Justice and the Paparazzi

One requirement of an aspiring barrister is to gain experience of the profession through 'mini-pupillages'. These involve shadowing barristers for a period of time (usually a week) when they go to court. This week I am completing a placement at a criminal chambers in London. Today I was despatched to the City and Westminster Magistrates' Court to witness a basic drugs case. All very ordinary, you might think.

Little did I know that the City and Westminster Magistrates' Court happened to be the venue for the latest episode in the most high-profile litigation in the UK.

I arrived at the court expecting to encounter the usual bunch of over-worked lawyers and weary criminals. What I actually saw was a flock of photographers and journalists surrounding the entrance. When I asked someone why there was so much commotion, she muttered something about there being a famous person in court that day. After more enquiries I soon realised that the famous person in question was none other than the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.

Mr Assange is the subject of extradition proceedings being conducted by the Swedish Government. He is wanted in Sweden in connection with a series of sexual assaults. Supporters of Mr Assange have claimed that the allegations against him are bogus and merely designed to facilitate his eventual extradition to the United States, where there are calls for him to be prosecuted in relation to his role in exposing a huge number of confidential diplomatic cables.

Outside the court, his followers made their views clear. While I was waiting in the queue in order to see the hapless drug offender receive his sentence, the assembled press went crazy as a number of B-list celebrities arrived to support Mr Assange. Firstly, the wealthy socialite Jemima Khan arrived on scene. She was followed by the film director Ken Loach and the veteran journalist John Pilger. All of these noble-minded spirits offered to help Mr Assange with the costs of any bail conditions to the tune of £240,000.

Mr Pilger declared the charges against Mr Assange as 'outrageous' - a curious statement given that he was not present in the bedroom when Mr Assange is alleged to have assaulted these women. Mrs Khan said that she was there to support the 'human right to freedom of information', which does not exist and even if it did, has no application to the case.

Sweden does not appear to have any particular interest in the Wikileaks saga. In order for the critics to be right, therefore, the Swedish Government must be acting as lackeys of the US. This was certainly the implication given by the protesters outside the court, parroting the usual view that the US is the root of all evil in the world. In my opinion, this is clearly absurd. Sweden is no more likely than the UK to extradite Mr Assange to the United States. Even if he was extradited, it is highly unlikely a prosecution would succeed across the pond given the very strict approach taken to freedom of expression. Also, I'm not aware of any particular special relationship that would lead Sweden to deliberately falsify charges to suit the political objectives of the US.

Not that any of this rationality bothered the press, of course.

It's not every day that suspects accused of sexual offences get such vociferous public support. Personally, I find Wikileaks to be an arrogant and counter-productive organisation, which has no concept of long-term public good. Others see it as a revolutionary exponent of corruption and lies at the heart of government. Whatever view one has, however, the fact is that Mr Assange has been accused of sexual offences against a number of women in Sweden. He ought to be made to answer those charges, just as any other suspect being brought before the City and Westminster Magistrates' Court should.

Why he deserves the backing of people like Peter Tatchell or the representation of top human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC in this matter is questionable. These advantages were - needless to say - not extended to the defendant in the case I witnessed. There is a lesson here to criminals everywhere - undermine democratic governments and gain the support of activists, lawyers and celebrities. Doesn't matter what you may have done.

No Ifs, No Buts - A Reaction to the Student Fees Debacle

Walking through Westminster this afternoon it was possible to appreciate a very real feeling of anger. Anger at broken promises. Anger at the rich. Anger at western society. The outcome of the vote held earlier today, in which the fees for attending university in England were raised to a limit of £9,000 a year, will be one of hostility and outrage. One only has to watch the pictures from the student protests (which at the time of writing are still taking place) to observe this.

My feeling, by contrast, is one of profound sadness. Sadness that politicians really cannot be trusted to keep a promise. Sadness that politicians are incapable of doing the right thing even at the last moment. Sadness that a politician with a real connection to young people could sell out so quickly. Sadness that educated young people react with physical violence after failing to persuade others of their view. All of this requires explanation.

The Causes

Proponents of the hike in fees have justified it by making reference to the underfunding of British universities. Compared to private institutions across the Atlantic, for example, this is certainly true. Even wealthy iconic establishments like Oxford and Cambridge are dwarfed in financial terms by the Ivy League. It begs the question, where should the money come from?

