Category Archives: Politics

Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Frontline policing in Scotland…

POLICE SCOTLAND

To the man or woman in the street, ‘frontline policing’ would probably be best summed up as the visible-presence of police officers in our communities, and one which affords a tangible sense of reassurance that our safety and security is being looked after.

On 1 April of this year, the unitary Scottish police force, Police Scotland, was created. Prior to the amalgamation of all police forces in Scotland the assurances given by government ministers and senior police officers was that there would be no diminution of frontline policing.

Of course, a rationalisation programme of this kind was always going to lead to backroom functions being merged and one which would produce savings for the public purse. But the clear message emanated was that wholesale changes to the way we are policed would be largely positive, in the form of more highly specialised centralised units dealing with specific types of crime. This, it was argued, would be more effective in dealing with various forms of crime-fighting.

Given that backdrop, what are we to make, then, of the announcement that a vast swathe of police stations around Scotland are to close, and many others seeing a reduction in their hours?

The police say they have carried out extensive research of how the front- counter service in police stations is used, and state that the new set-up is based on results of when and where the service is used and will provide greater value for money.

When the single force came into being, the government made it absolutely clear that it expected there to be savings from the police budget. Police Scotland’s Chief Constable, Sir Stephen House, is looking to remove £60 million from his budget. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that these service changes are primarily driven by that need to cut costs.

At the heart of this is a fundamental question, which is: Are these cuts a reduction in frontline policing, or does the freeing up of officers give them more time to spend (actually) tackling crime on the streets? To answer that will depend on where you think the front line is.

As we have seen in Scotland over recent days and weeks there is good news to be celebrated on the policing front. Recently published figures have revealed that homicides are at a historic low and that the general trend of crime has been dropping in recent years.

Safety is important to the public and it will be reassuring for many to know that when experts within the police service believe safety might be compromised, then they make their views known, as they have done, to Scottish ministers. MSPs must be ready to consider those views carefully.

Yet one of the question marks about the single national force was how (and to whom) it would be accountable. Accountability is still difficult to discern, despite the force having been operational for several months. Time will eventually tell.

However, ultimately the police force is not accountable to politicians but the public. It is the public the police serve, who often do a difficult and dangerous job. A criticism in the past has been the withdrawal of police officers because of their low visibility in the community. That one of the first contractions the new force makes is an important interface with the public is bound to raise concern.

As the police know, perception is vital.

Related:

Standard
Economic, Government, Politics, United States

America’s shutdown and the wider malaise…

AMERICA’S CRISIS

At the beginning of this week, the federal government of the United States of America closed its doors for business.

At the heart of the dispute is the refusal by Congressional Republicans to fund the activities of the U.S. Government so long as they include the provision of ‘Obamacare’, the President’s important signature health reform policy. The White House insists that a group of Tea Party radicals is holding the nation hostage with polls suggesting that the majority of voters share that sentiment. Until the two sides are ready and able to agree a budget resolution, all but essential federal employees will go unpaid. A shutdown of this nature will inevitably have an impact on America’s economy, with some estimates suggesting that as much as 1 per cent from the country’s GDP could be knocked off if a prolonged stand-off ensues.

Yet, what is more worrying is the true significance of the crisis in that it is symptomatic of how America has become – ungovernable. With congressional districts heavily gerrymandered, coupled with a wider, decades-long process of social polarisation, has produced an electoral system that packs Congress with partisan politicians who have no incentive to reach accommodation with the other side. What is more, even if the current impasse can be resolved, there is a much darker cloud on the horizon: later this month America hits the ceiling on its debt limits, with agreement in Congress needed to avoid the pitfalls of the fiscal cliff.

This could provoke an economic as well as a constitutional crisis. In a worst-case scenario, the nation would be forced to default on its borrowing, plunging the global financial system back into chaos – and one which would easily eclipse that seen following the 2008 financial crisis. Many will say that seems inconceivable for politicians on Capitol Hill to allow such a disaster to unfold, but given the obduracy on display, nothing should be ruled out.

