Thread by @garius

Your morning "how London government works" reminder, ahead of the inevitable terrible takes:

The Mayor of London is prohibited BY LAW from getting involved with/dictating police operations beforehand.

It's not a devolved power. It sits with the Home Secretary still.

This won't stop the "Look, I'm not a racist, but Sadiq Khan could have..." types.

But I figured I should alert those of you who are sensible people to this.

Because I get that the quirks of London political devolution are unfamiliar to most people, who have actual lives.

UPDATE TO ADD:

Home Secretary actually has limited ability to do anything either in advance. Thanks to @foot_on_foot for the clarification here:

https://twitter.com/foot_on_foot/status/1371002108527308803

The key thing to takeaway from all this is that it is the Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, with whom the buck stops on all this.

And she has some serious explaining to do.

Christ. Because I apparently also have to state the bleedin' obvious:

As I said last night, the ISSUE here is the Met's institutional awfulness and the legislative framework under which they do shit like this - a framework that gets even WORSE on Monday.

Just don't listen to people using this as another way of having a shadow pop at the Mayor.

You can want the Mayor to have magical police powers all you want, but it would be a SHIT IDEA.

Because what happens the first time you have a hard right mayor?

Think ahead, people.

So spend your energy writing to your respective MPs demanding they don't vote for the Police Bill on Monday, and keep up the pressure for Cressida Dick to accept the Met is fucking awful and THAT buck stops with her.

Not listening to people on Twitter who are inventing magical powers the Mayor doesn't have because they are either:

1) Pissed off that Khan didn't show Magic Grandpa sufficient love
2) Pissed off that Khan isn't white enough for their shitty and incorrect vision of London.

Okay, LAST POINT, because people keep asking.

The Mayor can't just 'fire' the Commissioner. This is Bowling, not 'Nam. There are rules.

The process is as follows:

1) The Mayor (or Home Secretary) have to inform the Commissioner that they believe there are reasons for them to resign
2) The Commissioner has to respond to those reasons in writing.

3) Neither the Home Secretary NOR the Mayor are LEGALLY PERMITTED to call for the Commissioner's resignation, in public, before steps 1) and 2) have been completed.
4) If the report doesn't satisfy the Mayor, they have to ask the HS to be allowed to request a resignation.

5) If the Home Secretary gives permission for the Mayor to make a public request for the Commissioner's resignation, then the Mayor is now allowed to do so.
6) The Commissioner MUST then resign. It's the law.

PREEMPTIVE ANSWER:

"But why can't he just suspend her in the meantime?!"

The Mayor can suspend the Commissioner IF they are committing to begin the process above.

BUT ONLY if the Home Secretary agrees.

The relevant bit of law you're looking for is here (h/t Benjamin Lewis)

https://twitter.com/tc1415/status/1371024623953936384

These are the rules. S'why you won't hear the Mayor directly call for Cressida Dick's resignation today. And also why, if she is suspended, you already know that Priti Patel is on board with it too.

Hot takes are hot takes, but the law is the law.

And the law is what matters.

And no. The Mayor can't use clever words to imply they want a Commissioner out, beforehand.

That would break the requirement to consider the written response FAIRLY.

The fired commissioner could easily argue they'd already made their mind up.

Life isn't the fucking West Wing.