Yesterday’s elbowing of Ian Blair out of Scotland Yard was the first sign that Boris Johnson understands the implied power of his mandate. It’s been a long time coming and it’s very welcome.
After faffing around for months and palming off his duties to so-called deputies and trivialising himself with ‘design a bus’ competitions it was pleasing to see Boris take a firm stance and ensure his will would triumph.
As his predecessor knew, the powers of the Mayor are actually pretty slim and the only way to get anything done is to assert the moral authority of being directly elected with the biggest mandate in the UK.
It’s nothing short of insane that the directly elected Mayor of a world city lacks the ultimate say over the fate of the top cop.
Blair’s successor really should be the last to be appointed by the Home Secretary, it’s reprehensible that a minister who may not even represent a London seat can decide who will have operational control over our police force.
The Government refuses to cede control over the appointment on the grounds that the Met has national policing duties but the answer has always been clear – split the Met’s local policing responsibilities from the national obligations.
As for Boris, he emerges from this affair a bigger and more credible figure. It’s a no-brainer that his first outing next week as chair of the MPA will be a crowd puller.
CHRIS W says
Boris has exceeded his legal powers and politicised the role of met commissioner and you thnk that’s a cause for celebration?
How stupid can you get.
aristeides says
“Yesterday’s elbowing of Ian Blair out of Scotland Yard was the first sign that Boris Johnson understands the implied power of his mandate. It’s been a long time coming and it’s very welcome.”
You have changed your tune!
http://tinyurl.com/4fw6gg
He who laughs last and all that…
Damian Hockney says
The confused and patchwork changes to the current structure of ‘government’ in London allow these type of situations to develop where it is not clear who actually exercises power (as opposed to where power formally lies). The idea that the Mayor can ‘sack’ the Commissioner is a non-starter, even if he chairs the MPA. But only a pedant would rely upon that argument to say that Sir Ian resigned after the Mayor having a chat with him and there is no connection between the two actions! Chris W, I take your point but the developing structures have politicised the top jobs already. You can’t give elected officials ‘influence’ and then expect them not to use it in what they can claim to be the electorate’s best interests…but Martin, you also have to think of an important issue – the Met has a national and international role (which indeed it might be sensible to consider changing/ending…oh dear, I can hear the howls now). On that basis, and with the present messy arrangements, it might be risky allowing an elected Mayor to hire and fire. The tangle when I was on the police authority (MPA) over Sir Ian’s position made me realise that the system has to change…and making the Mayor Chair of the MPA is just tinkering.
Martin Hoscik says
Chris, I have to disagree. What politicised the role of Met commisioner was the decision of Sir Ian to comment on political issues and prop up the Government whenever a bit of police backing could be useful.
But in any case, a properly scrutinused Mayoral appointment would only benefit London and Londoners.
Why should we have the head of our police chosen by the MP for Redditch over who we have no control and who is no way accountable to Londoner rather than by the directly elected Mayor of London?
aristeides, yes and no but surely a willingess to reconsider isn’t a bad thing? I’ve always thought the Mayor should appoint the commissioner but I disagreed with the notion of using the election as a vote of no confidence in Sir Ian Blair and “running around…promising to get rid of him”.
I still don’t think that would have the way to do it. But thing have moved on since I made the comment you linked to (Jan 2007?) and Sir Ian has been a growing distraction for the force. Something had to change.
Damian, I think removing the national role from the bobby on the beat is essential and long overdue. I’d rather have the Mayor, scrutinused by MPA and Assembly appoint the head of my local police force than an MP fron Redditch. The problem is, as I think we agree, with Labour’s poor undertanding of devolution.
Tom says
The question is, having jumped, Boris actually has no more control – the Home Secretary can appoint the next Commissioner and if Boris doesn’t like it he’ll have to lump it; he can’t pull the same trick twice.
Boris needs the Commissioner more than the person who appoints the Commissioner needs Boris, which isn’t a position of strength.
Splitting the national and Metropolitan responsibilities is a good idea, but it’s not the world we live in.
Martin Hoscik says
Tom: I agree that in theory she could but I wonder if she has the backbone for it and would the Government really want to be seen to act in such a petty an undemocratic fashion, just as things are looking (slightly) up for them?
Where I do disagree with you is that I believe Boris has a position of moral strength in that, unlike Jacqui Smith, he’s accountable to Londoners and to sideline him in the appointment of a new commissioner would be outrageous.
If yesterday’s actions take us even a small step closer to ending the constitutional outrage that allows a out of town MP to appoint the head of my local police force then I applaud Boris for his actions and I think anyone who cares about local democracy should put aside their personal political leanings and get behind the Mayor on this.
Roger Evans says
The legislation which created London Government was lengthy but flawed, because it left so many ambiguities. Livingstone was an expert in ‘pushing the envelope’ to gain more powers for the office of Mayor. Boris has shown that he can also push the envelope, and he’s done it cleverly because Londoners will not mourn Blair.
Tom says
“would the Government really want to be seen to act in such a petty an undemocratic fashion”
Um, Boris is attempting to take a power he hasn’t got away from the place where the UK Parliament has decided it should reside and which provides most of the Met’s money. That’s not exactly a beacon of democratic respect and accountability right there, is it? Until the position of Commissioner is stripped of its national responsibility for anti-terror work it’s also highly irresponsible for Boris to prolong the disruption – he should at least have a candidate in mind he can work with who will also be acceptable to Jacqui Smith – if no such candidate exists even in potentia then it was damned stupid to force Blair out, wasn’t it? This isn’t the Wild West.
Further, if the suggestion in the Guardian that Boris is playing dog in the manger until a Conservative Government over a permanent appointment to a post of national and international importance has even an ounce of truth in it it’s a quite appalling state of affairs – I hope he comes out and denies it immediately and tells us how he plans to work with the Home Office to appoint a permanent candidate as soon as practicable. It’s a time for British compromise, not pointless Cheneyesque displays of ‘strength’, however much ConservativeHome bleat on.
Martin Hoscik says
‘That’s not exactly a beacon of democratic respect and accountability right there, is it?’
I happen to disagree, Boris is simply aserting the mandate of the London electorate in having the vital say in who polices our streets.
As Roger said, Ken would always push the envelope and I agreed with him when he did it and I’m being consistent and backing Boris now he’s done it.
TawkinSenz says
On the one hand Blair had to go, he did politicise the role and he opened his big mouth too often.
He was no longer independent and had certainly lost the confidence of the public.
I feel strongly that he did lie to the public with the Jean-Charles DeMenes affair.
However, I don’t think it’s a good sign that the mayor can oust the chief of the Met in this way. It may have worked in the favour of Londoners this time, but it sets an unwanted precident.
The best man for the job should run the Met – no more, no less. Politics and policing don’t mix and one thing Blair has taught us is that this situation can never be allowed to happen again.
Thomas the Taxi says
Never mind the politicians,Londoners, the people that pay the tax, wanted Blair removed, for quite some time. But the politicians don’t listen to the people.
Blair was, what is wrong with fast tracking people into positions for a political gain.
Londoners are now worried that the next commissioner will be pick not for his/her ability or character, but for his/her ethnicity and political affiliation.
A man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the colour of his skin.
How soon we forget!
Martin Hoscik says
Apparently Ken tells the BBC tonight that he’s in favour of the Mayor hiring and firing the Met commissioner:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7663920.stm
Roger Evans says
I think Ken has said this before. He also said we should scrap the MPA – a position with which I had some sympathy.