There must be space in any political debate, and even in any political party, for different shades of opinion and different ways of expressing those opinions. I do not share some of the Home Secretary’s opinions nor do I choose to express myself as she does, but that of course is not the point.
For me, the choice of language is important for a Member of Parliament, but even more important for a Home Secretary. A Home Secretary might be right to identify hateful elements in some of the marches against Israeli actions in Gaza, but wrong to characterise all marches in the same way. Doing so only raises tensions we should be seeking to reduce. What is yet more troubling though is a willingness to use language which can be seen as undermining the operational independence of the policing of these marches.
To be frank, I think it would be far better if, on Armistice Day, marches did not take place, so that the focus can be on the sacrifices that day is all about. Our society benefits from a willingness to respect the feelings of others, even when we disagree, and a readiness to find ways to compromise. One day set aside without protests, which we recognise people have a right to make, does not seem to me too much to ask.
However, the judgment for the police to make is not about whether a march on Armistice Day is in good taste or is a good idea. The police are required under the Public Order Act to determine, on the basis of available evidence, what the risk of serious disorder at such a march would be. That is an operational judgment which the law asks police officers to make. We should allow them to make that difficult judgment, and recognise that it is their call, whatever our personal preference. We should be particularly careful to do so if we have ministerial responsibility for the operational independence of the police. A Home Secretary has therefore to be particularly careful in expressing an opinion on these matters, and this Home Secretary has not been. The question of whether an expression of opinion in a newspaper on a matter as sensitive as whether the police behave impartially is an appropriate one for the Home Secretary to make, and if so whether it is consistent with ministerial collective responsibility when it is not the view of the Government as a whole, is a matter for the Prime Minister.
For my part, I can only say I do not agree with what the Home Secretary has said nor with the way she has chosen to say it.
