Policing demonstrations: Grounds for protest
It is increasingly clear that something had gone badly awry with the Met's handling of protests in 2009
No one would dispute that policing a charged protest is a difficult task, requiring delicate judgments that must be made under great pressure. Certainly, the high court would not deny it, and yesterday it did all it could to be fair to the Metropolitan police, as it passed down a ruling on the containment, or so-called "kettling", of demonstrators who had assembled to make their point as the world's leaders swept into London for the G20 summit two years ago. The court cited examples of mad men running amok with guns, and quoted all manner of precedents to make the point that there is a distinction between the necessary restriction of liberty and the unlawful deprivation of it.
For all its understanding of the police's predicament, the court ruled that the Met had slid from one to the other, by acting in a manner that was "not necessary or proportionate". The police had, after all, swept up a great mass of innocent citizens and indiscriminately detained them along with any troublemakers, on a day when one chant in the air was "this is not a riot". There were two protests that day, a disorderly gathering known as Meltdown, and the more pacific Climate Camp, with which yesterday's ruling was concerned. The police failed to distinguish adequately between the different moods of the two, and casually kettled the Climate Camp because of the supposed danger of them intermingling.
With the inquest into the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson rumbling on amid suspicions that there were attempts to cover up the police blows he received that same day, it is increasingly clear that something had gone badly awry with the Met's handling of protests in 2009. At the start of that year Lois Austin, a protester who had been kettled several years previously, lost an action she had taken all the way to the law lords. The top brass did not concern themselves with the nuance of the ruling, and instead appear to have deemed themselves to be free to restrain demonstrators at will. Chilling remarks from officers about imposing control on demonstrations pre-emptively combine with the lack of proper procedures to prevent the cavalier brandishing of riot shields as a weapon, another shortcoming the courts picked up on yesterday, to suggest a force that had lost all respect for the right to assembly.
Things could get more difficult still for the Met, depending upon the Tomlinson verdict and the progress that Ms Austin makes with her case at Strasbourg. At stake in the latter is, potentially, the legality of the whole kettling tactic. Wherever that gets to, yesterday's ruling has removed any doubt that it must be a last resort. Around the G20 it was not, and so the police are deservedly being brought to book.
For all its understanding of the police's predicament, the court ruled that the Met had slid from one to the other, by acting in a manner that was "not necessary or proportionate". The police had, after all, swept up a great mass of innocent citizens and indiscriminately detained them along with any troublemakers, on a day when one chant in the air was "this is not a riot". There were two protests that day, a disorderly gathering known as Meltdown, and the more pacific Climate Camp, with which yesterday's ruling was concerned. The police failed to distinguish adequately between the different moods of the two, and casually kettled the Climate Camp because of the supposed danger of them intermingling.
With the inquest into the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson rumbling on amid suspicions that there were attempts to cover up the police blows he received that same day, it is increasingly clear that something had gone badly awry with the Met's handling of protests in 2009. At the start of that year Lois Austin, a protester who had been kettled several years previously, lost an action she had taken all the way to the law lords. The top brass did not concern themselves with the nuance of the ruling, and instead appear to have deemed themselves to be free to restrain demonstrators at will. Chilling remarks from officers about imposing control on demonstrations pre-emptively combine with the lack of proper procedures to prevent the cavalier brandishing of riot shields as a weapon, another shortcoming the courts picked up on yesterday, to suggest a force that had lost all respect for the right to assembly.
Things could get more difficult still for the Met, depending upon the Tomlinson verdict and the progress that Ms Austin makes with her case at Strasbourg. At stake in the latter is, potentially, the legality of the whole kettling tactic. Wherever that gets to, yesterday's ruling has removed any doubt that it must be a last resort. Around the G20 it was not, and so the police are deservedly being brought to book.
Immigration: Living with diversity
There is a history of deploying immigration as an issue when the Tories need to restore the confidence of core supporters
It was the first speech of the local election campaign, so perhaps it is not surprising that David Cameron's claim yesterday that immigration has damaged social cohesion so comprehensively captured the front pages. In its content and its timing it had all the hallmarks of the kind of smooth strategic planning that the Conservative party has often done so effectively but which Downing Street has struggled to reproduce in the past year. The party machine has wrested back control of the political message with predictable results and some collateral damage to the coalition.
Conservatives complain that their critics never allow them a right time to talk about migration. But that is because there is a long history of deploying it as an issue just at the point when the party needs to restore the confidence of its core supporters. And there is no doubt that Mr Cameron has vociferous critics on his own backbenches. The more outspoken ponder openly whether the party leader is really a Conservative at all. And while tracking polls never suggest much support for alternative parties of the right such as the UK Independence party, at last month's Barnsley byelection Ukip beat both of the coalition parties. The start of a local election campaign which will be difficult for the Conservatives and possibly disastrous for the Lib Dems seems too needy a moment for a speech on immigration to be treated as anything more serious than a piece of politicking.
