PCC- A Criminal Waste of Time and Money

The British government recently held its first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Those elected to the post have influence over regional police, their staff and priorities. Election turnout for these elections tended to range from 10-20%. It seems unsurprising to me that turnout was so low. But curiously, whilst many in the media similarly predicted this, they largely felt it was due to disillusionment with the political elite and main parties. This may explain part of it, but I feel it was for even more basic reasons than that: 1) lack of awareness and 2) lack of interest. 1) Lack of Awareness: I am widely considered a politically-aware individual amongst my peers, yet I was unaware of when they were being held. So others were also likely to have been unaware of the election date, and probably that the elections were being held at all. 2) Lack of Interest: This is the biggest issue in my book. Vague descriptions were given to the role, and surely there is no need for even more bureaucracy and politicians than there already are. There are already local borough or county councils, parliamentary representatives, assembly members and European parliamentary representatives- surely these elected representatives could spend some time reviewing police work, without electing more politicians. And if this role is felt to be necessary, then why should we stop at elected commissioners for police? Doesn't that then justify commissioners for education, health, transport, the environment... where does it end? All the PCC elections have done is expand an already excessive political elite, feathering the nests of more politicians at a time of cutbacks, to do a job other institutions should already be doing. Moreover, whilst on the surface, more democracy may appear to be better, but in fact too many elections induce voter fatigue- public irritation with too many elections, reducing turnout. It is also expensive, and often represents the interests of a minority of interested voters, with most other voters either disinterested or disillusioned. Also, just because a candidate is most popular with voters doesn't mean they are necessarily most capable of the job. That is not to criticise democracy generally: it is crucial for legitimate, representative government- but to try and elect too many positions usually results in a waste of time and money.

English is the Lingua Franca- good or bad for Britain?

On the surface of it, it is very convenient for the British (and other English-speaking nations), as they can travel much of the world and be understood, as English is the lingua franca. But this also poses problems for the British, an issue highlighted as a consequence of recent government efforts to promote the study of languages in British schools. It is all well and good that the government is encouraging primary and secondary schools to teach French, Spanish and Mandarin. But unless these were the exclusive subjects taught at school, or multiple subjects were taught in these languages, pupils are not going to become fluent. So by the time pupils finish school they will know only a few token phrases- nowhere near enough to get by when travelling. The advantage to countries that include non-native English speakers is that outside of lessons, people are likely to listen to English-speaking music and watch English-speaking films. Moreover, when they travel overseas, due to English being the lingua franca, two people from different nationalities are likely to communicate in English- despite it not being their native language. Meanwhile, a vast majority of Britons are not regularly exposed to foreign languages to this extent, and therefore do not have the shared incentive to learn these languages. As mentioned at the beginning, most Britons are nevertheless still in an advantageous position by being native English speakers. But then again, opportunities are hindered by speaking only one language fluently. For example, consider the allowances that are made in the EU to better ensure a higher proportion of British employees within the EU, an allowance not taken advantage of by many Britons due to their inability to speak a language besides English fluently. There is another drawback to speaking the lingua franca. It means that, whilst a smaller proportion of Britons can take advantage of opportunities elsewhere in the non-English speaking world in terms of work, particularly in other EU countries; meanwhile the far greater proportion of those who are not native English-speakers, but nevertheless have it as a second language, are able to work easily in Anglosphere countries- like Britain. With Britain weathering the economic relatively well, particularly when compared with elsewhere in Europe, many workers from the EU already have a great incentive to use their right as an EU/EEA citizen to work in the UK. Meanwhile the balance of workers entering Britain to work would already be relatively high, precisely because its language is indeed the lingua franca. Thus, as the proportion of EU/EEA workers migrating to Britain is likely to be high already as a relatively economically stable country, the speaking of English in the UK is bound to tip this balance even more, adding further challenges to a country already dealing with an increasing and dense population. Such problems include the availability of housing (when it is not plentiful enough to house a larger population, it drives prices higher, as is currently the case despite the recession), utilities (water, electric and gas resources are spread more thinly amongst a larger population) and public services, such as benefits, healthcare and education (when the government is already dealing with a deficit regarding public spending).