The coalition has come to the view that the money should overwhelmingly come from the individual student. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary, has pushed through an 80% cut in the university teaching budget. Others, particularly the National Union of Students (NUS) are of the view that the money should principally come from the state.

Some people will be sympathetic to the coalition. A plumber, for example, who has never had the benefit of a university education may find it hard to understand why he should have to pay through his taxes for the tuition of an investment banker or a corporate lawyer. The NUS would counter that higher education is beneficial for society more generally. As such, the argument goes, the funds should be found through taxation.

My personal view is that there should be a partnership between the individual and the state. The terms of this partnership should depend on the advantages an individual draws from higher education. Thus a corporate lawyer would pay back more than a teacher, care worker, or charity manager. I believe that the status quo is about right. There should be a base rate of £3,000 for every student. Above that, any repayment should be contingent on ability.

The Proposals

The coalition would argue that this partnership model is reflected in the reforms. It is true that aspects of the plans are more progressive in this sense. Students earning more will be liable for higher repayments through interest on loans. The net effect of the proposals, however, is a hugely damaging blow to notions of fairness and social justice.

Students now will be facing repayments of up to £27,000 for a three year degree. Add in living costs of £4,000-£5,000 per annum, the total cost of attending university could well reach £40,000. This is a massive increase in student debt, whatever gloss the government tries to put on it.

It is true that no-one will have to pay unless they earn over £21,000 per year. But those social workers and public servants earning £21,500 will be liable for a sum of money that could take them the rest of their working lives to pay back. This is wrong for two main reasons.

Firstly, a university education is a good thing for individuals. Learning by itself gives people a tremendous capacity for human development. I happen to think that it is fantastic that working class children can go to university and debate poetry, philosophy and politics. It gives them the ability to reach for the stars and understand the world in which they live. For me, it is these concepts that justify the claim that education is a right not a privilege.

Secondly, a university education is a good thing for society. The economic benefits of producing graduates have been well-stated. In a world in which we are competing with China, India and a range of countries that produce first-class graduates, it is imperative that we keep pace. Furthermore, there are huge social and cultural advantages to increasing university enrolment. A better educated society has a lower crime rate. It is more creative and more equal.

For these reasons, it is deeply regrettable that the coalition have decided to cut the teaching budget by 80% and load the cost onto students.

The Consequences

Economic

The economic consequences of the reforms could be very problematic indeed. I do not believe that the proposals will lead to a shortage of university applicants. One only has to look at the number of unsuccessful applicants last year to conclude that interest will still remain high. However, there is likely to be a serious problem with personal debt.

Placing a £40,000 liability onto the balance sheets of middle earners already coping with mortgages, taxation, and the costs of raising families hardly makes economic sense. It is likely to discourage enterprise and risk-taking. I think it is very probable that the amount of people defaulting on their student loan repayments will increase dramatically.

It is ironic that in the name of deficit reduction, the government are encouraging more people to assume potentially unmanageable levels of personal debt.

Social

While I do not believe that the proposals will reduce the total number of applicants to university, there is a very real risk that they will discourage those from disadvantaged backgrounds from doing so. A freedom of information request this week has shown the appalling racial enrolment statistics for Oxbridge colleges. There is clearly a problem that needs addressing.

Those from impecunious homes will find it hard to justify to their parents going to university and assuming huge levels of debt when they could be out earning money on the labour market. Young people from social groups who are unrepresented in higher education will more readily come to the conclusion that university is 'not for them' and something only accessible to wealthier families.

As the numbers of ethnic minorities decreases, bright aspirational applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to turn their backs on higher education. The consequences in terms of inequality, crime, and prejudice may be devastating.

Political

As someone with a keen interest and belief in the power of politics for social good, I was massively disappointed by the decision of the Liberal Democrats to renege on their pre-election promise to vote against any increase in fees. When I reveal my interest in politics to people, the most common reaction I get is that 'they are all a bunch of liars' and 'you can't trust any of them'.

If a prospective parliamentary candidate personally signs placards pledging not to do something if they receive votes, it creates a legitimate expectation on the part of the public that they will honour that promise. When they then - after receiving the votes and gaining office - go back on their words, the consequence is a critical and irreparable blow to trust in politics.