Of course, Mr Cameron is anxious to signal that he understands voters' concerns, that there is something that can be done about them, and that he is doing it. His tone was generally moderate, and it is true that immigration worries people in a way that the last government was slow to appreciate. It is also the case, however, that migration from other EU countries is not something the UK government can directly affect, although making sure that British people have the right skills for whatever jobs are locally available would be one way of reducing the appeal of the UK as a destination. Most migrants last year – two-thirds, according to the Office for National Statistics – came from outside the EU, and they came to work or to study. Many of those who came to work will have taken seasonal jobs, although they have in places (some of which, like North Lincolnshire, have local elections in three weeks' time) put very heavy burdens on community infrastructure. That makes it even more curious that the government has cut the cash for the migration impacts fund that Labour introduced and abandoned the citizenship survey which sought to monitor the impact of new migrants. And the axe – curiously, since in his speech Mr Cameron also complained that not enough migrants speak English – has fallen too on the budget for English language teaching. But most importantly, neither immigration nor ethnicity is the primary predictor of a lack of social cohesion. Instead, as the most recent research has shown, it is the level of economic deprivation. Neighbourliness and extreme poverty tend not to go together.
Meanwhile, Mr Cameron appeared to be playing fast and loose with the coalition agreement. That was certainly what the business secretary, Vince Cable, thought. It is true that the half page of the agreement in which migration appears avoids all mention of targets. That has not prevented the government making a clear commitment to halve net migration to 100,000 in this parliament. Mr Cable argued strongly against limiting highly skilled workers and the graduate students who make such a large contribution to university budgets, but he won only a partial victory. That may explain his initial denunciation of Mr Cameron for inflaming extremism, and his subsequent recantation. The next three weeks will be a severe test as the parties establish the load-bearing capacity of a coalition in an election. Expect more of the same.
Conservatives complain that their critics never allow them a right time to talk about migration. But that is because there is a long history of deploying it as an issue just at the point when the party needs to restore the confidence of its core supporters. And there is no doubt that Mr Cameron has vociferous critics on his own backbenches. The more outspoken ponder openly whether the party leader is really a Conservative at all. And while tracking polls never suggest much support for alternative parties of the right such as the UK Independence party, at last month's Barnsley byelection Ukip beat both of the coalition parties. The start of a local election campaign which will be difficult for the Conservatives and possibly disastrous for the Lib Dems seems too needy a moment for a speech on immigration to be treated as anything more serious than a piece of politicking.
Of course, Mr Cameron is anxious to signal that he understands voters' concerns, that there is something that can be done about them, and that he is doing it. His tone was generally moderate, and it is true that immigration worries people in a way that the last government was slow to appreciate. It is also the case, however, that migration from other EU countries is not something the UK government can directly affect, although making sure that British people have the right skills for whatever jobs are locally available would be one way of reducing the appeal of the UK as a destination. Most migrants last year – two-thirds, according to the Office for National Statistics – came from outside the EU, and they came to work or to study. Many of those who came to work will have taken seasonal jobs, although they have in places (some of which, like North Lincolnshire, have local elections in three weeks' time) put very heavy burdens on community infrastructure. That makes it even more curious that the government has cut the cash for the migration impacts fund that Labour introduced and abandoned the citizenship survey which sought to monitor the impact of new migrants. And the axe – curiously, since in his speech Mr Cameron also complained that not enough migrants speak English – has fallen too on the budget for English language teaching. But most importantly, neither immigration nor ethnicity is the primary predictor of a lack of social cohesion. Instead, as the most recent research has shown, it is the level of economic deprivation. Neighbourliness and extreme poverty tend not to go together.
Meanwhile, Mr Cameron appeared to be playing fast and loose with the coalition agreement. That was certainly what the business secretary, Vince Cable, thought. It is true that the half page of the agreement in which migration appears avoids all mention of targets. That has not prevented the government making a clear commitment to halve net migration to 100,000 in this parliament. Mr Cable argued strongly against limiting highly skilled workers and the graduate students who make such a large contribution to university budgets, but he won only a partial victory. That may explain his initial denunciation of Mr Cameron for inflaming extremism, and his subsequent recantation. The next three weeks will be a severe test as the parties establish the load-bearing capacity of a coalition in an election. Expect more of the same.
In praise of … David Runciman
This political scientist's insights about the real world often take the form of a paradox which baffles before it enlightens
The political science is just as dismal as the economic one. Its models, schemas and game theories can provide any insight – except for those shedding light on the real world. David Runciman stands out as a practitioner who can deploy all these tricks where they're useful and put them back in their box the moment they're superfluous to making sense of politics. He has drawn a telling distinction between "sincere liars", such as Blair and Clinton, and "honest hypocrites", such as Gordon Brown, a condition which he shrewdly predicted would leave Brown ill-suited for life at the top. His London Review of Books essays range from cricket to Dylan to America's death tax, and whatever the subject he produces a paradox which baffles before it enlightens. At a sweeping London lecture on Wednesday, which drew on world history to assess democracy's chances of withstanding everything from China to climate change, his love of seeming contradictions was much in evidence. Democracies only fight wars they can win, he explained, except when the confidence born of this rule tempts them into misadventures that break it. His quirky syllogisms lend themselves to pleasing rhetoric, as when he distinguished the "trick" and the "trap" views of democracy according to whether people power is too good to be true or instead too true to be good, a phrase reversal worthy of Kennedy or Churchill. If he came down from his ivory tower and took to a soap box, the politicians he studies would need to watch out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment