Election Dilemna

Tonight I had the privilege of attending a truly refreshing exercise in direct democracy, a town hall meeting of sorts with Nick Clegg and Brian Paddick. Ok, there was nothing to vote on or anything, but what I -and any other member of the public- were treated to, entirely for free, was the opportunity to grill both men on their policies, beliefs, pretty much anything for an hour and a half. What made it more amazing was that these two were taking the time to subject themselves to this from people who, for the most part, were already on their side anyway, with just two days left till the local and Mayoral elections. Time they could have spent, in other words, campaigning to people whose votes they needed and didn't already have.

Clegg has been doing this frequently across the country since becoming leader. It's part of his programme to re-engage with the vast swathes of the population who couldn't bring themselves to vote at the last election, outnumbering the total of those who voted for the winning party for the first time in history. Paddick joined in naturally, with the event being held in London and the election round the corner, to highlight his own Mayoral credentials. It was him that I went along to see in particular, hoping that he would assuage some of the doubts that have so far been keeping me from voting for him this Thursday. Unfortunately, he failed.

One of Paddick's top manifesto pledges is to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority, giving him the power to influence the Met's policing strategy and, therefore, focus their efforts and resources on the key areas of crime and disorder as specified by him. Although this would hardly turn the Mayor into the Tsar of the Police Service, he would still have a decisive stake in the hiring and firing of Police chiefs whilst his opinions and decisions, as an elected official, would carry far greater weight with the public. Some may celebrate this as a brave attempt to make politicians truly accountable, to the people they represent, for the state of their city. Sir Simon Milton, President of the Local Government Association, is one of those people and in February called for local councils across the country to be gven the power to hire and fire their respective Police Chiefs. I, however, harbour great concern that it would mark the politicisation of the Police Service and therefore felt compelled to question Mr Paddick on his declared intention to chair the MPA, when presented with the unique opportunity to do so tonight.

Sadly, he did not share my point of view, replying to my question with a tirade against Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and Ken Livingstone for backing him through all the trials and tribulations of late. This told me more about why he wanted to chair the MPA than anything else and subsequently reinforced my view that such a position should be kept well out of reach of the London Mayor and his political agenda. However, it was not just his all too clear grudge against his former boss that bothered me, but the lack of any foresight on what I consider to be a very contraversial issue.

The need for the Metropolitan Police Service, and indeed all police forces, to be independent so that each Chief Constable and Commissioner can focus their attention on solving and preventing crimes and not on tending to their political masters with the impending fear of losing their jobs if they refuse, did not seem to register on Mr Paddick at all. This in spite of the fact that he himself recently criticised Sir Ian Blair for so forcefully backing the government up on their calls for an extension of the pre-charge detention limit to 90 days back in 2005. Speaking to the BBC that day, he said: "If there's a perception that their (police forces') chief is aligned to a political party...that undermines the rank and file officer."

It is not unconceivable that in such an instance as the 90 day campaign, a Mayor with the power to fire the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, a far less complicit Commissioner in this scenario, could publicly accuse him of undermining the security of the city, whilst privately threatening him, if he refused to get on board. And of course, why does the support of the Police matter so much in such heated political debates? Because the opinion of the police is considered, by not least the public, to be independent and only concerned with the security of the citizens under their protection, thereby serving as the perfect endorsement for what would otherwise be a distinctly political decision.

As a result, the failure of Brian Paddick to take any of this into consideration as well as the precedent that such a move would set throughout the rest of the country if he, or Boris who has the same policy, were to be elected this Thursday is what's stopping me from pledging my support for him. That and his whiter than white rhetoric which displays a significant naivety on his part and which you just know will come back to haunt him at some point in the future.

On the upside, I did think that Paddick had an otherwise good night, making some thoughtful and impassioned arguments, and being interrupted for applause on several occasions. Nick Clegg, meanwhile, was absolutely breath-taking. He seemed so genuine, engaged and passionate. His answers were thorough and actually addressed the questions put to him, a first for many a politician. Tonight I found myself, for the first time, being truly inspired by him and his vision for the country. If only he could pull off such amazing performances on TV, the we might not be languishing on 17% in the polls, but rather taking advantage of Labour's meltdown. In any case, a truly stimulating evening with two very talented politicians, who for all their flaws, still have an incredible amount to offer the people of London and throughout the UK. Hence my dilemna.