Mistrust in politicians is bad for so many reasons. It makes it less likely for people with ideas and energy to enter the political sphere. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion that makes injustice possible. Significantly also, it gives ammunition to extremist parties like the BNP, where people can be sure that promises will not be broken.

Conclusion

As a result, my mood when walking past the protests in Westminster was sombre. It is a sad day when a generation of people can be let down by a man they put faith in. It is a sad day when people feel so angry that they lash out in hurtful ways. Most of all, however, it is a sad day when any trust a young person may have had in politics evaporates for ever.

'Victims' in Popular Understanding

The Guardian had a big special report today on the case of a woman who was convicted of perverting the course of justice. This woman, given the false name of 'Sarah', had been jailed after making an allegation of rape against her husband and later retracting it, admitting that she had made the whole story up.

The coverage of the case immediately prompted a discussion about how victims are treated in the criminal justice system. Women's rights campaigners used it as evidence of how society continues to overlook the needs of rape and domestic violence victims. While these concerns are mostly well-founded, I object to the use of the word 'victim' in this context.

The Guardian presented 'Sarah' as a 'victim' and her story as fact. Fact it may well be; it is possible that Sarah endured a horrific experience at the hands of her husband. Equally, however, it is also possible that nothing ever happened and that Sarah was not a victim at all. Indeed, that is the position the law should take. A cornerstone of the rule of law is the presumption of innocence. It should be presumed that her husband committed no crime until it has been proven otherwise.

Rape is a very serious offence. Society condemns rape in the strongest terms possible. It is the most serious offence short of murder and attempted murder. A rapist may be sentenced to life imprisonment. If not, he may be indefinitely locked up for public protection to be released only on the approval of the parole board. In any event, few rapists are likely to escape at least ten years in jail. Moreover, the social stigma attached to rape is overwhelming. It is fundamentally important, therefore, that we only use the term 'rapist' after a person has been properly convicted of the offence.

Given the nature of rape, the logical corollary of this is that the term 'victim' should only be used when it has been proven that a rape took place.

There has been a growing trend in criminal justice to pander to the needs of 'victims' at every possible opportunity. Tabloid newspapers frequently posit the question: what about the victim? It is right that society should support victims who have been through the most awful experiences. Describing them as 'victims' before conviction, however, pre-supposes that a crime has taken place. The only thing to support this at this stage is suspicion, however reasonable. This is very dangerous in a democratic society.

In my view, journalists and commentators should restrict the use of the term 'victim' until the suspect has been convicted. I acknowledge the considerable challenges in securing convictions in rape cases. However, the risks to the presumption of innocence when society accepts a victim's account as fact before it has been proven in court requires a more balanced approach.

The Beautiful Game?

Following England's latest football disappointment this evening, the usual post-mortem began on the airwaves with various ex-players and commentators opining on where we are going wrong as a nation. Losing 2-1 at home to France, the old enemy, is obviously upsetting. I don't share the view that the players or even the manager were at fault tonight though. My finger is firmly pointed in the direction of the way we think about football in this country.

Tonight we fielded a B-team that would have struggled to make the first teams of the other home nations. With the exception of established stars Ferdinand (who only played 45), Gerrard and Barry, our team was drawn largely from players who either fail to make their club starting XI or turn out every week for second rate sides. We had in our squad, for example:

Foster (Birmingham City, 18th in Premier League)

Jagielka (Everton)

Gibbs (our left-back tonight, despite being kept out of his club side by the French reserve left-back)

Lescott (fails to make Man City first team)

Walcott (fails to make Arsenal first team)

Henderson (Sunderland, on debut)

Carrol (Newcastle, on debut)

Richards (fails to make Man City first team)

Smalling (fails to make Man Utd first team)

Cahill (Bolton Wanderers)

Johnson (fails to make Man City first team)

Carlton Cole (West Ham, 20th in Premier League)

Green (West Ham, 20th in Premier League)

Bothroyd (Cardiff City, Championship, on debut)

With such a team I would have been amazed if we had beaten a French side featuring players like Benzema, Malouda, and Nasri.

Despite the usual doom and gloom emanating from the discussion on 5 live, there was a gradual recognition of two points that I have been making about England for some time:

1. Grass roots football - rich, though it was, for David Ginola to gloat about how skilful and creative the French were in comparison to the English, he was undoubtedly right in his criticism. Ginola made the point that if the French midfield took on the English midfield in a small game, the French would win every time. The same would be said of the Brazilians, the Spanish, the Argentinians, and the Germans. Why? Because we have a system of grass roots football in this country that fundamentally ignores key skills.

