The Labour Party’s annual conference is reported to be under threat as a result of a dispute over which company should provide the security. They appear to have got themselves into a bit of a mess over the whole issue, but the thing that struck me was the claim that the conference cannot go ahead without security.
I must have missed something somewhere, but who decided, and when, that a political party cannot hold an annual conference without employing a security company? Is it some sort of job creation scheme for ex-policemen?
I can remember when ‘security’ wasn’t a consideration at all. Indeed, I can remember a time when the security services were more interested in conducting surveillance on delegates of some parties than in protecting them.
How times change.