Criminally low levels of turnout

**While it may have escaped your attention, last week saw the police force undergo a radical change. On a wave of public indifference, 41 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were elected to bring the force into the 21st century. While the introduction of PCCs was once a keystone of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ vision, the months before their introduction saw the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm evaporate. So much so, in fact, he forgot to tell anyone about them.**

Indeed, much of the understandable public frustration with these elections stemmed from a pronounced absence of information on both the purpose of PCCs and the candidates themselves. The scarcity of literature telling voters what the election was about predictably left many unengaged and uninterested.

The result was a historically low voter turnout. Across the country fewer than 15% of those eligible bothered voting. Many have reasonably voiced concerns on the validity of the elections and the authority of those elected. But what are PCCs actually required to do?

The new commissioners are primarily responsible for holding local police forces to account. They must also appoint the chief constable of their force, set out local policing priorities and report annually on progress. They in turn will be overseen by police and crime scrutiny panels made up of local councillors among others, whose job is to publicly scrutinise the decisions and performance of the commissioners.

The emphasis, then, is on a more transparent and accountable police force. By making people directly and visibly accountable, the plan is to improve the standard of policing throughout the country. Those elected would be directly answerable to voters and expected to respond to their concerns and suggestions.

A sharp injection of accountability into our police force is a commendable, if overdue, improvement. However, it is hard to argue that the implementation of PCCs has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster. It was a marked failure of the government to convince the public these reforms were necessary or indeed desirable. Scores went as far as spoiling their ballot in protest.

Many were justifiably indignant at the overt party associations of the candidates, the majority of whom ran under their respective banners. With distrust in politics at an all-time high, these were unfavourable associations. Party politics undermined confidence in what should have been an independent and objective role. There would always be at least the suspicion that those with party associations will be coerced by the parties they represent.

Murky politics inevitably accompany public elections, as indeed was apparent in the campaigning of several PCC candidates. Many made opaque and occasionally deliberately misleading promises, often on issues outside their realm of influence. There was a real concern that commissioners could attempt to interfere with the running of police forces, putting pressure on constables to chase headline-grabbing initiatives over tackling serious crime.

Make no mistake though, a change was necessary. Recent years have seen damning examples of substandard policing and cover ups, from the scandal of Hillsborough to the more recent failures in protecting young, vulnerable girls in Rotherham from the horrors of systematic abuse. The police have too often been let off easily for misconduct and incompetence.

In the past, the police authorities, a collection of local councillors and independent, appointed members, were responsible for overseeing the police. They were an invisible body, answerable only to political figures that most people had never heard of. Their limp and ponderous response to police indiscretions was a further injustice to victims of such transgressions.

PCCs are a step in the right direction. If they are eventually successful they will deliver a more visibly and publicly accountable police force. That they are directly responsible, and themselves accountable, for the performance of those they oversee can only bring more just and transparent regulation of our police.

Their election, under party banners, by a generally apathetic and scandalously ill-informed public was unacceptable. PCCs are central to the sweeping reforms taking place in our police and the government had a responsibility to make the electorate aware of their role and their necessity. They chose to remain silent. Many felt either too ill-informed or too misinformed to make an educated decision. Perhaps it’s best that most didn’t care.