Today's winner is "politicians" in general. For only politicians could be so stupid as to argue that Boris Johnson played party politics over the resignation of Sir Ian Blair and has politicised the former top policemans role by arguing that the only person that should be able to exercise such power and influence is the Home Secretary.
Oh yes, it's all come out in the papers today. Livingstone and Blunkett arguing that the Home Secretary is the ultimate judge and jury, and that a poltiician like the Mayor of London having such influence is the shocking policisation of a role.
Seriously, do these people really think that we're that bloody stupid that we cannot tell that the Mayor of London is a politician and errrr... so is the Home Secretary? When the Home Secretary suggests that she might overrule the nomination for Blair's replacement, does she seriously think that that is not a political act also?
The contempt with which some of these people hold our intelligence, and the stunning lack of intelligence on their part to make such absurd contradictory argument is staggering, it really is.
12 comments:
The difference is that New Labour still see themselves as the political wing of the British people and see the Conservatives as evil racist, sexist homophobes.
With the BBC to push this line, over and over again, what chance fairness?
And this was compounded by the BBC this morning who gave Blunket & some socialist copper TEN MINUTES for a completely one-sided analysis of this event. They didn't even say "We have asked for a representative of BoJo to come on the prgramme.....".
John of Enfield
It's simple, really. They think we're as stupid as they are.
So BoJo's reported comments that there's no need for a permanent replacement until 'we' get a Conservative home secretary doesn't suggest he's playing politics?
So BoJo's reported comments that there's no need for a permanent replacement until 'we' get a Conservative home secretary doesn't suggest he's playing politics?
Had I said that Boris Johnson was NOT playing party politics you might have a clever point, but as I didn't you don't.
What this post was pointing out was the absurdity of (a) the charge of party politics (because guess what, the one's saying it are doing it too duuuuh), and (b) the idea that the Mayor having an influence over the role is politicisation whilst the Home Secretary having influence isn't.
It's not rocket science. I do love the way that it is automateiocally assumed that one is defneding one side and attacking the other when if basic fucking reading comprehension existed they'd relaise he's attacking all of them for running out absurd arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny.
Is Ian Blair a member of the Labour Party? Thought not.
The only party politics is that BoJo is doing what the Labour Party should have done but failed to do.
Chief Constables are responsible to the local police authority, which in this cas is chaired by the mayor. If ministers complain tht the head of the Met has a national role they should have picked somebody who was competent in their local role as weell.
Yes, both Home Secretary and London Mayor are positions held by politicians. Yes, to claim that only one of these should be allowed to influence who is the Commissioner is inconsistent. I accept both of those points. The reason I think Boris is wrong is that he hasn't adequately justified his decision, so it looks capricious and self-interested. Why didn't he go out on TV and radio and explain it? His deputy's performance on Newsnight was frankly embarrassing.
As I understand it Boris didn;t make a decision did he? He simply stated that he didn;t think the MPA would be able to work with Blair. He doesn't have the power to make him resign. It was Blair's decision, but what would be interesting would be if he tried to sue for constructive dismissal.
But he did make the decision, or rather reached the judgment, that the Met needed new leadership (even if it was outside his formal powers to make this happend directly). All I want to hear from him is his reasoning behind that judgment. It's a pretty important position after all, so I think he should be accountable for that kind of judgment call.
Agree with your post Dizzy but for me it's even simpler.
Even as someone who didn't vote for Boris I believe he, as the elected Mayor of London, should have the final say and not the MP for Redditch.
Either we have devolution or we don't.
Boris may not have the power to remove an commissioner even though he has chairmanship of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but he basically sacked him when Johnson said the Met needed new leadership
While i don't like Sir Ian Blair, he seemed to close to Labour and sounded like a twat, i think it is worrying that the head of the Met Police is removed due to party political reasons - where does it stop, should the secretary of Defence be able to remove a general who speaks up for the troops but embaresses the rulling party?
Thomas,
It seems that being a General who speaks up for the troops but embarrasses the ruling party is definitely enough to stop you being appointed Chief of the Defence Staff.
S-E
Post a Comment