
How realistic is Nigel Farage's promise to cut crime in half?
Is Britain facing societal collapse?
No. If it was, you wouldn't get back alive from the pub or be able to get petrol or bread.
Is crime up?
On some measures and in some places, against certain given periods of time, it is up; on other measures, it's down.
The variations in the way crime is measured are one issue – it's risky to go by the number of crimes recorded by the police, because people will sometimes not bother to report them, especially the less serious matters, so statisticians treat these figures with caution.
The other way of measuring crime rates, which should also be adjusted for changes in population, is by conducting surveys among the public – but not everything is included. Somewhat confusingly, Farage seems to think that the survey data is unreliable because people have given up telling the police about, for example, thefts that might affect their insurance. That doesn't make sense.
Types of crime also necessarily change over time; there are very few thefts of car radios or bank blags these days, but there's massively more cybercrime and fraud. Even in London, described by Farage as 'lawless', not all crime is up; there's a long-term trend down in murder and rape, for example, and there are still plenty of tourists.
So fact-checking any politician on the subject of crime is virtually impossible. All such claims need to be treated with the utmost care.
What about the costings?
Farage presented a 'costings sheet' that purports to show that the whole massive package – recruiting 30,000 more police, opening new 'custody suites', restoring magistrates' court operations, building prisons, paying rent for offenders deported to prisons in El Salvador or Estonia, and the rest – would come to £17.4bn over a five-year parliament: a mere £3.48bn per annum.
The costings seem to be optimistic, based on some arbitrary assumptions such as always being able to cut costs to a minimum. They are not independently audited by, say, the Institute for Fiscal Studies – and if it were really all so cheap to do, the Tories and Labour would surely have taken the opportunity to transform the crime scene and turn Britain into a paradise long ago.
As for funding even the admitted £17.4bn, there are no specific named savings elsewhere, just some recycled claims about the (contested) cost of net zero and the supposed economic miracle wrought in Argentina by President Milei. Probably not enough to calm the bond markets under a Farage government.
Is the UK 'close to civil disobedience on a vast scale'?
So Farage claims. His critics say that his 'I predict a riot' remarks tend to have a self-fulfilling quality to them, as seen in the 'Farage riots' in Southport and elsewhere a year ago.
Essex Police, who are currently dealing with violent unrest in Epping – perpetrated by 'a few bad eggs', as Farage terms it – won't thank him for his comments.
And the anecdotes?
Uncheckable, just as Enoch Powell's were in the infamous 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968. We may never know whether, for example, a former army sergeant was denied a job as a police officer because the force was 'having trouble with its quotas' or for some other reason.
Reform's tactics are also reminiscent of the Trump playbook, demonstrating an obsession with incarceration and policing by fear. If Farage could build a British Alligator Alcatraz on a disused RAF base in Suffolk, he probably would. But using grass snakes, presumably.
Can Farage cut crime in half in five years?
It feels implausible. If he could, then presumably he could abolish crime altogether if he were given a decade in office. The 'zero tolerance' approach sounds fine, but if the pledge that every shoplifting offence, every whiff of a spliff, and every trackable mobile phone theft has to be investigated is taken literally – as he seems to intend – then even 30,000 more officers wouldn't be sufficient, and the expanded court and prison system would collapse.
