I think this article is yet another example of journalistic humblebrag – he and his cohort are of course the sophisticated, systemic thinkers, whereas the red wall are merely a bunch of cause and effect Neanderthals.
The reality I think is far more nuanced than this, and the author discredits himself by not appreciating it.
I think the Red Wall voters are more open to systemic thinking than he gives them credit for – not voting for Corbyn does not indicate otherwise, as there are plenty of other perfectly sound reasons why they did not vote for him.

The author amply demonstrates why the left are hopeless at law and order, indulging in ivory tower navel-gazing while people in the real world suffer from violence and antisocial behaviour. Oh, and by the way, I was of voting age in the early 90s and we all saw through Tony’s BS. Very few people thought smarmy Tone was clever on crime; we just knew John Major was hopeless.

“Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” remains one of Tony Blair’s most memorable slogans –

memorable for its sheer mealy-mouthedness. The ever-crafty Blair was aiming to appeal to those voters who wanted the criminal justice system to do a better job of actually fighting crime. However, with a Labour party wedded to the idea that the root causes of crime must lie with poverty and inequality it was necessary to include that ‘tough on the causes’ sop. As I recall New Labour didn’t achieve either of those aims.
Yet the socialist dream never dies. Over in California plans are afoot for white people (who never owned slaves) to pay huge ‘reparations’ to black people (who were never slaves) – in the interests of fixing the wealth gap (allegedly) stemming from slavery. Presumably this wealth gap is blamed for the high crime rates among black Americans and crime rates will fall when the ‘levelling up’ process comes into force. Good luck with that!

The author says it himself – that “systematic” thinkers might be right in a technical or philosophical sense – but they are wrong in a physical sense (also known as reality). Because he is on the side of systematic thinkers he fails to mention that being tough on crime is also a tonic to one of the causes of crime (deterrence). Like all those people who say they will never vote for the Conservatives and then quietly vote for them I think the author probably sees the flaws in his argument and just wilfully glosses over them in this article – I get the suspicion he thinks (or as he gets older will realise) that being tough on the causes of crime isn’t enough.

An interesting article. The “direct” vs “systemic” analysis does seem useful.
Whilst Starmer comes across as instinctively “systemic” in response to any question, I don’t see Sunak as a natural “direct”.
But here:
“The typical voter, I suspect, is readier to blame an issue such as anti-social behaviour on social conditions than they were in the Eighties and Nineties.”
Really ? Social conditions were by any objective measure far worse in the early 1980s than now. “I suspect” is not evidence. How has he sampled these “typical voters” ?
I suspect the reverse – not least as the UK’s population ages.
I suspect the author is too young to have any direct experience of the 1970s and 1980s in Britain and the hinterland to supply enough context before making sweeping generalisations.

The most successful law and order intervention in my lifetime were the expedited trials of, and severe custodial sentences handed to, the 2011 rioters in London and elsewhere. They were universally applauded by the public – who rightly saw public vengeance as an appropriate part of the sentence for the rioters. It also led to a drop in crime for several years as so many gang members were taken off the streets. And it made future riots less likely. Look at France with its annual violent riots, look at the Extinction Rebellion weirdos. All it would take would be a few two-year custodial sentences and that would be the end of the matter.
The “causes of crime” are generally inadequate punishments.

The formula is clear: Hard right on the culture war; left on economy. The Red wall wants the excesses of gender /race ideology eliminated from the public square and from all institutions; levelling up – investment in the North. High speed rail Liverpool to Hull, Glasgow and Newcastle. Libertarianism for households. A strong and enforced immigration policy. If they do it, they will win. If they don’t – after the next economic cataclysm – there will be a much more severe populist backlash.

Where does one start? Dishonest police, underfunded courts, and CPS, low quality magistrates, ill educated jurors, the Orwellian hate crime, fear of offending the islamic minority, Prisons run by criminals, the dishing out of prison sentences for ” offending” others, and the fact that imprisonment for non violent offenders creates people who then learn how to live on crime upon release, so creating life criminals?

“Voters don’t want a ‘no-nonsense’ government”

Load of ballcocks. Many voters dearly wish they could vote for one.

I always laugh at the Third Way stuff. The phrase was invented and used by Mussolini and Mosley both. The latter was a Labour MP before starting his own party. Mussolini was a member of the Italian socialist party

The Direct vs Systemic theory seems to make sense but perhaps not in the way it was intended. IMO, the Systemic approach is the go-to for a self-perpetuating activist class that needs endless tail-chasing and largely subjective discussion to eat. Solving problems ie, the Direct approach simply puts activists out of work.
Systemic has allowed progressives to appeal to their chosen identity groups by introducing the “blame the victim” trip wire. Direct responses to some crimes expose the truth that certain minority demographics commit the majority of the offences. The Systemic response is that those demographics are “over-represented in prisons”.
The progressive Systemic approach is attractive because it comes across as caring about THE Poor or THE Homeless or THE Migrants while simultaneously glossing over any hint of personal responsibility or failure whereas a Direct approach such as WHY is THAT person Homeless or WHY is THAT person Poor could lead to all sorts of awkward facts. Conversely, Systemics can be used to collectively demonize enemies such as THE Rich without the trouble of finding out WHY THAT person is Rich.