Anyone who has seen Sunday League games between children will identify the following characteristics: fathers screaming at their kids to 'get stuck in', long balls, swarms of bodies chasing long balls, 11-a-side games on full pitches, rigid formations etc etc. What do you think happens in Spain? They learn to pass, move, and control the ball. They don't bump it up field for the big centre forward to lumber after it. Rather, small technical games will be held with huge emphasis on concentration and ball retention.

When my friends and I went to Ibiza a few years ago, we were playing keep-ups on the beach when a 11-12 year-old native came up and embarrassed us with his ability to control the ball. When we were his age, we were learning to boot the ball out of play when under pressure and hoof it up field.

Until we move away from this, we will keep producing centre-forwards like Carrol, Bothroyd, Carlton Cole, and Crouch, and not like Benzema, Messi or David Villa.

2. Balance between Premier League and National Game

It's telling that Gibbs made our national side while Clichy, above him at Arsenal, was on the bench for France. However much Wenger & Co may not like it, the truth is that the influx of foreign players prevents English talent from developing.

Of the players that made the squad this evening, Gibbs, Lescott, Richards, Johnson, Smalling, Milner and Walcott fail to appear every week for their clubs. Four of those players are at Man City, who spent their endless resources attracting foreign players. How on earth are these youngsters meant to develop as footballers by sitting on the bench? It's no answer to say that they can drop down to lesser clubs. Players like Jagielka, Green, Cole, Carrol, Henderson, and Bothroyd are never going to get the same chance to play against the world's best while languishing in second-rate Premier League sides.

The only solution is to impose a fixed number on foreigners that can play in each team. Yes the Premier League will suffer. It may well be the case that we are unable to attract the Henrys, Drogbas, and Ronaldos of the future. However, can anyone really say that the national team has benefited from our league being 'the best in the world'? I would much rather enjoy the immortal pride that comes with winning a World Cup.

Least of all avoiding the disappointment of losing to France at Wembley.

We're All in This Together

In order to show how fair the current tuition fee rise is, I thought I would list the members of the cabinet that received an Oxbridge education absolutely free of charge. This way we can see how we are all in this together, as the coalition like to say. So here goes:

David Cameron (Con) - Prime Minister - Brasenose College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Nick Clegg (LD) - Deputy Prime Minister - Robinson College, Cambridge. Has paid = £0

George Osborne (Con) - Chancellor of the Exchequer - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

William Hague (Con) - Foreign Secretary - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Theresa May (Con) - Home Secretary - St Hugh's College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Michael Gove (Con) - Education Secretary - Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Ken Clarke (Con) - Justice Secretary - Gonville and Cauis College, Cambridge. Has paid = £0

Danny Alexander (LD) - Chief Secretary to the Treasury - St Anne's College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Chris Huhne (LD) - Energy Secretary - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Philip Hammond (Con) - Transport Secretary - University College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Andrew Mitchell (Con) - International Development Secretary - Jesus College, Cambridge. Has paid = £0

Owen Paterson (Con) - Northern Ireland Secretary - Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Has paid £0

Jeremy Hunt (Con) - Culture Secretary - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid £0

Francis Maude (Con) - Cabinet Office Secretary - Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Has paid £0

Sir George Young (Con) - Leader of the House of Commons - Christ Church, Oxford. Has paid £0

Dominic Grieve (Con) - Attorney-General - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

These people are now trying to force students to pay £9,000 a year for the privilege of attending University.

WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

Welfare or Well unfair?

Whatever view one takes of Danny Alexander (and I happen to think Harman's remark was an insult to rodents everywhere) one cannot accuse the coalition of failing to be radical with welfare. The ginger Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a plan at the weekend to force long term claimants of Job Seekers' Allowance (JSA) to perform unpaid work in the community. Such a proposal represents the most politically risky reform attempted with welfare since the state assumed responsibility for social security in 1948.

Already, the plans are drawing sharp criticism from a range of people. The most vocal opponent of the plans is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Dr Williams has suggested that the impact on benefit claimants of being forced into work may lead to long-term depression. Others have likened the policy to criminalising the poor by making them perform the tasks usually reserved for offenders serving community sentences.

