I was not going to come in on this, because I do not want to give Giuliani more publicity, but it makes me vomit when I hear the way people talk about this. Following what Jennette said, I visit New York three or four times a year, as you know. Anywhere in the community that I am in, the word people use for him is "seriously butters", which means totally ugly, and they say that his actions are "hank", which means they stink.
There has been a lot of hero worship of Giuliani. On the police, he implemented the programme of the previous Mayor, on Bill Clinton's money. You mentioned Bratton: he sacked Bratton because he got too much credit. We talked about patronage: he used patronage on New York quangos absolutely ruthlessly to keep his own people in. He also had a scorched earth policy, with a $5 billion deficit. I see that Mike Bloomberg is talking about selling off the Brooklyn Bridge, and we know that he is already cutting benefits.
I know that you are too smart to follow him completely, but I wonder whether there could be one practical result of all this. Before we end up prostrating ourselves before an inappropriate model, might there be a case for commissioning a proper, sensible study of some of these issues in New York - transport and policing and some of the other questions and their applicability to London? But the point I am making is that there is a danger that we will all suddenly be swept up by a tide of enthusiasm into doing things which are inappropriate for London because of inadequate and partial information about what has happened in New York. I wonder whether you ought to consider that.