Being tough on crime is of little use when justice is dragged out and deferred waiting for a slot on court appearance or social reports and so on. It just breaks the link between cause and effect, crime and punishment.

If I were in charge (urgh) I would put all current cases except the most serious, into a backlog status, and then process new cases as quickly as legally possible. Cause and effect made clear.

Of course you need a balance between systemic and direct responses. The problem the Tories face, and missed by the author, is that they cannot deliver on their soundbites. Just to be ‘tough on crime’ needs a functioning police service, court system, prisons, probation for starters. None of this actually works so cheap slogans for votes get the respect they deserve.

Of course Socialist politicians love the idea of the State being tough on what they choose to define as the causes of crime. It gives them greater scope to control how people live their lives. They also reinforce this by expanding the definition of crime.

‘…need to continually stimulate this group’s fear’ a line in the Article that jumped out. And don’t we just see that repeatedly.
Not that there isn’t something to be worried about but the national data paints an intriguing picture – overall crime significantly up, but more due to computer misuse & fraud, whilst thefts down. Then there are the questions – i) crime has probably always been underreported but has that increased? ii) is crime clear-up rates being manipulated as an unintended result of performance management? This impacts on trust in the Police.
We had an arguably obvious example of the Tories playing the game of ‘read meat’ headlines rather than joined up Policy over weekend, supported by their media friends with supportive front pages. It related to Grooming gangs and legal requirement to report potential abuse. All agreeable stuff, albeit begs question why have they delayed pushing this forward til now when it was in the Public Inquiry report as a recommendation some years ago? Let’s not forget this lot been in power 13yrs. But furthermore as is evident nothing about investment in social work – a service in national crisis, or Probation services – in crisis too. Nothing also about the Courts backlog.
So whether it’s Braverman banging on about the ECHR before she’s sorted our basic detention centre and processing capacity, or child abuse legal responsibility whilst lacking the resources to properly intervene and protect, it’s the same playbook – stimulate the fear rather than the solutions

‘Systemic reasoners’ is a euphemism for Blank Slate extremists here.
In actual fact, genetic factors often play a greater role in the worst forms of violent crime than environmental factors, and the most effective way of dealing with people genetically inclined towards poor impulse control is to lock them up!
And yes, if you take the blank slate to such an extreme conclusion that you’re condoning ‘defund the police’, and pretending that biological sex is of no consequence, then you are an extremist.
Much of the Guardianista left Liberal chattering class has been substantially radicalised, and the underlying ideology is Blank Slatism.

Who really buys the “tough on crime” slogans anymore? Like every other Tory promise that has been made too many times with too little results. When was the last uproar because a sentence was too harsh, compared to all the lenient sentencing we see?

Obviously both are necessary. Anyone who has had experience with children and dogs for that matter will know that motivations to “do wrong” vary, personalities vary and thus the appropriate re-action will vary. There can be no one size fits all.

I’ve wondered about a good behaviour bond for 16, 18 and 21. Broadly speaking, you keep your nose clean in the two prior years and you get say £1500. It’s an age where a little bit of capital can help start things, or can contribute to education. Even if you make a mistake and lose the bond, perhaps a redeemer like military or civic service can earn it back. If you keep someone out of trouble before 21 I believe it’s less likely that they will do bad things after 21 – not foolproof – but the older you are with more to lose, the less the risk or recidivism. Roughly speaking the cohort size is 500,000 at each of those ages. 1,500,000 in total so $2-3bn cost per year.

Support for the death penalty, for example — as good a proxy for toughness as you’ll find — fell from over 70% in 1993 to under 50% today…’
Yes, 1993 – a full 28 years after Parliament had taken it upon itself to suspend and in 1969, abolish the death penalty, 28 years of which the Tories spent 17 in office. Spitting right in the public’s face, as always. So much for ‘democracy’.
Still, it was great news for the Moors Murderers….

Being tough on crime will not win anything. All policies today are based on the voting of 16-24 year olds because these are the new floating voters.
IMO we only worry about crime when we have something to protect. As we get older we have more possessions, we may have children, we have bigger cars; we worry about crime because of those things. Many elections have shown that older people have developed fixed voting habits or think that voting is pointless. Future elections will all be about attracting young people.