And so...

Here we are. Election day has arrived.

With this post may I wish all the candidates standing for election today well. (All the PCC candidates, the by election candidates and the mayoral contest in Bristol.) It takes a strange mix of courage, confidence, vanity and masochism to stand for election and I applaud all those who are taking the risk today. There are many who never pass by an opportunity to have a go at politicians. I often wonder how many of those people would take the risk the be so very publicly counted.

And like Sam Chapman, I hope that the best people win and go on to make an extraordinary contribution to policing and public life following their election. (Although, unlike Sam, I am less than enthusiastic about the PCC governance model: I think it dangerously concentrates power in the hands of a single individual and is anything but 'local'.)

Moreover, I wish all supporters, party workers, letterbox stuffers, telephone canvassers, GOTVers and polling station tellers well too. This is democracy in action. Long may it continue to thrive.

And now to action... 30 minutes and counting!

John Howson: second preference?

John Howson (Lib Dem candidate of Thames Valley PCC) has posted my description of him on his blog. You can see it here. I don't mind, and I won't be charging a copyright royalty fee...

However, as I have been open and transparent on where I will be placing my second preference vote (see below) and now that Professor Howson has indeed used my words, I thought he might have had the grace to be equally open about how he will be casting his second preference vote...

So then I see further down the page, a reference to the questions placed in the box at the Oxford Hustings and John Howson's answers. I clicked on the link hopefully...

I saw my question reprinted:

You will all of course be giving your own first preference vote to yourselves. But you and everyone else have a second preference vote too. Will you be using your second preference to vote? If so, who for and why? If not, why will you not be casting a second vote?

And then I read his answer:

I will be using my second preference and invite every voter to use both preferences. However, the second preferences of the candidates who come first and second will be ignored.

Hmm. Either Professor Howson did not read all of my question, or he has copped out. So come on, John Howson, what is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for gander... If you quote me and my second preference, you could at least return the transparent favour...?

PCCS: Vote Tim STARKEY!

Yesterday, Michael Crick (highly respected political reporter for Channel 4 News) posted this extraordinary tweet:

It would appear that Anthony Stansfeld was hiding from him. Mr Crick's later report confirmed that he had tried 15 times to get in touch but got nowhere. You can see the whole report here.

So is Cllr Stansfeld "afraid of an election, is he? Afraid? Frightened? Frit?"

He should be. There are enough questions about his past and present that still remain unanswered. And he faces a formidable campaigner in the shape of Tim Starkey, the Labour Party Candidate.

There is not much time left to ensure that Tim becomes PCC. I fear for local policing if Anthony Stansfeld is elected. His campaign promises do not add up, he eulogises about his recent achievements and basks in the glory of long past efforts in Borneo and manufacturing planes. But in total, the facts do not add up. If his campaign was a job application, I don't believe any employer would appoint him.

On the other hand Tim's campaign has focused on clearly stated priorities, he is endorsed by the former Chief Constable of Thames Valley and he has sharp end experience of criminal matters and policing through his role as a barrister.

Contrast Tim's sharp end experience with that of Anthony Stansfeld who decided that requesting a chauffeur driven car for the incoming PCC (which I am guessing he assumed to be himself) was a priority matter to address before almost anything else. What does that tell you about the man?

So please give your first preference vote to

Tim STARKEY [X] 

and you might at least get to meet your new PCC...

20,000 and counting!

I hoped that I would be able to post this before election day - and I can! This blog has now been browsed over 20,000 times. Thank you to all my occasional and regular readers!

PCCs: Vote Labour!

We are now in the last few hours of what for many has been a very long campaign. It will soon all be over and by Friday afternoon, 41 PCCs will have been elected (regardless of any decisions to opt out or spoil ballot papers).

It seemed to be the right time to reflect on why I hope 40 Labour PCCs will be elected.

I have been a Labour activist for nearly 40 years, stuffing leaflets through people's doors in the good and bad times. Some years, it has been hard to do this. I profoundly disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq (and still do), I could see how PFi would end up, I worried about a drift away from upholding human rights and so forth. I could go on!

Being a political activist is about resolving the mix between pragmatism and idealism.

In some ways I am envious of the Green Party supporter who snorted "a rather staggering amount of cognitive dissonance!" at me on Saturday. I wish I could be that pure. I almost admire the Socialist Workers Party / Communist Party of GB / People's Liberation Party of Judea for how they persuade people into stapling thousands of placards onto wooden sticks before every demo in London: so organised (and yet... so ineffectual).

But I always come home to Labour. Partly what keeps me coming home is the thought of all the people who are being exploited by the Libor fixers, the wholesale gas 'merchants', the pay day loan sharks, the glib disability 'assessors', the PPI telephone fraudsters and the people who just don't give one jot for the lot of people who live round the corner from them.

In the end, what keeps me voting & supporting Labour is the anger that we live in a society which means that millions of people don't even get to dream about a better future for themselves and their families, let alone a chance to make their ambition come true. Labour is the party of aspiration! Always has been and always will be. Because in Labour, we aim to create a world in which everyone has the resources to shape and realise their dreams and ambitions. That is what keeps us going.

But what has all this to do with policing?

