Do voters really want to choose their police commissioner?

 
Man with crowbar breaking into a house

With less than 50 days to go until elections for the new police and crime commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales, there is growing anxiety that one of the government's flagship criminal justice reforms resembles a slow-motion car crash.

The introduction of directly-elected commissioners was hailed by its Conservative architects as a vital step in "giving people democratic control over policing priorities".

But there are questions as to whether our democracy is really going to deliver on this promise.

The Electoral Reform Society (ERS), along with 20 PCC candidates, has now written to the Home Secretary Theresa May warning of an impending disaster.

"These elections are in serious danger of descending into a farce," said Katie Ghose, chief executive of the ERS. "If the home secretary is serious about people having a say she needs to listen to the warnings coming from all sides and take action now."

The questions voters may ask

Q: Shouldn't we just have more bobbies on the beat?

A: Just having more people or responding more quickly to calls from the public does not necessarily reduce crime or reassure people. Patrolling on foot can reduce crime where it is targeted in crime hotspots.

And more Q&As below

The signatories warn that turn-out in the elections, due to be held on 15 November, may well be the lowest in modern political history. Last month the ERS projected that only 18.5% of voters would participate.

Among the ERS demands is for the government to pledge "never to hold a major election in the winter again".

The Home Office hopes public excitement about the opportunity voters are being offered to hold the police accountable may build in the coming weeks. But in a speech earlier this month, the new Policing Minister Damian Green hinted at government concern about voter apathy.

"I know that I have a job to engage the public with the policy of PCCs over the next eight weeks in order to persuade people to get out and vote," he said. "I personally, together with other ministers, will be going around the country to talk to as many people about the benefits police and crime commissioners can bring and why they should go out and vote."

At the moment, though, it seems doubtful this exercise will be held up as a model of how to empower local communities.

The PCC areas are huge. Some commissioners will represent the interests of millions of people - an electorate far greater than any MP. If turn-out really is as low as predicted, what does it mean for democratic legitimacy? In a tight vote, some candidates may claim a mandate based on support from less than one in 10 of the local population.

Start Quote

Never hold a major election in the winter again”

End Quote Electoral Reform Society

I don't think it is the paucity of leaflets and national marketing that explains lack of public interest in PCC elections. Nor can the likely low turn-out just be blamed on autumnal chill and drizzle.

There is a more fundamental question - does the public really want the responsibility of selecting the best person to set police priorities in their area?

Among the fervent few who organise fringe events at party conferences, the democratic deficit represented by "unaccountable police authorities" may inspire tub-thumping rhetoric. But I have to say it has not been a subject much discussed at my bus stop.

People are worried about crime, of course. But in a developed democracy like ours, one gets the sense that voters expect others to worry about the minutiae of public service delivery. They realise, perhaps, that policing is a complex business and it is questionable whether the electorate believes it is well placed to judge who has the best ideas on resource allocation for, say, domestic violence against rural crime.

Breaking a car window to steal a laptop More police won't necessarily help

I may be wrong. When the arguments over police priorities start to be played out in the letters pages of local newspapers, on the doorsteps and in the pubs, perhaps we will get the thoughtful and realistic debate government ministers clearly hope to inspire.

But there is a concern that, actually, public discussion will be dominated by familiar simplistic refrains - the answer to crime is "bobbies on the beat" or "zero-tolerance" or simply "more police". (See my previous blog on whether bobbies on the beat really cut crime.)

Speaking to PCC candidates, Damian Green recently made the point that "manifestos need to be credible, evidence-led and show innovative thinking". And on Thursday Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) did its bit to try and prevent the elections turning into an arms-race of impractical promises.

It raises the questions it suspects voters are likely to ask and then provides the best evidence on what works to cut crime.

Q: Shouldn't we just have more bobbies on the beat?

A: Just having more people or responding more quickly to calls from the public does not necessarily reduce crime or reassure people. Patrolling on foot can reduce crime where it is targeted in crime hotspots.

Q: What about zero tolerance - isn't that how they reduced crime in New York?

A: The New York police chief at the time has said that zero tolerance does not describe what happened, and that community policing and an organisational focus on crime reduction and quality of life issues were key.

Q: Shouldn't we just employ more police to cut crime?

A: A recent review of the literature commissioned by HMIC concluded that there was not enough evidence to say that higher numbers of police officers was the direct cause of lower levels of crime, although extra officers have the potential to cut some forms of recorded crime.

Q: Doesn't fear of being caught stop the criminals?

A: Recent survey research from the UK showed that the risk of being caught and punished was linked to lower levels of reported traffic offending (like speeding) but not other minor crime. For prolific offenders, the fear of being caught can reduce crime when combined with support interventions.

