Plans drawn up to privatise UK police forces

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MadEdric**

**Pacific**

Albatross wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Normally, I'd be more than happy to agree with anyone who bashes the Tories,

Why? Class prejudice? Good old-fashioned tribalism? It's funny that the left don't have a problem with tribal hatred, as long as its of Conservatives. And it is hatred, ignorance and prejudice, make no mistake about it.

In my case, it's probably class prejudice. My family are working-class, and what's more, Northern.
Well, that and ideologically I have nothing in common with David Cameron, but I suppose that's no reason to hate him.

Or me. I'm Northern, working class and a Tory. Like most people who hate the Tories, you probably have more in common, in terms of ideology, with David Cameron (and modern Tories in general) than you're conscious of.

TBH, looking at Cameron's background, you have to wonder what he has in common with about 99% of the population of the UK. Although it is a problem with a lot of politicians, not just Tories. I always had a lot of time for a Lib-Dem MP who used to live in Bristol and chose to live in one of the worst housing estates in the city. But he was a minority, and you have to think that a lot of the people in power have absolutely no exposure to the poorer elements of the country, and so are content to let quite horrific conditions in some cases continue. The NHS continues to have a hard time of it - doesn't matter, I guarantee you everyone in Westminster has a private health plan. Schools going downhill? Cameron's kid won't go anywhere near a inner-city comp so it doesn't matter. The only sector you can guarantee won't fall by the wayside is the road networks, as it's one of the few places that the well-britched and the down-at-hell can potentially meet.

As for privatising the police? I agree that government run institutions are massively inefficient, but you have to think of the alternative. Turning something that is a bedrock of society into a profit making enterprise can potentially be bad for everyone in the country. The police are already bad enough as it is, and I sometimes think are more concerned about revenue collection for minor infractions of the highway code than any real focus on protecting the populace (which after all is the point of their existence). I could see it going even further towards that extreme if that happens, and as has been pointed out it hardly fills you with confidence in terms of how the privatisation of the rail system and transport network was carried out (i.e. utter gob-gak).

**Albatross**

Pacific wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Normally, I'd be more than happy to agree with anyone who bashes the Tories,

Why? Class prejudice? Good old-fashioned tribalism? It's funny that the left don't have a problem with tribal hatred, as long as its of Conservatives. And it is hatred, ignorance and prejudice, make no mistake about it.

In my case, it's probably class prejudice. My family are working-class, and what's more, Northern.
Well, that and ideologically I have nothing in common with David Cameron, but I suppose that's no reason to hate him.

Or me. I'm Northern, working class and a Tory. Like most people who hate the Tories, you probably have more in common, in terms of ideology, with David Cameron (and modern Tories in general) than you're conscious of.

TBH, looking at Cameron's background, you have to wonder what he has in common with about 99% of the population of the UK.

Have you looked at his background? His upbrining was fairly similar to a lot of upper middle-class kids in this country. His wife, on the other hand... now, she is a toff! Her family is minted. Plus, I've never seen a stable, prosperous family and an excellent education as a particularly bad thing to look for in a leader.

The NHS continues to have a hard time of it - doesn't matter, I guarantee you everyone in Westminster has a private health plan.

Cameron uses the NHS - in fact he's a massive supporter of it. Unsurprising given his family history. And what's wrong with private healthcare plans? They're affordable for most middle-class people.

Schools going downhill? Cameron's kid won't go anywhere near a inner-city comp so it doesn't matter.

I think that's a little simplistic. And haven't the Tories just set up a record number of 'free schools', in any case?

As for privatising the police? I agree that government run institutions are massively inefficient, but you have to think of the alternative.

I think this is the problem right here - people are treating it as some manichean thing, like the only choice is organ of state or private corporation. That simply isn't true. The police service (and the NHS, for that matter) will continue to be state-run, but an increased number of services that fall under their aegis will no longer be state-delivered. Why should police officers spend hours behind their desks when the same admin functions can be fulfilled by a private company? The beauty of that is that if the service you recieve is poor, you can terminate the company and hire another one. That's much harder to do in the public sector because it requires political reform, and we all know how that goes...

**dogma**

Albatross wrote:The beauty of that is that if the service you recieve is poor, you can terminate the company and hire another one. That's much harder to do in the public sector because it requires political reform, and we all know how that goes...

Well, hypothetically anyway.

In a practical sense state contracts aren't all that different from the direct provision of services by government officials.

