BY STEWART SLATER

A seemingly iron law of British elections is that, in the aftermath of a defeat, a caucus in the losing party will ascribe their failure to having been too far from the centre ground. This, hallowed space, an almost mythical source of electoral milk and honey is always, in another iron law, coterminous with the political territory occupied by said caucus.

In this, of course, they are wrong. The centre ground in British politics is well-known and remarkably stable. Left on economics, right on social issues. “Fund the NHS, Hang the paedos” may be crude and it may be simplistic, but it accurately captures the average voter, a political actor who is curiously ill-served by political parties. Labour are left/left, the Tories are right/left or right (depending on the Tory in question), Reform are right/right and the Lib Dems are, well, who cares as long as they don’t allow any new construction?

The recent election focused almost entirely on the economic axis – Labour planned to fix public services by spending money they claimed to have no plans to raise, the Conservatives by cutting taxes so fewer people would need to use them. Neither had much to say on the social dimension and what little was said was concentrated on the “culture war” (an unusual conflict which is only ever fought by one side – they fight the culture war, we promote inclusivity/stand up for common sense according to taste). This may have played well to the online community (there are almost as many on the right who make a living from decrying “wokery” as do, on the left, from imposing it) but gained little traction in the outside world. Women’s right to use the bathroom in single-sex peace apparently being something of lesser importance to the general populace than an improved chance of getting a GP appointment.

This probably suited the politicians. For, in comparison to economic issues where they straddle the electorate, on social issues, MPs of both main parties are to the left of the average voter. Focusing solely on whether the owners of one type of tackle can tackle the owners of the other type on the rugby pitch allowed both parties to avoid revealing this in other, more important areas of the social axis. For, in a blow to those of us inhabiting an imaginary libertarian bubble of freedom-loving, live-and-let-live yeomen, the British public is distressingly authoritarian. Lockdowns and the concomitant restrictions on liberty were extremely popular. A surprisingly large number of people are willing to tell pollsters that some restrictions (presumably those which do not affect them personally) should still be in place. And, in justice, a large majority think convicted criminals have it too easy. Those aware of Nietzsche’s dictum, “Beware of those in whom the urge to punish is strong” cannot look at their compatriots without a modicum of discomfort.

But it is hard not to look at the country and feel a similar amount of discomfort. As regular readers will know, I recently witnessed a shoplifting and, to counter potential accusations of availability bias, recently released statistics suggest that I was unusual, not in having done so, but in having done so only once (to date). For reports of it rose 30% last year (probably understating the true extent since many do not bother to file a report). Shops, however, have it comparatively easy – thefts from the person rose 40% in the same period. Fewer than 4% of burglaries result in a charge, and in 48% of neighbourhoods, the police had failed to solve a single one in the past three years. Nor is it just property offenses which are on the rise – knife crime rose 5% last year (22% in Labour-run London). Beyond the dry statistics, the news is currently full of an outbreak of violence in Manchester (and the police response to it), while last week there was a riot in Leeds. It is easy to reach the conclusion that law and order is breaking down.

But, outside philosophical fantasies such as Zeno’s Republic which included no justice system because, being populated by good Stoics, none was necessary, law and order has always been a key function of the state. Indeed, some have seen it as the first function of the state. The origins of society are obviously obscure but, in the model proposed by Thomas Hobbes, man originally existed in a state of nature, life in which was, in his famous formulation, “nasty, brutish and short”. In return for protection, people ceded some of their rights to a sovereign (there is some evidence that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms arose in the manner Hobbes suggested, local strongmen offering safety in return for allegiance). The social contract is explicitly reciprocal, the people give the sovereign some of their rights and in return, he maintains the conditions necessary for “commodious living”.

But as crime and, just as importantly, the perception of crime grow, so too does the impression that the sovereign is no longer keeping his side of the bargain. For an increasing number today, “the fruit [of their industry] is uncertain…and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.” Not so much Hobbes’ functioning state as his original bellum omnium contra omnes.

It may be that Labour gets a grip of the problem. Sir Keir, after all, makes much of his previous role as DPP. But it will not be easy. And it will not be cheap. Police will need to be recruited and trained. Procedures changed. Court backlogs cleared. Prisons built. Probation services improved. All this by a party which, generally ascribing crime to structural factors such as poverty, has traditionally been quicker to understand than to condemn (and is led by a former human rights lawyer). Certainly, Sadiq Khan’s London is not a poster child for the smack of authoritarian justice. Nor Wales, often touted, pre-election, as a model for what Labour could do in power. Violent crime per head there is 7% higher than in England. Suggestions that the party will row back some of the disciplinary measures in schools imposed by the previous government indicate that it continues philosophically to prioritise the rights of the disruptive few over the needs of the orderly many.

The Conservatives are not short of advice at the moment. Those who tell them to abandon the wrongly named “centre ground” (generally not Conservatives themselves, oddly enough) would have them do so by seeking to crack down on immigration and taking on wokery. But these entail losing much of what remains of the Tory base who rely on the former for their life-styles (as does the entire country, if we’re being honest) and regard the latter as déclassé. But crime is different. Aversion to crime unifies the country – except criminals, of course, and they are not yet a significant voting bloc. No-one wishes to be robbed, whether they live in Birmingham or Bray. The residents of Mayfair are just as keen to walk the streets unmolested as are those of Macclesfield. Crime is every bit as much an obviously present danger to those in Chelsea as it is to those in Cheadle. A party seeking power needs to offer voters what they want, not what it thinks they should want. And everyone one wants to be safe.

For, order does not arise, it needs to be imposed. And if Labour don’t do it, and the Conservatives won’t, someone else will.

Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.