The Republican leadership remains in thrall to its Tea Party caucus, but that shouldn’t necessarily deflect from the fact that the hardliners do actually have a point. Like so many other nations around the world, this stand-off in America stems from the promises Washington made to its people that it cannot afford. The argument in favour of lifting the debt ceiling (limit) is that Congress has already written the cheques, and should be required to honour them. Indicative of the problem, though, is that the state wants to spend more without raising taxes.

America’s position, then, is more than just administrative paralysis: it reflects a much wider malaise. Undoubtedly, the U.S. is going through an identity crisis, and remains unsure whether it is to embrace a European social model of higher taxes and a bigger state, as well as what role it should be playing in policing the world.

We can only hope that the current shutdown will prompt a serious attempt for compromise between the parties that will put America’s finances on a more sustainable footing. However, given the dysfunction and lack of coordinated direction in Washington, we should at least prepare for the worst.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Environment, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Climate change and the need for a global price on carbon…

CLIMATE CHANGE

The recent findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are alarmingly clear. The environment is incontestably warming – evidenced through the fact that each of the past three decades has been successfully warmer than any since 1850 – and it is now beyond reasonable doubt that human activities are the cause.

The IPCC report, the fifth of its kind, whilst not containing much that is absolutely new, does offer a higher degree of certainty than the previous report delivered in 2007. It is now as sure that human beings are causing climate change (a probability of 95 per cent) as of cigarettes causing cancer. This is not the judgement of politicians or those campaigners with vested interests, but the consensus of thousands of scientists from all over the world. With scientists having considered all the available evidence, one can only hope that it will banish the scepticism of the ignorant.

The effects of the alterations in the Earth’s environment are already being felt, and not just in extreme weather patterns. The polar ice sheets are thinning, sea levels are rising and the oceans are increasingly acidic. But of concern is what is still to come. The likelihood that rising temperatures will stay below the 2°C threshold, above which changes become catastrophic, looks far less achievable.  Quantifying this is not difficult if we consider that we have already burned through 54 per cent of the ‘carbon budget’ calculated to equate to a spike of 2°C.

Without radical action, the inference implied is that the outlook is bleak. Yet, the politics of long-term, counter-factual disaster-avoidance are no easier now than they were in the past. Last week, The International Development Secretary made all the right noises, commenting that Britain must play its part, only to be countered by the Chancellor who judges the green agenda an unaffordable luxury in times of public austerity. Ed Miliband, talks of a good game, too, with his pledge of carbon-free electricity by 2030. However, his promise to freeze energy bills raises serious questions about where the investment will come from and has already spooked potential investors.

In America, John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State, responded to the IPCC in stirring terms… ‘This is yet another wake-up call: those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.’ But while Mr Kerry went on to affirm that the U.S. is ‘deeply committed to leading on climate change’ Congress is in the midst of yet another budget fight, upon which Republicans are demanding that any new borrowing is conditional on the weakening of carbon-emission regulations.

The sceptics are certainly right when they say that the cost of mitigating climate change is high. But it is also unavoidable, and the longer we delay the greater the bill will be – both in terms of money and human lives. We must then, throw, all we have at the problem, from the incremental (such as better insulation for our houses) to the fundamental (re-thinking how industry and transport, for example, uses energy). And then there is the thorny diplomatic issues over who should pay – the rich countries that did the historical polluting, or emerging economies from the developing world that are now industrialising in double-quick time.

Ultimately, though, the solution lies with the market. Europe’s ground-breaking carbon trading scheme has floundered, and with its price being meaninglessly low it could be easy to write it off. In America, President Obama’s hopes for national cap-and-trade were dashed by the Senate, leaving only a smattering of regional initiatives. The Australian Prime Minister wants to repeal his predecessor’s ‘carbon tax’. Despite the teething problems, however, a global price on carbon is vital and must be a priority. With China and South Korea now putting together their own schemes, there is at least some progress being made in dealing with the climate change threat.

Standard