What is it about conservative politicians and the police these days?

This should be one further blow to my reputation as a "liberal", though maybe not - given recent events.

I am a great admirer of the police service, and I can say that for any of the six countries in which I have lived (which, my American conservative friends, includes a time living in Milwaukee). They do a very necessary job that is never easy, and sometimes downright dangerous. Even in Germany, with its low levels of violent crime, there have been stories in recent years of police officers being killed in the line of duty.

There was a time that this was a "conservative" issue. Liberals (equals the Labour Party in the UK) were soft on crime and criminals and it needed a firm hand to deal with the situation. In the 1979 UK election Margaret Thatcher made a big point of emphasising the fact that there were not enough policemen to fight crime, and they were ridiculously badly paid.

I have never given that woman much credit for anything, but on this issue there was no doubt that she was correct. The results of her years in power actually saw a massive increase in the crime rate, so the rhetoric proved more successful than any actions taken - which is a pity. I recall in Manchester in the 1980s the local chief constable, James Anderton, cut a very high profile in the national (not just the local) media. At the same time the burglary resolution rate was at a ridiculously low level, and reporting a burglary to the GM police force was almost a waste of time.

But undoubtedly it is a difficult job, and shortage of manpower never helps. In fact the major mistake in the Thatcher years was not putting their money where their mouth was and recruiting far more people to do the job - there would have been no shortage of volunteers!

Recent events though seem to indicate a souring of relationships between the conservative politicians in both the UK and the US and the police. Among the cuts that David Cameron announced to get the budget deficit down was a cut in the police service.

Glad to know that crime is no longer so serious in the UK that they can afford to do that! "What do you mean it isn't serious?", I hear you ask. Well, come on, if they can afford to spend billions upgrading a nuclear weapon that they will never use, they can surely afford to at least keep crime fighters fighting crime - dealing with actual incidents, not potential ones! If the will was there.

And then there was the GOP candidate to be the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney, announcing to the world (not just the US) that they do not need to hire any more police officers. To my American friends, conservative and more likely liberal - I am pleased that things over there have improved so much! There is nothing worse than having dangerous criminal scum in your midst.

I could raise a slight political point here and suggest that if crime is not the serious issue that it was, it sounds like Obama has actually got something right, but that cannot possibly be correct, can it?

The point to raise though is very significant. When competent policing is not available, crime rises. This in turn has all sorts of side effects like having your household goods insurance premium rise, which costs you anyway. Personally I would rather see the money spent upon prevention than have the side effects. I tend to be security conscious and I would actually like to see the number of police here rise (after the robbery that hit us the other day, it is a bit of an issue with me as you might guess). Cutting police numbers, or not raising such to match deteriorating circumstances, is sensible neither in the short nor the long term. It is very last thing that I personally would cut!

To repeat,  the police do a difficult job. They deserve our thanks, our admiration and our support, and if that means our financial support, so be it.