Police

Andrew Mitchell spent the whole of Home Office questions on the front bench, nodding sagely as both Damian Green and Theresa May were repeatedly asked to condemn his behaviour outside the Downing Street gates, which they repeatedly refused to do. He was joined in his nodding routine by Andrew Lansley, who knows a little about being hauled over coals by the opposition himself. Throughout the session, there was a low rumble of barracking from the benches. When the first question about the chief whip came from Catherine McKinnell – who asked what the impact was ‘of a cabinet member verbally abusing a police officer at a time of record frontline

The Labour party’s love-in with great Tory statesmen continues. Yesterday Miliband went all Disraelian; today Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has raised the spectre of Robert Peel in an attempt to paint modern Tories as out of touch with the police service in the wake of the Andrew Mitchell ‘pleb’ scandal. However, it seems that Yvette has not done her homework. Peel’s view of the average copper was closer to Andrew Mitchell’s alleged words. Writing to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in December 1829, Peel mused on the formation of the police: ‘for subordinate duties connected with the Police, Persons who have not the Rank, Station, and habits of Gentlemen,

‘I can see there are several journalists here, so we might as well get Andrew Mitchell out of the way’. Channel 4’s Michael Crick decided to kick off his lunchtime fringe session with the big political row brewing far away from the Brighton Centre. Irene Curtis, president-elect of the Police Superintendents’ Association, began by venting her frustration that the matter remained ‘unresolved’, highlighting the integrity of the police force and its officers as her key concern. Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, took the view that there is little else for police to say since the officer has accepted Mitchell’s apology. But like the other

Ed Miliband used his speech this morning on policing to attack the shambles on Olympic security staffing created by G4S. That was a sensible thing for an opposition leader to do, and he managed to give quite a sensible speech, all in all. He did not fall into the trap of saying that all outsourcing is bad – which would have been a strange thing for the Labour leader to say, anyway, given it was under his party in government that firms like G4S flourished. But he did point to what many across the political spectrum agree is a problem: that G4S effectively holds a monopoly on security and policing

In nominating the lawyer and former rail regulator Tom Winsor as her choice to be the next chief inspector of constabulary, the home secretary has stoked more discontent among the ranks of the Police Federation. Not only is he the first non-police officer ever to be nominated to the role, but he is also the author of a bold review of pay and conditions that made long-overdue recommendations to modernise the police workforce. For this reason alone, the Police Federation is dismayed by the nomination, and MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee (meeting today) may yet try to block him. But the appointment is likely to be approved, and

The news that Rebekah Brooks and Charlie Brooks have been charged with perverting the course of justice means that there’ll be at least one trial involving friends of the Prime Minister before the next election. In cynical political terms, that Charlie has been charged as well as Rebekah creates an additional political problem for David Cameron. Part of Cameron’s explanation for how close he got to Rebekah Brooks has always been that she married an old school friend of his. Undoubtedly, the Charlie Brooks connection added a genuine layer of friendship to relations between Rebekah Brooks and Cameron. I suspect that if it was not for Charlie Brooks there would

Remember when Ed Miliband couldn’t be found anywhere? Now you can barely get away from him. The Labour leader has been conspicuous by his presence over the past week, whether on the airwaves or in graffiti form (see left, a photo taken on London’s South Bank yesterday). And he’s continued that hi-vis trend today, by launching Labour’s local election campaign in Birmingham. Two things stand out from the speech he gave at that event. The first was his heavy emphasis on the pledges he announced last week: capping railway fares, unfreezing the personal allowance for pensioners, etc. As I blogged at the time, it’s doubtful whether these will actually achieve

After last August’s riots the debate became quickly polarised. Were socio-economic factors like unemployment to blame, or was it all down to the individual choices of the rioters? David Cameron and other Conservative ministers knew which side of this debate they wanted to be on. They had been taken by surprise by the riots, initially failing to realise how serious things were, but when they got back from their holidays they set out a clear and confident line, brushing off most questions about links to the state of the economy or youth attitudes, and condemning the riots as ‘criminality pure and simple’. The soundbite was deliberately simplistic; Conservative ministers’ actual

The most important political changes are those that will not be reversed. I think that both directly elected mayors and police commissioners fit this mould. I can’t imagine voters choosing to cede the ability to hold power to account that these positions will give them. Tellingly, more people in London now favour independence for the capital than want to scrap the office of mayor. Police commissioners and mayors also provide the Conservatives with a massive opportunity to rebuild the party in urban Britain, as I argue in my column this week. The Conservatives have little chance of gaining overall control of the council in, say, Leeds. But they could win a mayoral