Jon Bright (London, OK): As Andrew Blick reported yesterday, the timing of Jacqui Smith's recent announcement of 300 extra terror police was seen by many in the Tory party as a violation of the "Purdah" - which means (in a UK govt context anyhow) the period of time before an election when announcements of apparent benefit to the incumbent are supposed to be suspended.
A further controversy has erupted today over the delay of the publication of an inquiry into the de Menezes affair by the Metropolitan Police Authority because of "political sensitivities." Two and two has quickly been put together (whether we have come up with four or five will only be known after the May elections) - the report probably contains bad news for Iain Blair, which could be turned against Ken Livingstone, who has publicly and wholeheartedly supported him in the past.
As Andrew noted, the "rules" governing the purdah aren't rules as such, but rather a set of conventions, which can be easily interpreted by the executive to suit them, and aren't really enforceable anyway. And if the rules governing what can't be said are opaque, then the rules governing what must be said are even more hazy - while the MPA would struggle to prevent the report from ever being published, it is easily capable of delaying it until a more opportune moment arises for it to see the light of day.
What to make of all this? Rules trying to prevent a lot of short term, election winning policy announcements in marginal seats seem like a sensible idea. Yet they can also, clearly, be used to hush up potentially damaging reports. And the ruling party will no doubt tend towards having their purdah and eating it too, so to speak. Should we allow the government a veil of secrecy at exactly the moment when we are trying to decide on its competence? Or should we risk the allocation of the country's terror police according to psephology? Wherever you stand on the policy, it seems again illustrative of the uselessness of trying to run a country by conventions and customs developed in a different age.
Phill (not verified) said:
Thu, 2008-04-17 13:15Why a fuss at all? Positive (extra police) and negative (Iain Blair's report) can come to light, creating a balance. Trying to blanket out everything before an election is to misunderstand the goal and also presents an easy opportunity to paralyse local and national government in the run up before the elections. That is a far bigger issue in my mind. I also trust voters not to be swayed by last minute press releases but rather the performance and policy the entire campaign should show.