De-politicising the police
Probably the worst legacies that the Blair and Brown governments will leave behind is a mountain of debt that will take decades to pay back, and a wrecked pension system.
But a close third is the way they have attempted, with far too much success, to politicise a great many things which ought not to be politicised, starting with the civil service. Within a year of taking office they had changed the law to allow political appointees like Alistair Campbell to give orders to civil servants and replaced the senior press officers at the great majority of government departments. And the process has continued from there.
But far more insidious and dangerous is the way Labour has attempted to politicise the senior ranks of the police. I would not for an instant suggest that every Labour Home Office minister has been a party to this, nor that every senior officer has gone along with it. But there have been a number of senior police officers, of whom Sir Ian Blair was the archetypal example, who have been unhealthily close to the government.
There will be a big problem for the next government in dealing with this. Simply replacing those officers who are - let's put this politely - too close to the present administration to be seen as impartial, with people who are closer to the incoming government, is all too likely to be seen as replacing bias in one direction with bias in the other.
The challenge is to ensure that there are fair and effective means to remove senior officers who are manifestly failures, or demonstrably biased, while ensuring that officers who are both impartial and good at their jobs cannot be removed for telling a minister of either party what they don't want to hear.
As originally drafted this post continued with a carefully worded statement of concern about some unguarded words of a certain very senior officer in the metropolitan police. But as he has now apologised and the apology has been accepted let's leave it there.
But a close third is the way they have attempted, with far too much success, to politicise a great many things which ought not to be politicised, starting with the civil service. Within a year of taking office they had changed the law to allow political appointees like Alistair Campbell to give orders to civil servants and replaced the senior press officers at the great majority of government departments. And the process has continued from there.
But far more insidious and dangerous is the way Labour has attempted to politicise the senior ranks of the police. I would not for an instant suggest that every Labour Home Office minister has been a party to this, nor that every senior officer has gone along with it. But there have been a number of senior police officers, of whom Sir Ian Blair was the archetypal example, who have been unhealthily close to the government.
There will be a big problem for the next government in dealing with this. Simply replacing those officers who are - let's put this politely - too close to the present administration to be seen as impartial, with people who are closer to the incoming government, is all too likely to be seen as replacing bias in one direction with bias in the other.
The challenge is to ensure that there are fair and effective means to remove senior officers who are manifestly failures, or demonstrably biased, while ensuring that officers who are both impartial and good at their jobs cannot be removed for telling a minister of either party what they don't want to hear.
As originally drafted this post continued with a carefully worded statement of concern about some unguarded words of a certain very senior officer in the metropolitan police. But as he has now apologised and the apology has been accepted let's leave it there.
Comments
There is a similar register of local government officers' interests, which is not published. I will check this, but I think there is also one for senior police officers.
Not sure how helpful the expression "secret society" is in this context.
For example, if an organisation's headquarters can be found on any decent map of London, and if it runs websites listing where and when its branches meet, can be found in the phone book, publishes lists of its officers, and writes to all members telling any who are councillors to declare that membership, is that organisation really very secret?
Answer no to that question, and you have acknowledged that the allegedly "secret" orgaisation which people most often get worked up about in the context of the police, e.g. the Freemasons, are not a secret society.
Personally I think masonry in this country is about as secret as a faulty silencer on a Boeing 747. But it should be treated in the same way as any other society, and is included when I say that it is right that membership of all organisations should be declared by MPs, Councillors, and people holding other important public positions.