Politicians are behaving like pop stars these days. The current
competition to be the toughest on crime brings to mind last summer’s
battle between Blur and Oasis - each jostling for that all-important
number one position.
The battle between Michael Howard and Jack Straw reached new heights
last week as their respective PR teams squared up over rival plans for
young offenders. In the latest twist, Howard in the blue corner shook
off his shenanigans with the press to produced more of the same: fines
for parents and registers for unruly families. Straw in the red corner
tried to outflank his opponent by promising to abolish an ancient law
that young children are incapable of evil. With the voluntary sector as
referee urging a clean fight, who would emerge victorious?
Labour were clear winners on timing. With Howard restricted by the slow
process of government, the Labour team was able to trump his Green Paper
by publishing its own plans a day earlier. The story was already running
out of steam when the Minister rose to speak and his headline ambitions
were thwarted by the collapse of the football match fixing trial. One up
to Jack.
Labour also won more endorsements from the press. Few would be surprised
by the Guardian’s qualified support for Straw or even the half-hearted
vote of the Times. But Labour also won the crucial approval of the Mail,
one of the coming election’s main battlefields which later denounced
Howard as ’a nanny in wolf’s clothing’. Only the Independent pronounced
the whole thing a charade. Not quite to script but still two nil to
Straw.
If both contenders were shadow boxing, it was up to the voluntary sector
to fend off the hype. NACRO targeted ITN and Radio 4 to provide young
people with a platform to air their views. Paul Cavadino of the Penal
Affairs Consortium, who was excellent throughout, got his messages
across in countless interviews, many of them hostile. Experts from the
Howard League and my own institute pinpointed the real issues of
juvenile crime: youth unemployment, growing inequality and the decline
in the influence of church, family and community. It was usually a
footnote but it made a difference. And yet with such vital questions
being asked about the very nature of childhood, why did we hear so
little from the children’s charities?
One final point. Green Papers are supposed to foster rational debate.
They are an essential tool of good legislation. With fear of crime
rising out of all proportion to the reality, the real loser was the
voter. We were entitled to expect more from this debate than
electioneering.