My suspicion though is that the general public will broadly agree with this proposal. There is a growing sense of anger - not least amongst the working poor - against people who are perceived to be lazy, work-shy and undeserving of state support. I strongly dispute the allegation that JSA claimants can 'get rich' off collecting their £65 a week. Many of the long-term unemployed live in unenviable conditions of poverty. Nevertheless, it is sadly the case that many recipients of JSA are simply unable to make the transition from being unemployed to working a full-time job. This policy will help to bridge that divide.

I think it's imperative that Labour adopt a position that recognises the concerns of the working poor in relation to a number of issues largely ignored in the New Labour years - I'm talking about immigration, welfare, and economic inequality. This is not just because these people deserve our support and encouragement. The dangers of marginalising people in this social demographic leads only one way: into the hands of far-right extremists.

All that said, however, I do have reservations about the plans. Any legislation would have to be conditional on two factors in my view:

1. The individuals in question must have turned down offers of employment.

2. There must be employment out there for people to take advantage of.

It is on this second point that I strongly challenge the course taken by the Government. These reforms have been announced following plans in the spending review to cut 500,000 public sector jobs. When you include the knock-on job losses in the private sector, the total figure for unemployment as a consequence of Government policy could be 1 million. That's a lot of people on the dole.

In this context, it would seem extremely unfair to subject people to forced labour. The fact that they are in receipt of JSA is no fault of their own. If they could get a job they would. There is no use in trying to re-integrate these people back into working life. Without an available supply of jobs to advertise, these plans serve no purpose and represent an outright attack on hard-working decent people. That is simply wrong.

So while I understand the idea behind the welfare changes, I must say it doesn't strike me that there is much in the way of joined-up thinking going on in Government. Hardly surprising you might say, given the circumstances of the coalition in this country.

Reflections on Spending

At the end of the week, after all the punch and judy stuff has died down, I thought it appropriate to give my views on the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). I intend to state the cuts I agree with before moving on to those that I do not support. First, however, some general points.

1. "You're a deficit-denying socialist" - No I'm not. I agree with the need to cut the deficit. I do not agree with the pace and scale of the cuts. Why? Because I don't believe the UK will be any worse if we cut the deficit in ten years rather than five. At least that way the private sector will be in a better position to re-employ some of the public sector workers who have lost their jobs. It was telling that despite vigorously urging the Government to pursue its cuts agenda, the 30 or so top businessmen who wrote to The Telegraph gave no promises to re-employ any of those made redundant.

2. "Labour created this problem so how can you oppose any cuts?" - I do not doubt that Labour spent a lot of money in Government. There were two principal reasons for this. Firstly, I don't know if you noticed but there was a huge GLOBAL (repeat: GLOBAL) financial crisis. The Tories have somehow managed to create this myth that the recession was a UK-only event. The financial crisis prompted a need to prop up our financial institutions. If the Government had done nothing - as advocated by the Tories - savers would have lost their money, more businesses would have been cut adrift, more people would have lost their homes, more workers would have lost their jobs, and a lot more damage would have been done to the British economy. If you don't believe me about this, ask economists in every G20 country who decided that bailing out banks and stimulating growth was the right thing to do. Secondly, in the period before 2007, Labour needed to spend money repairing and improving those public services that had been cruelly overlooked by 18 years of Conservative Government. This obviously cost money.

*Cool Stat* - did you know, before the financial crisis Britain had the second lowest debt in the G7?

OK so here are the cuts I agree with:

1. Ministry of Defence - the Coalition were right to make cuts to our air force and navy, while broadly protecting the army. In my view, foreign co-operation is absolutely essential in military matters these days. The idea of the UK going to war by itself is - as it should be - a thing of the past. See my last post on a European Defence Army for my thoughts about the future of defence.

2. Welfare - while the cut to child benefit was surprising given Cameron's previous views, it was the right thing to do. It's unfair to expect poorer people to subside the rich. While I can understand people questioning the mathematics (families on £44,000 will lose out while those on £80,000 will not), I do buy the Chancellor's argument that anything else will create administrative mayhem. It's not ideal but it's one way of saving £1 billion without hurting the very poorest. The steps to implement a universal credit, making welfare easier to understand, should also be embraced.

