The horrific stabbing of a young woman in a Surrey village and the shocking shooting of a man as part of an apparent attempt to steal his car from his driveway have done more to highlight crime in this election than any speech by any politician from any party. That these events came to light as the party leaders were arguing about the meaning of the competing crime statistics released yesterday illustrates the imperfect value of any of these figures. The principal issue facing ministers, the police and the public today is not the number of crimes committed but the changing character of criminality. It is on this matter that the parties should be pressed by voters.

The periodic debate about whether crime is up, down or broadly stable is an increasingly stale exercise. The statistics kept by the police indicate that overall crime has fallen (by 5 per cent) yet violent crime has risen (by 9 per cent). The British Crime Survey, by contrast, which bases its findings on a large poll in which the public is asked about its experience of crime, suggests that total crime is down by 11 per cent and violent activity has fallen by almost the same amount. No one, though, concludes that either set of data captures all crime and the definitions of “violent” differ quite markedly. These numbers are not useless. They are not particularly useful either.

It does seem that crime directed at property is falling. Both burglary and robbery have declined since the 1990s with theft of and from motor cars (with obvious awful exceptions) now notably less common. Ministers have sought to claim credit for this development. They are entitled to some. But Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, would be wise to recognise that a robust economy and technological advances have played a much larger part here than any departmental initiative.

In its place, nonetheless, has come a rise in violence aimed at the person. This has occurred through a variety of means, including the employment of guns; the use of imitation weapons; a disturbing rise in knife-related crime; and alcohol-fuelled kickings. It is often aimed at the young by the young. It is not the fault of either the police or the politicians. Yet voters want to be convinced that the severity of this problem is appreciated and that resources are being redirected towards it.

When political leaders boast of having reduced crime now, or on their past watch, these claims ring very hollow with the electorate.

Labour has pointed to the numbers of policemen that have been recruited since 1997. The party has been less persuasive in explaining why these extra men still appear to be engaged in fighting bureaucracy, not providing a reassuring presence on the street. Tony Blair was tackled on this by a policeman on a radio phone-in show yesterday and his reply — that other officers with whom the Prime Minister had spoken did not share these concerns — was not convincing. Mr Blair would have been better off admitting that there were serious deficiencies in the placement of police and then pledging to reduce the bureaucratic burden.

The consequences of the new character of crime are huge. There is a vast difference between a 30-year-old returning to his car to discover a radio has disappeared and a 15-year-old having his mobile phone seized at knifepoint or worse. The debate on crime figures has gone on for long enough. The political obfuscation on this issue now verges on the criminal.