The Met deserves a better boss than Mr Bean of the Yard

There are many good reasons for living, as I do, in Manchester. Among them is the fact that Sir Ian Blair is not my local police chief. Quite what the people of London and the thousands of excellent Met officers have done to deserve their present police boss is beyond my imagination. Last year, half jokingly, I said that Sir Ian's first job each Monday morning should be to apologise in advance for the gaffes he would be sure to make during the rest of the week. Today, I am deadly serious that that is what he should do. He seems to be in permanent denial about obvious leadership shortcomings as his proud police force lurches from crisis to crisis.

Within two hours of last week's publication of the Independent Police Complaints Commission report into the police mishandling of information following the fatal police shooting of an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, Sir Ian was publicly justifying his own position. It was as if the damning and damaging IPCC press conference had never taken place as he defended the indefensible.

The Met's anti-terrorist efforts under the leadership of Andy Hayman, Assistant Commissioner, and Peter Clarke, his deputy, have been effective and professional. But it often seems their successes are reached despite the Commissioner. The irony of Andy Hayman's position, as the only senior officer facing disciplinary sanctions, will not go unnoticed. That the man who has had so much success looks likely to swing in the wind while his boss escapes censure, is a valuable lesson for ambitious officers.

Hayman, who briefed crime reporters accurately and early about the mistake made, did not mislead the public. Fast-moving terrorist investigations are always confused and contradictory. So-called "facts" perform rapid U-turns. It is the nature of high-profile crime, and experienced and practical detectives know that. It seems such qualities were largely absent in Sir Ian's inner circle of senior officers in July 2005. The Commissioner himself is neither an experienced detective nor grass-roots cop. He is a smooth operator at political level but seems not to possess the indispensable gift of understanding how other police officers think and work. Good leadership demands incisive, informed questioning.

That day, there were simply too many bosses. Sir Ian himself commandeered the TV studios and his grip on what began as a "good news story"(ie, the death of a terrorist) slipped away as the facts hurtled in the opposite direction. There was no one unambitious or brave enough to tell Sir Ian to shut up because the facts had changed. It may be that he is an approachable and forgiving chief, but he may also be a man for whom bad news is seen as a personal betrayal. There are chiefs like that and wary subordinates avoid confrontation by confiding bad news only to the next rank above themselves. Eventually the news reaches the top man with much time wasted. Very senior police rank can bring with it dangerous insulation from the real world.

Sir Ian's personal team was too top-heavy. It included at least two assistant commissioners, several deputy assistant commissioners, and commanders (equivalent to assistant chief constables and above) and lots of superintendents. A similar police shooting in Manchester or Birmingham would have attracted probably two senior officers, with one in charge, and the true picture would find its way to the very top much more swiftly than it did in London. The 24 muddled hours from when the fatal shots were fired, to the Commissioner being told that an innocent man had died was a perfect lesson in collective failure. The investigation cried out for a strong, respected boss who would thump his office table and ask the simple questions: "What have we actually got?" and "What is the truth here?" Clearly that man was not Sir Ian.

Of the eight commissioners of the Metropolitan Police I have known, each had quite different leadership styles, but none would have been left completely in the dark in such a serious matter as was Sir Ian Blair. The previous commissioner, Sir John (now Lord) Stevens would probably have been the first, not the last, person to know that a terrible error had been made, such was his trust of junior officers. An astute boss learns not always to rely on the soothing words of senior staff.

But things went badly wrong and Sir Ian Blair's position is precarious. Unless commissioners are dishonest, corrupt or mad, they are never sacked - and Sir Ian is none of these things. But he is dangerously accident-prone. He is developing into the Mr Bean of the Yard, and I believe the Met needs a change. Successful bosses are usually good or they are lucky. Sir Ian is neither, and it is difficult to believe how he can turn his public self around in the couple of years before retirement.

Much more important than his fate is the effectiveness of anti- terrorism efforts. In the present climate, and in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, it is vital the right person is at the head of the organisation. He has, I believe, lost the confidence of many of the next generation of senior officers and much of the London public. He should go soon.