**Albatross**

dogma wrote:
Albatross wrote:The beauty of that is that if the service you recieve is poor, you can terminate the company and hire another one. That's much harder to do in the public sector because it requires political reform, and we all know how that goes...

Well, hypothetically anyway.

In a practical sense state contracts aren't all that different from the direct provision of services by government officials.

Yes, in terms of service delivery. My point is that structural changes are often more difficult within the public sector, because of the increased political dimension of decision-making.

**sebster**

Orlanth wrote:Guardian = Daily Mail for the left.

Bit of a 'both sides' fallacy there, isn't it?

I don't really like the Guardian* and it certainly caters to a leftwing audience, but it doesn't contain the stream of lies and distortions that fill the pages of the Daily Mail.

*when I was in the UK I liked the The Times, mostly.

**Albatross**

The Guardian IS absurdly skewed towards the left - there can be no question of that. Their culture section is always worth a look though.

I too enjoy The Times, incidentally. Not that I read newspapers that much these days...

**Skylifter**

Freelance Police!! Ever since playing the original Sam & Max game and reading the comics afterwards I found it regrettable that this was not an option in my country. Not having read through all this, but I might have to relocate to the UK now. ^^

**dogma**

Albatross wrote:
Yes, in terms of service delivery. My point is that structural changes are often more difficult within the public sector, because of the increased political dimension of decision-making.

I'll present an example.

The US defense industry is infamous for inefficiency, cost overruns, and being a political sacred cow. It is primarily based on US government contracts, and their relative political insulation. Indeed, many people have argued that transferring production and R&D to the state would make the process more efficient, not less, because it would escape the issue of job creation that often enters into the present system.

Now, that doesn't mean the comparison is one to one. There are plenty of factors to UK law enforcement that I know nothing about (pay scale, unions, training requirements, etc.), but the conversion of services to private sector doesn't necessarily make it easier to cut costs in the event of poor service delivery.

**Easy E**

So, instead of the government just doing the job, the government is going to pay a middleman to do part of the job; while the Government continues to do most of the initial job?

I can't see how this could be anything but glorious!

**reds8n**

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/privatising-policing-a-step-too-far

This week’s instalment of the Leveson Inquiry has raised some pressing questions about inappropriate relations between members of the police and corporate interests. We were presented with argument that highly questionable, if not corrupt, practices were commonplace among public officials.

It’s therefore unfortunate timing that the Guardian reports today on plans by West Midlands and Surrey Police to place £1.5bn worth of business out to tender to the private sector. Or perhaps it is good timing. Because this could prove to be a development of profound significance. It demands close scrutiny.

We are not talking here about contracting out servicing police cars, the provision of IT systems, or who cleans the loos. The proposal potentially includes handing over to private companies the detention of suspects and the investigation of crime.

Inevitably this conjures up a vision of Omni Consumer Products in the dystopian world imagined in the film Robocop. But it is important not to let the possibility of a sensationalised response to the story distract from the fundamental issues it raises.

The proposal takes privatization into a different realm. Whether facilities management is provided by directly employed public servants or private contractors is largely a matter of efficiency. It doesn’t usually throw into question the very purpose or probity of the service itself.

There are questions being asked about the damage caused by police corruption now. The credibility and impartiality of the police will be permanently in question if private interests are inserted into the heart of policing practice in this way.

For every pound “saved” in providing services more cheaply how many will be spent in court challenging convictions as unsound because the people responsible for the investigation were being paid to get the job done as quickly as possible, using minimal resources, and to deliver a “successful” outcome so that profits are maximised?

But much more is at stake here. Confidence in the impartiality and probity of the police is a fundamental building block of a civilised developed society. Confidence has already taken a knock. But if these proposals proceed then it will be flat on its back, out cold.

Justice needs to be done. But it also needs to be seen to be done. That is essential to its function in sustaining social order. It is madness for the Government to contemplate allowing moves which will inevitably raise questions about inappropriate influences upon the administration of justice.

The UK currently sits at number 16 in Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perception Index, alongside Barbados and Austria. It sits lower in the ranking that most other major economies, including Hong Kong and Singapore. The UK’s “growing corruption problem” is being recognised internationally. The only small consolation is that the UK ranks ahead of the United States (24) and France (25). It is unlikely that seeking to privatize significant policing functions is going to shore up the country’s reputation.

Even libertarians committed to the minimalist nightwatchman state will typically recognise that there are sound reasons for keeping the defence and justice systems as the responsibility of the state. Not just in terms of oversight but also in terms of delivery. Yet this Government seems set to take us into uncharted territory, beyond the wildest dreams of the most fervent market fundamentalist.

