Letter from Mayor Rotherham to Home Secretary Davis

Sometime in the near future...

To: Rt Hon David Davis, MP, Home Secretary
From: Dr Lee Rotherham, Mayor of London

Dear Mr Davis,

Appointment of the Next Metropolitan Police Chief

Firstly, on a personal note, congratulations on your appointment to the Home Office. After the Conservatives’ recent victory in the General Election, I am delighted from a party political viewpoint to see that we now have people in government who are going to deliver results. Please, however, give me some advance notice if you intend to absail down any of our public buildings.

Down to business.

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and associated legislation, the Mayor of London is required to fulfil a limited number of obligations regarding the policing of the Capital.

One of these, as you know, relates to the appointment of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Given that we are now replacing a second Mr Blair in his role, I am required to provide you with some input and opinion.

My position on the Mayor’s responsibilities has ever been clear. I stood on an abolitionist platform when I was running for Mayor, and I stand by those principles today. I see the building I’m in as an unnecessary drain on borough democracy and the taxpayer’s pocket. But as this is a delegated area where the cost of my action amounts to a first class stamp, and as talk is cheap, on this occasion I think I can carry out an activity any ordinary member of your constituency can already do any day of the week, while chipping in to the Party’s policy development process.

The new Met Chief must be responsible with public money: So what form of policing should London see in the future? Well, as you might expect from reading the Bumper Book of Government Waste, I believe it should be someone who has a sound financial head on his shoulders. The new Met Chief should not expend his energies (and his budget) refurbishing his office with the latest expensive furniture or tinkering with the firm logo. He should spend less time fretting about his public image, and concentrate on his public duties.

Police Constables should not be PC: For starters, to mangle the language, a PC should be PC-literate but not be PC-obsessed. Of course, a policeman of any rank must be aware of the sensitivities of the community in which he operates. He cannot be effective otherwise as “a citizen in uniform”. But while the new Commissioner should be accessible to concerns, he should not pander to lobby groups with political agendas. A rank and file policeman should treat all members of the community as individuals and with humanity, but without having to tick boxes every time he goes about his business.

More police officers working their beats: So we have to cut back on the paperwork and give police managers more leeway to get their men out on the streets doing their job. The police are there to deter crime and to catch criminals. Administrative burdens of course are not unique to this City’s Force. That’s why I symbolically handcuffed myself outside a police station when I was a candidate in the 2005 election. It was infuriating for everybody concerned to have officers chained to their desks, while people in the local community were seeing their windows being shot at with air rifles, their neighbours harassed by gangs, and playgrounds littered with needles and syringes.

A policeman should also be allowed to go about his duties without suffering the obsession of human rights fanatics, and ambulance-chasing lawyers feeding off a blame culture. I fear though that this is part of a vast legal and social problem that you will have to spend the next two terms addressing. Somewhere, as a society, we have all got our priorities wrong.

Zero tolerance policing: I believe, Mr Home Secretary, that to restore confidence in the police amongst the law-abiding majority, we have to install a zero tolerance programme. The New York example proves that tolerating petty crime with a shrug of the shoulders encourages more criminality, discourages people reporting criminals, emboldens malfaisants, and does nobody any favours. It creates a sink environment.

Crime-fighting charities: I have total admiration for those charities which get involved in communities to lift people out of crime, especially when they help our children and youth. They deserve your support, unlike those schemes (too often backed with public funds) that have appeared to reward repeat-offender delinquents with holidays.

No doubt you also have ideas on how the Home Office can deal with problem families that we know from constituency work can wilfully trash a neighbourhood and its reputation. That thankfully goes well beyond my remit. But I will say I do believe it worth investigating routes by which young offenders could be obliged to publicly atone for their actions involving a very visible mechanism of public service or penance. If a delinquent’s crime leads to humiliation, a young criminal loses respect amongst his peers. Such an approach would also have the benefit of demonstrating to the local community that offenders are being dealt with. Naturally, this prerequires that ECHR and EU articles can be sidestepped or removed, an issue I know you have been looking into in depth.

More rehab places for drug offenders - and decriminalisation of certain drugs?: The Met Chief will obviously have to have a clear concept of where the War on Drugs is going. I believe we should be providing him with more rehabilitation places for addicts who genuinely want to kick the habit. Perhaps crucially it is now time for a cross-party commission on how society confronts the broader issue: whether to decriminalise and tax certain soft drugs in set environments and at an established grade under a state monopoly, while dealers in certain Class A drugs are treated for what they are – complicit in murder, in this country and especially at source. This entire area is a taboo that needs to be addressed by your colleagues if the Commissioner is to carry out his job.

Homeland security: I do not envy his tasks either in the War on Terror. I am very aware of the tightrope he and his team will walk, and the burden of those hard judgement calls, for which they merit our greater understanding. The confirmation of Patrick Mercer as the new Minister for Homeland Security will at least hopefully bring additional clarity to existing structures. (I trust one of his first acts will be to look at boosting the pay grades of the new linguists some of his agencies are trying to recruit, which are ludicrously low for London pricing.)