Much the same goes for 'saturation' levels of policing deployed on stop-and-search exercises in high-knife-crime areas. Sending many more people to jail is also very costly, but, more to the point, the recent Gauke report explains why prison doesn't work and just makes everything worse. To get crime down under Reform UK, we'd need to turn the UK into a police state.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
7 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Minister doubles down on colleague's claim Farage on side of Jimmy Savile
The Reform UK leader is 'happy for there to be a free for all on the internet', the Transport Secretary said, as she defended Peter Kyle's comments. The Technology Secretary had accused Mr Farage of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers' over Reform's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act. Asked if she agrees with Mr Kyle's statement, Ms Alexander told Sky News: 'Nigel Farage is, in effect, saying that he is on their side because he's saying he's wanting to repeal the Online Safety Act. 'I think that the position of Reform in saying that they want to repeal the entirety of the Online Safety Act, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation when it comes to the protecting of our children and the safety of young people online, I think that, in effect, what Nigel Farage is saying is that he's totally happy for there to be a free for all on the internet. 'That's not the position of the Labour Government. It's not the position of me. It's not the position of Keir Starmer or Peter Kyle, and that is the point that the Technology Secretary was rightly making yesterday.' Mr Farage has demanded an apology from Mr Kyle, describing the remarks as 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief'. Speaking to Sky News on Tuesday, the minister had said: 'We have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Following this, Clacton MP Mr Farage urged people to sign a petition calling for the legislation to be repealed. Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Kyle said proposals to overturn the Act 'makes my blood boil', as he argued repealing it would benefit 'disgusting predators who contact children and groom them online'. He added: 'I make no apologies for putting the interests of vulnerable children ahead of the interests of predators and child abusers – and the Reform leader's ego.' Also writing for the newspaper, Mr Farage said 'all of this is of course a deflection from the real problem with the Online Safety Act', as he raised concerns over ID checks. He added: 'In the name of safety, the Act poses the biggest threat to freedom of speech in this country in our lifetimes. 'In the name of protecting children, the law aims to regulate what adults are allowed to say or see – while doing nothing to make our children safer.' Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said making statements about overturning the Bill is 'very lazy' and 'not responsible'. Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone. 'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.' The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'


North Wales Chronicle
7 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Minister doubles down on colleague's claim Farage on side of Jimmy Savile
The Reform UK leader is 'happy for there to be a free for all on the internet', the Transport Secretary said, as she defended Peter Kyle's comments. The Technology Secretary had accused Mr Farage of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers' over Reform's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act. Asked if she agrees with Mr Kyle's statement, Ms Alexander told Sky News: 'Nigel Farage is, in effect, saying that he is on their side because he's saying he's wanting to repeal the Online Safety Act. 'I think that the position of Reform in saying that they want to repeal the entirety of the Online Safety Act, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation when it comes to the protecting of our children and the safety of young people online, I think that, in effect, what Nigel Farage is saying is that he's totally happy for there to be a free for all on the internet. 'That's not the position of the Labour Government. It's not the position of me. It's not the position of Keir Starmer or Peter Kyle, and that is the point that the Technology Secretary was rightly making yesterday.' Mr Farage has demanded an apology from Mr Kyle, describing the remarks as 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief'. Speaking to Sky News on Tuesday, the minister had said: 'We have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Following this, Clacton MP Mr Farage urged people to sign a petition calling for the legislation to be repealed. Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Kyle said proposals to overturn the Act 'makes my blood boil', as he argued repealing it would benefit 'disgusting predators who contact children and groom them online'. He added: 'I make no apologies for putting the interests of vulnerable children ahead of the interests of predators and child abusers – and the Reform leader's ego.' Also writing for the newspaper, Mr Farage said 'all of this is of course a deflection from the real problem with the Online Safety Act', as he raised concerns over ID checks. He added: 'In the name of safety, the Act poses the biggest threat to freedom of speech in this country in our lifetimes. 'In the name of protecting children, the law aims to regulate what adults are allowed to say or see – while doing nothing to make our children safer.' Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said making statements about overturning the Bill is 'very lazy' and 'not responsible'. Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Sir Keir Starmer jumped to defend the legislation from its critics when he met Donald Trump on Monday, telling reporters: 'We're not censoring anyone. 'We've got some measures which are there to protect children, in particular, from sites like suicide sites.' The Prime Minister added: 'I personally feel very strongly that we should protect our young teenagers, and that's what it usually is, from things like suicide sites. I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.'


