- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
Privatise the police.
Privatise the police.
Privatising the police initially sounds like a crazy idea - would it not mean abandoning the state’s monopoly on law enforcement and possibly even the legal use of force itself? So far no one is suggesting any kind of privatisation that would be quite as radical as that. Instead the privatisation of the police that has been suggested is essentially an efficiency measure and an effort to get more bobbies on the beat. Getting more police on the streets where they are fighting crime, or at the least reassuring the government has been the aim of almost every government and this is still the aim today. However with the recession it is no longer possible to meet this aim simply by giving more money to the police. This means that there need to be more innovative solutions; privatisation may be one such solution.
In the UK the drive to recruit more police officers has often been accompanied by an increase in bureaucracy, bureaucracy that is carried out almost entirely by highly trained uniformed police officers. The argument is therefore that all the back room operations of the Police could be done much cheaper, faster and more effectively by private companies who are hiring people who are trained in administration roles rather than policing. None the less the idea of privatising the police is likely to go down almost as badly as the very partial privatisation proposals for the NHS so could it be worth the risk?
Some hopefully useful links:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/comment/comment/put-police-on-the-front-line-and-privatise-the-rest-7541855.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/04/police-privatisation-plans-defend-acpo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/07/police-privatisation-destroy-public-confidence
1 year 10 weeks ago
Some of those do sound like things that might be best to remain with the police themselves - it seems to be going a bit far privatise detectives for example, they may already exist but I would think that as detectives are something that are specialist anyway there would be few savings to be made. However some of them are probably less big than they sound 'managing engagement with the public' probably just means that someone will be contracted to provide reception staff and a call center rather than they will replace bobbies out engaging with the public on the streets.
1 year 10 weeks ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
It was "Patrolling neighbourhoods" that caught my eye.
Besides the frontline/backoffice deliniation I continue to be skeptical about the whole privatisation means efficiency jazz, really privatisation means profit margins, they have to mwke efficiency savings to fit their profit under the orginal cost, then they have to make even more savings if they really want to start cutting costs. Much more efficient to just hire civilian back office workers as part of the police (as they do already) rather than subcontracting. I can never fail to complain about privatisation without mentioning case study 1 for privatisation means inefficiencies - the railways.
1 year 10 weeks ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
When it comes to back office work private companies may really be cheaper as they can probably get away with lower wages and will certainly give less generous benefits such as pensions than there would be if they were actually being employed by the police force. However once we get onto more specialised work then private workers tend to be paid as much or more than their public sector counterparts so even if the public sector gives higher pensions there would be little difference in overall cost.
Presumably if the contracts are worked out correctly then privatisation does not have to mean profit margins. If the government sets an amount they get (at less than the govt spends at the moment) and wont go above that then if the private contractor is to make a profit it will be be reducing costs. Being a natural monopoly the railways are not necessarily a good example.
1 year 10 weeks ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Its all very well to say it will be limited to back office staff but even if it is initially its still the thin end of the wedge: the guardian story that started the current debate said
The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources.
Although it said that this was exploratory and not all of these areas would actually be in the final deal.