Do the government hate the Police Service?

This ‘New Politics’ is weird. I’d expect that a Labour government might be accused of hostility towards the police by a senior member of the Police Federation. But a Tory-led government with a Tory Home Secretary?

At the same time, someone (nameless) in the Warwickshire Force has linked increased burglary and robbery rates in the last few months to cuts.

While there are things that the local force should do to cut costs (such as get rid of the white elephant that is their HQ at Leek Wootton), they are having to do far more. Stations are being closed or their hours cut. Neighbourhood policing will be based on PCSOs working in teams with only one police officer in charge, which means fewer officers with full powers on the beat.

Posted in Politics. Tags: . 11 Comments »

11 Responses to “Do the government hate the Police Service?”

  1. mrswormwood Says:

    Ahhh, but the Tory argument is that they are not cutting the police, they are just limiting money and it’s the police that are cutting.
    Same as everything else. They are not cutting council services, it’s the councils fault that they decided to use the excuse that they have no money to cut them.
    You, apparently, can’t blame the government for cuts. It’s all Gordon Brown and (insert the institution that’s having to make cuts here)’s fault.

    BTW, when are they going to stop with the
    Q: why are you cutting this essential service when there are other places you could make cuts?
    A: It’s all Labours fault, blame Gordon Brown that we have no money.
    Q: But that’s not what I asked?
    A: We have to make difficult decisions because of Gordon Brown
    Q: Urm, yes, and I was asking you why you decided what you would cut not whether you would cut
    A: Look Labour ruined us, and it’s your fault, if you elected us this wouldn’t have happened.
    Q: Yeah right, Labour ran Ireland, Portugal, Greece too did they?
    A: mutter mutter mutter, Gordon Brown.

  2. Steve Gould Says:

    Erm – It is Gordon Browns fault….and lets not forget Tony Blair need to take a huge slice too!! sales, non enforcement of banking regulation he controlled leading to mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, multiple credit cards to those who couldn’t afford them, missing the impact the property slump and US collapse would have on our economy, Icelandic Bank recommendations, benefits to those fit to work, no immigration policy leading to a flood from the continent.

    Anyone elses fault we are in such a mess (I’ll take bankers if you like)????

    I’m the Tories will have their faults, but we will be better off for them looking after the finances!! I also think the Lib Dem involvement helps curtail any over power they may have…..which unfortunately Labour misused their majority. Mr Blair was very clever to leave when he did.

  3. mrswormwood Says:

    just reenforces my point.

  4. Danivon Says:

    Yes, I was looking through Steve’s rant and wondering whether he’d been on the same planet as me for the past 20 years or not…

    Mr Gould, let us look at your whinge point by point.

    1) gold sales.
    Most other countries were doing the same thing. Switzerland and Australia also sold about half of their gold reserves at the same time. It was by no means a cause of any of the economic issue affecting us now.
    2) non-enforcement.
    Most of the enforcement of banking was down to the FSA, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And of course we had the entire period being told that there was too much regulation, and it was holding back the City as an engine of growth. The ‘responsible’ Tories were the prime cheerleaders for deregulation.
    3) mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them
    The banks sold products that were inappropriate, and created a way to ‘hide’ this by selling on the risk to each other, a brand new instrument that no-one could understand, let alone propose how to create new regulations for. essentially, the problem was that the banks failed to properly insure themselves. This is their fault, surely? The police are there to regulate crime, but it’s not their fault that criminals commit offences, is it?
    4) missing the impact of the property slump
    Because it was being hidden by the banks and their CDS instruments. No-one was any nearer to seeing the impact until it was clear, and by then it was too late. I presume, of course, that you can show us where you predicted the collapse well ahead? Or that the geniuses now running the UK government did? Cable, perhaps, but he predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions.
    5) Icelandic Bank recommendations
    Absolutely no connection to Brown. None at all. Utter tripe.
    6) benefits to those fit to work
    this is surprisingly nothing new. Ever since we’ve had unemployment benefits, state pensions, family allowance, etc, we have had ‘benefits to those fit to work’. Indeed, when unemployment increases due to the global economic crisis, do you seriously suggest that we should penalise those who lose their jobs as a result and can’t find new ones because of a recession?
    7) no immigration policy
    Blaeh! Under Gordon Brown, the UK introduced a points system for immigration. There clearly was a policy, it’s just that the tabloids and the idiots who believe them repeated endlessly that there wasn’t. And it suited certain factions to promote that lie. Since Maastricht (pre-Brown and pre-Blair) and the Single European Treaty (signed by one M Thatcher in 1986), the principle of opening up freedom of movement within the EU was established. The same freedom of movement that makes it easy for people to move out to the Costas or work anywhere in Europe. Of course, people came here because we were a prosperous nation with a shortage of certain skills. They worked and paid taxes, and so were less of a drain on the taxpayer than the racists would have you believe

    If you think the Tories are so good with our finances, please tell us when they left them in a better state than when they found them? They caused two major recessions in the 1979-97 era, and the disastrous Barber tax cuts led to a deficit problem in the mid 70s. For the vast majority of the 1951-64 period the government the budget was in deficit.

    And now? Banks take a major share of the blame. And the main errors that Labour in government made were to continue the light-touch pro-market stance of their predecessors, and not to increase revenues enough to keep the budget closer to parity (although we were less in debt in 2007 than we were in 1997, as a % of GDP).

    But all of that denies that since May last year this coalition has had a choice over what to do. If they had no choice, why do they bother turning up or trying, they might as well hand over the keys to the IMF or something. They have chosen to cut faster and deeper than even some of them (Cable) advocated, and since then every projection of GDP growth has been lower than the one before. They are killing our recovery, and at the same time digging the knife into the public sector. Including the police.

    The ‘blame Brown’ stance is a cover. And you, Steve, are a shill for it.

  5. mrswormwood Says:

    Hmm, good argument Danivon, but you just let the ‘let’s divert the criticism about where we make the cuts by starting and argument about who’s fault the cut’s are’ diversion win again.

    Steve – why are the coalition cutting the police funding? (points off if you mention Labour or Gordon Brown)

  6. Danivon Says:

    More to the point, I guess, is why after being told by the police that they could take cuts of up to 10-12% did the government decide that they needed to go further?

    It’s not that there are cuts, it’s that they are too fast and too harsh, and affecting front line services.

  7. Steve Gould Says:

    Hmm……nope you’ve got me MrsWormwood – I’m struggling to think why they are cutting funding without mentioning those things you mention. I’m afraid, you need to start realising they are the reasons and come up with credible alternatives.

    I love that line “It’s not that there are cuts, it’s that they are too fast and too harsh, and affecting front line services.” Maybe Mr Milliband would like to expand on what it means sometime soon?

    Probably time to be thinking up a new soundbite because, harsh as it is mis-management has put us in this predicament and the vast majority of the working country are willing to take the pain to get us back on track.

    Danivon – You are not connecting with your public if you call them whingers, a bit of an unfair personal attack which I will not lower myself to respond.

    Nice arguments you put forward, it is a shame you feel the previous government could not affect the outcome of many of these points and again your tone is down right rude.

  8. Danivon Says:

    Sorry Steve, but I think you are just trying to pick a fight (and play the victim).

    I doubt that you can substantiate the ‘vast majority’ claim. Polling numbers is showing that the coalition are not that popular. Even if it were the case, I don’t know if it’s all that relevant now. Of course people are prepared to put up with cuts now. They haven’t seen the full effects yet, and many are expecting them to hit other, ‘undeserving’ people, not themselves. In a couple of years’ time, let’s see how many people consider the pain worth it in retrospect.

    And that’s where the question of what is being cut is important. People may not be so sanguine if they see fewer police officers and notice a rise in crime. They might link the two coincident facts and draw a conclusion.

    I didn’t call ‘the public’ whingers, I described your post as a whinge. There’s a difference, which may be subtle, but is important.

    Now, you thin it’s just Labour who think that the cuts are too hard and too fast? Try looking at what the OECD have recently said. Try looking at recent growth figures and forecasts. Our economy was fragile coming out of the recession, and the pace of cuts has not helped. It would be tragic if in the zeal to close a deficit, the government ended up damaging the economy (not to mention that the best way to close a recessionary deficit is via growth)

    And rude? I disagree, and I’ve seen far to much of the Tory troll. If you think I’m too personal, how come you blame everything on a couple of people. Your focus is too narrow.

    Oh, and I guess you don’t know why we need to cut police funding by more than the police themselves said would start to affect front line services. It’s not so simple to blame every single cut on Brown and Blair. You do realise that some things are not being cut, or not by as much, right? That means that the government has made choices. The DPM said that they’d made a free choice. At some point every government needs to accept that they can’t rely on blaming their predecessors.

    By the way, I don’t see the last government as blameless – I said as much. Of course in retrospect there are all kinds of things we could say should have been done to mitigate or militate against the recession. But few people were saying those things before 2007.

  9. Steve Gould Says:

    I am a member of the public, so you did call the public (or me) a whinger which I take offence to (and that is a rude position to take based on what I put) and actually I didn’t blame 2 people, I was happy to put bankers in there too, you can add the public too for over borrowing if that makes you feel better, but legislation has not been enforced for over a decade on Labours watch.

    Now it is someone elses turn and they are not doing too bad so far (both parties).

    You are quite right we shouldn’t blame predecessors forever, but the predecessors cannot have any credibility until they accept their mistakes (all parties!!).

    Few people were saying it before 2007??? Rubbish, everyone except your party knew the bubble would blow!

    Your tone is horrible and it is why people turn off politics.

  10. Danivon Says:

    If ‘everyone’ knew beforehand, how come the Opposition at the time called for less regulation of finance and mortgages in particular? How come they urged us to emulate Ireland? How come they promised to maintain spending? If it really was that predictable, the mere foreknowledge would have been priced into the market.

    And I’m sorry that you can’t see the logical leaps you’ve made to justify feeling offended. As an analogy, if I said a player had fouled another, would that be equivalent to calling the public cheats? Maybe the player is usually clean and just misjudged a tackle. Maybe you can’t generalise from a specific person to a whole class?

    My opinion of your post is that it was a whinge. You may not be a habitual whinger, and you are not more than one person and may not be as typical as you assume. Besides, it requires your own consent to be offended – I suspect you are trolling for such opportunities to give it.

  11. Danivon Says:

    Besides – not doing so bad? Again, I refer you to the growth figures (zero net growth for 6 months) and projections (going down every time, now under 2%). The deficit may be reduced by 2015, but at what price to the wider economy?

    The NHS spending a £billion on preparing for reforms that nobody really wants (other than those who stand to make money out of them)?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: