'Ello, 'ello, 'ello...

I've never spoiled a ballot paper before. Indeed, I don't think that I've ever failed to vote, as I have too much respect for the men and women who fought and died to bring us universal suffrage in the first place and, later, to protect it from totalitarianism. But with the forthcoming elections for the police and crime commissioners I've made an exception.

If the government had a problem with the police authorities, why didn't it just change their powers? Why spend £75 million on a shambles of an election which is strongly predicted to have the lowest ever participation rate? Why spend up to £100,000 on salaries for each of these 41 posts? At a time when the government is supposed to be cutting publicly funded posts, when public employees from nurses to binmen have had their pay frozen for the last 5 years, do you honestly think that this is a good use of tax-payers' money? It will do nothing to improve accountability but will simply impose another expensive level of bureaucracy onto the system.

Why, Mr Cameron, have you stacked the dice against the independents who used to sit on the police authorities? You seem to have designed a system that will specifically lead to someone from a political party being elected. Do we really want our police run by political parties? Is the politicisation of the police really a good thing? The fact that Boris is the PCC for London should tell you all you need to know about the role's impartiality. The PCC will be able to hire and fire the chief constable, so what is there to stop a PCC of one political stripe hiring a chief constable who agrees with him – oh and it is going to be a 'him' because there are very few women standing for election. It's also very likely to be an ex-police or military person (or, God help us, a 'counter terrorism specialist' in our area) too given the large number of them who are standing – how 'independent' are they going to be? By contrast with the old police authorities, the police and crime panels what replace them will have limited powers of scrutiny: no more will we see the likes of the redoutable Gabrielle Cox who stood up to James Anderton during his worst excesses in Manchester - she'd now have to fight the PCC as well as the chief constable. At a time when boundary changes are leading to fewer MPs, are you trying to give a sop to them by creating another post that they can apply for? With a generous expenses system and pension package perhaps? Oh, hush my mouth for the cynical old tart that I am... Do you think that perhaps this massive case of 'jobs for the boys' could be seen as a kick in the face for the electorate who are already struggling with your austerity measures? (And lets not forget that the crash was caused by your mates in the global banking industry whose salaries have increased by 37% in the last 4 years – contrast to that pay freeze for us mere mortals mentioned above – but I digress...).

The government itself doesn't seem to want to take the elections seriously as, instead of offering candidates the free mailout to voters that is normal in real elections, it claims that it wants to save taxpayers' money (the mailout would have added £35m to the bill). Well, I think that the vessel named 'The Good Ship Waste of Money' has already sailed, don't you chaps? If you really believed that you were extending democracy you'd have had the courage of your convictions and taken the time to explain to people what they were voting for. Instead the government has just given us those bloody averts showing 'thugs' which are downright scary. Is that a valid electoral tactic these days, to terrify the vulnerable into voting in an election they don't understand? The adverts are also misleading by implying that voting for the PCC will make criminals think again. It won't. In theory, the PCC will have no role in day to day policing or 'operational decisions'.

Even the method of voting irritates me. The big parties despise electoral reform do they? They say that proportional representation isn't good enough for 'proper' elections but they're happy enough to use it in their tin-pot elections for mayors (set up by the Labour government) and the PCCs (set up by the Tories).

Will a voter turnout of under 20% really give any of the elected commissioners the legitimacy to hold the police to account? Home Secretary Teresa May thinks so, but that wasn't what the government were saying earlier in the year when Home Office staff voted to strike on a 20% turnout. Home Office Minister Damian Green blames us, the voters, in advance, just in case it all goes horribly wrong, and the gist of his comments are: 'if you don't go out and vote then the nutters will get in and you'll only have yourselves to blame'. But Mr Green, you've declined to inform the electroate about PCCs by refusing to sending them any information on the changes and making the boundaries so large that independents can't afford to canvass in them. Anyway why the fuck are we having these bloody elections in the first place? Because, Mr Cameron, in case you don't recall, it may have been a Conservative manifesto commitment but NOBODY VOTED FOR YOU. You're only in power 'cos Nick Clegg (and quite a few of the PLP) despised Gordon Brown more than you and Labour MPs were physically sick at the thought of having to cosy up to the SNP to make their coalition work.

So, that's why I spoiled my ballot paper. It won't make any difference to the outcome but it made me feel a little better and it's a while since I've had a jolly good rant. But in my darker moments I remember the Peter Cook film The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer where, once he has become Prime Minister, the eponymous villain subjects the nation to constant ballots and referenda until the exausted voters willingly agree to him abolishing democracy and becoming dictator. You have been warned...

Some sources:
FT, 'Bankers’ salaries up 37% in four years', May 2012
Guardian, 'Police and crime commissioner elections: who, what and why – Q&A', Nov 2012
BBC, 'Home Office staff to strike on eve of Games', Jul 2012