Policing, like any public service, is about making choices. There will never be enough police officers / doctors / teachers / care assistants / road repairers / etc to go around. Choices have to be made as to where to deploy these scarce resources. This is a political choice. Along with the Countryside Alliance, my Tory PCC candidate wants the balance between rural and urban policing to remain as it is, even if it is the wrong balance. Why could it be wrong? It depends on where harm is greatest. If a disproportionate slice of police resources deployed in the countryside, more victims of crime will suffer in the towns. It is as simple as that.

So as a Labour activist, I want police resources distributed fairly. And I judge what is fair by the degree to which harm from crime is minimised. This is an issue that you won't have heard Tory PCC candidates or indeed Independents talk much about (although I am happy to learn otherwise). This is important and this is political.

As I have said before, I am not ideologically opposed to outsourcing (how can I be, given the job I do etc...) but (and it is a BIG BUT) I am opposed to outsourcing which exploits the citizen and taxpayer, as much of it does! Therefore this is a political issue.

The PCCs will have the power to set council tax precepts and this again is political. I would rather have a Labour PCC who focuses on value rather than someone else focusing only on cost when setting precepts in the future.

The LGIU have analysed the top pledges made by PCC candidates of various hues and at number five for Conservative candidates is "Engagement. A legal requirement of the job, but enough Conservatives are making a virtue out of this necessity to bring it in a number five". Excuse me while I fall of my chair. The Labour Party was born out of community activism. It is in our blood. What record does the Conservative Party have of being engaged with local communities, or supporting community activism? In local Tory councils, what get's cut first? Etc...

So I urge you to vote Labour on Thursday. Using the LGIU's analysis again, vote for

• Boosting neighbourhood policing.
• Protecting police numbers 
• Resisting privatisation
• A real focus on victims and witnesses
• Partnership working that works
• A service that is tough on crimes that are often overlooked

Questions about Anthony Stansfeld that we will probably never get answers to...

Perhaps you have alighted on this blog post after searching for information about Anthony Stansfeld, the Conservative candidate for the Thames Valley Police & Crime Commissioner. Perhaps you are a regular reader of this blog. Either way, here are some questions which I hope may one day be answered:

• How come Anthony Stansfeld was selected over David Burbage (leader of Windsor & Maidenhead Council) and why has Cllr Burbage stayed so quiet in recent weeks?
• Why does Cllr Stansfeld talk so much about his time in Borneo and being MD of Pilatus Britten-Norman and so little about his time as a cabinet member of West Berkshire Council (a post much closer to being PCC)?
• Did that company export planes to Burma, Iraq and Iran in the 1990's and did he as managing director approve those exports?
• Why did Cllr Stansfeld declare 'ELS' on his Thames Valley Police Authority register of interests but an entirely different company (FIDAS) on his West Berkshire Council declaration?
• Why has mention of him being "Chairman of a small company that has interests in water systems for agriculture and energy recovery systems for industry" now slipped off later CVs and his campaign newspaper?
• Given Cllr Stansfeld's understanding of the seven principles of public life, why has he got so tetchy with me investigating public records about his commercial and other interests? (And for the record again, I have not been trawling through his expenses or his bank accounts...!)
• Why do some of his pledges contradict each other?
• How come Cllr Stansfeld appears to believe that he has single-handedly improved performance of Thames Valley under his chairmanship of the TVPA sub committee on performance, overlooking the official police authority report which documents improvements and better scrutiny from well before his tenure?
• Why does he believe he is the best person for the job when the PCC role was designed to overcome the problems of police authorities, of which he has been a local member for several years?

I could go on. But one day perhaps, we might get some answers....


You can follow my research and thinking about Cllr Anthony Stansfeld in one easy to read place and perhaps deduce, like me, that the facts just do not add up... See all collected posts about this matter in one place by clicking this link

If you can't get cynical as you get older, what's the point?

Yesterday, my wife and I shared a glorious walk through the leaves up at Stowe. We are fortunate to live within walking distance of the place, although we usually drive there.

After walking for nearly an hour we felt justified in returning to enjoy a free cream tea for two. We won this in a raffle on Friday at the opening reception to a local art show hosted by Buckingham Art for All. At the Stowe refectory, we ended up sitting next to a couple, a little older than us and got into conversation with them. It ended with the man saying to me that it was good to meet another Conservative... and we bade them farewell.

How did we get to that point? Allow me to reflect on the conversation which included me saying the title of this post and the other couple laughing.

The other man did most of the talking which centred on his abhorrence of rules and regulations (and consequently the EU) and how things were so much better when corporal punishment was liberally applied in schools. And how he can't bear this idea of Police & Crime Commissioners. He was frankly amazed that his own party had brought it in and was considering voting UKIP if he voted at all. I said (and I think this is where he may have got the impression I was a Tory) that I understood and that I think a lot of Conservatives are thinking of voting UKIP. I also suggested that perhaps one day, care of superior virtual technology, one will be able to jump into a black & white movie from the fifties (à la Mary Poppins) and spend two weeks having a retro experience. Both he and I wife thought that would be a great idea. I quite fancy it myself although I think my chosen era would be late sixties...

