During the wilderness years of the 1980s we were seen as being wrong on both the economy and crime – our policies were out of touch with what people wanted and expected to see from a governing party. It was only by fundamentally changing our position in these vital areas that we were able to convince the public we were electable and could be trusted to deliver for them.
For this government crime is developing as an area of real weakness. Cutting the police budget by 20 per cent – significantly higher than the cuts proposed by Labour – will mean thousands fewer police in our communities; spending money on rebranding ASBOs as CBOs instead of getting officers out on the streets tackling antisocial behaviour shows that the government are more concerned with presentation than policing; and Ken Clarke’s disastrous week has shown just how little appetite there is among the public for lighter sentences for serious criminals.
All of this is creating a toxic mix – fewer police, the prioritisation of political branding over effective enforcement and softer sentencing will lead to more crime, less effective policing and more criminals being released onto our streets before they are ready to be rehabilitated into society.
It’s crucial that a Labour response to the government agenda keeps us on the side of ordinary people – those who have a sense of justice, want people who break the law to be punished and want to live in a community free from the fear of crime.
There are two areas where I think Labour can show that we have a more coherent plan to reduce crime:
Firstly, we know that there is less money to tackle crime – indeed Labour would also have cut the Home Office budget although at a smaller level that would not have affected frontline numbers. Embracing Total Place budgeting that pools public funds to generate better value for money would ensure that stretched resources are better targeted at crime hotspots. Not only will this help to reduce crime, but by liaising with other agencies we can create support networks for ex-offenders to put them back on their feet and reduce the risk of them falling into the cycle of reoffending.
Secondly, we need to look at how sentencing can be more just. We know that Ken Clarke is clueless about the trauma caused by being a victim of crime – our task is to demonstrate that Labour does understand. I was interested to read the thoughts of Lord Justice Leveson who argued that sentences should reflect emotional damage – he cites burglary as an example, pointing out that it could be treated as a crime against the person which would better reflect the damage caused. This isn’t about a blanket measure increasing or decreasing all sentences, but making sure that sentencing policy better reflects the true harm caused by crime.
Labour’s response isn’t about outflanking the Tories on the right – I’ve never been convinced by this doctrinal assertion that crime is a rightwing issue. Those of us who regularly knock on doors and speak to voters will know that it is often Labour areas that suffer most from crime and antisocial behaviour – we show that we’re on their side by tackling crime, not by pandering to outdated ideological stereotypes. Tackling crime isn’t about left and right, it’s about right and wrong and it’s important that we stay on the right side of that divide.