Ignore the hubris, and cut the police

By David Talbot

When cuts of up to 25% in police budgets were first mooted by the Conservative-led government last September the police went into default mode and howled blue murder. The police duly warned that cuts would create a “Christmas for criminals” and the government was risking the very safety of its citizens. This has been the police’s argument ad infinitum for when the issue of their funding has been raised; more police equates to less crime. It might seem obvious that an increased police force would mean lower crime, but academics, and even a few within law enforcement, have wrestled with this question for decades – and the answer will not please the police.

The ferocious debate about cuts in police resources largely takes for granted that as far as public safety and the control of crime are concerned, police size matters. The desire of police lobbyists is to frighten politicians from cutting their budgets. They, after all, have a vested interest in fear and a culture of perpetual fear has become so ingrained in government that nobody dares question any spending to which the word police can be attached.

Throughout the prolonged debate on cuts the police have conducted themselves with the most appalling arrogance. They have become a service so self-righteous that few can remember anyone ever challenging its sanctity. But it is worth remembering that the Metropolitan Police, the closest the UK has to a national police force, is mired in allegations of corruption and has seen its Police Commissioner and Assistant Police Commissioner resign in disgrace. Amid all this, a man was shot dead in dubious circumstances in north London and – just as happened in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes – there was dissembling over events. This is not to mention the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests, for which a Metropolitan police officer is currently facing manslaughter charges, or the 16-month, £1.4m investigation in to cash for honours that prosecuted precisely no one.

You might, after all this, expect a degree of humility. But this is what happens when authority has too much money and no one in charge to impose a sense of proportion. The police continually say that any reduction in funding will damage public safety and reduce frontline effectiveness. It does not mention that speeding police cars now kill twice as many members of the public as die from gun offences. Nor that it now takes 20 officers to handle the first day of a rape inquiry and 30 to handle a burglary. It did not see fit to mention that it now takes up to 14 detectives to monitor one suspect for just 10 hours.

The number of ‘specialist’ posts in the police has risen by 3,000 in just five years, while the number of officers on the beat has actually fallen, and this after spending had doubled in 15 years. Any front line public service that has cut its availability while doubling its cost to public funds is seriously awry and would face considerable political pressure.

But it does not. The UK currently spends a higher proportion of its GDP on criminal justice than any other OECD country. This cries out for more than a sterile debate over cuts, especially that even after the cuts, there will still be 210,000 police officers and staff, as many as we had in 2004 – and twice as many special constables.

We must have a rational and reasonable debate about policing funding. The relationship between policing and crime levels is complex. But crime rates do not correlate with police activity and a fall in police numbers will not automatically cause a rise in crime. It is time to move on from simplistic debates and tackle the fundamental faults that lie at the heart of our police force that despite lavish funding and unyielding political support, are so obviously inherent.