This idea is to help inform a more nuanced and sophisticated debate about police and crime. The HMIC sums up its conclusion saying that "focusing action on crime and anti-social behaviour hotspots, repeat victims, and prolific or high volume offenders is, therefore, an effective way to allocate resources for crime reduction".

It also makes the point that police officers charging around trying to look tough may well prove counter-productive. "By treating people equally, making decisions fairly, explaining them and being respectful, the police can encourage people to cooperate with them and not break the law."

I wonder, though, whether voters will brave the wind and the wet on 15 November to register their support for candidates who say they don't support more "bobbies on the beat", that zero tolerance is a myth, that resources should be skewed towards the poorer high-crime areas and that they want their officers to be nicer to people.

 
Mark Easton, Home editor Article written by Mark Easton Mark Easton Home editor

More on This Story

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 107.

    The issue hear is what will they do for the community ?? I am ignorant of what a Police Commissioner actually does and whilst I'm all for democracy anyone I talk to does not have a clue who is running for the PCC in our area. Why not leave it to our local Councillors to act as PCCs ???

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 106.

    Will Vote.

    My guess is a Tory will get in.

    Will never see him, and I doubt he'll do more than the bare minimum.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 105.

    Sometimes decisions that are "right" are not decisions that are "popular". Reams of research points to community engagement and rehabilitation as the best ways to cut crime, but as the article points out the "popular" answers are more police, more prisons and zero-tolerance. Why can't we have our public bodies run by people that have experience on the ground, rather than self-serving politicians?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 104.

    The area where I live had the second highest voter turnout in the Borough at the last elections.

    most of the people ive spoken to about these elections either dont know, dont care or think the winner will be the new Chief Constable.

    I will be very suprised if the turnout here is higher than 20%.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 103.

    Sadly,in most areas it will be impossible to vote for anyone who knows much at all about policing.
    In Notts, at least we have the opportunity to vote for an ex-police officer.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 102.

    In 8 hours, this subject has amassed just over 100 comments.

    Make of that what you will lol

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 101.

    My concern is that people will vote for the one that comes across best on camera or in print ie: the person that can sell themselves the best. That's won't necessarily be the best person for the job.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 100.

    We seriously need proper electoral reform: low turnout does not mean apathy, it means a resounding 'NO. What a pathetic waste of my time'

    Online voting system please.

    As for politicising the police, wow... I don't think I've ever seen quite such a lame duck... this one's so lame, it wouldn't get served in a Chinese restaurant.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 99.

    Why should I vote for a faceless (and undoubtedly comfortably off) person to receive a large salary (the senior salaries review body has recommended.between £65,000 to £100,000 a year) at a time when we have no money for real social support?

    What's wrong with the present system?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 98.

    The police should not be politicised in this way and they should not need elected commissioners to act in a 'democratic' manner, for this should be something they do anyway, as they are the police. If we have such a high deficit, why are we paying for elections and a new position that will only create political problems and cost, eventually, even more money?! Let the police be police.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 97.

    This position is pointless and will become nothing more than another opportunity for failed politicians. In our area we have Ms Baird, comprehensively rejected by the Redcar electors,but almost certain to get the North East post being nominated in the Labour heartlands.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 96.

    ref my own 'optimistic' comment on this matter (#93)

    the darker and perhaps more realistic view of these elections is that they have not been well advertised deliberately & specifically_ so that the option of electing police & crime commissioners can be withdrawn from the public in future as 'not workable'

    that is NOT 'conspiracy theory'
    it is a standard element of 'social policy'

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 95.

    No. Most of the public are stupid and even the intelligent member of the public won't know who is best for the job.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 94.

    No. This is just another one of Dodgy Dave's Dodgy 'smoke and mirrors' Deals.

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 93.

    this is a very new concept for the electorate
    AND not well advertised/organised for a public vote
    BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT!!

    by making police & crime commissioners an elected position the (Labour!) government has given the public a say in policing IN THE FUTURE _
    so regardless of turnout now_ the position should always remain 'electable' and gradually the UK public will accept it as a norm

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 92.

    I just want someone who can do a good job. I can't choose on the basis of whatever the candidates have chosen to say about themselves in their public handouts. In fact I haven't even seen any. Who are these people I am supposed to vote for?

    What a farce!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 91.

    87. John

    No, we need someone in charge who has the experience and qualifications for the role. This is how the real world works in business and other organisations. Didn't we have a former postman as a chancellor and a former waiter as a deputy PM+++
    +++
    Just like banks eh? The recent police scandals just go to show that the police need to be more accountable. Toffs only for power eh?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 90.

    No

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 89.

    NO

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 88.

    More politicians. Woo.

 

Page 2 of 7

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.