So Andrew Mitchell has
resigned. I can understand the point that he has lost the trust of
members of his party – a disastrous failing for an erstwhile
bullying Chief Whip, and therefore has been rendered ineffective. But I'm not as exuberant about the resolution
of this affair as many seem to be.
In the first place,
this is so obviously another strike by the political hyenas who
delight in picking off the apparently weakest straggling members of
the Government pack. The sight of Milliband ranting and posturing
before Mitchell in the House of Commons was quite extraordinary. Was
he serious that Mitchell's own rant at the police was the most
terrible thing that the Government have done. EVA!? Of course not.
And nor is it the most important issue in British politics at the
moment. But Mitchell's resignation removes one more first choice
Minister from the Government benches. And with no danger of
Milliband being forced to explain any of his own party's policies in
the process.
But, secondly, the
accusation that he called the police 'plebs'. OK, that has been
blown up into some sort of class thing, as though only arrogant toffs
use the term and therefore the entire Government is composed of
arrogant toffs. But that's patently not true. The first bit isn't
anyway; I've certainly used the word as an insult and not only to
members of the lower classes either. Oh, come on, as insults go,
this is pretty tame, isn't it. Is the suggestion that, had he used
the word 'bastard' for example that somehow that wouldn't have been
so bad and he could have stayed in his job? Wouldn't he have been
implying that the entire police force was born out of wedlock. Hmmm,
actually they probably were these days. Well, choose your own worst
swear word then. Wouldn't that be more offensive? Had he not
admitted using other foul language, I might even have suspected that
he was using the term to avoid saying some expletive.
But, let's assume that
he did use the word (he has consistently denied it) and that he meant
that all policemen are common and that Ministers are superior to
policemen. Well, actually it's true, isn't it? Oh, all right, maybe
Ministers are not exactly aristocrats these days, but they are elected by the
people to represent them. And members of the police force should
surely not be offended to be called members of the general public.
Today the term is maybe not used in this strict classical way, but it
is usually used (I thought jocularly) to mean that the person
concerned has behaved in an uncultured manner. Personally, I thought
at the time that refusing to open the gate for a member of the
Government on a bike because the rules only mention 'cars' is pretty
uncultured. Of course Mitchell may well have meant to say that the
entire police force is low-born and uneducated, whereas he and the
rest of the Conservative Party were high-born and educated at private
schools. I don't think this rings true. I think it much more likely
that he was frustrated and irritated at his apparent humiliation by
the police on the gate and lashed out. Had I found myself in those circumstances, I
wonder what I would have said. Might I have used the word 'pleb'? I
suppose I might. But I think (I give myself the benefit of the doubt
here) that I might have chosen it because I thought it a more cutting jibe than
'Jobsworth', yet perhaps not as bad as the swear word you chose
above. I don't know. Would I though have meant that I am born to
rule? Or might I perhaps have intended to suggest that I am
conducting the business of government and the job of the policeman on
the gate is to open and close the gate as I go about my work, to support my work, not to hinder it? Who
knows?
But there is another
point about this. Why did the policeman refuse to open the gate for
Mitchell? Was it really just because he was cycling or was it simply
because he could refuse? And why are the police continuing to make
such a fuss about the incident? Even after his resignation, the
Police Federation statement included the comment, "He still
hasn't provided a full explanation of his version of events compared
with the police reports. It's a matter of honesty and integrity for
us and it's quite right that he's gone." Honesty and integrity
in the police force, eh. This hasn't been a good period for the
police with evidence that police tampered with reports into the
Hillsborough disaster to hide their guilt, with the conflicting
reports of the police shooting of Mark Duggan, with the dereliction
of duty involved in turning a blind eye to child sex grooming, and
with a whole string of incidents where individual policemen behaved
inappropriately and high-handedly towards members of the public,
sometimes fatally.
I have a great deal of
respect for the police. I am pretty sure I couldn't do their job. But I
trust them to do it, to protect me and my property and my rights. But they are
none the less ordinary members of society themselves – 'the
police are the public and the public are the police', as Robert Peel
put it. They have to work pretty hard, especially with their
military style outfits and weapons (batons and tasers, which we
incidentally are not allowed to carry in the streets), not to appear
to lord it over you and me, not to look like our superiors, like
prison guards or army officers. But there is a danger that they are
beginning to act that way. Having to control demonstrations and
often being reviled by demonstrators in the process must make their
task the tougher. But they have to stick to it. They will gain more
respect for good behaviour and conversely lose much for wrong-doing,
for arrogance or for disrespecting members of the general public they
are a part of.
The Government is
currently considering a review of police pay and work conditions
which is of much concern to police officers. I have no way of
commenting on what the review should say or what it will recommend
for the police, but most informed commentators seem to think that the
organisation is long overdue for reform. It is understandable that
individual police officers should feel strongly about changes to
their pay and conditions and thus feel animosity to those that impose
them. But again they must be careful not to lose their essential
impartiality. The Mitchell affair looked suspiciously like a
smoke-screen or maybe even a small act of retaliation.
Whatever, I'm not sure
the police will have endeared themselves much to the Government.
Forcing Mitchell to resign was a petty act that lacked any real
merit. But it will have hurt the Prime Minister. I wonder whether
creating that animosity was the best strategy, as the Government
nears its decision on police reorganisation.
This matter seems to have dragged on for far too long. Certainly the police and the Labour Party weren't going to let it drop though were they.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems I think MPs have is that they keep shooting themselves in the foot and, ok, many of these 'shootings' shouldn't matter but such is the culture nowadays with us plebs picking over the bones that they need to be more careful ... or perhaps we need to be more forgiving. Is that going to happen though ? I think not, not yet awhile anyway.
As for Mitchell he was an unlikeable 'toff' and I'm pleased to see the back of him ~ spoken like a true pleb.
I think that he was a little bit pissed (having spent a long lunch in the Cinnamon Club an expensive Indian restaurant in Great Smith Street, SW1 - which I can recommend.) Its quite simple. If you swear at a police officer and apologise fully telling the truth about what you said -- then no problem. If you obfuscate and lie about what you actually said, you prove yourself to be untrustworthy and unfit for high office. Goodbye Andrew.
ReplyDeleteWell, he may have been pissed (in the English sense), but is it really that simple? You can swear at anyone except the police?! As I understand it, the policeman concerned accepted his apology. So what effect does his resignation have?
Delete