By Andy The Gabby Cabby | 9 November 2026
The head of London's Metropolitan Police has delivered an extraordinary warning about the future of policing in England and Wales.
Sir Mark Rowley says the police service is in danger of failing unless it undergoes radical reform.
Fewer officers are being seen on our streets. Crime-solving rates have deteriorated. Public confidence has fallen. Police budgets are under considerable pressure, and outdated technology is consuming money that could otherwise be invested in modern policing.
Those are serious admissions from one of the country's most senior police officers.
But while I agree with much of his diagnosis, I have serious concerns about his proposed solution.
Because the answer, apparently, is to replace England and Wales's 43 territorial police forces with just eight to ten larger regional forces, supported by a new National Police Service.
My question is simple: will this put more police officers back on our streets, or take policing further away from the communities it is supposed to serve?
Sir Mark Rowley's extraordinary admission
Speaking in Manchester on Friday 6 November, Sir Mark delivered a stark assessment of the state of British policing.
According to the figures presented in his speech:
Just 11% of people report seeing an officer or Police Community Support Officer on foot patrol each week, compared with 39% in 2011.
National positive crime-outcome rates have fallen to less than half their level twelve years ago.
Even the best-performing police force achieves positive outcomes for only around 22% of recorded crimes.
Public confidence and victim satisfaction have deteriorated.
These figures ought to alarm anybody concerned about law and order.
I've spent years driving around Kent, passing through towns such as Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs.
And one thing that has become increasingly noticeable is the absence of police officers simply walking around, talking to people and maintaining a visible presence.
There was a time when seeing two officers walking down a high street was an ordinary occurrence.
Today, it can feel like a rarity.
That matters because policing isn't only about investigating crimes after they happen. It's also about public reassurance, deterrence and maintaining a relationship between officers and the communities they serve.
When people stop seeing police officers, confidence can disappear with them.
Where has the money gone?
Rowley also highlighted the financial pressures facing policing.
According to his speech, police spending across England and Wales has fallen from approximately 0.9% of GDP to 0.7% over fifteen years.
He estimated the difference at more than £3 billion annually in today's money.
He also revealed that police forces used £276 million from reserves to balance their budgets last year.
Perhaps the most extraordinary figure concerned technology.
Of approximately £2 billion spent annually on police technology, 97% reportedly goes towards maintaining existing legacy systems.
Think about that.
Almost the entire technology budget is being spent keeping older systems functioning rather than investing in their replacements.
Rowley also said it had taken policing thirteen years to roll out body-worn cameras.
These are compelling arguments for modernisation.
But they also raise another question.
How effectively has the money already allocated to policing been managed?
Funding matters, certainly. But so do procurement, administrative efficiency, leadership and operational priorities.
Before asking the public to accept another major structural reorganisation, I believe those responsible should explain what measurable improvements will follow.
The criminal economy operating on our high streets
One of the most interesting parts of Rowley's speech concerned organised crime.
He specifically discussed businesses such as vape shops, nail bars and second-hand mobile phone shops.
He made clear that many are entirely legitimate enterprises.
However, some premises can provide cover for money laundering, stolen goods, counterfeit products and the exploitation of trafficked workers.
Citing National Crime Agency estimates, Rowley said at least £1 billion of criminal cash is laundered through high-street businesses every year.
That's a staggering figure.
And it helps explain why the problem cannot always be solved by a single local police officer.
Organised criminal networks can operate across towns, counties and international borders.
I accept the need for specialist investigators and cooperation between police forces.
But I don't accept that every problem associated with organised crime necessarily requires local policing to be absorbed into enormous regional organisations.
We should be strengthening the ability of local forces to investigate crime while ensuring they have access to specialist support when required.
The two objectives should complement each other.
From 43 police forces to eight or ten
This is where I have my biggest disagreement with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
His preferred model would establish three levels of policing:
Hundreds of local policing commands responsible for community policing.
Eight to ten regional police forces providing wider operational capabilities.
A National Police Service coordinating specialist responses to serious organised crime, cybercrime and terrorism.
Rowley's argument is that the existing system duplicates administrative functions, technology procurement and leadership structures across too many organisations.
A smaller number of forces could theoretically provide economies of scale and better specialist resources.
That's the case in favour.
But what about local accountability?
At present, police and crime commissioners provide an elected route for holding most territorial forces to account, although London and Greater Manchester have different mayoral arrangements.
Under Rowley's preferred approach, regional mayors would help set priorities for larger policing areas.
I worry that this could make it harder for smaller towns, rural communities and individual counties to have their concerns heard.
A county such as Kent has its own policing needs.
Those needs aren't necessarily identical to those of neighbouring areas.
Would a huge regional force really be more responsive to residents in Ramsgate, Margate or Canterbury than a force accountable to Kent itself?
