Sir Hugh Orde’s belief that Britain should talk to al-Qaeda was met with bemusement at Scotland Yard, the organisation that he aspires to lead as the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

The firm belief among Scotland Yard’s counter-terror chiefs over recent years has been that it is not possible to negotiate with “AQ” in the same way that a dialogue was opened with the IRA.

The brand of fanatical terror favoured by Osama bin Laden’s disciples is markedly different from the tradition of physical force Irish republicanism.

The IRA, however horrific its methods, had a clearly defined set of aims and therefore what senior security officials recognised as a negotiable agenda.

From his hideout, bin Laden has made bizarre offers of a “truce” with the West in return for withdrawal of military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan and “the Muslim lands”.

But al-Qaeda’s ultimate goal remains the establishment of a worldwide religious government ruled according to the most orthodox interpretation of Shariah law.

It intends to get there by a combination of holy war in the Middle East and no-warning terror attacks inflicting mass fatalities and maximum casualties in the West.

In short, the aim is to wipe liberal Western democratic societies off the face of the earth. There is no ground on which to negotiate.

More pertinently, who would you negotiate with? Al-Qaeda is a loosely-constructed organisation with branches, franchises and affiliated freelancers around the world.

The question observers have asked for several years is how do you negotiate with a religious fanatic with a suicide bomb strapped to his body?

The question they have been pondering more recently, however, is: what is the point of negotiating with al-Qaeda. The organisation has been largely rejected by Sunni tribes in Iraq, is in disarray in north Africa and is under intense surveillance and scrutiny where it exists in Europe. Its ideology is on the wane and its defeat, some have dared to suggest, may be closer than anyone dared to think previously.

There may be a point in talking to some al Qaeda allies in Pakistan, but hardly in Britain where - contrary to Sir Hugh’s view - it is being policed very successfully at the moment.

Sir Hugh’s comments suggest a lack of familiarity with the al-Qaeda threat. They would appear to owe more to his desire to raise his profile as senior police officers begin to jockey for position in the race to succeed Sir Ian Blair at the Met.

Other contenders - notably Bernard Hogan Howe, chief constable of Merseyside - have been making headlines and getting positive press in recent months.

The perception is that Sir Ian is now a lame duck commissioner. With a Tory mayor in London and the fight over 42 days virtually lost, he is very unlikely to have his current contract extended beyond February 2010.

But Sir Hugh’s suggestion of talking to al-Qaeda may have done him more harm than good as he makes his pitch for the top job in British policing.

Times Recommends

• What makes the perfect mum?
• To keep me stress-free, no more awareness days, please
• What do lottery winners buy?