Introduction
For a Crime Plan to have a lasting impact, both on the root causes of crime and the immediacy of the current crime rate, it needs to be a meeting place of justice and reason. There is a requirement that it becomes a vehicle for new thinking with respect to clear strategic intent. This should be backed by a foundation of understanding, directly informed by evidence, in order to reassure issues of concern regularly expressed by vulnerable communities, businesses and the media. The government’s ‘beating crime’ plan does not meet those standards.
Historically, Tony Blair, as Shadow Home Secretary, and later as Prime Minister, famously used the phrase ‘dealing with crime and the causes of crime’. Clearly, crime then, as now, was a big issue with the voting public but Blair was keen to give equal emphasis to the causes of crime, such as poverty, inequality, injustice and poor education. In government, he launched policies, such as Sure-Start, which were aimed at long term strategies to reduce crime. He also invested significantly in the police and criminal justice agencies. So, what does this plan provide?
Populist Power
In retrospect the ‘Crime Plan’ presented by Johnson’s government back in July 2021 provided the public with a blue-print for what to expect in terms of future policy delivery. The ‘Plan’, consisting largely of already long-established initiatives in crime prevention and deterrence programmes, is nevertheless interspersed with populist dog whistle politics, largely designed for consumption by a right-wing press and gullible public. It does however fully reflect the Prime Minister’s commitment to return the Conservative Party to its traditional, and unthinking, ‘Law and Order’ approach, which had been, in the recent past, very largely torpedoed by his predecessor Theresa May. The government’s strategy is focused more on punitive, rather than preventative, measures. It is full of emotive language, which appears designed to support the Tory law and order agenda.
The proposals should be focused on creating a climate of understanding rather than reaction. Unfortunately, this plan reads like a wish list that has been pulled together based on sound bite and platitudes. It is difficult to find the coherence of message or evidence that there is a fundamental understanding of the context, complexities, cost and connections within criminal justice.
There is far too much emphasis on people with power and how this can be applied – sometimes in a humiliating Dickensian manner. Thus, it is that Beating Crime will for the future involve, inter alia, the use of ‘chain gangs’ –to quote the Prime Minister, or groups of offenders wearing ‘hi vis’ clothing to make more visible to the public their reparation for past offences; a significant relaxation in terms of the use of police ‘Stop and Search’ powers; trialling the use of alcohol tags among those leaving prison and an even wider use of CCTV monitoring of public space. Just to this shift to the right, 18,000 more prison places will be made available by the mid- 2020s.
In the UK’s current state of vulnerability, here was a reassuring opportunity to create a cohesive approach, centred on service and not on power. Rather, there is a sense we are recognising only the needs of those in society that hunger for retribution rather than wellbeing; those who will think nothing of stepping over those who block their pathway.
The Role of Professional Knowledge
It also demonstrated fine contempt for those professionally engaged in managing the criminal justice system, particularly in terms of policing and prison policy There is also a worrying emphasis on the role of PCCs to ‘drive down crime’, as if they are policing professionals with a keen understanding of crime and its causes. Given 85% of current PCCs are Conservative Party members, their independence is questionable. Operational independence of the police is clearly compromised.
Like much of the Johnson government’s policy the Beating Crime Plan has divided and polarised both professional and public opinion. Thus, almost all Tory MPs and PCCs have offered public support for the Plan while nearly all professional agencies have expressed either deep concern or open contempt.
There are many unsubstantiated claims about government investment in the Criminal Justice System, and no reference to the austerity cuts, which have caused very considerable damage to public sector agencies. Police, probation, courts and prisons have all suffered huge cuts, as have Local Authorities. This has presented major morale and capacity challenges for CJ professionals. The so-called ‘investment’ claimed by the government does not bear scrutiny, since no mention is made of the staff numbers of the police, prisons, probation and prosecutors prior to 2010. These government claims are at best disingenuous and, at worst, dishonest.
The Inconvenient Poor
Like much coming from government at the moment, it fails to recognise a significant critical issue resting at the heart of modern society – an increase in the experiences of poverty. Responsiveness to the new challenges shaped by the impact of a pandemic and that catastrophic crash called Brexit, requires changes to how we consider the dispossessed. Locking them out of sight, regardless of how comfortable that may make ill-informed and reactionary aspects of society feel, is not cohesive nor a strategic approach to governing society. This feels like an ill-fitting plaster being administered to an open wound! Indeed, it reads like a series of prescriptions being administered to the sick, not realising that the prescription itself has created a nauseating sense of futility.
We argue that crime, in the context of this Plan, is seen as those offences generally committed by the working classes. It is visible and problematic. However, little mention is made of white-collar crime or corruption, which can account for many millions of pounds. Neither is there any commentary about the crisis in our prisons, where resources are stretched to breaking point and recidivism seems to be more evident than rehabilitation.
Government policy needs to positively act in a cohesive manner that understands and frees people from being marginalised rather than create a continuous circle of certainty. This should also be about an own-destiny approach – a need to ensure that people understand that their criminal activity has consequences for both victims and perpetrators. They need to be active agents in their own outcomes. We need a personal maturity and a collective understanding that helps communities grow.
Beating Crime
What is clear, however, is that this Plan will in no way ‘beat crime’ and demonstrates that this government has yet to provide evidence of any serious engagement with future criminal policy. And yet, as the recent announcement of its Health and Social Care Strategy has confirmed, there appears to be little of real substance in either of these government ‘strategies’. In terms of ‘Social Care’ it has, indeed, become quickly apparent that this ‘strategy’ can be expected to fail to deal with the growing crisis as the bulk of spending is directed to the NHS [Smith 2021]. Both Plan and Strategy have been devised without professional consultation and in the case of Health and Social Care without either Cabinet knowledge or deliberation. The end result has proved to be, however, universal acclaim within mainstream Tory ranks. Yet this is matched by deep contempt if not revulsion among the rest. This, it might be thought, is at best, an unfortunate but compelling example of ‘populist authoritarianism’ in action.
Conclusion
We conclude from where we started. There was a requirement of this Crime Plan that it provided fresh thinking, with an evidence base and clear direction as to constructive strategic intent. It was an opportunity to engage with professionals and the dispossessed in order to create a future that levelled-up, to use Tory parlance, society. Both the CJ professionals and the poor are present within the report but without a voice, drowned out by the cacophony of reactionary noise. And without doubt, crime in this report has a social class aspect to its definition.
The Johnson government has yet to acknowledge causes of crime, yet alone design a crime strategy around them. Their plan falls woefully short of tackling long term crime. Whilst it may appeal to some of the tabloid press, it will serve only to provide a band aid to what is a very serious problem.
Notes:
Smith D [2021] ‘After this dog’s dinner, can we sustain record taxes?’ Sunday Times 12/9/21;
Crewe I and Sanders D [ 2018] ‘Authoritarian Populism and Liberal Democracy’, Palgrave.