That's a question the public deserves to have answered before any restructuring takes place.
Importantly, these are proposals under discussion, not an already implemented reorganisation.
Police priorities and online speech
There is another issue I believe deserves more attention: what police officers are being asked to spend their time doing.
Figures obtained through freedom-of-information requests and reported by The Times showed that 37 police forces recorded 12,183 arrests in 2023 under two communications laws.
That's approximately 33 arrests every day.
The Metropolitan Police recorded 1,709 arrests, the highest number among the forces examined.
Those figures prompted considerable debate about whether police resources were being diverted towards online communications at the expense of other priorities.
However, there is an important distinction.
The offences concerned included potentially threatening, menacing, obscene and grossly offensive communications. It would be misleading to describe every case simply as somebody expressing a harmless opinion.
Nevertheless, I believe the balance between freedom of expression, public protection and police resources deserves proper scrutiny.
When burglary victims complain that investigations are going nowhere, they are entitled to ask how policing priorities are determined.
They are also entitled to know whether changing those priorities could improve the handling of everyday crimes.
That question should be answered with evidence rather than political slogans.
What about the victims of everyday crime?
One of my concerns about the reform debate is that it risks becoming dominated by arguments about organisational charts.
How many regional forces should we have?
Who should oversee them?
Where should headquarters be located?
Which departments can be merged?
Those questions matter, but they're not necessarily the questions being asked by somebody whose home has been burgled.
That person wants an officer to investigate.
A shopkeeper dealing with repeated theft wants a meaningful response.
A family concerned about antisocial behaviour wants to feel safe in its own neighbourhood.
And a victim of violence wants confidence that somebody will be held accountable.
In my view, those everyday expectations should be the starting point for police reform.
The case for reform — and the case against centralisation
To be fair to Rowley, his argument isn't simply about creating bigger organisations.
He says larger regional forces could support stronger local policing teams by giving them access to specialist investigators, modern technology and better resources.
Those are legitimate objectives.
There are also obvious benefits to coordinating investigations involving cybercrime, international fraud, human trafficking and terrorism.
But several regional leaders and police officials have already raised concerns about the scale of the proposed mergers.
Critics argue that very large forces could become remote from the communities they police and that restructuring could divert resources from frontline services during the transition.
This shouldn't become an argument between those who want reform and those who oppose it.
It should be a debate about which reforms will actually improve policing.
And the burden of demonstrating that should fall on those proposing the changes.
My view: restore policing by consent
British policing has traditionally rested on the principle that police legitimacy depends on public consent and trust.
That principle is just as important today as it was when Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police in 1829.
I want to see officers visible in communities.
I want more attention given to burglary, theft, antisocial behaviour and organised criminal activity operating through our high streets.
I want police leadership held accountable for results.
And I want the public to have a meaningful say in how their local communities are policed.
None of those objectives requires us to reject better technology or greater cooperation between forces.
But I don't believe centralisation should be treated as an automatic solution to operational failure.
Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. More distant doesn't necessarily mean more efficient.
If the government can demonstrate that restructuring will deliver more officers on patrol, better crime outcomes and stronger public accountability, then it should publish the evidence.
Until then, I remain sceptical.
The questions the government must answer
Before fundamental changes are made to the policing system, I believe ministers should explain:
How many additional frontline officers would the reforms deliver?
What would the transition cost?
How would local communities retain democratic accountability?
Would existing crime-solving rates improve, and how would that be measured?
Could improvements in technology and resource allocation be achieved without merging so many forces?
These are reasonable questions, and they deserve clear answers.
Final thoughts
Sir Mark Rowley deserves credit for acknowledging the serious difficulties facing policing.
The decline in visible foot patrols, disappointing crime outcomes and ageing systems cannot simply be ignored.
But recognising a problem isn't the same as identifying the right solution.
For me, policing should begin with the people who pay for it and depend upon it.
That means local communities, ordinary victims of crime and residents who want to feel safe in their own streets.
We need effective national cooperation against serious criminals, but we also need genuinely accountable neighbourhood policing.
If reform takes policing further away from the public, we risk losing the very trust that makes policing by consent possible.
And that's a risk I don't believe we should take lightly.
Watch my full video
I examine Sir Mark Rowley's speech, the decline in foot patrols, the proposed restructuring of police forces and the questions surrounding police priorities.
Watch the full video — Andy The Gabby Cabby
Official sources and further reading
Metropolitan Police — Sir Mark Rowley's full speech, 6 November 2026
Sky News — Met Police chief warns policing will fail without major reforms
House of Lords Library — Communications offences and concerns over free speech
The Guardian — Mayors warn proposed super-forces threaten local policing
This article contains commentary and opinion alongside statistics, statements and proposals drawn from official and published sources.
