It was probably because of the rain that very few people bothered to make the trip to City Hall this morning to see the London Assembly question ‘deputy mayors’ Tim Parker and Kit Malthouse on their respective roles which is a pity as I think the star of the Johnson administration has finally been revealed.
After questioning Parker for more than an hour the Assembly opted to spend less than half that questioning Malthouse on his position as ‘Deputy Mayor for Policing and First Duty Chair of the MPA’.
The allocation of time seemed odd and priced to be a bit of an error because as Members questioned him it quickly became apparent that Malthouse knows his stuff and a longer period and more questions would have proved pretty illuminating.
On proposals to reduce the police estates Malthouse accepted Lib Dem complaints that the consultation process wasn’t ideal but defended the general principle of the scheme (and I think he’s right to, it makes no sense that we deploy police in largely the same was we did before cars were commonplace).
Put to him that crime mapping would just fuel concerns about crime rates and alarm the public Malthouse said people should be concerned if crime in their area was high and that the point of mapping was to ensure public were properly informed so they could better hold the police and politicians to account.
Noticeably absent throughout the session were the hedging and fumbling which critics say has become the hallmark of the new administration. Instead the sparse audience were treated to a stream of indepth, knowledgeable and coherent answers, here at last were signs of a City government with a vision and purpose.
Based on today’s performance policing could very well turn out to be one of this administration’s strengths.
John H says
Why do compliments for Boris or his team attract less response than more critical posts?
Damian Hockney says
I was also there and agree totally with this assessment of Malthouse this morning (and I am one of those who has criticised the ‘hedging and fumbling’ the piece talks about). It was good to see someone who clearly relished the role and knew what they were talking about. There was no hint of him trying to wing it – you may agree or disagree with him, but he seems to know where he is going. The half hour they spent with him was actually enjoyable and productive, where the other sessions I have attended have felt thin and without substance. He actually answered questions, he really did.
Will says
‘it makes no sense that we deploy police in largely the same was we did before cars were commonplace’
I have never understood why people want to slow down police response times by making them walk beats instead of drive/ride?
Combined custody blocks will be unpopular and will face a lot of local opposition, you can be certain the LibDems will whip up local fears over this.
Martin (editor) says
John – I don’t think it’s a ‘Boris’ thing, we used to have people queue up to knock Ken on things too.
Generally people tend to have stronger ‘anti’ feelings and a desire to express them.
Dave says
Yeah – I’m sure the Tory administration is counting on Policing being the strong point. Without Law and Order the party has no strong points.
I think it’s very revealing that it’s so specifically noted when you actually find someone who does know what they’re on about as opposed to the reams and reams of bungling idiots we’re so used to.
Chuck Unsworth says
Will: “I have never understood why people want to slow down police response times by making them walk beats instead of drive/ride?”.
That is the whole point. It’s not that people ‘wish to’ slow police response times. A response is to something that has happened. The essence of preventative policing is to stop things from happening in the first place.
Cops walking about the streets instead of driving around or sitting in an office filling in miles of paperwork have a deterrent and reassuring effect. A good part of the process of reassurance and confidence-building is physical presence. A cop in a car is not in touch with anyone except his colleagues. ‘Intelligence led policing’? I don’t think so.