Police jobs: nearly 6,800 frontline posts have been cut since general election | UK news | The Guardian

English: Keep Calm and Carry On UK government ...

English: Keep Calm and Carry On UK government poster (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This article from the Guardian highlights how the UK Government’s austerity policies have failed. Check it out!

Police jobs: nearly 6,800 frontline posts have been cut since general election | UK news | The Guardian.

Instead of merging police forces and reducing management levels, the cuts have concentrated on front-line services. Enormous opportunities for the effective transformation of bureaucracy has been lost. In my view, this example is mirrored right across the UK Public Sector.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 responses

  1. Pingback: The British public can see fracking is no answer | Left Foot Forward « Dr Alf's Blog

  2. There are issues here that make it very difficult to offer a sensible comment on police numbers.

    As always, all the government can do is to reduce funding. They then issue instructions as to how that funding reduction should be achieved but really these are only suggestions: thy can and often are ignored.

    First issue: how political are the reductions in front line staff? By that I mean, how often are the decisions driven by a desire to show the government in a bad light rather than to make the required savings in the best way possible for the general public? I would like to think the answer is ‘never’ but I suspect it happens.

    Second issue: how are we to know whether or not the front was at the right level before the reductions? It is possible that some were over staffed and that there has been a reasonable adjustment. It is also possible that some were already understaffed and that situation is now far worse.

    What seems to have triggered this off is the decision to elect police chiefs. In general terms I approve of the idea of public organisations (including the police) being under the control of someone appointed by the people. However, if those standing are limited (as in this case) by creating requirements that virtually ensure that all candidates are supported by a large political organisation the whole things becomes undemocratic – and people will (quite rightly) indicate their displeasure by not voting.

    Here we really do need a ‘none of the above’ option to sort out who is against all candidates and who is too apathetic to vote.

    Rodney Willett

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: