Show the Working

Restore Neighbourhood Policing and Tackle Antisocial Behaviour

Labour · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Restore Neighbourhood Policing and Tackle Antisocial Behaviour” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Hurts

minor · moderate confidence

This policy creates new coercive court orders banning people from public spaces and criminalises non-compliance — a direct restriction on freedom of movement. The powers are targeted at persistent offenders, which limits scope, but the liberty cost is real.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How broadly Respect Orders are applied in practice — if used narrowly against the most persistent offenders, the liberty cost is small; if applied widely by courts, the chilling effect on public presence grows.

Our reading: O10 is the home for negative liberty — freedom from state coercion, restriction of movement, and new criminal mandates. This policy introduces several measures that expand state coercive power over individuals. Respect Orders are the most significant liberty concern: they allow courts to ban named individuals from public spaces (town centres), and make non-compliance a criminal offence carrying up to two years in prison, unlimited fines, curfews, and community orders. These are real restrictions on freedom of movement and public presence, backed by custodial sanctions. The fact they target only 'persistent adult offenders' limits scope — they are not population-wide — but that is a magnitude qualifier, not a direction-changer. Any instrument that restricts where a person may lawfully go in public, enforced by imprisonment, worsens O10. The compulsory clean-up requirement for fly-tippers and vandals is a lesser coercive element — forced labour as a punishment — which similarly sits on the wrong side of O10's bodily autonomy and freedom-from-state-coercion criteria. The new shopworker assault offence and scrapping of shoplifting immunity expand the criminal law's reach, creating new exposure to prosecution. This is a marginal liberty cost — criminalising violence and theft already falls within standard criminal law; the change is one of degree rather than category. The ASBO precedent is instructive: those orders were used broadly by courts, and the evidence suggests they often displaced rather than resolved behaviour, meaning the coercive burden fell on individuals without proportionate public benefit. Respect Orders differ (adults-only, positive requirements possible), but the structural liberty risk is the same. Magnitude is minor rather than moderate: the orders are targeted, not population-wide, and require a court process. But the direction is clearly worsens — new coercive banning orders with criminal sanctions for breach is a textbook O10 cost, regardless of the antisocial behaviour problem they aim to solve (which is properly an O5 consideration).

Good work & fair pay — Helps

minor · low confidence

A new criminal offence for assaulting retail workers and scrapping the low-value shoplifting 'immunity' are delivered statutory measures that should improve safety and working conditions for shopworkers — a group facing very high rates of violence. How much difference they make in practice depends heavily on whether police actually enforce the new powers, which is far from guaranteed.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether consistent police enforcement follows — retail industry bodies warn the new laws will only work if workers feel empowered to report and forces prioritise prosecution.

Our reading: The O4-relevant element of this policy is the creation of a specific statutory offence for assaults on retail workers and the removal of the low-value shoplifting 'immunity'. Both are now enacted legislation — delivered instruments, not aspirational commitments — so they clear the threshold for 'improves'. The baseline evidence is stark: nearly one in five shopworkers was violently attacked in 2023, with over 1,600 daily incidents of violence and abuse. That is a genuine working conditions problem for a large occupational group. A dedicated offence signals that assaults on this group are treated seriously by law, which retail bodies had long sought. Without the policy, this statutory signal was absent and the low-value shoplifting exemption remained in place, arguably reducing deterrence. However, the magnitude is rightly minor rather than moderate. The entire effect is conditional on enforcement: industry bodies explicitly state the new powers will 'only work' if workers report crimes (currently severely underreported) and police enforce consistently. There is no evidence in the provided sources that enforcement rates will materially change. The policy affects one sector of the workforce (retail), not the labour market broadly. The neighbourhood policing and Respect Orders elements are primarily O5 instruments and do not directly bear on pay, security, or employment rights in a way distinct from the shopworker measures already scored.

Crime, justice & national security — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy adds thousands more neighbourhood officers, new antisocial behaviour orders, and tougher shoplifting and assault laws — all of which point toward safer streets and better justice. The main caveat is that funding and recruitment targets are not yet fully secured, and the evidence that neighbourhood policing reduces crime (rather than just improving trust) is mixed.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the £354 million efficiency savings funding the recruitment drive can actually be delivered — the NAO assessed over half as medium or high risk — which could prevent the headcount increases from materialising at scale.

Our reading: Three distinct mechanisms in this policy all point toward O5 improvement, at varying levels of certainty. First, additional neighbourhood officers: a 13,000-person headcount increase is a substantial commitment. Visible patrol presence is linked to public trust and, at sufficient scale, to deterrence. The baseline is poor — public trust has fallen 12–15% over a decade and antisocial behaviour is experienced by over a third of the population. However, some research finds neighbourhood policing does not clearly reduce property crime or disorder, and the funding mechanism is genuinely at risk: the NAO found the delivery model unconfirmed and over half the planned efficiency savings rated medium or high risk. If recruitment falls short due to funding gaps, the mechanism does not fire at scale. Second, Respect Orders: they address a real and widespread problem (over one million police-recorded ASB incidents). The positive-requirement element (courses, unpaid work) is a genuine improvement over ASBOs' prohibition-only model. However, the ASBO experience — displacement rather than reduction, high breach rates — is a concrete evidence-based warning. The orders are legislated (Crime and Policing Bill) so the mechanism exists, but effect on actual ASB prevalence is uncertain. Third, retail crime reforms: the new shopworker assault offence is already legislated (Crime and Policing Act 2026), and the scrapping of low-value shoplifting immunity addresses a documented enforcement gap in a sector recording 5.5 million thefts annually. These are concrete legal changes with clear deterrence logic; their limitation is enforcement capacity, which loops back to the first mechanism. On balance, concrete legal instruments have been delivered on shoplifting and shopworker assault, and a significant police uplift is targeted — these justify 'improves'. The magnitude is moderate rather than major because the funding remains uncertain, the ASB evidence is mixed, and enforcement capacity underpins all three mechanisms.

Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home