Thread by @Leelum

I just got a #libdem leaflet, ignoring the normal graph jokes, there is actually something abhorrent in there that needs to be called out.

This statement basically says the Lib Dems believe rich people should get more police officers.

Here is why it is wrong 👇

The leaflet is targeting a fairly economically prosperous area in Manchester called Didsbury. The average house price is £326,995. Although it's incredibly common to see three+ bed houses to go for over £600k.

The local area has it's problems, as all do. In Dec 2018, East Didsbury had 112 reported crimes, and West Didsbury had 115.

For context: nearby Burnage & Heatons had 130 & 171 crimes; Harpurhey-426, East Bury-321, Manchester CC-868, Gorton-168, & Woodhouse Park-206

The Didsbury community should be celebrated is in how local action has brought issues to light. Alongside activism to get the police to meet the community.

But this means the area makes more noise about crime, even if other areas suffer more from it.

This isn't too surprising. Richer areas have traditionally more resources, not only in terms of money, but in civil (and political) efficacy too.

This is where the local LibDem candidate has got it so wrong. His statement is basically saying richer areas should get the police, even if this means poorer areas, more in need of police services, go without.

In sum: He's just stated Lib Dem Policy is areas should be policed based on how much they pay in taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if his next statement is that the police shouldn't be wasting their time "in the ghettos".

As a policy, it's reductionist & short-sighted. It ignores that crime often hops from the "bad" areas to the "good" ones if you let it fester. You need a wide view on crime, not just look at who makes the most noise.

As a statement, it says the Lib Dems only cares about the rich

@threadreaderapp unroll