The Guardian view on poverty and crime: speaking truth to Priti Patel
“Why do people get involved in crime and serious crime? It’s because the opportunities to make money elsewhere aren’t there for them.” Such opinions are frequently derided as the fancies of a liberal left disconnected from the impact of law-breaking on victims’ lives. But these are the words of a departing police chief not known for his softness. Andy Cooke, who is leaving Merseyside for a job with the Inspectorate of Constabulary, ran a gangs unit; his force was an energetic user of stop and search. But if he was given a budget of £5bn to tackle crime, he told the Guardian, he would spend £4bn of it on reducing poverty and “levelling up”.
Of course, the blanket term “crime” covers a multitude of sins – as well as huge numbers of drug-possession offences that should arguably be removed from the scope of criminal law altogether (of 175,000 drug crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2019-20, 63% were cannabis possession). When talking about how young people are drawn towards criminality due to the lack of alternatives, and how entrepreneurial skills in cities such as Liverpool can get misdirected, Mr Cooke was clearly referring to the kinds of crimes that provide a source of income and the status that goes with it – rather than other types such as domestic violence.
His argument for increased spending on poverty reduction places him among policing’s progressives. But while such views may not be the norm among his colleagues, nor are they unique. In 2018, Patricia Gallan, then a senior figure in the Metropolitan police, made strikingly similar comments about people who feel they “do not have a stake” in society. Neil Basu, Britain’s top counter-terrorism officer, has said that social mobility and education and training improvements are crucial tools in the battle against extremism. In fact, it would be strange if senior police figures did not acknowledge these links. It is more than a decade, after all, since Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett published The Spirit Level, which drew together large quantities of epidemiological data to demonstrate the damaging effects of inequality on societies. High levels of crime and violence were shown to be prominent among them.
Whether ministers will pay attention to this latest warning is doubtful. The home secretary, Priti Patel, prides herself on talking tough about crime, but her recently announced plan for league tables is remarkably backward, given target culture’s strong association with poor practice and perverse incentives. Fortunately, her Labour opponents appear increasingly alert to this weakness. That political pressure could, in due course, lead to some more intelligent policymaking is probably the best hope. But for now, Mr Cooke and others are right to be worried about the corrosive effects, particularly on the young, of what many perceive to be narrowing life chances.