The big picture

The editors and owners of the nation's major, 'quality' papers must be so proud:

Ian Blair to step down

Or where, on less petty party political matters of perhaps more substance than who might or might not be be 'satisfied', some others might say that should it turn out that the reason is indeed because of 'inappropriate use of public money', might one hope the capital's journalistic giants might be motivated to look into how such a person was allowed to stay in power for so long, in such circumstances, to such great, er, effect, and what the consequences of his passing from office might be?

Especially when it comes to the 'rewards' for his term, especially bearing in mind the example set to those not in law enforcement or favoured with powerful friends in office?

Stuff like that. Or... I guess... this.

Meanwhile, in another place...

Telegraph - Good riddance, Sir Ian Blair - Pay, pension and a nifty title. Not a bad career, when all's said and done.

BBC - Reaction: Met chief's resignation -

DOMINIC GRIEVE, SHADOW HOME SECRETARY
"This is the right decision....

TONY MCNULTY, POLICING MINISTER
Responding to Conservative criticisms: "I'm afraid that shows the profound ignorance of Dominic Grieve when it comes to policing in London and the complexities of policing in London.

I do query, vis-a-vis this blog's ongoing pondering on the role of the BBC and its participation in creating and indeed seemingly often trying to shape events rather than simply reporting upon them, why I only notice one example of a reaction opportunity being provided within what was surely meant to be isolated quotes on the main issue at hand, namely the resignation.

How? Why?

Newsnight

I was moved to write again after a fellow poster wrote:

'Surely if an elected public official can't work with an unelected public official the unelected has to go so.... why the fuss? '

I suppose if you look at who has a vested interest in making one, and being the ones to transmit it, there is some logic.

To be fair, it is a big story.

So I actually stayed up to watch 'live'.

For a start, I was pleasantly surprised that we were not given the usual Newsnight 'twofer'.

One from each main party affiliation and, er, now there's a surprise, Mr. Livingstone. I guess he was, once, relevant, and might be allowed a place at the table. At least we didn't get just him!

However, to this viewer it all went predictably, and depressingly true to form.

All so desperate to be PC about a PC PC.

Four men who each only wanted to get some pet notion across and who, remarkably all managed to only disagree with each other.

I thought Mr. Livingstone made a key point, if mainly about his mindset, that the most important thing was that the Mayor should have been on every media outlet 'explaining' (did he not hold a news conference? Such as myself and Saqqara seem to have understood the key aspects. And the BBC HYS page is fairly clear that most grasped the concept), and especially on this show to answer to the ex-mayor.

I could wonder if this logic might extend to another senior political leader often named for an absent cat?

Mr. McNulty was full of bluster mainly about why others should shut up and swallow the abilities of a person who... at the very least... has a dirty great, long cloud hanging of their abilities and actions.

I think a lot of what is wrong with this country is the total lack of accountability, at senior level, in the civil service profession. No matter how inept, no matter how unable to attract a following, no matter how screwed up the function would be if the team they are part of is/will be unable to work together, the public is expected to just live with them. I have never worked in any organisation where incompatible leaders have been effective.

Then we have Mr. Paddick, who showed why he polled as he did, but also tried to play up the fact this was 'political'. Well, D'uh. It was hugely political before, and will be again. Did Mayor Johnson not get voted in on a ticket that included a stated lack of confidence in the Commissioner?

Maybe crime has 'gone down', but one swallow does not a summer make. Sir Ian Blair was not, I imagine, the only person policing the streets. Is it possible that crime might have gone down even further with another in command? There may have been one less violent death on the books.

And finally the Mayor's office representative. Rather telling of the political climate that he didn't seem to give a stuff. So he justified their position poorly for me at least, and for any pol to say that he wasn't there to explain anything was not the best way to get this democratic system advocate onside.

And he should have been pulled up on this a lot more than just the off-camera harrumphs from the others.

However, the attempt to portray this as political manipulation setting a dire precedent was silly. If you have a public servant doing a good job, over a long period, with the support of their subordinates, and the faith of the people they serve, and then, on whim, a new political appointee decides to ditch them just because of their personal beliefs, I'm up there with you on the barricades. But if you are looking at action as a result of protracted controversy, lack of support at every quarter, a history of 'problems' and some policy preferences at odds with the elected superior, then... get real.

This seems to me no more a 'plot' than a process, and the 'row' is only being stirred within a very, very small community.

But don't let that stop you.

Telegraph - Boris Johnson passes first big test

Gaurdian - Sir Ian Blair resigns as Met police commissioner

Order Order - Newsnight is a Shambles, Come Back Peter Barron - with a capture of one the funniest unfortunate mis-captions I have seen in a while!

Telegraph - Boris Johnson should run the Met - No, I don't think so, either. But getting rid of a person he had expressed no faith in during his campaign... yes.

Times - NEW - Boris has wielded a cosh for real policing