But it struck me that what underlay his rants against the modern day world and his cynical dismissal of what governments of all hues do, was a shattered dream. I think he holds onto a dream, which perhaps was once even a reality for him, of a Britain of gentle cricket, warm beer and courteous respect. A kinder, less frenetic, less tortured world.

I think I share that dream.

I suspect that like me, he would raise his eyebrows with disbelief at the increasing numbers of technical standards that people have to follow - ISO 9000 this and COSHH regulation that and so forth. He might even despair of a world which seems intolerant of mistakes or in which people are cautious about what they know and therefore do not wish to jump to easy conclusions.

All this brings me round to say that I believe the most ardent cynics are also the most ardent dreamers too. I have vented my cynical spleen about PCCs mostly through my 'Diary of a Secret PCC' blogs. But these blogs are merely camouflage for a deep despair that I feel towards the whole concept.

I want a police service and set of crime prevention agencies which fair buzz with a focus on really improving the safety of our communities. I want these services to vibrate with the wishes, needs, hopes and dreams of the people they serve so that the right priorities are selected. I also earnestly hope that one day crime fighting and crime prevention will resonate with evidence based practice like the health service does nowadays (although it still has a long way to go).

Police & Crime Commissioners are not the answer. I don't think there are many people who do think they are the answer other than a few policy wonks in a couple of right wing 'think tanks'.

But as I have said on many occasions before.... we are saddled with this daft experiment. All I can hope is that we end up with PCCs who are cynical dreamers and who will use every molecule of their being to ensure that they do no harm. With a fair wind, they might even do some good before the next Labour Government puts in place a wiser model of governance.

Secret diary of a PCC (day nine)

Of course there were many people who said the legislation was poorly drafted, and the Home Office had not done enough to publicise and inform people about the election... yada yada. But of course, I knew that the Government knew exactly what it was doing. The legislation was made to look amateurish (for example) just so that people would not scrutinise too much. Hidden in its words were some very clever clauses.

For example the law says that the PCC "must consult the relevant chief constable before issuing or varying a police and crime plan if, and to the extent that, the plan or variation is different from the draft prepared in accordance with subsection (6)."

The simple people will have read this and thought that just sounds nice and polite: the PCC has to work with the Chief Constable and all will be hunky dory. But of course the wiser people like me will have spotted to two key aspects to this. It is only about consulting the Chief Constable. I can still completely ignore what the Chief says! (Unlike, as it happens what the Home Office says as the law there is more crunchy: "In issuing or varying a police and crime plan, a police and crime commissioner must have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued by the Secretary of State under section 37A of the Police Act 1996."  ...note the "must have regard to" bit!)

And secondly, because I have consulted the CC, I can blame him/her for when it all goes belly up! Rather like when that Entwhistle chap at the BBC resigned over the Newsnight programme.

It will be exactly the same with my tenure. If it all goes well and the plan that Winger is working on (mental note: have not heard from him for a few days mind you - hope he hasn't got too pally with that Chief Superintendent in charge of planning what not) achieves all the results we hope for, then I will claim the credit. If it goes wrong and crime stops falling (for example) then I can blame the Chief Constable. I will be saying that it was his/her operational command that led to the poor results etc etc etc....

I win either way. Bliss! (That is what I call 'clever' legislation...)

And as for people being ill informed... well tough. There was enough news coverage. Some people clearly did not have the blasted gumption to go and find out more about it! It is not for government to spoon feed people after all.

As it happened, this is what we wanted, of course. Heaven forbid that we had a democracy where every low life voted! Who knows who we would get elected then!!

• Day one
• Day two
• Day three
• Day four
• Day five
• Day six
• Day seven
• Day eight
• Welcome memo from Chief

The second preference

This morning in Oxford, one long time Labour supporter told me that he was going to vote Lib Dem for the first time in his life as his second preference. 

I have been interested in people's second preferences and earlier blogged about how I had cast my second preference vote. And so at the Oxford hustings a few days ago, I placed this question in the box but there was not time for all the questions to be answered. However, the chair said he would bring all the questions to the attention of the candidates so that they could reply individually. I received (UKIP) Barry Cooper's answer this morning.

First my question was 

You will all of course be giving your own first preference vote to yourselves. But you and everyone else have a second preference vote too. Will you be using your second preference to vote? If so, who for and why? If not, why will you not be casting a second vote?

Here is his answer which he was happy for me to blog:

I am telling people to vote for the person they think will do the job almost as well as me!

On a more serious note, in my opinion there are two answers here. If you are happy with how things have been run for years and you are looking for some continuity and actual “small c” conservative values, Anthony Stansfeld is the best second choice – he is not a “modernised” Tory and I still think his rosette should be purple and not blue given how much he has tried to “out UKIP” me at several hustings! Of the other party affiliated candidates, I think he is also the least likely to allow himself to be used as a simple mouth-piece for his party, although whether that will be possible considering the presence of the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Attorney General in the Thames Valley still concerns me.

If you are looking for the person who will most likely embrace the democratic element of the role almost as much as me (although I am less comfortable with his general politics than I am with Anthony’s), then it has to be Tim Starkey. A big concern for me here is that there will likely be a Labour government again in 2015, and I think Tim is a bit too much of a Labour “true believer” to act truly independently from his party and fight against them to protect the police. But both are head and shoulders above the other options (and the prospect of one person in particular getting in frankly terrifies me), and one of these two will get my second preference; I will probably not decide which until polling day.

So there you have it - Barry Cooper will be either voting Tory or Labour. You heard it here first!

Opting out

As was widely reported a couple of weeks ago Lord Blair declared that people should not vote in the coming election. According to the BBC report "he told the Sky News Murnaghan programme the only way to stop the proposal was to refuse to take part in the elections".

I was out campaigning on the streets of Oxford this morning with Tim Starkey, Cllr John Tanner and Pete Willsman. As we handed out leaflets we received the usual range of responses from people perceiving us as invisible to the naked eye to others who proudly announced they had already voted Labour in their postal ballot. I think we handed out about 400 - 500 leaflets to passers by in the 3 hours or so we were there.

However one woman surprised me: she poured on us equal & large quantities of vitriol and scorn from her very lofty position in the Green Party. She maintained this was a terrible model of governance which was politicising something that should not be politicised and by taking part, we were colluding in this horrific enterprise.

Up to a point, of course, I agree with her wholeheartedly. This blog post would become tedious were I to list all the failings of this new governance model and the way in which the Home Office has managed the electoral process. (The fact that several people snatched the leaflet from our hands with words something like "at last some information!" was testament to this.)

But of course where I disagree with her is judgement that to be engaged with this electoral process is something akin to fascism. I know there are many people who are opting out, along with Lord Blair, for linked and other reasons.

But is opting out.... opting out?

Here are some facts and predictions:

• These elections will go ahead and some people will vote. 
• This time next week (barring some electoral quirk), the country will have 41 PCCs
• These PCCs will be setting the plans and council tax precept in the weeks that follow
• Moreover, where there are vacancies, some of these PCCs will be appointing new Chief Constables shortly as well
• Turnout will be extraordinarily low which means that there might be surprise results
• However even if the turnout is as low as 10% or less, the elections will be still be legal
• Low turnout will be blamed on the November schedule and I fully expect the Lib Dems to be blamed for that.
• Higher than usual proportions of spoilt ballot papers will be blamed on the voting system

In other words: not voting or spoiling ballot papers will not make one jot of difference except where it matters most: the results. Not voting, will favour the candidates who have managed to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. In most places this will be the Tories because I suspect many of them will dutifully go out and vote because it was their policy in the first place.

So not voting or spoiling your ballot paper will allow you to remain disgruntled / in profound disagreement / sanctimonious / apart / etc. (delete as applicable) but your 'non vote' will be, in effect, a vote for a party or individual (or both) that you entirely disagree with. That person may well do things in the future as PCC that you will have no real justification to criticise since you did not do the one small thing you could to prevent them gaining power.

All it will take for a crumby and damaging PCC to be elected would be for good people to do nothing..

And so, I have voted and I have been campaigning in various ways (this blog is one of those ways) to a) increase people's understanding of this new role and b) persuade people to vote Labour in the elections on Thursday. Through this I hope to make a terrible model of governance a little less terrible by helping make sure good people are elected and that everyone knows from the outset, the problems with the model. For me, this is the basis of changing the model when Labour are back in power. 

By all means, do exercise your 'right' not to vote or spoil your ballot paper (a 'right' that many millions in the world would love to have), if you are so inclined. But please do not think of this as a revolutionary act or protest that will heard. In my view, it is not, and may well benefit the people you least want to be benefited. 

What is truth? (Secret diary of a PCC: day eight)

The great thing about being a PCC candidate was that I could make a whole series of promises which nobody could really challenge. Yes there were a few bearded academics who tried to get on Newsnight to complain and ACPO did its usual huffing and puffing but all the local papers were just lapping it up. The hustings were even better because there was no dialogue, just a series of questions to which we as candidates all gave our long replies, There was no comeback.

Well there was one mad cyclist woman who wore her helmet through out the meeting and kept asking me what I was going to f'ing do about cycle lanes and vans and even f'ing Bradley Wiggins getting knocked off his bike etc etc... So I just promised her that I would prioritise cycle safety. That seemed to shut her up and maybe she even voted for me. Of course, I am going to do diddley squat about cycle safety because a) it is not in my power and b) I am not that bothered if a few cyclists graze their knees - this isn't Brighton or Oxford.

Anyway, so here's a list of the promises I made during the campaign that I am now fully expecting to forget, at least until 3 years comes around...:

• There will be a bobby with rosy cheeks standing outside village shops every day of the week except Sundays when he will be seen sitting in the local Church. They will all be male, slightly overweight and have gravelly voices like Jack Warner.
• All drug pushers will be arrested and locked up for a very, very long time.
• People who make too much noise late at night will be made to listen to non-stop Edith Piaf for 3 days
• I will recruit 3000 more special constables because they will get a 50% reduction in the council tax and half price petrol vouchers
• People who commit murder will go to gaol for a very long time

It doesn't really matter that I can't do any of these things because I ran my campaign on a thematic basis - and the theme was policing of yesteryear. If I could have got all my meetings and canvassing done in the magic hour, with Claude Berri directing my promo vid, I would have done so. I knew what the public wanted to hear and so I told them.

The other candidates seemed to have a problem with truth. I merely said (and still say): with regard to PCCs and the truth... what is truth?