The new Met Chief must enjoy operational independence: But public confidence also has to come through strategic mechanisms. Targeting known repeat criminals in communities, including drugs users who need to burgle to feed the habit. Embedding of police officers in communities as focal points. A clear policy that says freedom of speech does not mean freedom for sedition and threat to life. And having said all that, paradoxically, once the Met Chief is appointed, getting out of his hair and letting him do his job effectively and without further political guidance, meddling and interference. This includes any lingering temptation in your department to set him “targets”.

I might also add that, given London’s particular issues at the moment, it may well be particularly worthwhile considering a candidate from the Transport Police.

***

Enough said. My point, Mr Home Secretary, is basically this: for my tuppence (or 32p stamp) worth, I hope that London gets a new Met Commissioner who will focus on policing and less on presentation. He (or she) will be open to communities but closed to lobbyists. And once he’s appointed, you’ll let him get on with the job, providing support by getting rid of key burdens that keep policemen either off the streets, or prevented under Health and Safety assessments from climbing onto minibus roofs in case they fall off.

Give local stations the chance to make judgement calls on how they tackle local crime.

And finally, please, pass the legislation that puts me and this costly London quasi-government out of a job.

Good luck in picking up the pieces at the Home Office,

Lee Rotherham

Comments

[Secondary Teacher]

Have you fallen down a rabbit hole - dream on.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Isn't Lee Rotherham standing on an 'abolish the mayoralty' ticket? If so, surely he wouldn't be in a position to send such a letter?

That's my token pedantry done with for today...

[Jim Baxter]

How can we expect voters to take us seriously if we can't take the job of the Mayor seriously? This joke candidate is an embarrassment.

[Deputy Editor]

He would at first, DVA - see the penultimate sentence...

And finally, please, pass the legislation that puts me and this costly London quasi-government out of a job.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

There is nothing wrong with being an abolitionist candidate. Fortunately with Lee you can expect him to do what he set out to do and get rid of that complete waste of money that is the mayor's office.

Good to see people attacking the person and not the ideas. I thought that was passe' in the new Conservative Party.

[Jonathan M Scott]

Andrew, I agree entirely with your post.

Reading Lee's post, I think he will make a superb London Mayor - if selected - and he has got the right idea by promoting the 'broken windows' theory of policing which has as he says worked so well in New York and other American cities.

London needs to be cleaned up and Mr Rotherham would be the idea candidate to do so, because Red Ken ain't got a hope of cleaning anything up !

[Dawb Cole]

When is the party going to grow up? Not even after nine years in opposition? No wonder it's been this long.

The Mayor's post is going away. The Conservative Party is not going to make itself look foolish and irrelevant by allowing an "abolitionist" candidate to go forward. Perhaps we should have a political intellegence test for members.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

The Mayor's post is going away.

Exactly that is why he is running to make sure it goes away.

[Mark]

Or do you mean a "people who agree with me" test, Dawb?

[Martin Hoscik (MayorWatch)]

Well speaking as someone who supports London government I hope Rotherham is picked.

The last GLA elections saw an increase in the number of voters on the 2000 turnout and both saw a marked increase on the number who voted in the 1998 Referendum.

Yet despite these increases there persists a belief that a majority are opposed to the continuance of the GLA. As an outsider many of those Conservatives opposed to the role of Mayor seem only to be so because they feel Livingstone can't be beaten by any of the likely runners.

So let's hope Rotherham is selected, this way a clear decision can be made by Londoners and if Rotherham's not elected the abolitionists will need to accept they're in a minority.

Hopefully they'll then devote themselves to running a candidate in 2012 who supports the institution.

[london tory]

This shouldn't become a forum for losers.

It only takes the tiniest bit of campaign savvy to understand that we cannot have a candidate opposed to the Mayoralty. As Martin correctly points out, the Mayor, the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats would be the main beneficiaries. Remember the polls even at the time of abolition of the GLC--if anything a less effective institution than the Mayoralty.

Nor should we want someone with such views. It's our job to elect someone who can achieve modern conservative goals in the office to reduce crime, improve transport etc. Reading some of these posts and others really makes one wonder about just the sheer stupidity of so many of our members.

[John G]

It only takes the tiniest bit of campaign savvy to understand that we cannot have a candidate opposed to the Mayoralty

Why not? Personally I always thought the whole concept was utter nonsense, and that creepy Marxist lunatic Livingstone has proved my point many times over.

IMHO one of the best things Maggie did was to get rid of the GLC. If it were down to me I'd get rid of this bunch of self-serving placemen as well.

The London boroughs are perfectly capable of providing all the government London needs.

[Opinicus]

"It only takes the tiniest bit of campaign savvy to understand that we cannot have a candidate opposed to the Mayoralty."

