29/01/2026
There’s growing discussion about reducing police services from 43 local forces to around 12 mega forces nationwide, and I’m genuinely conflicted.
To be clear, I support the police and the vital role they play in keeping communities safe. This isn’t about questioning the need for policing or the commitment of officers on the ground, but about how the service itself is structured and delivered.
I’ve experienced localism at both ends of the spectrum. At its best, local policing works because officers know the area, the people, and the long standing issues that don’t always show up in data. That kind of knowledge builds trust and often prevents problems escalating. But at its worst, county forces can become insular, overly powerful, and resistant to challenge, sometimes feeling oppressive rather than protective. In those cases, larger regional forces could help break entrenched cultures, reduce “small kingdom” mentalities, and bring more consistency and accountability.
That said, I worry about what gets lost in the process.
If policing becomes more centralised, does local intelligence disappear? And if decisions are made further away, do we end up with more generic, heavier-handed approaches that don’t really fit the community?
There’s also the issue of overspill. Being part of a much larger force could mean safer areas absorbing pressures, priorities, or policing styles driven by very different regions, and I’m not convinced that improves outcomes for anyone.
I can see the arguments around efficiency, resources, and standardisation.
Does merging forces strengthen policing overall, or risk losing the local understanding that actually keeps communities safe?
