ian,
Personally I would have preferred there to be no directly elected police and crime commissioners at all. But that is what will happen and if there is an election then as a Liberal Democrat I believe the party should be there to represent the Liberal viewpoint on tackling crime. The suggestion you refer to above was never party policy. And I – and many other party members – were always in support of standing a candidate. You could even describe it as a “principled position”….
In terms of Police and Crime Panels – in fact, the panels should be balanced across the area of the police authority to reflect the different “political” make up of the councillors (“political” with a small “p”). So as I understand it, if there is a suitable number of Independent councillors in an area then there is nothing to stop them from being represented on the Panel.
Rob
Your suggestion regarding Independent voices on PCPs is either a desperate misunderstanding of the reality of the situation or you are simply treating me as a fool. In a situation where a Council is controlled by Indepenendents, then of course an Independent Cllr will be able to take their seat. However apart from this, your premise would depend on a collective willingness of Cllrs to say after you Claude, to sacrifice a seat of theirs in order for the Independent to be invited. This is clearly not going to happen. However even that would not replace the voices of the true Independent experts including magistrates that the great Libertarian Michael Howard introduced into the formula in 1995.
I believe Thames Valley could be won with a strong candidate.
Liberal Democrats are the second place in many of the constituencies in this area and in an election using the supplementary vote we can be successful.
Ian, I am sorry to see you have such faith in the principles of your own (self-certified?) independence, and so little in the principles of others…
Dave,
Yes Thames Valley has real potential.
>the choice of the SV was made by the Government so that is the Lib Con coalition.
My point clearly wasn’t clear (!). It’s the double standards that Conservatives are bringing in SV for these elections when they claimed anything other than FPP is too complex for poor little voters to get their heads round in Westminster elections. Just as Labour gave us the list system in Wales, but made no attempt to ditch FPP for Westminster.
Ian,
Certainly not treating you like a fool, just giving my view on how Police and Crime Panels should work. Please remember it is not only your good self who is entitled to an opinion! Actually the panel should be balanced according to the total political composition of councillors across an area, not just based on the political control of each council in the area. I appreciate it will require vigilance and hard work at a local level to ensure this does actually happen. As a result of Lib Dem pressure, the panels can be as large as 20 people to properly reflect political make up across an area. And your comments on Police and Crime Panels, in my view, show a bit of a misunderstanding about their role – they are more of a scrutiny role, so your earlier comment about Independent PCCs balancing these ghastly party political types isn’t comparing like with like.
Hi Rob, totally accept that the PCP is not the same as the existing PA. However it is your party as a full member of the coalition that has created the new arrangements ( I am not sure you can cherry pick the parts you have changed and the parts those others have created). Certainly if I am elected I will ensure that the PCP plays as full a part as they wish in the process.
Hi David, I am not suggesting I am perfect, but it is a matter of fact that I am not nor have I ever been a member of a political party. That is the definition I am applying to my Independence. If you wish to suggest an alternative I am willing to consider it. I guess the judgement on the principle of others will depend on where they draw the extra 2 Independents from, and indeed if they adopt the minimum number or more than the minimum. I am willing to make a small wager! I am also concious that I was assured by a high profile Lewes Lib Dem that no candidate would be selected after I disclosed my own plans – I guess I have some reason to be disappointed to say the least but perhaps you will say that is just politics!
I personally wish to thank Antony for introducing this vitally important discussion, for along with a few other former members of the police service, I remain concerned about the low level of interest that the introduction of Police & Crime Commissioners has raised amongst Liberal Democrats.
Policing, is frankly far too an important a issue to be left to the police alone, and this has been a concern since the current model of policing was introduced back in 1829.
Since the earliest times, Watch Committees, comprising of elected members and JP’s were introduced in the Police Services of England and Wales, and these were replaced by Police Authorities, as a result of the Police Act (1964), which established the tripartite structure of governance that included the Authority, The Home Secretary, and the Chief Constable, that we have known since.
Membership of the Authority has always been a hotly debated issue, as to some the membership was rather stereotypical, but its saving grace was that due to numbers, it was harder for senior police officers, and or the Home Secretary to completely “fool all of the people all of the time”.
The responsibility of the Authorities for setting local policing priorities, appointing chief officers, monitoring complaints, setting budgets and consulting with the public, etc, will now be handed over to a single person, the Police & Crime Commissioner. I fear that a solitary person, with such power, and with the few checks placed on them, may be overly influenced by opportunistic chief officers, as well as the ‘armchair’ criminologists that become Home Secretary’s.
Further to this, the fact that ‘ANYONE’ is deemed as appropriate to possess such power, without any prior criminal justice, public sector or any other measurable relevant knowledge, upstanding, skills, and ability, says a lot about what people really think about policing in the twenty first century, and how they do not see the importance.
What can we do as Liberal Democrats? I would suggest that firstly, not playing is not an option, for as of November, unless the Government changes its mind, elections will be held. I would suggest that we as a Party need to demonstrate to the public that we do take criminal justice issues seriously. Tom Brake’s paper is a start, and a good one at that, but we need to go further.
Whether we as a Party support or do not support candidates does not mean that we should not be part of the debate at a local level, for one personal fear that I have is that because policing and other criminal justice matters seems to bring out the ‘hidden Tory’ in many people, the most successful candidates will hail from a Right, and in some cases a far less tolerant Right than any of us would like.
One very contemporary question that I would pose to any candidate for this role, is how would they build bridges with communities who have never been positively engaged with the service, and are in some cases having their deepest fears corroborated by the current revelations of bigotry that have come forth?
Sadly, I fear that the level of current responses to this thread may well indicate the level of interest? If this is the case, as Corporal Jones used to say “We’re all doomed Captain Mainwaring, doomed”, and the service will remain out of touch with, and unresponsive to society, that it has always been, but people seem to think is a modern phenomena.
Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
English Party Diversity Champion
[email protected]
Agree with Rob (and the indirect comments of David and Anthony) that we need to see a strong liberal voice in Sussex for Police Commissioner. It isn’t an election we would particularly want, but if it’s happening we need to give residents a choice to be able to vote Lib Dem. There are numerous community safety issues locally that we are the best champions of – for example policing issues for the LGBT community, civil liberties etc. We shouldn’t forget who scrapped ID cards, and this is the best forum to promote this debate now.
I am doing what I can to work in Leicestershire to persuade the decision makers to field a candidate, although I am told that most counties in the East Midlands won’t stand at the moment. We have many wards and constituencies across the region with a good Lib Dem vote. If you deny people the choice on Nov 15th, they might decide to keep their vote elsewhere next time. I want a liberal, pragmatic alternative to vote for in November. The Liberal Democrats should stand everywhere.
Well done Ian! It is crazy not to field candidates everywhere possible. Not fielding would say that LbDems aren’t interested in issues of crime and justice that most voters feel passionately about. That message will carry over to every other election. How can we claim to be defenders of freedoms and rights if we walk away at the first opportunity to defend them?