Tuesday, 23 October 2012

A Dog's Breakfast

For those not familiar with the expression, I'm grateful to the Urban Dictionary for the following explanation:-

"dog's breakfast," which has been British slang for "a complete mess" since at least the 1930s. While no one took the time to write down the exact origin of the phrase, the allusion involved seems to be to a failed culinary effort, perhaps a burned or botched omelet, fit only for consumption by the mouth of last resort, Fido. As a vivid figure of speech meaning something so fouled up as to be utterly useless, "dog's breakfast" can cover anything from a play plagued by collapsing scenery to a space mission ruined by a mathematical error. 


Just as we're all coming to terms with the inevitable approach of the 'festive' season, voting cards are beginning to drop through our letter boxes. Surely there must be some mistake - an election in November? - we never have elections in November - it's far too cold, dark and damp for that, and besides we had elections in May as usual. So what the hell is this all about?

Well, it seems that some young policy wonks in a think tank thought it would be a jolly good idea to make the police more 'accountable' by replacing Police Authorities with directly-elected Crime and Police Commissioners. For some completely unaccountable reason, the Tory Party thought it was a jolly good idea too and so on November 15th we will be electing PCC's who, amongst other things, will have the power to hire and fire Chief Constables. 

Included in a rag bag of other powers, they will be able to draw up a 'policing plan' and be given responsibility for victim services. There are dark mutterings that their powers might be extended to involve other probation functions as well. About the only positive aspect of this whole ridiculous idea in my view is that some candidates might stand on a platform of refusing any notion of large scale privatising of police or probation functions. This is contrary to government policy of course.  

Basically the whole idea has all the hallmarks of a 'back of a fag packet' half-baked political wheeze and my guess is that with only three weeks to go, most of the population remain in blissful ignorance as to who or what they are being asked to vote for in November. The tv adverts that have started appearing won't help either. Scenes of young people committing mindless acts of vandalism just serve to remind us that it's the job of the police to deal with that sort of thing and how exactly will paying £100,000 per annum for an extra bureaucrat help?

21 million leaflets will be dropping through our letter boxes this week as well, hopefully making clear what the whole sad sorry idea is all about, but don't expect any details about the candidates because there won't be any. The government has decided that it's a 'do-it-yourself' task. If you want to know which sad failed politician or wannabe control freak has stumped up £5,000 to stand, you have to look it up for yourself on the internet.   

So, at vast expense in running a special election in November when the turnout will be derisory, voters will be asked to express two preferences for people they've never heard of, to do a job that they don't understand. It makes an absolute mockery of the democratic process. For the first time ever, I'm hearing responsible mature citizens say that they intend to spoil their ballot paper as an act of civil disobedience and in order to register their disdain for this whole miserable political gimmick.

To be honest I think this is a more honourable option than that proposed by Sir Ian Blair the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner who has publicly suggested boycotting the election. No doubt he still feels very sore about being forced into resigning by Boris Johnson the Mayor of London who famously stated that he couldn't work with him. The trouble with boycotting is that it inevitably becomes confused with apathy.     

I'm angry not apathetic about this and for the first time ever I think I'm going to join the small but growing army of 'spoilers'.  It won't have any effect of course, but it just might make us all feel better. At least when the time comes to scrap the whole barmy concept and it becomes another small footnote in the history of failed political ideas, we can say we had no part in it from the beginning, but that we had at least registered our views in some positive way. 


9 comments:

  1. Perhaps we should hold a contest for the most inventive spoiling of a ballot paper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I intend to spoil my paper. It wont stop the process but seems the only sensible option as I believe in the responsibility of all to vote.

    It would be nice to think that if there's a 15% turnout (I suspect it will be less) and 50% of us spoil the papers, the powers that be may have to reconsider.

    That said, can you imagine the early redundancy / golden handshake / pension payments the PCC's would get...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I regret that I too will be a 'spoiler'. I have no truck with this Americanisation of policing and see no value in the role other than as a publicity stunt. My only option for protest is to turn up and spoil the paper in the hope that others will also do so. So 'thank you', Jim, for leading the way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not one who necessarily agrees with the infallibility of chief police officers, but the thought of replacing them with a collection of dud ex-politicians (think John Prescott – shudder) or the self-important local worthies who think themselves as fully trained leaders, despite no experience at all, is truly frightening. I am not aware of what checks and balances exist in respect of these dunderheads, but I foresee political interference increasing and blatant abuse of power. The claptrap of ‘local accountability’ is witless drivel, especially as the public can only reject the local clod after 5 years, to watch him/her retire on a generous pension to be replaced by some equally useless buffoon desperate to be on a gravy train.

    Sorry, but policing is about catching criminals. If one of the most useless chief police officers of modern time (Ian Blair) who only gained his position through political manoeuvring and blatant appeasement thinks it is a bad idea, then it is time to take heed.

    Also, please explain why you pretend to vote, but deliberately spoil the paper? Have the courage to say that you reject the right to vote, since you do not believe in the system you are asked to support.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The right to vote is profoundly important and I have voted on every availabile opportunity for over 30 years. When, however, I am being asked to vote for someone to do something I do not believe to be in the interests of the public, I cannot collude and 'legitimise' the charade by playing along. All I can do is say 'NO' by spoiling my ballot. Not voting is collusion by apathy.

      Delete
  5. Chris,

    Well, to be fair the 'dunderheads' will be subject to scrutiny by a panel of Local Authority representatives plus two members of the public. They will have the ability to effectively 'reign in' any loony Commissioner the public elects. But hang on, they used to be collectively called Police Authorities!

    As to explaining the spoiling of ballot papers, this is an incredibly powerful and positive demonstration of civil disobedience and would be unprecedented if it become widespread. Politicians would have to take notice. Not voting on the other hand is negative and will merely be interpreted as apathy and politicians can cope with that - they simply blame the voters for being thick.

    Thanks for commenting,

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim - not sure you're right on the psephology, I'm afraid: I think spoilt ballots /are/ included in UK turnout %ges...and the final statement will be "Candidate X won by gaining 75% of the votes; turnout was 70%" - conveniently lumping your spoilt vote in with the losing votes. Regrettably, you must expect weasel words from weasels!

    The only definite way to register your civil disgust is not to go in the first place. Give the money you save by not driving to the polling station to NAPO or someone like them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well in my experience all Returning Officers are required to state the total number of spoilt ballot papers recorded when announcing each individual result. If this figure was to increase significantly it would be noteworthy and be picked up by the media and the Electoral Commission.

    In addition all spoilt papers have to be agreed by the candidates, or their agents, at the poll and it would become common knowledge what sort of thing was written on them. All this would be of legitimate concern to the media, the EC and of the government because it brings into question the legitimacy of the whole process.

    For these reasons I do not agree with you. Spoiling the paper is a very powerful method of registering disgust as opposed to just not bothering by doing nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Regrettably, I'm not talking about returning officers; I'm talking about the spin put on the turnout data by party organisers to the media the next morning. Candidates may well have seen the spoilt ballots, but they will all - winners and losers - have an interest in pumping turnout numbers as high as possible.

    Sorry to say that - as so often - the more cynical picture is the more likely one.

    ReplyDelete