Prison Expansion and the Politics of Narrative

 


I'm probably not the target audience for Labour's online campaign. I get that. But a post that turned up on my feed earlier today needs a good going over.

In the post, Labour offer a robust critique of the Conservative government’s handling of Britain’s prison system, making a series of claims that highlight the alleged failure of the Tories to address a burgeoning crisis. The post reads:

“The Tories left our prisons in crisis, just days from the system collapsing entirely. 

And they left us with prisons creating better criminals, not better citizens – 80% of offenders today are reoffenders. 

Our prisons are now operating at over 99% capacity again. 

That’s because the Tories added just 500 places to the prison estate in 14 years. 

The last Labour government added around 28,000 places. 

Labour is building 14,000 new prison places by 2031 – including four new prisons. 

We have already committed a record £2.3bn to prison building (last year and this year). 

And we have already opened 2,400 places and the first of the four new prisons – HMP Millsike. 

But the legacy of the Tories means the prison population is rising too fast to just build our way out. 

So we must reform sentencing to ensure we never run out of prison places again.”

At first glance, the tone is pragmatic, positioning Labour as the party that will fix what the Conservatives have broken, with an emphasis on competence and corrective action. The slightly strange spacing of the text seems somehow to allude to this too - no paragraphs. Just facts. Simple. Real. Almost poetic.

However, upon (not much) closer inspection, this messaging reveals several assumptions about prisons, criminal justice, and the role of Labour in shaping the symbolic landscape of national security. 

Prisons as the Default Solution: A Dangerous Assumption

The central assumption underpinning this post is that prisons, and more specifically, increasing prison capacity, are the primary solution to the crisis in the justice system. While it is certainly true that prison overcrowding is a problem, the suggestion that building more prisons is the answer sidesteps a crucial question: why are prisons the default tool for dealing with crime in the first place? This policy presumes that incarceration is the solution to criminality, not its symptom. It takes for granted that the only way to ensure safety is by locking more people away.

This approach reflects an entrenched assumption in UK politics: prisons are the keystone of justice and security. What is missing is a discussion about the root causes of crime: poverty, inequality, mental health, addiction, and trauma. These are issues that Labour could engage with more creatively by presenting alternative models of justice, such as restorative justice or community-based rehabilitation programs. Instead, Labour’s post falls into the same punitive rhetoric as the Conservative government it criticizes, simply vowing to do it better, faster, and with more infrastructure.

Reoffending and Rehabilitation: A Complex Issue Oversimplified

The post also references the alarming statistic that 80% of offenders reoffend, which is presented as a damning indictment of the prison system. However, the focus on reoffending rates is simplistic. The post implies that the problem with prisons is their failure to rehabilitate, but fails to explore the deeper issues at play.

Reoffending is not simply a product of inadequate prison conditions; it’s often a result of systemic factors such as limited access to education, lack of mental health services, and societal stigma upon release. Labour’s failure to address these contributing factors perpetuates the assumption that a larger, better-equipped prison system will somehow correct the cycle. A truly progressive criminal justice policy would look beyond the prison walls, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration, addressing the root causes of offending, and providing support to individuals once they are released. By focusing on expanding prison infrastructure without addressing these factors, Labour misses an opportunity to reshape the justice system in a more holistic way.

Sentencing Reform: A Mechanism for Efficiency, Not Justice

Labour’s call for sentencing reform, framed as a solution to prevent overcrowding, is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the post. It places the blame for overcrowding on the prison population itself, framing sentencing reform not as a moral imperative to ensure fairness and justice but as a logistical necessity to ensure that the prison system can continue functioning.

What’s more, the call for reform fails to engage with the moral implications of sentencing practices. For example, the UK has some of the highest incarceration rates in Europe, particularly among marginalized communities. The focus on “efficiency” risks perpetuating an already unjust system that disproportionately punishes the poor, ethnic minorities, and those with mental health issues. Labour’s rhetoric here suggests that the real problem is the prison system’s inability to expand quickly enough, rather than a deeper reflection on whether this system is fundamentally flawed.

Security, Trust, and the Need for a Psychosocial Framework

As I’ve discussed previously in my post on national resilience, true security is not just about physical infrastructure; it’s about the symbolic and emotional conditions that allow a society to thrive. Labour’s focus on building more prisons, while necessary in the short term to address the immediate crisis, fails to engage with the more pressing need to rebuild the psychosocial resilience of the nation.

When Labour talks about security, it too often focuses on what is protected (infrastructure) rather than who is protected and how this protection is framed. The prison system is not just a physical space; it is a symbol of how we as a society define crime, punishment, and justice. By focusing solely on expanding the carceral state, Labour is perpetuating a narrative that crime is something to be contained through force, rather than something to be understood, addressed, and healed through social systems, community engagement, and systemic reform.