• Day one
• Day two
• Day three
• Day four
• Day five
• Day six
• Day seven
• Welcome memo from Chief

That special question

It seems that a good many PCC candidates (mostly Tory ones as far as I have seen) seem to want to boost numbers of special constables and decide how they should be deployed.

I am not going to write much on this topic as it has been very well commented upon by the blogger here and I commend his post to you. He raises some very important questions which deserve answers, not least from the PCC candidates who are making the 'commitments'.

You will read my comments on his post there.

Suffice to say, I think special police officers play an important role in 21st century policing but we must remember they are volunteers. Their operational deployment must reflect that fact.

Lincs Police / G4S risk register: more analysis

Steve Bachelder has written to me with his comments on the risk register I published a couple of days ago:

The point I want to make about the risk register is in relation to the length of the contract i.e. 10 years. This has always seemed ridiculous to me and I was somewhat surprised to see that it is not mentioned in the risk register. There has to be a risk that the service provided will not meet the standards required by Lincolnshire as happened in Cleveland with the custody suites that they brought back in house. There is also the possibility that the supplier might go bust and stop the service again no mention in the risk register. These are to me fairly obvious risks but apparently not to Lincolnshire?

Many thanks Steve. Good points.

I have been doing  looking some more at the risk register too...

Risk 12: Inability to implement t-police solution with required timescales - this is the only risk that is flagged red so I thought it demanded some attention. First question: "t-police" ?? Here is your answer if you want the full Cap Gemini presentation (pdf download). You will read that "transform police" means "Enabling more informed and connected police services through an integrated law enforcement solution – enhancing the frontline and support functions" I am now beginning to see why this risk is coded red... The probability of the risk occurring has been scaled up from 3 to 4. The recommended action is "Project Risk Register required for t-police. Increased scrutiny by CPT team. External visits are being sought to Cheshire and Nothants. Quality Assurance process required for t-police implementation" By the way is this the same Nothants where there is a by-election next week?

Probably not - but I could not resist it.

But, back to the risk register... so people are off to the forces which are implementing t-police to learn about good practice, I assume. What have they found I wonder? It would seem from this news story that Northamptonshire and Cheshire are still fairly early on in their joint journey.

Whilst "Cheshire Police Authority signed a framework agreement with Capgemini for IT services to support back-office policing activities in February last year", it transpires that in "the autumn the partnership will move to the next phase and introduce a human resources shared service and implement technology to support HR and duty management". So that is about now then....

Interestingly the article in Computer Weekly also says "despite Capgemini’s role, the forces stress it is not outsourcing, because ownership and accountability remain with Cheshire and Northamptonshire Police, with the two forces acting as equal partners". Hmmm. (My added emphases of course.)

So a key pillar of the G4S/Lincs Police partnership is hardly off the drawing board in two other police areas. The risk is coded red. We watch and wait to see what happens. Of course it will all be fine as we know the track record for joined up IT systems in the police service: efficiency improvements by the score!

Can policing be bought and sold?

This is the title of a new report published by the Police Foundation based upon a meeting of the Policing Policy Forum with support from the University of Oxford's Centre for Criminology and Capita. You can download the report from here.

A group of the great and good from the world of policing got together with other key interested parties on 4 November. The report begins with this context setting paragraph:

In the current context of austerity and cuts to budgets, police forces are looking to do more with less and it is clear that a larger market for the buying and selling of policing services is emerging. This raises a range of questions such as: what kinds of tasks are suitable for outsourcing? What factors should be considered? How do we ensure that the outsourcing arrangement provides good value for money, while upholding the required standards of service the public expect from their police force?

I recommend that you read the report as there are some important themes to understand here.

Interestingly, there was only one politician present, the current Chairman of (you guessed it) Lincolnshire Police Authority, Cllr Barry Young.

I am not going to an analysis of the report but I would merely wish to highlight one remark from the report:

The Forum agreed that the relationship between the police and the public is of paramount importance and any potential effect of outsourcing on this relationship must be seriously considered. It was pointed out that although customer satisfaction is relatively higher in the private sector, trust is higher in the public sector; people believe that public sector employees are working for motives other than profit.

This is one of the key issues and I am glad to see that the Forum agreed it is a 'paramount' one too. As my piece below on the Lincolnshire Police / G4S partnership risk register also highlights, one of the key risks being the impact of outsourcing on volunteer and public relationships.

Secret Diary of a PCC (Day seven)

I knew I was going to win and become PCC the day that Barack Obama was re-elected US President. I thought here’s a man who has charisma by the bucket load, intelligence off the scale, compassion for his fellow human beings that hugs the world (unlike Mitt Romney who was able to happily return to his home planet as tweeted by @DeanLReeves) and political nous even greater than Peter Mandelson’s. Just like me! I had it in the bag.

And so it came to pass. I was duly elected by the popular vote.

But one thing has been troubling me since I was elected: there are mounting stories of low police morale. Many officers are considering leaving The Job. I know they won’t of course, because they all have mortgages and nowhere to go unless they want to work part time in a call centre or serve cocktails in a late opening bar. But I am still concerned as low morale means low performance and then guess who gets in the neck?

