Accountability

Guy Aitchison (London, CML): Reading Anthony Barnett and Stuart Weir’s opening contributions to Unlocking Democracy: 20 Years of Charter 88, which deal with the early history of the organisation, one can’t help but reflect on the remarkable talent the political class in this country has for self-preservation. Over many years it has evolved a number of rhetorical techniques the aim of which is to marginalise anyone who dares challenge the basis of its authority. One favourite technique is to dismiss any concerns with the legitimacy of its power as those of the“chattering classes”, nothing that the average voter “gives a shit about” as Alasdair Campbell bluntly put it.

If that’s what constitutional campaigners are up against under normal conditions, it’s not surprising that during a time of economic crisis it’s even more difficult for them to get their message across as things like electoral reform and civil liberties are brushed aside as “luxuries” we can do without.

Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): Following the resignation (or was it sacking?) of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair after Boris Johnson said he did not have confidence in him, there has been a lot of talk about political control of policing.

Boris has been criticised for overstepping his authority and the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has made it clear that she will ultimately decide who is the next Commissioner and not Boris. Just to complicate matters even further, Ken Livingstone has now come out in support of Johnson, after a fashion.

What this does is make it clear that we actually have political control of policing, it's just central control. So the question really is who should the head of London’s police force be accountable to, the Home Secretary or the Mayor and Assembly?

At the moment the present system is a mess. The Met is London’s police force but also has national responsibilities. Ultimately these need to be split with the creation of national police unit responsible to the Home Secretary and Parliament and a London force accountable to the Mayor and Assembly and ultimately Londoners. But in the meantime, why not make confirmation of the Home Secretary's nominee for the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner subject to a public confirmation hearing by Metropolitan Police Authority?

Unlock Democracy ran a series of articles about policing and democracy in their latest issue of Citizen, which can be found here (http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?p=1406).

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): At the end of her judgement in the BAE case one of the law lords, Lady  Hale, said “- - I would wish that the world was a better place where honest and conscientious public servants were not put in impossible situations such as this - - -“. I would wish that too. I would also wish that people and nations did not seek to advance their interests by violence or the threat of violence. If that were so there would be no need of armaments industries and questions of national security could be dealt with in a more open and satisfactory way.

The impossible situation to which Lady Hale referred was the dilemma confronting the Director of the SFO in deciding, with incomplete information, whether, to quote Lord Bingham, “the public interest in pursuing an important investigation into alleged bribery was outweighed by the public interest in protecting the lives of British citizens”. The incompleteness of information available to the Director is the link to my second wish and my remark about how questions of national security are dealt with.

SpyBlog (London): We would have liked to have been able to comment on the latest Intelligence and Security Committee's Annual report, which appears to have been leaked, at least in part to The Guardian newspaper, but it does not yet appear to be online on the Cabinet Office website.

The Guardian is running a story on the cancellation of phase 2 of the delayed SCOPE intelligence sharing computer system: Multimillion pound security project shelved by ministers

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): They just don't get it. The Times reveals today that Jack Straw leaned on the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the so-called sleaze watchdog (though it is more than that), to drop plans for an inquiry into the abuse of MPs' expenses a year ago. The report suggests that Straw, then Leader of the House, put pressure on the Committee not to conduct an inquiry into staffing, housing and travel expenses because he was worried that his backbench MPs would rebel. Already the political obfuscation process is in full swing. But let's try and inject some clarity into the debate with five points:

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): For a refreshingly global take on the fundamental issue of accountability which we are struggling with here in the UK, see a swift and eloquent overview by Simon Zadeck in openDemocracy main site.