Will Cameron get his man?

The PM wants "supercop" Bill Bratton to lead the Met but Theresa May is "adamantly" opposed.

Bill Bratton, the man predictably dubbed "supercop" by the media, uses an interview in today's Guardian to stake his claim to the top job in British policing - commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Bratton, who served as the chief of police in Los Angeles and New York, is prepared to take British citizenship in order to win the post. But he tells the paper that Theresa May has been "adamant" in banning foreign nationals from applying.

Significantly, however, Bratton is known to be David Cameron's choice to run Scotland Yard, turning this into a trial of strength for the Prime Minister. The Spectator's James Forsyth, who is close to Cameron, writes that whether or not he forces May to back down, is an early test of whether he is prepared to move from being "a chairman of the board-style figure to being a chief executive".

Unsurprisingly, Cameron's decision to name Bratton as an adviser on gangs and crime has antagonised the police, who are wary of any further challenge to their authority and view Bratton as a dangerous maverick. Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who is himself in the running for the Met post, commented at the weekend: "I am not sure I want to learn about gangs from an area of America that has 400 of them. It seems to me, if you've got 400 gangs, then you're not being very effective." He added that talk of importing foreign police chiefs was "simply stupid".

But Bratton makes an impressive pitch. With an eye to liberal opinion, he describes himself as a "progressive" who hired "more people from ethnic minorities, women, gay people and transvestite people" in order to make the police forces he ran more representative of the communities they serve. He derides his critics as "parachoial" and says he has always been an "outsider". The interview also makes it clear why Cameron is so attracted to Bratton. He tells the paper: "I've been an outsider in every department I've worked in. Bureaucrats change processes, leaders change culture. I think of myself as a transformational leader who changes cultures." This is the language of Cameron's "enemies of enterprise" speech, in which he launched a fierce attack on government bureaucracies. Indeed, it was Cameron who once described the police as "the last great unreformed public service". Whether or not he prevails on the Bratton question is an important test of his reforming instincts.

In the meantime, it will be worth watching to see what Ed Miliband has to say about all of this when he speaks at his alma mater, Haverstock School, today at 10:30am.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.