Jeremy Corbyn said reported crime had risen under the current government in almost every police force while 20,000 officers had been cut since 2010, speaking in Southampton today.
The Labour leader said his proposed reversal on cuts to Capital Gains Tax would enable the police to hire more community-based officers as well as protecting current officer levels.
The tax, which is paid on the profit made from the sale of assets which have increased in value, was slashed in the 2016 budget. The higher rate was cut from 28% to 20%, while the basic rate was reduced from 18% rate to 10%.
Corbyn said: “Cutting police numbers especially when there is more crime to deal with is unacceptable.”
Diane Abbott, Labour’s shadow home secretary, said: “Theresa May failed to protect communities as home secretary and has continued to fail them as prime minister.”
But she fumbled the numbers on this policy during an interview on LBC, saying it would cost £300,000 - £30 a year for an officer - before correcting herself to "about £80m".
Labour have clarified that the policy would actually cost around £300m.
Home secretary Amber Rudd said: "One of Corbyn's closest allies has clearly shown that Labour's sums don't add up, they would weaken our defences, and their nonsensical promises aren't worth the paper they are printed on."
Labour were also criticised by the Liberal Democrats who said "Labour’s promise cannot be trusted”.
Brian Paddick, Lib Dem shadow home secretary, said his party would spend the revenue raised from reversing cuts to the Capital Gains Tax many times over, including an arts pupil premium for primary schools and subsidies for the steel industry.
The Taxpayers’ Alliance accused Labour of making “policy on the hoof” by promising more money through tax hikes.
John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: “In any case, all the evidence shows that cutting CGT has positive effects for the broader economy.
"If Labour wants to promise more money for a certain service, they should get real and suggest spending reductions elsewhere to pay for it instead of seeking to dip their hands in taxpayers' pockets."
