Huhne: scrap ID cards and put 10,000 bobbies on the beat. Three reasons why he’s wrong

Amother day, another nail in the coffin of Labour’s increeasingly half-hearted attempts to force the British people to carry ID cards and enrtust their personal details to a national government database. The BBC reports:

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has dropped plans to make ID cards compulsory for pilots and airside workers at Manchester and London City airports. The cards were due to be trialled there – sparking trade union anger. … But Mr Johnson said the ID card scheme was still very much alive – despite Tory and Lib Dem calls to scrap it. He said the national roll-out of a voluntary scheme was being speeded-up – with London to get them a year early in 2010 and over-75s to get free cards.

Lib Dem shadow home secretary Chris Huhne wasn’t impressed:

This is another nail in the coffin for the Government’s illiberal ID cards policy, which will soon be so voluntary that only Home Office mandarins seeking promotion will have them. Airport workers did not want to be guinea pigs for this deeply unpopular scheme, which has now been reduced to nothing more than a second-rate passport.

“These expensive and intrusive plans should be ditched now. The vast amount of money would be far better spent on something that will actually fight crime and terrorism – ten thousand more police on the street.”

I’m all for Chris’s denunication of ID cards. But I do wonder about our oft-repeated line – first adopted, I think, when Simon Hughes was Lib Dem home affairs spokesman – that we would hypothecate the cash saved from ID cards for putting 10,000 more ‘bobbies on the beat’. Why do I wonder, I hear you ask?

Well, first, as I understand Vince’s line to be, the abolition of ID cards is one of the party’s plausible and cashable savings to help bring down projected government debt in the coming years. If that’s the case, we can’t also spend the saving on new police officers.

Secondly, the policy of putting 10,000 more ‘bobbies on the beat’ was adopted back when abolishing ID cards was held still to be a risky political view to take: Labour adopted them to be seen to be ‘tough on crime’, and were backed by the Tories. It was understandable, perhaps even canny, politics for the party to show that vanity projects like the ID card scheme have an opportunity cost, and that there is more than one way of being seen to be tough. But time has moved on. Opposing ID cards is now mainstream, and we don’t need to come up with a tough-sounding policy as political cover.

And thirdly, the policy is, at best, suspect. Is there actually any evidence that putting 10,000 more ‘bobbies on the beat’ would cut crime? Here’s what Guardian journalist Nick Davies had to say about the issue as long ago as 2003:

The heart of the whole problem is that the system makes a set of assumptions about the behaviour of regular offenders – that they are making rational calculations about their behaviour, that they are worried about getting caught and that they are fearful of being punished. Those assumptions may apply to the law-abiding majority, but they are overwhelmingly false in relation to the generation of adolescents, usually male, who are based in the wreckage of the old public housing estates, whose values have been distorted by a childhood in collapsing communities and broken families, and whose ambitions have been swallowed by the one style of life which offers them status, excitement, a decent income and the prospect of promotion – crime and particularly the blackmarket in drugs. These are the lifestyle criminals who commit 80% of recorded crime: patrols don’t inhibit them, detectives don’t catch them, prisons don’t deter them.

That article is one of four in-depth pieces Nick wrote challenging lazy media/political assumptions about how to cut crime on his insightful FlatEarthNews website under the ‘Media Falsehoods & Propaganda: Bobbies on the beat’ banner. It’s still recommended reading – even for Lib Dem shadow home secretaries.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Andrew Suffield 30th Jun '09 - 10:29pm

    Nobody has ever solved the crime problem, and deterrence is widely known to be junk.

    I don’t think there’s any justification given (or existing) for that journalist’s claim that “patrols don’t inhibit them, detectives don’t catch them” though. We’re talking about the vast majority of stupid, inept, habitual crime here – they get caught all the time, and spend their lives in and out of jail.

    You know what stops drug-related criminals? Ending prohibition; regardless of whether or not it’s the “right thing to do”, it doesn’t *work* and it generates a lot of supporting crime along the way. But of course nobody can suggest that.

  • Of course, all this assumes that the £5 billion is taxpayers money that could be spent on something else. If you scrape the surface it quickly becomes apparent that it isn’t taxpayers money at all. The £5 billion covers the cost of issuing ID cards and passports over the next ten years plus the administration of the scheme, but it’s all recouped through the sale of passports and now ID cards. The net cost to the taxpayer over ten years is £0. The costs are covered by the sales – and it’s illegal for the passports service to make a profit.

    To put it another way, unless you’re selling something to people, then why would they hand over their cash? The only way to raise this sort of money to pay for extra police is to either cancel something where the cost isn’t covered by sales, or raise a tax to pay for it. using ID cards is superficially attractive, but doesn’t bear out any sort of intelectual analysis.

  • Terry Gilbert 1st Jul '09 - 2:19pm

    As a former probation officer, I agree with much of what Nick Davies said. If only that could become as mainstream as scrapping ID cards.

    ‘Better trained police’ would be a better mantra than ‘more police’.

  • Also, police always hide behind the excuse of being overloaded with paperwork, when in fact they just need better management and a kick up their lazy, overfed backsides to get out and catch some crims. IMHO, of couse.

    If indeed it is true that 80% of crimes are committed by the products of these ex council estates, the long-term solution is to stop the “production line” so to speak, by asking all women on benefits incapable of supporting children to have contraceptive implants until such time as they have the money to support their own children.

  • Not well phrased, but you get the drift. I will wait for the politically correct brickbats to be hurled in due course.

  • Another reason why it’s wrong to say “put the money saved towards 10000 police”, is that even with the money, you can’t just magic 10,000 extra policemen out of thin air.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Steve Trevethan
    Might the root problems of yesterday’s childish and selfish behaviours be found in the extremely unsuited design of the House of Commons, the lout behaviour o...
  • Jeff
    expats 21st Feb '24 - 8:24am: I looked at the ‘trading giants’ listed… This makes my point perfectly. As with other Brexit benefits, the...
  • Neil Fawcett
    @Paul Barker - she clearly didn't hide them very well. Another member spotted that she had made some abhorrent posts on social media and put in a complaint. As ...
  • Nick Baird
    Imperfect as it is, our democracy is the sum of its parts, and one of those parts is Opposition Day debates. The second largest party gets 17 of those per parl...
  • Nigel Jones
    So good to have Layla representing us in Foreign Policy, especially on this issue. A pity she did not have time to say more, especially to put things in perspec...