The Best Laid Cuts of Mice and Men: The Met Police Goes Middle-Class

Good morning all.

Regular readers (yes, both of you… hi Katie and Donna) might remember that I blogged here about the threat posed to social mobility and democratic legitimacy by the practice of employing unpaid interns as a first step on a political career path. This is a bad thing, I argued, because only the members of the middle and upper classes who have parents wealthy enough to support them can afford to live in London whilst doing so. Well now, it appears that the Metropolitan Police have decided to follow suit.

The Met Police are considering a budget cut of monumental stupidity- to cut the payment during training for new officers. Now, this may save £50m, at a time when money is definitely tight. But, forget about paying political interns, if this were to be cut, then the consequences for law and order and even counter-terrorism could be severe.

The British model of policing, when it works well, is rightly seen throughout the world as one to be emulated, since to a large degree it relies on the consent of the governed. I have been to countries- such as Syria and Egypt- which do literally have a policeman on every street corner, but in these countries, soldiers seem and behave, at times, more like an occupying power than an agency of law. While, of course, the UK police are not always blameless- ask Ian Tomlinson or the Climate Camp Protesters– in their day-to-day work, the vast majority of officers are honest in their public dealings, and crucially are supported by the vast majority of the great British public.

But what if most or all of the police officers in, say, a housing estate, came from middle-class families with no experience of living in that part of town? What, indeed, would happen, if officers patrolling a poor Pakistani Muslim area were largely white, and had very few non-specialist officers who had grown up in the area? You can see where this is heading. It might be unfair and illogical to do so, but you can see how this could give rise to an idea of ‘us and them’- both from the police, and the policed. All you have to do is look at inner-city LA to guess what kind of attitude towards law enforcement that could foster.

So please, in the drive for cuts, don’t cut payment for police recruits. Nothing less than the basis of the British model of policing is potentially at stake.

Neo-Conservatism: the Michael Myers of Political Ideology

You just can’t them down, can you? Just when you thought the advocates of war with Iraq had lost the intellectual battle, it turns out that the UK’s Education, Culture and Universities secretaries are signatories to an organisation which denied the legitimacy of the UN, and called for the forcible imposition of democracy on foreign countries.

Of all of the varities of democratic political thought to emerge over the last 50 years, perhaps none has been as controversial as neo-Conservatism.  Seen by some as a world-wide conspiracy to enslave the world in an American empire, and by others as the only honest manifestation of the liberal commitment to democracy, over the last ten years in particular, the neo-Conservatives have been the focus of raging argument. But in general, it would appear that, in the aftermath of the disastrous attempt to bring democracy to Iraq via tank tracks, neo-Conservatism is in retreat.

If you were to think that, you’d be wrong. Just take a look at the Henry Jackson Society.

The academic surroundings of Peterhouse, Cambridge (as in UK Cambridge) might seem like an unlikely HQ for the latest manifestation of the neo-Conservative project. But what has occurred here is nothing less than the transmigration of large sections of the staff of that most infamous of neo-Conservative think-tanks, the Project for the New American Century.

Now, just to make it clear, I do not think that the PNAC was part of some grand conspiracy to control the US government and the world, and set up an American empire (although that term is not mine, but that of one of the HJS’ patrons) . Essentially, the principles behind neo-Conservatism, in my opinion, are naive, callous of human life, and are largely detached from the realities of the real world- but I do at least consider most of their proponents honest. Neo-Conservatism, at its heart, considers that democracy is the best form of government, as it allows individual freedom to a far greater extent than any other. This is a statement most liberals would agree with.

Where Neo-Conservatives are different, however, is their insistence that a free-market democracy is the best form of government, right now, for all places, and without regard to pre-existing conditions. Moreover, it is not only the right, but the duty, of democratic nations, notably the USA, to bring democracy, by force if necessary, to others.

It is this combustible mix of willingness to use military force, and ideological rigidity, which has led to the catastrophe of Iraq. Essentially, the best description I can come up with for neo-Conservatives, is ‘democratic extremists’- those who shape the facts of the world around this ideology, rather than the other way round.

So what of the Henry Jackson Society? Well, suffice to say that its list of international patrons is a rogue’s gallery of who’s who in neo-Conservatism. Prominent members include:

Richard Perle: The grandaddy of the neo-Conservatives. One of the chief members of the PNAC, Perle’s career has embraced calling for pre-emptive war with Iraq, working to undermine nuclear arms reduction talks with the Soviet Union, calling for the abandonment of all Israel-Palestine peace processes, and the erection of a domestic surveillance state in the US in order to “win the war on terror”, as he puts it.

William Kristol: Editor of the Weekly Standard, the most neo-Conservative of all major US newspapers, and co-founder of the PNAC. Another longstanding member of the hard core of neo-Conservatives, Kristol co-signed with Perle a 1998 letter calling for regime change in Iraq, and calls for pre-emptive military action against Iran.

Clifford May: A former senior member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a lobby organisation set up to talk up the threat from the USSR, May has stated his support for waterboarding and other such forms of ‘enhanced interrogation’, called Hilary Clinton a “vaginal-American”, and joked that Guantanomo Bay prisoners should be released and then killed by a missile strike.

General Jack Sheehan: a US marine corps general who recently was forced to resign after claiming that the Dutch army was unable to prevent the Srebenica massacre because their soldiers were too gay.

Max Boot: a neo-Con academic who has called for an “American Empire” as a response to 9/11.

Michael Chertoff: The former US Secretary of Homeland Security, responsible for the building of a 700-mile fortified border wall to stop Mexican immigration into the US.

Robert Kagan: The other co-founder of the PNAC, and co-signatory of the letter to Bill Clinton calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Bruce Jackson: Former Chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a lobby group linked to the PNAC which called for Saddam Hussein’s overthrow.

Joshua Muravchik: a self-described neo-Conservative who once wrote a newspaper article simply entitled “Bomb Iran”.

Natan Sharansky: a former Israeli cabinet minister who resigned in protest at the withdrawal of settlements from the Gaza Strip.

R. James Woolsey: a former head of the CIA, who has claimed that not only was Iraq responsible for 9/11, but also for the 1995 Oklahoma bombing and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.

So a pleasant bunch, then.

But surely all this is in the past, right? Er, no. For a start, a number of these statements listed above- like Sheehan’s comments on Srebenica and Max Boot’s call for an American empire have been made in the past year. Moreover, the Henry Jackson Society’s statement of principles says that, “any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies.” In other words, the UN, which does admit undemocratic states, does not have the legitimacy of organisations such as the EU, for example. This is at least an improvement on what the statement of principles used to say. Until 2009, the HJS’ signatories called for the use of the “sticks of the military domain” to bring democracy to foreign countries, and called the UN “fundamentally flawed”.

Some of the recent articles on the HJS’ website are pretty scary, too. There’s this one, for example, which claims that the recent Gaza flotilla, on which peace activists were shot in the head by Israeli commandos, was a “provocation” aimed at “caus[ing] an international incident”.

But you know what’s really scary? Some of the people who are the signatories to the statement of principles. There’s David Willetts, the universities secretary. And Ed Vaizey, the culture secretary. And Michael Gove, the education secretary. Now, I’m not sure whether these guys signed when the society still officially called for the use of “sticks of the military domain”. But is this really the kind of organisation members of the UK government should be involved in? With British troops still dying in foreign wars, isn’t it time we put this disastrous ideology to bed, once and for all?