The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Pro-cyclist ‘car-doored' on London road sues for £1m over ruined Tour de France dreams
A Tour de France hopeful who says his pro cycling career was wrecked when he was 'car-doored' on a suburban road is suing for over £1m in compensation. James McLaughlin smashed his shoulder and right elbow when a car passenger opened her door directly into his path as he biked down a cycle lane in West Wickham, south east London, in May 2020. "Supremely fit" Mr McLaughlin, who rode for a series of pro teams, raced for Guernsey in the 2014 and 2018 Commonwealth Games and dreamed of competing in the Tour de France, says the accident also left him brain damaged, leading to depression, memory loss, fatigue and PTSD which have wrecked his chances of returning to pro cycling. The 34-year-old road racer, who relies on an emotional support dog, is suing the insurers of the car driver and passenger for over £1m in compensation. Car dooring accidents occur when a driver or passenger of a vehicle opens its door into the path of a cyclist, giving them little or no opportunity to stop. According to Cycling UK, at least 500 cyclists in Britain are known to be injured every year in dooring incidents, although the true number is thought to be much greater. Central London County Court heard Mr McLaughlin was taking a short break from his professional cycling career and working as a courier when he was injured in May 2020. As he was cycling along, "a car door was opened across a bicycle lane in front of him," the court heard, resulting in him coming off his bike, hitting the ground and being badly injured. Liability for the accident has been admitted by motor insurers, but they are disputing whether he did in fact suffer a brain injury, and also the amount in compensation he is claiming. Mr McLaughlin's barrister Winston Hunter KC said he is plagued by problems with poor concentration and memory, as well as anxiety and distress, while a neuropsychologist who examined him considered he had suffered concussion due to his head being 'shaken around' in the crash. The veteran rider had suffered other road falls in his career before the 2020 spill, conceded his barrister, but said there was no evidence that any of these accidents caused him lasting problems at the time. At the time of his crash, Mr McLaughlin was taking a pause from the pro circuit, but was "supremely fit" and had clocked up a number of recent successes, including coming sixth in the time trial at the 2018 Commonwealth Games despite injury. But for the accident, he would have slotted back into the world of top cycling, the barrister said, adding, 'He has lost that cycling career." However, Lionel Stride - for the insurers - challenging the existence of a 'mild traumatic brain injury' said there was no mention of Mr McLaughlin suffering a blow to the head at the time of the 2020 accident. 'He came into contact with a car door at speed and was subsequently thrown off and hit the ground, with an orthopaedic injury to his right shoulder," he told Judge Jane Evans-Gordon. "There was no mention of a blow to his head." The cyclist 's case reached court for a pre-trial hearing over whether Mr McLaughlin should be allowed to rely on further medical evidence from neurologists focusing on whether concussion and a 'minor traumatic brain injury' could be the root cause of his current problems. But when Mr McLaughlin arrived with his support dog Barley on a lead, he was told by Judge Evans-Gordon that she had no choice but to exclude his pet as the rules normally only allow guide dogs inside. 'If it's an emotional support animal, they're not normally allowed into court, not least because they're not properly trained like guide dogs,' she explained to the cyclist's KC. 'At least it's a dog and not an exotic animal." Allowing in the new evidence, the judge said Mr McLaughlin came to grief 'when a car door was opened across a bicycle lane in front of him'. 'Apart from physical injuries primarily to his shoulder and elbow, the claimant has suffered with psychological problems following the accident," she said. "The psychological problems include PTSD, phobic anxiety and depression. Although he has undergone psychiatric treatment with an eminent psychiatrist, his symptoms have not improved as much as might have been hoped." She added that Mr McLaughlin is convinced he suffered a brain injury in the collision and 'that this has an impact on his long-term employment prospects'. On top of medical evidence, lawyers have also obtained reports from sports scientists about Mr McLaughlin's cycling career prospects but for the accident, the court heard. 'It appears to be common ground that the claimant was an elite cyclist and had the potential to be a high achiever in the event that he returned to the world of elite cycling," noted the judge. 'If his psychological symptoms have a non-organic cause, then they are likely to resolve in due course. If, however, the cause is organic, namely a mild traumatic brain injury, they will not improve and are likely to have a significant impact on his future earning potential." After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge agreed to admit the neurological evidence, which she said concerned a 'very significant issue for him'. 'It could make a difference of approaching £400,000 to his loss of earnings claim,' she said. A full trial of the claim was originally due to take place later this year, but that may now have to be delayed due to the new neurological reports.