More or less sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Frankly I'm rather more depressed by the (predictable) nature of the cries of support/arguments against from both sides of the political spectrum. Business as usual I guess.

**Albatross**

Fatalism is helpful.

**Manchu**

Albatross wrote:Have you looked at his background? His upbrining was fairly similar to a lot of upper middle-class kids in this country.

What percentage of the UK's population is upper middle class, when one defines David Cameron as upper middle class?

Albatross wrote:His wife, on the other hand... now, she is a toff!

And a knockout to boot. Seriously.

**Joey**

Manchu wrote:
Albatross wrote:Have you looked at his background? His upbrining was fairly similar to a lot of upper middle-class kids in this country.
What percentage of the UK's population is upper middle class, when one defines David Cameron as upper middle class?

He's the son of a stockbroker and he attented Eton. To say he's "typical", even of the upper middle class, is pushing it.

**Manchu**

It's hardly a case of social mobility, either. Wikipedia indicates that his father's job was somewhat hereditary.

**Easy E**

Frankly I'm rather more depressed by the (predictable) nature of the cries of support/arguments against from both sides of the political spectrum. Business as usual I guess.

How about this then....

Privatization can be good, if done right.

http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/pros-cons-privatizing-government-functions.html

**Joey**

That looks to me like an explicitly liberal website.

**LuciusAR**

Privatization can be fine if managed well, and I've no objection to some of the Polices background work being privatized out if it saves some cash.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of frontline police work being handled by the private sector so I'm glad that not actually being suggested and I'm totally against the plans to involve private companies in the running of prisons. I think there are grave implications for the principles of justice if profit becomes attached to incarceration.

**ShumaGorath**

Wow, a privatized police force sounds like one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

**LuciusAR**

Albatross wrote:The Guardian IS absurdly skewed towards the left - there can be no question of that. Their culture section is always worth a look though.

I too enjoy The Times, incidentally. Not that I read newspapers that much these days...

I admit that I like the Times in terms of content and contrary to what many say it's not particularly right wing at all. Politically its rather moderate. Unfortunately I won't read it as I just do want to contribute to the profits of its loathsome and morally bankrupt owner. If he sold the Times I'd start reading it against tomorrow.

I've not gotten on with the Independent in years, I used to read it a few years ago but it's gone downhill of late and the Telegraph is way too right wing for my liking. Which means that when I do read a paper it's usually the Guardian. Its flawed no doubt, but to be fair it's website is very well put together and it has a great culture section. Some of the articles are silly and it does indulge in hyperbole, but at least its heart is in the right place.

**Manchu**

ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, a privatized police force sounds like one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

What?

That's it, you're under arrest!

**MeanGreenStompa**

Joey wrote:Remember before the election when the Tories said "vote for us and we'll privatise everything"? No, me neither.
The people do not want or need this wholescale privitisation.
Expect everywhere outside of the South East to become an uninhabitable wasteland after this government is through with it.

Ever have the tories indulged and protected the home counties and ever have they denied and inflicted upon the celtic nations and the north.

Albatross, the idea of a 'state monopoly' is that the government serves the people and public industry serves the people as a whole rather than being turned to the notion of creating a profit.

How do you, as an advocate of the free market, feel about your current water providing private company? If you are dissatisfied, would you take your business elsewhere? Because as a former 'customer' of South West Water, I found I had no choice in the provider of my drinking water, I had to give money to the one private interest in my area, which was at that time and likely still is, the most expensive water rate in the country... SWW argued that this was due to the rural nature of the Cornish countryside... Yet Scotland, which remained nationalised, had the lowest rates in the UK.

A private enterprise should not hold responsibility in the enforcing of national law. I do not believe profit driven organisations should provide the basics of education, health, water, law, military or government for a nation, these things should be owned by the people and obey a simple rule of providing best service to the nation, not to shareholders.

**biccat**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:A private enterprise should not hold responsibility in the enforcing of national law. I do not believe profit driven organisations should provide the basics of education, health, water, law, military or government for a nation, these things should be owned by the people and obey a simple rule of providing best service to the nation, not to shareholders.

How do you know they're providing the best service?

In a free market, if A and B are both providing a service, we can tell which one is better at it by looking at profits and customers. If there's a monopoly - whether state or private - you can't tell which one is better.

**MeanGreenStompa**

biccat wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:A private enterprise should not hold responsibility in the enforcing of national law. I do not believe profit driven organisations should provide the basics of education, health, water, law, military or government for a nation, these things should be owned by the people and obey a simple rule of providing best service to the nation, not to shareholders.