Assertion isn't argument, LondonTory

We don't need to stand on a straightforward abolitionist ticket but offer Londoners another referendum. In the meantime, our Mayor would offer cheaper, more efficient services etc.etc. Most public services are subject to audit review these days and a new office like the Mayor should be subject to a democratic review to see whether it has lived up to its initial purpose or whether a fourfold increase in cost means its an expensive waste of money. London is the Capital why should just Londoners pay for diplomatic protection, security at capital events etc. Why shouldn't commuters pay for London's transport system as they use it every bit as much as Londoners. And if they pay, they should have a vote on the Mayor. So why not extend the Mayor, if we are keeping him, out to the Home Counties (and make him permanently Tory.)

Some people see an election and all they can think of is putting up a candidate and playing the game. Its so high school.

[Martin Hoscik (MayorWatch)]

Jonathan

I'm not sure I understand your position. How do you think abolishing the office of Mayor would address the situation where "just Londoners pay for diplomatic protection, security at capital events etc" ?

I agree that that situation is wrong - http://www.mayorwatch.org.uk/news.php?article_id=311 - but it's wholly unconnected with the office of Mayor as it's a central Government issue.

I'd be interested why you think the situation is more likely to change without a Londonwide voice when all governments of all political persuasions have perpetuated the existing situation.

As for offering Londoners another referendum you need to win power at a GE to deliver this. Why stand at the Mayoral election on a policy you can't deliver?

If we're to accept your view that "a new office like the Mayor should be subject to a democratic review to see whether it has lived up to its initial purpose" and a resulting referendum delivered a majority to abolish the GLA would you be undertaking to offer Londoners another referendum in 10 years time in case they felt having no Londonwide voice wasn't serving their interests?

As for "Why shouldn't commuters pay for London's transport system" surely commuters do pay - in their fares? It's unclear what you're proposing - is it that paying a Tube fair entitles you to vote for the Mayor even if you don't live in London?

What if you live further away than "the Home Counties" - would your fare still entitle you to a vote? Would you have to do a minimum number of journeys in London to qualify for a vote?

Or are you saying that they should pay in their taxes and this should qualify them to vote? If so as Londoners subsidise just about every other region of the UK should we all get to vote in every out of London election?

Either way it does seem a complicated proposal!

[Opinicus]

Martin I will try and take your points in turn

Londoners pay for diplomatic protection through the Met Police and therefore through the mayoral precept. A decent Mayor would attack the Govt on behalf of Londoners to remedy the injustice. The police are one of only two real powers the Mayor has got.

I do not expect the situation to change period. That doesn't forbid me from raising it as an issue and as a means to attack the govt and the office of Mayor of which I disapprove

You are far too simplistic. The mayor would be elected on a platform of requiring a referendum from the government. This is called consulting the people and popular. Either the govt grants it in which case we have a referendum (at least its been a fresh and distinctive issue at the mayoral election) or it doesn't in which case we have endless fun spluttering about the injustice. This cannot be an issue at a GE (it would get swallowed in the larger noise) but the government's arrogant refusal to grant one could be.

A repeat referendum would be a matter for 2016 and the democratic demands of the London people at that time a.k.a. who cares?

As for transport I do not understand you. A goodly portion of the Mayor's precept is spent on transport - only Londoners pay this. Everyone pays fares. I am suggesting that this tax burden should be spread out to the home counties where extra numbers would lessen it considerably but that as a quid pro quo the home counties should have a vote on the mayor's transport policies (at his election). By an unrelated but happy coincidence increasing the electorate for the Mayor would turn him from a safe Labour post to a safe Conservative one.

Of course it would be possible to say that Scots occasionally use London Transport as do the citizens of Paris and New York but I think that argument is just silly and unworthy. Commuters in the Home Counties, certainly the near Home counties, use LRT a lot and have a right to be consulted about London's transport policy if we retain the office of Mayor, which I repeat I am against.

[Martin Hoscik (MayorWatch)]

Jonathan

I'll try and respond more fully later but for now:

Genuine question, can you name me a member of the Tory home affairs team who have advocated removing national police duties from the Met? Note, I'm not scoring points, I have no idea who has or hasn't suggested it and as I'm in favour of such a change would be interested to know.

I don't buy into your reasons for extending voting for the London Mayor to non-Londoners and I also disagree that it's a safe Labour job.

It's probably safe Livingstone job but I think post Ken it'll be a tighter race IMO.

:-)

[Opinicus]

No one in CCHQ has suggested anything of the sort. When Letwin proposed elected Police authorities in 2004 I asked him at a meeting to split off the national policing function from the Met to enable splitting the Met into smaller more manageable units doing ordinary Police work so that they could have local democratic control too. I got a lot of spluttering which meant no.

[Steve]

Londoners do pay an MPA precept but this is not used to fund diplomatic protection Jonathan. The Home Office pay a central grant known as the "Special Payment" to cover the cost of protecting politicians and key designated sites around the Capital.