Now that the dust has settled, I thought I'd write about the Conservative Party's recently published chapter on crime for their manifesto for the forthcoming general election from Big Brother Watch's perspective.
It's a bit like their Rolling Back the Surveillance State paper, really - not bad, could be better. Beyond noting the basic fact that it's very short and without a great deal of detail, I simply divide up their pledges of most interest as follows:
GOOD
Freeing the police from paperwork - self-evidently sensible, and unlike so often when parties promise this it seems that they've actually thought about what bits of bureaucracy they'd cut.
More late-night licenses (with revenue to go to more policing) - we should have the freedom to enjoy ourselves as we wish as long as we're not harming others, and more freedom in this direction (in a country which still labours under licensing laws meant for wartime conditions) should always be welcomed. Furthermore, this kind of localised, hypothecated tax is a good idea - and better to take money from those willing to pay than from those unwilling in the ever-more-numerous fines to which we're all subject.
Protection for members of the public (especially householders) who tackle criminals - we've already expressed our approval.
Naming and shaming persistent criminals - it's not a civil liberties issue - you've got no right to break the law again and again, and any right to privacy etcetera persistent offenders do have has to be balanced against those of the law-abiding majority, as I've said before.
Releasing statistical data about crimes in local areas - we should have the right to know how our local police force is performing.
BAD
Allowing councils to shut down businesses that sell alcohol to children - fine if we lived in an age of discretion and common sense, but we don't - and we all know that under such a scheme, councils would be militantly closing up long running, hard-pressed businesses which make one mistake selling a pint to a 17 year old.
Tax hikes on some kinds of alcohol - people should be free to choose to drink (or eat, or smoke) whatever they want, and in any case "sin taxes" tend not to stop people doing what you want to stop them doing, they just pay more, thus harming the poor, particularly; furthermore, if it does work, people aren't stupid - they'll just switch to other kinds of booze to avoid your tax.
Strengthening stop and search powers - weren't they listening? That's entirely contrary to both recent law and to the proper relationship between individual and government. Absent good cause, reasonable suspicion etcetera, the state should never be empowered to halt a citizen, search him, demand his papers. This is one of the areas in which more detail is really needed - without it, this just looks like a terrible policy.
Early intervention measures like "grounding orders" for children - ASBOs by another name.
Banning businesses from selling alcohol below cost price - there's nothing wrong with loss-leaders; indeed, we as members of the public benefit from them. It's a product people want. It's legal. It's none of your business. Push off.
So, all in all, not bad. I have to say that their general approach of common sense is good, but the authoritarian tendencies are deeply worrying.
And as an aside, their pledge to have someone locally elected to determine policing priorities (and indeed the localist thrust of the paper generally) will please Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan.
