Jan Berry of the Police Federation has provided the worst possible headlines for Labour on the eve of Crewe and Nantwich by using her keynote speech to attack the Home Secretary. With Jacqui Smith next to her, these are four key sections that Ms Berry delivered in her farewell speech as the PF's Chair:
KAPOW!
"I am sure when your Private Secretary reminded you of today’s event you felt like reaching for the nearest stab proof vest - and perhaps slipping into old habits and lighting up to calm your nerves... But as you have reassured us, you have moved on from these past indiscretions... Your recent crimes have been more for the serious fraud office than the drug squad!"
BANG!
"You will say that you could not take any risks with inflation by conceding on police pay. But let me ask you this. How was it that the government found 2.7 billion pounds to dig itself out of a tax hole in advance of a by-election but couldn’t find 30 million pounds to honour our pay deal?"
THWACK!
"When teachers went on strike, the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary’s response was to say that it would be ‘irresponsible’ to over-ride the settlement recommended by their independent pay review panel. So it suited Mr Balls to defend the teachers’ panel deal but it didn’t suit you to do the same for us. Home Secretary, what is it that Mr Balls has but you do not..."
WHAAM!
"Your decision not to honour the pay award was a breach of faith. It was a monumental mistake and I do not say this lightly when I say you betrayed the police service."
Here is a PDF of the full speech.
1.25pm:
fantastic graphics, Tim!
Jacqui is of course only following Brown's orders here - he deserves the opprobrium.
Posted by: Louise Bagshawe | May 21, 2008 at 13:30
They both deserve the criticism, Louise. The "I was only following orders" excuse is not appropriate in high office.
Jan Berry's straight talking is wonderful. How refreshing.
Posted by: Deborah | May 21, 2008 at 13:52
The clock is ticking on Smith. Whether Gordon dumps her sooner or not, the electorate will at the GE and good job too.
Louis Bagshawe:
Following orders that are blatantly wrong makes you no less guilty.
If Smith opposed the policy then she should have resigned. She didn't. She deserves to swing (metaphoricaly speaking) over this as much as Brown does.
The two of them have managed to seriously damaged the relationship between the Government and the Police. Do you understand how serious that is?
Now if you were defending John Denham over Iraq then that may be a different matter but on this Smith has no defence and deserves everything she gets!
Posted by: John Leonard | May 21, 2008 at 13:57
That was a quite brilliant and blistering attack. Superb stuff (and good coverage, Tim).
Home Secretary, what is it that Mr Balls has but you do not...
A fantastic line, especially because no man could have got away with it.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | May 21, 2008 at 14:01
This is excellent stuff. The pre-election bribe must have been the last straw for the police.
To be told that the £30 million owed to them would have created unacceptable inflationary conditions, but £2,700,000,000 doesn't beggars belief.
Posted by: Praguetory | May 21, 2008 at 14:10
The idea of trust breaking down between government and police should be unthinkable. However the Labour top-down style of government, one that does not recognize feedback, that does not accept valid criticism, that believes it is about the executive, is a form of government that cannot engender trust. I do not believe that servants of the crown should have the right for strike, their role is too important in terms of their service to the nation. However we have to support the genuine grievances voiced by leading figures in the police force. They have been let down, betrayed and taken for granted by this out of touch government.
Posted by: Tony Makara | May 21, 2008 at 14:18
"What does Mr Balls have that you do not?"
Worthy of Churchill himeslf, if I ever got to deliver a speech with such a line I would die a happy man.
Posted by: John W | May 21, 2008 at 14:23
Great graphics Ed!
Posted by: Matthew | May 21, 2008 at 14:23
Nopthing like a bit of straight talking....they don't like it up 'em......and Jan Berry has been very frank and candid.
Unfortunately for the police, who are in the main honourable people, they are not dealing with honourable or even courageous politicians.
Was the Smith woman squirming? Have the rozzers ensured that names, addresses, number plates etc., been entered in the CRO database for ease of reference?.
Jan Berry's reference to the by-election bribe hits the bulls eye and shows what a bunch of shits NuLab really are.
Posted by: George Hinton | May 21, 2008 at 14:42
I am DELIGHTED to see we are backing a TRADE UNION CALL for less PAY RESTRAINT. This is EXACTLY what we want - MORE MONEY for FEWER SERVICES means the STATE CAN AFFORD LESS and they will have LESS TIME FOR PESTERING ME as I pursue my beloved 'Bored Housewife' and stick one to Grayling4Leader.
Posted by: DavisFan | May 21, 2008 at 14:54
Who to blame? Hmmm... The worst government in memory? Or the worst police "Service" ever? The British NKVD. Police who persecute old ladies, old men, TV producers, law abiding motorists, and run over pedestrians and shoot innocent members of the public more often than is acceptable, who run the evergrowing DNA database to be extended to the whole population. Police who have a new found respect for "Elf'n safety" greater than they have for the public. Police more likely to stand by their beds than to take any risk. As for the government,current cream of the political class....Eeny Meeny Miny....
Posted by: Examiner | May 21, 2008 at 15:40
The police.
A monolithic, parochial, inefficient and unreformed institution which must be a major taget for substantial reform under a Cameron Government.
Posted by: London Tory | May 21, 2008 at 15:48
Some especially loopy rants on here. Let's see...
Police who persecute old ladies
Really? Which old ladies have been "persecuted" by police? Who, when? Don't just reel off a list of dramatic-sounding bites, give examples. (N.B. there is a difference between "persecute" and "prosecute" - the latter is what the police are suppposed to do)
Police who persecute ... law abiding motorists
Oh for goodness sake, not that hoary old chestnut again. No law abiding motorist is going to get a speeding ticket, or fail a breath test, or get "persecuted" by the police, unless - guess what - they are BREAKING THE LAW! Thus, they are not "law abiding".
Stop the whinging, people.
Posted by: Captain Basil | May 21, 2008 at 16:49
Home Secretary, what is it that Mr Balls has but you do not...
The clue's in the question
Posted by: Paul D | May 21, 2008 at 18:22
Those criticising the police thoroughly miss the point.
1. Govt isn't witholding pay on any underperformance pretence
2. Police aren't on PRP to the best of my knowledge
3. You cannot blame the police for implementing laws made in Parliament. I'd be pretty upset if govt made laws about driving or any other matter and the local police chiefs starting picking and choosing their fave's and discarding the rest.
Of course police performance can be variable - that's true of any large organisation. But, this was an innocuous pay award from the independent panel... not abiding by it (for a £30m saving whilst blowing billions elsewhere) was utterly cretinous.
Posted by: StevenAdams | May 21, 2008 at 23:30
"You told me to do it" - Jacqui "big t*ts" words to GB after the mauling. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person. As you sow, so shall you reap and Gordon's chooks are about to roost, just in time for Crewe & Nantwich. The most telling point is the one about finding the 2.7bn for the buy-election - why couldn't they find £30m, a mere snippet, for the police? What a bunch of toerags. Give Jan Berry a medal!
Posted by: Watervole | May 21, 2008 at 23:34