Cameron “ignorant or disingenuous” on frontline police cuts

In the Commons today, David Cameron reiterated his claim that cuts to police budgets would not affect front-line officers. But the facts do not support him.

In the Commons today, David Cameron reiterated his claim that cuts to police budgets would not affect front-line officers. But the facts do not support him.

Earlier today, the Prime Minister told the Commons that “cash reductions” in police budgets were “totally achievable without any reductions in visible policing”. He went on to say that:

“We will still be able to surge as many police officers on to the streets as we have in recent days in London, Wolverhampton and Manchester.”

During last year’s election, Cameron promised not to cut “frontline spending“. But as IPPR’s Matt Cavanagh explains on Labour Uncut:

“To justify his assertion that the cuts will not affect the front line, or visible patrolling, Cameron chose to discuss his own local force, Thames Valley. This choice was either ignorant, or disingenuous.

“A glance at the graph on page 22 of the HMIC report shows the difference in the scale of the challenge faced by Thames Valley Police, in trying to protect the front line from spending cuts, compared to those forces who have been dealing with the riots, including the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside. Thames Valley Police would have to reduce their non-front-line officers by just under 50%, in order to avoid cutting into the front line. That is challenging, but arguably possible. By contrast, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside forces would have to cut their non-front-line officers by 100%. Even those who hold the simplistic view that almost all ‘back office’ jobs are unnecessary would have to admit that to cut at this level without affecting front line police numbers is simply impossible.”

The graph in question is here.

Supporting Cavanagh’s analysis, Channel 4’s fact check concluded last month that, “lower budgets do mean lower numbers of police officers. Officer numbers are expected to drop 11 per cent in four years and although it is holding up well, even the hallowed frontline will be 2 per cent thinner by next year.”

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

18 Responses to “Cameron “ignorant or disingenuous” on frontline police cuts”

  1. David Harney

    Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://bit.ly/nEyaXS

  2. DrKMJ

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://bit.ly/nEyaXS #NewsClub

  3. Jess Fitch

    RT @leftfootfwd http://t.co/kWsbcyr << Good to have some clear numbers on the issue, #Cameron clearly in the wrong on police cuts #UKriots

  4. Chris

    Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://bit.ly/nEyaXS

  5. chris star

    #Cameron “ignorant or disingenuous” on frontline police cuts
    http://j.mp/qz351z

  6. bob woods

    Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://bit.ly/nEyaXS

  7. Hitchin England

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://bit.ly/nEyaXS #NewsClub

  8. Anon E Mouse

    Will Straw – The police cuts 6% over the next years haven’t even started yet.

    Labour need to realise that people are being burned out of their homes NOW…

  9. Michael

    Cameron “ignorant or disingenuous” on frontline police cuts l Left Foot Forward – http://j.mp/qz351z

  10. JLewis

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://t.co/MJYF7aX

  11. Watching You

    Cameron “ignorant or disingenuous” on frontline police cuts l Left Foot Forward – http://j.mp/qz351z

  12. Wendy Denton

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://t.co/3LH39t1 Wrong agagain.

  13. Dave Citizen

    To be fair, I think it’s ignorant ‘and’ disingenuous.

  14. Kevin Richards

    What do we believe RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron "ignorant or disingenuous" on frontline police cuts http://t.co/Gg4CJod

  15. Mr. Sensible

    Mr Mouse, the point is, if police resources are stretched now as it is, what will things be like if this disgraceful behaviour kicks off after the cuts have kicked in?

    Cameron is living in complete denial. He talks about jobs going from back offices, but I pointed out before how in some parts of the country, they’re actually having police officers doing back office jobs.

    Why don’t they get rid of the completely unnecessary proposals on police commissioners and let the police get on with their job?

  16. Anon E Mouse

    Mr.Sensible – We cannot afford to pay for the practices inherent in the Police Force to allow some policemen to never go on the streets – at any one time only 11% are on the beat.

    We need a strong police force in this country but if you’re saying that 6% savings can’t be made over 4 years then you really don’t get it.

    With the mountain of paperwork each officer has to fill in that could save £millions alone.

    The elected police commissioners issue is completely separate from front line policing. To date I haven’t seen any high ranking officers policing the riots.

    Maybe this country should start sacking some council leaders or union officials who are on more money than the Prime Minister….

  17. Mike Thomas

    Less form-filling = more feet on the street = higher productivity.

    Higher productivity = more from the same or the same with less.

    How is this so difficult to grasp and more money is always the knee-jerk reaction?

  18. William Obrien

    In my opinion they should have called the army in after the second night of rioting, if only to help with crowd control so that the emergency services could get around.

Leave a Reply