You see, this, I think is where we part company.
We agree that the failure of the left is its dismissal of working class concerns, its inability to have anything other than its explanation for crime heard and its consequent appearance as an apologist for criminals. But listening to working class concerns and coming up with practical solutions to those concerns does not equate to agreeing with any old reactionary solution presented in response. Policies should be about what works, not simply what people want.
I would argue that a demand for punishment is not necessarily a priority amongst working class communities that suffer high crime levels and that a higher priority might well be for crime reduction, particularly where that manifests itself in the near term and quite visibly. So yes, it is Blagsta's better housing and better drug treatment - but it's also the things that left have never bothered with (or has seen as beneath them) - better street lighting, resident caretakers on estates, a proper concierge system, better youth facilities etc. Practical things that can be campaigned for in the here and now which make a difference but which the traditional left does not dirty its hands.
My own view (not the IWCA one, though there's a few would agree) is that we go for a different drugs policy - not legalisation as such, but heroin/crack/meth whatever, freely available to addicts via their GP/drugs walk-in centre. And a huge, parallel, investment in treatment programmes for those that want to get clear. This is no "drugs liberalisation" policy for the sake of liberalisation but an attempt to break the connection between drug use and crime - the fact that there would no longer be any need to whore or rob etc to pay for a habit would have a marked reduction on crime levels. There would, no doubt, be some who refused to take the opportunity and who would continue to prey on the community - but they would, I think, then become a much smaller minority and one which the community could more readily deal with.