I blame the former Chief Constable of course: his leadership was clearly not up to scratch. Despite his years of study, cramming and hothousing in Bramshill, he couldn’t lead a bunch of 7 year olds to an ice cream party. The acting Chief is not much better.

And so it falls to me to put together a 10 point plan to boost police morale:

1. New uniforms: the current wardrobe is made of scratchy material and shaped like tents, particularly on the larger members of our team. Whereas the mounted division always look rather smart in their jodhpurs, shiny boots and big gloves. Everyone is now going to wear this uniform! We will be the most dashing police force.
2. New batons: the current batons look a little drab to me and not very easy to hold. I am sure the officers will appreciate the new standard issue ‘pirate’ batons with hand protectors and silver paint.
3. New sandwiches: I know how the police ‘army’ marches on its stomach and so I have arranged new suppliers of lunch for the troops. All sworn officers (not staff sadly – the budget would not stretch that far) will now be issued with a lunch box and sandwiches every day. The choice will be chicken or ham or ham/chicken medley plus one cherry tomato to boost their vitamin C.
4. New cars: Yes you heard it right. Every officer will be issued with a boxed replica of the force’s Land Rover Discovery with full livery. These will become collector’s items in the future to be handed down for generations to come.
5. New organisational structure: (The acting Chief bleated on a bit about operational independence regarding this one but I told him it was all about priorities and if he wanted a shot at becoming chief…) I can’t describe this yet as we still working it out but I do know there will be lots of jobs with words like ‘neighbourhood’, ‘community’, and ‘performance’ in the titles. It will be a far flatter structure, of course, partly because all the management books talk about empowerment stuff and also, frankly, we can’t afford too many managers these days. 
6. New vision: the old vision is looking a little, well, jaded. The font needs updating evidently. And ‘stakeholders’ is a bit passé now. And it lacks a picture – a rising sun will be added. I know some wags say that it looks like a setting sun. But it is not! It is rising, just like my popularity will be once these ten points are put into place.
7. New culture: I have decreed that the old culture has got to go. Henceforth all officers and staff will have to be a) not cynical, b) driven by the aspirations (not targets) in my policing plan, c) respectful of all, even politicians.
8. New procedures: We are going to re-engineer all of our processes in the next 3 months. I have hired some whizzy consultants who will map all of our processes in detail, scrunch up the bits of paper those maps are on and start again. We are going to be a lean, mean, crime fighting machine with no waste or legacy baggage. There will be a place for everything/one and everything/one will be in their place! We will be able to eat our sandwiches off the floor of the custody suites.
9. New Chief Constable: I will be appointing the new Chief to implement all these points of course. If they don’t work and we still have low morale, I will need someone to blame. I will make sure that the new person has leadership grandeur, laser like insight into policing and real people skills. Someone a bit like the new head of the HMIC should suffice.
10. New me: I am going on a diet and exercise regime as I have discovered that whilst it might be good use of my time being driven around the force area by my chauffeur, it has not been good for my waist line. So I have commissioned a new commissioner’s vehicle that includes an exercise bike with built in tablet so I can keep fit and read all the reports I need to whilst on the move. The energy produced by cycling will make the vehicle greener as well. I will look as slim as Obama before the month is out. Having a fit PCC can only help morale.

Day one

Day two

Day three

Day four

Day five

Day six

Welcome memo from Chief

The risk register is published! (Lincolnshire Police and G4S partnership)

I have just received a copy of the Lincolnshire Police / G4S risk register. I have uploaded a copy of it here so that it is accessible for all to see. This includes, of course, the Lincolnshire public who, ultimately, are the ones at risk.

It makes very interesting reading and I have not fully woven together all of my thoughts. I thought it best to get it up and out as soon as possible rather than do a full analysis on my own first. Moreover, the analysis can now be crowdsourced. I don’t have any unique inside knowledge or specialist project/programme skills (although I am a registered programme management practitioner - Managing Successful Programmes). There are many others out there who may wish to share thoughts on this document, especially those who are working inside the police service. Please feel free. (And if you want to be an anonymous source, you can email me)

My initial thoughts are:

Risk 1 (Failure of strategic partnership with G4S) – the estimate of failure is given high impact but very low probability of it happening. Really? Was this drawn up before or after the Olympics? (I do not have that information embedded in the file.) The control seems only to be about monitoring performance. Where are the mitigating actions to prevent such an occurrence? Or is the likelihood of this happening deemed to be so low, they are not really bothering until something really hits the fan?

Risk 2 (Lack of resources and skills to manage a contract this large) – good call on this being a significant risk. This is a very big risk. So how does Lincolnshire plan on managing this? With "some legacy support” and “consultancy support”. So have I got this correct? The biggest risk in this outsourcing contract (it is a 3 X 4 = 12) is being mitigated by… outsourcing it to another (?) consultancy? That is comforting…

Risk 3 (Failure to consider the impact of outsourcing on retained services and our current pool of volunteers) – now this is interesting. So the risk is merely a failure to consider. Not a failure to optimise, or integrate, or even handle. Just that the risk is a failure to consider. That is easy then: I have considered the impact and decided it is big. But now I can move on! However, perhaps the author meant more than that though since the consequences are “failure to link changes and services into cohesive processes across in scope and out of scope services. Impact on those volunteers availability to continue in their function, or on those staff that manage volunteers”. In other words they are worrying (as I did below, and I promise I did not have this document before today) that by working with a profit making organisation volunteers may think twice about carrying on volunteering. Wow. That is big. Really big. And their control on this is to “Ensure that force volunteer practises and ambitions are communicated and considered by any potential partner. Partner due diligence to improve understanding of in scope and retained services. Client side and implementation team structure to be developed with consideration to transition impact on retained services.” Have you got that? Easy to understand. No real problem then…

Now I could go with the other risks but I promised I would not. But what do you think of risks 4 to 13? Have risks 14 to 99 been overlooked? If so, what would you have put on the list?