This is a critical oversight. The true challenge is not just making room in our prisons; it’s addressing the social breakdown that makes prisons so overcrowded in the first place. Labour should be positioning itself as a party of belonging, where security is not just about walls and bars but about community, trust, and collective meaning.

The Role of Labour in Meaning-Making

This post shows how even when Labour is doing good policy work behind the scenes, its public-facing rhetoric can serve to undercut that progress. Yes, the prison system is under strain, and yes, Labour’s plans to expand and modernise the estate—particularly under the leadership of Lord Timpson, an inspired choice for the Prisons brief—show real signs of long-term thinking and reform-minded intent. But rhetoric matters. Messaging shapes meaning. And meaning shapes outcomes.

The framing of this post—boasting about prison expansion, leaning on punitive metrics, and scapegoating reoffenders—risks deepening the very divides that Labour should be working to heal. It plays into a worldview where prisons are the primary instrument of justice, and where safety is defined narrowly as containment. Even if it was designed to appeal to older, more right-leaning voters or wavering Reform supporters, it still feeds back into the adversarial, polarised atmosphere that has long undermined social trust in Britain.

When Labour chooses to amplify narratives that rely on punishment, scarcity, and blame, it helps cement those frameworks in the public imagination—even when its actual policies are more humane. That is a dangerous form of cognitive dissonance for a party that wants to rebuild social cohesion.

Conclusion: Narrative Is Infrastructure

Labour is not wrong to invest in modern prisons, nor to take seriously the operational collapse inherited from the Conservatives. But the party must not underestimate the power of the stories it tells to frame those investments. Narrative is not separate from infrastructure—it is infrastructure. It builds the moral architecture in which our laws and institutions take shape.

The choice of how Labour talks about crime and justice is not just about electoral positioning; it’s about what kind of society it helps imagine into being. At a time when so many feel alienated from the state and from each other, Labour must be mindful not just of how it governs, but of how it communicates what governance means.

If the party is serious about social repair, about healing division, and about promoting resilience—not just capacity—it must start treating language as a site of justice too. The words we use to describe safety and punishment shape how we see one another. And in the end, it is not the size of our prisons but the strength of our shared sense of belonging that will determine our future.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Diagnosis Crisis: Reimagining Minds in a System That Misses the Point

Image
  There are hundreds of thousands of people currently on waiting lists for neurodivergent diagnosis in the UK. Every few months, this crisis reappears in the press—a headline, a wringing of hands, a vague promise to “do better.” But while the political and medical consensus treats this as a failure of capacity—a bottleneck in an otherwise functional system—I want to suggest something more radical: that diagnosis itself is part of the problem. The question we’re avoiding isn’t how to fix diagnosis. It’s whether we should be relying on it at all. A Short History of “Normal” The very concept of diagnosis depends on the idea of deviation from a norm. But that norm has never been neutral. As disability theorists, historians, and critical medical scholars have shown, “normal” is a statistical fiction forged in the furnaces of colonialism, industrialism, and eugenics. It is a number derived from population averages, then moralised into a model of how people should behave, think, move, an...
Read more

Britain Reconnected: What Does It Really Mean?

Image
Beyond the Slogan "Britain Reconnected" has become a cornerstone phrase in Labour's emerging foreign and constitutional policy framework, but slogans can obscure as much as they reveal. For those of us involved in shaping this agenda from within the Labour Party's National Policy Forum (NPF), and in particular the Britain Reconnected policy commission on which I serve, the challenge lies in giving this concept substance. What does "reconnection" mean in the context of a changing global order? What are its trade-offs, its tensions, its real-world implications?  The Labour leadership has placed significant emphasis on rebuilding Britain's international relationships, bolstering national resilience, and revitalising domestic democratic structures. It is a holistic agenda, but one that must grapple with the legacy of austerity, Brexit, and a volatile global landscape. At its best, the Britain Reconnected framework seeks to articulate a principled but pragmat...
Read more

Three Policy Pieces

Image
At some point I realised that, as an NPF rep, I should probably stop writing high-concept, philosophically inflected blog posts, and actually submit some policy. So here they are: three submissions I made to the Labour Party’s National Policy Forum at 2am last night, presented here as a kind of triptych (or perhaps a Policy Sonata — three movements in dialogue). Regulating in the Blur explores how we might build institutions capable of navigating ambiguity and change. The Neuroinclusive Employment Charter reimagines the workplace through the lens of cognitive diversity. Towards an AI Commons asks what it would mean to hold digital infrastructure in common — and design it for the public good. Each piece stands on its own. But together, they circle something. Not a doctrine, exactly, but a sensibility: a way of thinking about systems that listens for tension as well as form. A kind of motif, returning in different keys. The current NPF consultation period is open until June 8th. M...
Read more