Tonight:
4°c
The outrage of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and the police establishment at Boris Johnson's “politicisation” of the Met by removing its Commissioner has been both ludicrous and deeply gratifying to behold.
Of course, the operational decision-making of the police — such as deciding who to arrest, or not to arrest — should not be political, and it is not. But given crime's importance to the public, it is wholly proper for policy, and the choice of senior personnel, to be political, and in practice it always has been. What is Ms Smith, if not a politician?
Sir Ian Blair's departure does not set a precedent for the sacking of a police chief every time a new mayor comes to office. It was the product of failings specific to him alone, failings which people across the political spectrum agreed made his position impossible.
It was, in fact, Sir Ian's survival, not his removal, which was an unsavoury act of politics. In any other job, someone with his record of endlessly poor leadership and bad judgment would have gone years ago.
Sir Ian was protected because, in one of his worst decisions, he provided support far beyond the call of duty to New Labour. (Even Sir Ian's supposed achievements were not what they seem: for all his image as a racial reconciler, black officers were at loggerheads with his leadership, as Boris's newly announced inquiry into racism will highlight.)
Amid the Home Secretary's synthetic fury, we forget that one of her own predecessors, David Blunkett, suspended, tried to sack and eventually forced into early retirement another chief constable, Humberside's David Westwood.
Westwood's error (just the one, rather than Sir Ian's nine or ten) was not even made by him but by his subordinates. Westwood, however, was not a chum of the Labour Party.
Ms Smith's real complaint, I fear, is not that the appointment and dismissal of chief constables has been politicised — but that a rival politician has seized the reins from her. (For even though she will appoint Sir Ian's successor, Boris will enjoy an effective veto.)
Bravo, I say. Smith was directly elected by 18,000 people in Redditch. Boris was directly elected, not six months ago, by 1.1 million Londoners on an explicit platform of changing the way the city was policed.
One common canker of British politics is the public body set up to provide the appearance of accountability and renewal, rather than the reality; the public body behind whose glossy facade the same useless Whitehall civil servants remain in charge. The mayor's policing oversight subsidiary, the Metropolitan Police Authority, was set up as one such body. Overnight, in a quite magnificent democratic coup, all that has changed and there is now the chance of real improvement in London's policing.
Under Whitehall control, the British police remained one of the least reformed public services. But American cities — indeed normal democratic cities almost anywhere outside Britain — show just how much a police chief and an elected mayor, working together, can achieve without the dead hand of central government.
Under Whitehall control, a serious gap opened between police and public. Overnight, that accountability gap has dramatically closed. It's a new world now, in which police bureaucrats everywhere are going to have to pay more attention to the service they provide. No wonder so many police chiefs, too, were unhappy last week.
Reader views (4)
The constitutional confusion surrounding appointment and dismissal of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was created entirely by Tony Blair's government when it created the position of London Mayor. It is pitiful for the Home Secretary to complain about it. Boris Johnson is just doing his job as he has found it. It may well be that the responsibilities of the Met Chief are just too broad. Surely, for London's sake, there is a strong case for splitting off current duties with respect to the national response to threats from terrorism. The current unsatisfactory constitutional arrangement will surely evolve. It may be preferable for the London Mayor to have unambiguous oversight, advised by the MPA, but without meddling from the government. The alternative would have to be virtual emasculation of the Mayoralty, but we don't need two Lord Mayors.
- Blackstone Coke, London, 07/10/2008 12:59
Report abuse
I'm sure that Kit Malthouse will sort everything out, after all he's being paid enough!
- David, London UK, 07/10/2008 10:51
Report abuse
You are seriously aspiring to American policing. Rodney King any one?
Blair should have gone but also the person in charge of the operation that killed the innocent Brasilian. Remember he was made to look a fool by his subordinates who waited until he had finished his press conf. to tell him they had got the wrong man.
Mind you this was most American police operation: they shot first asked questions later.
Still we could follow that model and re-introduce the "good olde days" and bring back the SPG who would roam around meating out proactive justice/punishment. Then we could sit and discuss which were more evocative the Brixton riots of the 80's or the ones just happening.
The British police are not perfect, but have made great strides since the 80's. Stop and Search needs to be implemented but many of the officers are still too antagonistic/provocative when carrying this out.
However I still think they are amongst the most professional in the world and certainly better than those in the states.
- Bob, London, 07/10/2008 02:51
Report abuse
I'm all for a reform of the police forces of the UK, especially the Met, however, does Gilligan really think that we will have a democratically controlled and accountable Police force with Bonkers Boris? They will be Tory stooges (or BNP stooges), it was ever thus
- Kerry Trubee, purley, 06/10/2008 17:59
Report abuse
