FactCheck: Cooper cuts a thin blue line
The claim
“Yvette Cooper should know that Alan Johnson refused to guarantee police numbers, and (Ed) Balls admitted he would cut force budgets by over £1bn a year”
Policing Minister Nick Herbert MP, Radio 4’s World this Weekend
The background
Police cuts are a particularly thorny political issue, because the potential repercussions are huge. A smaller police force could arguably result in a rise in crime.
The boys in blue are well aware they are facing budget cuts of 20 per cent by 2014-15 (£2.1bn over four years), but Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper argues that the front-loaded nature of the cuts will see 10,190 frontline jobs axed within two years.
Ms Cooper has wasted no time in rustling up this new research on one of her husband Ed Balls’ favourite hot topics, but did she point the finger too soon?
The analysis
Ms Cooper’s team collated figures from all 42 police authorities in England and Wales. Two-thirds of them had made recent announcements on the cuts, while a third have yet to set out their budget plans.
Policing Minister Nick Herbert has refused to accept Labour’s figures – “I think it is better to wait for official figures”, he said.
But in any case, he thinks Ms Cooper is missing the point: “We have never said we can guarantee police numbers and nor has the Opposition,” he fumed.
Well in fact, in the run-up to the General Election Gordon Brown did promise to “maintain” current police numbers – with the Labour Party Manifesto outlining the provision of funding for police numbers and Police Community Support Officers.
However, obviously frontline police jobs would still be a matter for Chief Constables.
Step forward Alan Johnson, who in a televised interview, refused to guarantee police numbers. When asked whether he could promise that numbers would not fall if Labour won the election, he replied: “No”.
Facing a government deficit of £163bn, it’s no surprise that Mr Johnson shied away from the promise – but the gaffe did little to improve Labour’s standing in the election campaign. Then-Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling deemed Brown’s promise “blatant hypocrisy”.
So far, one nil to Mr Herbert.
Moving on to the issue of cutting budgets by £1bn, FactCheck can’t find any direct quotes from Ed Balls “admitting” he’d slash the budget by £1bn (why would he – as Education Secretary at the time).
However, Labour’s press office has gone to ground on the topic. Possibly because it’s highly probable that Mr Balls did mention it – it was Labour’s party line.
In a Home Office White Paper published in December 2009 (Protecting the Public: Supporting the Police to Succeed) Labour proposed £545m of cash savings per year by 2013/14 as well as another £500m worth of annual “frontline process improvements” – in other words money-saving reforms.
This adds up to the £1bn in police cuts Mr Herbert was talking about, Paul Lander, the editor of Police Professional explained to FactCheck.
Mr Herbert said: “Labour too have said they would cut police spending by over £1bn, which is what the inspectorate [HM Inspectorate of Constabulary] says can be saved by the police in making efficiencies.”
The verdict
The Policing Minister was right to point out that Labour agreed that there should be £1bn in police cuts.
And it should come as no surprise to Labour that Mr Herbert insisted police numbers would also fall under the Opposition – given Alan Johnson’s very public, and embarrassing, refusal to lay himself down on the thin blue line.
He knew it could get thinner.
But while Mr Herbert might insist that “every chief constable is determined to prioritise” those jobs, he knows he can’t give any guarantees.
With 80 per cent of the police budget earmarked for salaries, FactCheck doubts if there’s a police force in the land that isn’t looking at cutting jobs to meet the agenda in time.


There are 5 comments on this post
I’m getting very bored with the government forever comparing everything they do with labour’s record. Cameron is the worst offender at PMQs.
I don’t remember them standing at the last election saying ‘we are going to be as bad as labour’
They are in power (albeit without a mandate for much of their programme e.g. NHS privatisation) so may we please hear what they are doing and how it is going to affect the rest of us?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
We heart Labour, G. Brown and TB blaming the Tories continuously for 13 years.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So to summarise then: Labour would have cut by £1bn but this is the amount that the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary suggest can be made without sacking police officers.
Meanwhile the Tories are cutting far more and police officers are getting the sack as a result.
Seems to me you can quibble about the 10,000 figure (because the officers haven’t actually been sacked yet) but the charge that the two approaches are the same is not supported by your own research.
Do correct me if I’ve got any of that wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy,
You can see where this is going with the Tories.
Reduced police numbers and an increase in poverty will inevitably lead to an increase in crime, as it always does around the world. CamClegg will then ignore their role in the situation and attack criminals, who they will also link to “scroungers” and the “workshy” who “won’t get on their bikes.” They will also talk hypocritical bilge about a “broken society” they “inherited” from New Labour. Then they will launch a programme to fight a “crime wave.” Then they will claim “credit” for increasing police numbers, thus following the Thatcher/Major model.
It is so predictable it is funny. But not for the victims. Then again, that hasn’t bothered the Tories before and it isn’t about to change any time soon.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So a reduction of 11000 police officers, 3707000 working days allowing for leave. deduct 96 days a year for days off 96×11000=1056000. deduct 105600 from working days=3601400 working days. Divide working days by 3 for shift system. 36001400/3=1200466. Divide by 365 for number on duty per day, 1200466/365= 3288. Divide 42 (number of police authorities. 3288/42=78. This does not allow for training or sickness, so the loss would actually be less on the front line. This number is total, not beat/patrolling staff, could your police force overall cope losing 78 staff?
Like or Dislike:
0
0