In citing a cat as the key reason for a Bolivian student having been allowed to remain in this country under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, Theresa May’s own political party and the coalition Government were made to look foolish.
Indeed, May’s whole speech at Conference was an embarrassment as it revealed a fundamental lack of understanding of her role as Home Secretary.
Ordinary voters – in other words people with hopes and aspirations – need more than cheap soundbites. They want – and deserve – answers. They need to be certain that this Government is doing everything in its power to keep the people they love and respect safe from harm.
After all, the number one priority for any Government is the safety and security of the nation and its citizens. May herself has said this on more than one occasion, as indeed have many of her predecessors.
Petty and somewhat narrow-minded
The Home Office is where the buck truly stops with the ‘Government of the Day’. It’s the one ministerial department where blaming the failings of the previous Government on present deficiencies is just not an option.
Put simply, the job of the Home Office and its ministers is to portray calmness and provide continual reassurances that the fight against crime is being well fought – and won.
The last thing members of the public want to hear is a speech which serves to create unnecessary hysteria and division. Yet in their speeches at Conference, both May and her colleague Damian Green (the minister tasked with the immigration portfolio) ran as close to the borders of discrimination as one can get.
In my view, their ill-judged comments on Human Rights – and, more specifically, the Human Rights Act – and immigration in general reduce the chances of us ever bearing witness to what’s now a much-needed and informed debate focusing on what’s undoubtedly a key area of our national security.
Instead, all their remarks have achieved is to increase the likelihood of people on both sides of the political spectrum taking up arms and adopting even more extreme positions than is already the case.
Ignorance is bliss, it seems
Over the next year this country will be a major target for crime, civil disorder, strikes and potential terrorist attack.
The terror threat is going to go off the charts because it presents a real opportunity for criminals and terrorists to gain optimum publicity by taking the fight directly to the UK.
The UK can also expect a series of strike actions planned to take place prior to – and during – the 2012 Olympic Games as that would achieve maximum leverage for any ‘plotters’. Industrial action could also affect the air traffic controllers in France and Spain, not to mention the ferry and train terminals.
Activists and criminal gangs will look to exploit this situation by organising civil disorder with an economic benefit for the participants.
It’s already common knowledge that the Olympic Games Committee has trebled the manpower requirements for the Games’ managed sites from 8,000 to 23,000 security operatives. This, of course, potentially leaves the rest of the country – and London in particular – with great difficulties ahead when it comes to assessing, planning and obtaining the individual resource requirements necessary for its own environments and locations.
Right now, only a small amount of people have a full understanding of the challenges that lie ahead. There are apparently even fewer individuals with plans in place to succeed in beating the criminals and terrorists.
For most businesses, organisations and individuals in the UK it’s all about surviving to the end of today and worrying about tomorrow when it comes. That’s not good enough.
Dogma over deregulation
Since Theresa May took up her post this Government has singularly failed to do its homework in regard to the safety of its citizens. Nowhere is this brought more sharply into focus than within the private security industry.
There’s a world of difference between deregulation and ideological dogma. The Government’s slavish desire to devolve some responsibility for regulation back to the private security industry is a perfect example of the triumph of dogma over plain common sense.
Siren voices – none of whom have yet declared themselves on the public stage – have led the Government to believe that mandatory regulation via the Security Industry Authority is stifling their business objectives.
While there’s definitely a case for consolidating and improving the aims and objectives of the Regulator, for the foreseeable future at least there’s absolutely no justification for licensing being put back into the hands of businesses.
The Government needs to remember why the legislation was introduced in the first place and maintain a firm grip on the reins.
In these times of austerity, survival for many security companies and their clients will likely mean putting profit first and the safety of customers a distant second. This is a situation made possible by the ‘tick box’ approach adopted towards risk assessment that’s apparently acceptable to insurance companies.
How to lose friends and alienate people
The truth is we are still in a recession. That recession is destined to continue for some time into the future, and most likely beyond the duration of this Parliament.
Research shows that instances of crime and civil disturbance rise in this kind of economic and social climate, but at a time when the Government needs to have the maximum level of support from the police service in place, it chooses to demand cuts of 20% or more in their budgets.
The Government may well be correct in calling for cutbacks of this nature, but for many commentators this is the wrong fight at the wrong time.
When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she fully understood the potential consequences of her policies. One of her first acts was to increase police pay and ‘get them on board’ – a decision which was to prove vital in the first couple of years of her Government.
Worse still, the present Government is doing its best to alienate those who work in the events, hospitality and leisure industries (which contribute approximately GB pound 66 billion to the economy, by the way). They are being ‘levied’ – or, more accurately, taxed – for having the audacity to provide hot food and/or drink to their customers after midnight.
The justification for this taxation is that the money raised will go to the police service (70%) and the local authorities (30%) to help pay for the additional services required to improve and enhance safety, etc.
However, it will be up to these organisations to decide when and how this tax revenue will be used.
Even more alarming is the Government’s apparent willingness to turn a blind eye to the effects on our society of the irresponsible alcohol pricing policies adopted by High Street supermarkets (policies which ignore compelling evidence from the police, the NHS and various respected medical research groups that the availability of cheap booze is a majorly detrimental factor in terms of maintaining law and order and the good of the public’s health).
Government putting its head in the lion’s mouth
Looking at the available evidence, the Home Office must have an even clearer perspective on the current position. That being the case, it’s extremely difficult to work out how the coalition Government expects to benefit from its actions to date?
No-one in their right mind can possibly argue with the fact that the country needs to save money (and fast).
No-one expects the Government to provide everybody with their own personal police officer, either.
However, should anything catastrophic happen – and God willing that isn’t going to be the case – then the decision to slash policing numbers has the potential to become one of the most disastrous political moves of modern times.
In that event, the coalition will need to be able to demonstrate that it has taken every conceivable step possible before forging ahead with its plans. Failure to demonstrate having done so could render our present batch of politicians unelectable for a generation.
Returning to my core assertion, the apparent lack of understanding demonstrated by Theresa May does, in my view, risk the very safety of the nation and is why she should resign from office.
Ian Fox is chairman of the National Doorwatch Steering Group