And now how confident are you that this contract (the biggest one of its kind in the police service as far as I am aware) has adequate risk management procedures & actions in place such that there could never be any reduction in the safety of communities in Lincolnshire? Are you more or less confident now that you have seen the risk register?

Perhaps you would like to give it a measure: is it a 1 X 1 or a 4 X 4 level of risk? (or somewhere in between?)

PS: As many people will know, I have been beavering way to get a copy of the risk register since April and I took the whole matter to the Information Commissioner who ruled in my favour. If you want to 'reward' me for my efforts, I am currently growing a 'Mo' for 'Movember' to raise money for research into prostate cancer. Please donate, whatever you can! Just click the link below 

Jon's Mo Space

Result after just five days - think what will be possible after 30!

Innovation & evaluation

One of the ideas that Tim Starkey is promoting is the need to look for fresh ways to tackle such issues as internet and telephone fraud. He makes the case that older (perhaps more trusting) people, people with dementia and other other vulnerable people are the ones who are often being taken for a ride by the tricksters*. He has identified that postal workers often have a sense of who is being exploited by the kinds (and volume) of mail certain households receive. Tim is keen to see if the dots can be joined up so that helpful advice on avoiding fraud can be targeted at people who maybe most at risk.

It seems to me to be a good idea and certainly one that is worth exploring further.

Last night at the hustings in Oxford, I happened to be sitting behind the Chief Fire Officer for Oxfordshire: Dave Etheridge. We got talking. He outlined for me a scheme that they are running in Thame (??) whereby local young people convicted of a motoring offence are sent to this fire station for a couple of hours. During this time they are (safely) placed in a burnt out car and 'cut out' by a fire crew. They are then shown a pretty graphic film about a car accident. All the while, the firefighters get to know the young person and what interests them. So far, he told me, they have had a 100% success rate such that none of the young people who have been on a visit have gone on to commit any more motoring offences. (They are carefully evaluating the intervention, I understand.)

So here's the thing: will PCCs see it as a critical part of their role to support and sponsor such innovations or are the of the view that not much needs to really change? Yes, I am talking about you Anthony Stansfeld... "If elected, I don't think there are going to be any great changes in policing." (Conservative Home blog)

So when you come to cast your vote now or on the day, will you vote for a PCC who is keen on innovation & evaluation or one that wants to conserve the status quo?

* Though let's be clear, we can all be duped!

Oxford hustings: the need for circumspection

It is rumoured that only in Oxford might you overhear people debating in a café where one person will say "and ninthly...!" Perhaps not surprisingly then, that the six PCC candidates were faced with some pretty challenging questions & statements last night.

Among these was one woman (although I strained to hear all of her words: memo to the organisers - a roving mike would be have been helpful!) who highlighted the oncoming cases to be tried soon in Oxford of men who have been accused of sexual exploitation of girls and young women. (Here is a link to the news stories in the local Oxford Times.) The questioner asked how the candidates would handle the likely extensive media interest in the court cases if they were to become the PCC.

Their answers were illuminating and worrying. Four of the six candidates, to varying degrees, alluded to the ethnic dimension of these cases and linked it to what they deemed as similar cases in the North of England (for example Rotherham & Rochdale), although without mentioning those towns as such. I cannot remember the exact details but I think Anthony Stansfeld went on to talk of political correctness hampering the speed of police investigations. Tim & John were more circumspect.

Why so worrying?

This is not the place to go into this matter in depth (instead read this excellent article in the Independent, if you wish) but suffice to say that seemingly calmly mixing in a racial element (when I don't think the questioner mentioned this aspect) indicates, for me, a lack of sensitivity, a less than full commitment to evidence based practice and a plain deficit in political 'nous'. Someone in the position of PCC, could easily and unwittingly fall into the trap of fanning the flames of racism and hate in such instances that could well emerge in Oxford in coming weeks. A less than wise PCC could also (again unwittingly in all likelihood) be perceived as supporting the line that political correctness had prevented the police from properly investigating the crimes and led to more harm happening as a consequence. While this plays to the gallery, the impact on police morale (another subject raised last night) could be severe.

These are feverish times with the Jimmy Savile case and linked emerging stories. It is in this context that the Oxford cases will come to court. There are serious concerns that these and similar cases have not been pursued in the past with as much vigour as, perhaps, they should have. However to ascribe this all to political correctness 'gawn mad' is simply not proven (see the Indie article linked above). The reasons are far more complex that that, I would contend. These reasons probably include a mixture of resources, misogyny, beliefs about the credibility of child victims/witnesses, fear of 'crying wolf' or making 'career limiting moves', poor joining up of the dots between public agencies and possibly even corruption (etc. etc. etc.)

That four of the six PCC candidates appeared to leap towards what I will call an oversimplified (dare I say 'Daily Mail') assessment of some of the underlying themes is worrying for me. However, I do take on board, that this was in a packed and busy meeting, and I may not have grasped the subtlety of what Barry, Geoff, Anthony and Patience each said. So please feel free to add your 'cold light of day' comments below if you wish...

But this very clever question and the answers given highlighted just how much the role of PCC, with its singular & high profile, will demand of incumbents up and down the country in a few days time...

Web democracy in action (an extraordinary allegation part two)

At the Aylesbury hustings a week ago, Anthony Stansfeld suggested that I and/or Cllr Michael Beall had been going through his bank accounts. The full story is below in two different posts: here and later here. I wrote to Anthony Stansfeld and he later retracted his remarks and apologised. I published his email saying this below.

Meanwhile, the County Council website was still showing the interchange without caveat. I asked for this matter to be addressed urgently last week. Their first and reasonable response was to take the video offline pending a technical fix.

The video has now been reinstated with a 'statement of clarification' embedded in the time line on the right hand side of the screen. This is satisfactory to me - although I would have preferred some subtitles to appear on the video itself but I recognise that technologically that would have far more difficult.

So, you can now see the video again with the embedded retraction and apology here. Just scroll down the timeline to 1 hour 42 minutes and there is a link you can click on. It takes you here.

Meanwhile, I hope that all the people who applauded Cllr Stansfeld for his remarks may wish to reflect exactly what it was they were applauding...

All in all a good day for transparency, accountability and democracy, I feel.

Going postal: casting my second preference

I have been a postal voter for many years now. My work is unpredictable and I can be away on election days so it is the best option. And so yesterday I cast my vote and in a short while I will be posting the letter.

My first preference was easy, of course. Tim Starkey got my first 'X'. And then I pondered, who should get my second preference, if anyone?

You probably won't be surprised to learn that I campaigned hard for a yes vote in the AV referendum last year. Despite appearances perhaps, I am not a tribal Labour voter and have been a committed pluralist for a long time, probably always. (I was one of the organisers of the 'Progressive Alliance' at Reading University Students Union which wrested control from the Tories who had hitherto run the place while the middle & left were divided. The PA even included the International Socialists which became the SWP by the way.) Much of my commitment to pluralism is based on raw pragmatism and a recognition that politics should always be about ideas & outcomes rather than the sources of those the policies.

I know all this will damn me in the eyes of many on the Left and in the Labour Party. So be it. But because of all this, I had to use my second preference vote. These second preference votes might just make the difference between two very different candidates at the end. I wanted my second vote to influence that final stage.

But I did not use politics to decide who I should give my second preference to: instead I decided to use who I thought would make the best 'professional' PCC. (And just in case you are wondering, I judge Tim to be the best on this front as well). But who came second?

Patience Tayo Awe has shown herself to be a very inexperienced candidate in my view whose remarks at the Aylesbury hustings were at best very unwise and at worst possibly damaging to an ongoing investigation by the IPCC. She did herself no favours and continues to cite her project management qualification as what equips her to be a PCC. Patience did not get my second vote.

Barry Cooper, whilst clearly very bright, passionate and indeed likeable, does not have the 'legs' in governance matters. His experience of being part of any kind of political structure appears very limited and his claim to be independent whilst representing (what I think UKIP believes) to be the fastest growing political party in the Britain is a contradiction too far. Barry did not get my second vote.

Geoff Howard is in a party of one, in my opinion. Having left (or shown the door, I am not clear?) three other political parties indicates to me a limited ability to get on with others. Being a PCC will require someone to build bridges across many divides, not least with the Chief Constable. In short, I don't think he has the humility or nous to do that. Geoff did not get my second vote.

Anthony Stansfeld clearly has experience in these matters and his position on the police authority would give him a head start over many other candidates. However I think he paints his past experience just a bit too sympathetically for my liking. His stated commitment to more of the same would mean if he became PCC, his would be a lack lustre tenure and Thames Valley Police would effectively go backwards. Anthony did not get my second vote.

Which brings me to John Howson.

I have met many Labour colleagues and indeed many Tories who despise all Lib Dems as political opportunists who sit on the fence until they spot where the public mood is going. There are now many more people by dint of 'pledgegate' who will never ever consider voting Lib Dem. As a Westminster party, they are heading for the back of a couple of taxis, in my opinion. Their record in government is ragged and shabby. I for one, will never forgive them for helping create the legislation in which the NHS will be fragmented in an incoherent and therefore dangerous mix of providers that will damage the health of the nation.

But I said that politics would not come into my decision about where to cast my second preference vote. Part of my decision making was negative: if it comes down a contest between John and Anthony, I know who I want don't want to win. But also positive as I believe John to be a deep thinking person who is committed to making a positive difference to community safety in Thames Valley. He has the political experience and wit to edge policing and crime matters in a good direction. And so I did cast my second vote for John.

I am not advising anyone else to vote the way I have done: each person must make up their own mind. All that I hope is that people vote deliberately rather than hurriedly.