I've been slightly surprised at the lack of reaction to the news that Boris Johnson will remove hundreds of police officers from the Met.
There's been some protest in the blogosphere, and amongst the police but otherwise the press and Boris's opponents have largely ignored it.
The Assembly's self-proclaimed champion of the police has also been strangely quiet.
So why is this? Some clues can be found in this commentary from former Met Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman at the Times:
"It is unfortunate that for Olympic year, when we will need more police officers to help deliver a safe Games, the Mayor of London is forecasting a reduction in the number on the streets.I am confident that by 2012 that will be a nationwide situation with forces across the country trying to balance the books."
So are the government holding back on Boris, because they too intend to reduce numbers?
And when Boris and other politicians speak of police numbers being at "a historical high" are they really just committing those highs to history?
Boris has repeatedly tried to distract us from these cuts by drawing attention to Operation Herald.
However, like me, Hayman is sceptical about the effect of these "civilianisation" programmes:
"Boris Johnson talks of moving officers from the back office to the front line. That process has been going on for years and will make only a marginal impact.The police minister told me recently that the police will be expected to do more with less. In any other sector that would prompt a rethink on whether the business is being properly organised but in policing it leads to further salami slicing of the budget. It is obvious that eventually there will be nothing to slice from."
Boris's Deputy for Policing also talks of officers doing more for less, which in reality may mean them doing more, but doing it less well.
And as Dave Hill wrote a while back, London Tories are keen to label the question of police numbers a "sterile debate" (when it suits them).
I am not convinced that the public will see it this way.