How do you know they're providing the best service?

In a free market, if A and B are both providing a service, we can tell which one is better at it by looking at profits and customers. If there's a monopoly - whether state or private - you can't tell which one is better.

Because you regulate them and subject them to ongoing public scrutiny.

**biccat**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Because you regulate them and subject them to ongoing public scrutiny.

1) How is this different from a private corporation.

2) How does regulation and public scrutiny ensure that they're providing the best service? And how do we know that the regulators are doing a good job?

**Ahtman**

ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, a privatized police force sounds like one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

But it leads to such great things.

Screw Robocop, ED-209 was the real hero of the movie.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
2) How does regulation and public scrutiny ensure that they're providing the best service? And how do we know that the regulators are doing a good job?

Both questions are relevant to market solutions as well.

**MeanGreenStompa**

biccat wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Because you regulate them and subject them to ongoing public scrutiny.

1) How is this different from a private corporation.

2) How does regulation and public scrutiny ensure that they're providing the best service? And how do we know that the regulators are doing a good job?

1) The first priority of the public sector service is to be a public sector service. Within it, you can provide individual incentives to promote excellence and efficiency. The first priority of private sector is to make money, service is secondary to that and thus the primary national concerns as I listed them above, should serve the citizenry before any notions of profit. If you privatise them, they suffer from having to make a marked profit before they improve in service to the consumer (citizenry).

2) As dogma already said, this is applicable to private sector as well, as to how do we know, you make the results public domain information, you hold the entire thing accountable to the electorate.

**biccat**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:1) The first priority of the public sector service is to be a public sector service. Within it, you can provide individual incentives to promote excellence and efficiency. The first priority of private sector is to make money, service is secondary to that and thus the primary national concerns as I listed them above, should serve the citizenry before any notions of profit. If you privatise them, they suffer from having to make a marked profit before they improve in service to the consumer (citizenry).

The incentives you provide in the public service are limited to whatever the politicians at the head of the government are interested in. Sometimes these will align with "public service," but you're just as likely to get a populist idiot. And politicians won't even address an issue if it is unfavorable to them.

Private companies are motivated by profit, but service is necessary for profit. If you don't do a good job someone else will.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:2) As dogma already said, this is applicable to private sector as well, as to how do we know, you make the results public domain information, you hold the entire thing accountable to the electorate.

People are more likely to do what is in their interest when they vote with their wallet (who do I want to pay to get the most for my money) than when they vote at the ballot. Mostly because private companies are more focused in what they do, but also because people are more cost-conscious when they have a personal stake in something.

**MeanGreenStompa**

biccat wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:1) The first priority of the public sector service is to be a public sector service. Within it, you can provide individual incentives to promote excellence and efficiency. The first priority of private sector is to make money, service is secondary to that and thus the primary national concerns as I listed them above, should serve the citizenry before any notions of profit. If you privatise them, they suffer from having to make a marked profit before they improve in service to the consumer (citizenry).

The incentives you provide in the public service are limited to whatever the politicians at the head of the government are interested in. Sometimes these will align with "public service," but you're just as likely to get a populist idiot. And politicians won't even address an issue if it is unfavorable to them.

Private companies are motivated by profit, but service is necessary for profit. If you don't do a good job someone else will.

And if the politicians don't do a good job, someone else gets voted in next time. The populous utilises it's veto and 'fires' the CEO of Government and brings in someone else.
Service is not necessary to profit, as already listed above, the national water services in the UK were privatised and no alternatives provided. They are effective monopolies of private corporate interest and nothing is done to stop them. The private energy companies have also met to 'secure prices' at certain times, escalating the cost and their own profit without any improvements to consumer services. The pure form capitalist free market is as much a myth as the utopian fairness of communism. Corporate interest is based not around excellence but by the notion of how little can we get away with giving for how much profit.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:2) As dogma already said, this is applicable to private sector as well, as to how do we know, you make the results public domain information, you hold the entire thing accountable to the electorate.

People are more likely to do what is in their interest when they vote with their wallet (who do I want to pay to get the most for my money) than when they vote at the ballot. Mostly because private companies are more focused in what they do, but also because people are more cost-conscious when they have a personal stake in something.

You are stuck at the impasse of private companies being 'better' or 'more focused' when, as I've mentioned above, they are not striving at providing service, but at beating competitors and making the highest profit. Whilst that remains their priority, they cannot serve the people more effectively than a nationally owned and regulated national service.