Johnson’s canny commitment to 20,000 more police may prove both too demanding, and not enough

Editorial: Mr Johnson and Mr Malthouse have discovered the location of the magic money tree, presumably newly planted in Mr Javid’s back garden at No 11

The loss of talent and expertise in the austerity phase of the 2010s did more damage than was feared at the time (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Given everything, it seems odd that the government decided to reduce police numbers by about 20,000 at the beginning of the decade, mostly through redundancies of experienced officers, only to take on about 20,000 new trainees a few years later.

So the frustration, if not anger, of some within our police forces is real and understandable. For years Theresa May, as home secretary and then prime minister, disdained their warnings about the effects of policing cuts on public safety. Now, with widespread concern about certain violent crimes, we finally have a government that is listening.

Police and public alike might find the first public utterance of the latest minister tasked with law and order, Kit Malthouse, rather disconcerting. According to Mr Malthouse, police minister and a crony of Boris Johnson, one of the most pressing practical issues facing him is “lockers” – in the sense that “finding locker space is going to be the key”.

It reads like a line from a political satire, but Mr Malthouse appears sincere. He may find that the task of restoring the strength and morale of the British police takes rather more than getting some new lockable cabinets installed in the changing rooms. Still, Mr Malthouse takes the prize for the first gaffe of the Johnson era. There may be more…

The recruitment of 20,000 extra police officers is to begin in September and is scheduled to be completed within three years, with a new national policing board to make sure the target is met. This is the kind of high-visibility initiative Mr Johnson took on as Mayor of London, and there is nothing wrong with it, in itself. It seems to bypass the new home secretary, Priti Patel, suggesting that this policy is going to be run by No 10, and betokens a more presidential approach more widely. A clear target, clear timetable and clear lines of accountability are good things to have in public administration.

Still, the target may prove both too demanding and not enough. Too demanding in the sense that the labour market is still very tight, and it is not immediately obvious where this pool of would-be officers is to be found. It might well be that police pay will have to be boosted in order to attract the recruits needed – but the calibre and vocational dedication of those who come into the constabularies are also important. A politically driven rush to fill unrealistic targets with unsuitable officers would be a disaster.

Once again, it seems obvious that the loss of talent and expertise in the austerity phase of the 2010s did more damage than was feared at the time – damage that is now proving difficult to repair. And in any case, the 20,000 target could be inadequate for the task of modernising the police service. It is not just about staffing, or lockers.

As a number of recent cases have proven, the digital revolution is transforming the world, and the world of crime included. There is a vast increase in the volume of evidence the police and prosecutors have to deal with in cases of, for example, sexual assaults or financial fraud. The Carl Beech case, though highly unusual, highlights the costs incurred in complex inquiries that the public often demand. New breeds of terrorism also eat up police resources.

More material can be discovered via a single smartphone than used to be contained in an entire house search. There is no substitute for police numbers (though the efficacy of “bobbies on the beat” is often exaggerated), but there is also no substitute for investment in the high technology equipment and techniques – artificial intelligence included – that can revolutionise the productivity of the new, enlarged police force, just as finger-printing, forensic science and IT did before.

The police initiative does suggest that the Johnsonised Conservatives have recaptured a little of their political mojo. Despite the grumbles from some, it is a popular move; it should not prove that difficult to achieve; and Mr Johnson can point to these fresh young recruits as evidence of a promise kept. It’s the kind of thing the voters appreciate, and Mr Johnson will not mind spending the money on it – for him politics comes first, and the fiscal consequences can always be dealt with later.

The eye-catching 20,000 number also just happens to be twice what Diane Abbott and the Labour Party have been demanding in recent years, only to be told by the May administration that there was no magic money tree. It seems that Mr Johnson and Mr Malthouse have discovered the location of said tree, presumably newly planted in Mr Javid’s back garden at No 11, where it also yields a rich harvest of police lockers, laptops and truncheons. It just goes to show what “positive energy” can achieve.