Having said this, here are the parts of the CSR I just cannot support:

1. Ministry of Justice - a £350 million cut to legal aid was announced with barely a whimper of protest in the House of Commons. While MPs may not be overly concerned with this cut, I am of the opinion that it is hugely unfair on the most vulnerable people in society. Disadvantaged people rely on legal aid as their only access to justice: the only way they can have their rights and entitlements protected. Without this, a two-tier system is likely to emerge where wealthy individuals have access to the top barristers and solicitors while the poor have to make do with the cheapest bidders in the new legal aid tendering system. It's not fair. It's not equal. The Government should think again.

2. Home Office - the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) earlier this week identified terrorism as the biggest threat to the security of the UK. Odd, then, that the Government decided to slash the counter-terrorism budget by 10%. David Cameron has frequently said it is the first duty of Government to protect the people. Given the huge success of the police in disrupting terror operations in the last five years, this cut to their budget represents a massive gamble with public safety. Shameful. More generally, Labour managed to cut crime by 40% by putting in place adequate funding structures. The Coalition will not be able to paper over the cracks by claiming they are cutting red tape.

3. Local Government - also a very surprising target for budget demolition given Cameron's love of the Big Society. My concern is the threat to social care departments by funding squeezes. This is one of the major reasons why the IFS branded the CSR unfair. The Coalition simply cannot claim they are protecting the interests of the poor when they are cutting the services available to disadvantaged individuals and families.

I hope that this critique will be seen as reasoned and balanced. Let me know what you think.

Oui Monsieur, Sargeant

As the eagerly awaited Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) approaches, one of the hottest political questions is what will happen to the defence budget. Many people have written about the potentially devastating impact of expenditure cuts on the ability of the UK to conduct foreign operations. Others have challenged the Government to review Britain's role in the world and embrace a much more isolationist foreign policy. My proposal is different.

One solution to pressing financial constraints has been closer co-operation between Britain and France in defence policy. I would go further. In my view, the time is nigh for the establishment of a full-scale European Defence Army.

The existence of an economic, monetary and quasi-political union in Europe has removed any real conflict of interest between Member States. The inter-relationship between European countries was exposed in the Greek crisis earlier this year, which saw every other European state take responsibility for the economic bailout of that country. Indeed, the situation in Greece is what prompted this Government to take such drastic action with the budget which has given rise to questions of defence spending. The fact of political life in Europe now is very simple: Member States are inextricably bound to each other in every possible sense.

Cultural diversity within Europe is also of diminishing significance. Every European country must observe the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the same protection to people in Latvia as it does to those in Ireland as it does to those in Austria. Europeans share the same views concerning democracy, tolerance and freedom.

In my three-week whistle stop tour of Europe last year, I observed first-hand the similarity of each country in the Union. Nowhere did I really feel like I was in a 'foreign country'. Under the treaty establishing the EU, I have the absolute right to live and work in any other EU nation. While every state has its own peculiarities and history, the basic principles governing each are broadly similar across the entire continent.

In this context, it seems perverse to keep reserving defence policy to each individual Member State. Given that the EU has a collective interest in things like global terrorism, piracy and nuclear proliferation, why is it that individual Member States continue to pursue their own policy? Every challenge the UK faces in the modern age is a challenge faced by the EU. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that European countries would again go to war with each other. The economic and cultural values of Member States are now so intertwined that the idea of conflicting national interests is simply irrational.

Moreover, the emergence of countries like China, Brazil and Russia as geo-political powerhouses has increased the need for European economic co-operation. Europe would be so much stronger if we completed the process of political union and created a unified defence force with it. Only then would the UK be in a position to maintain its role as an international influence. The idea that the UK will be able to preserve its seat at the top table long into the future is just naive. We will be simply unable to complete with regional super powers if we go it alone. Anyone that cares about Britain's role in the world must accept that the future has to involve greater European integration.

So when you consider the debate over defence expenditure, bear in mind that there is another option. The only sensible future is a European future.

Free Schools or Rich Fools?

Having just watched "Set up your own school" on iplayer I have to confess I was somewhat won over by the free schools movement. While not entirely convinced by the motivations of the group trying to set up the West London school, I couldn't help but think the principles behind the free schools idea are pretty sound.

The central principle behind both free schools and academies is parental choice. Fundamentally a New Labour idea, thinkers like Lord Adonis have advocated giving people greater choice in public services. The heir to this vision is now the Conservative Party, with Education Secretary Michael Gove building on Swedish and American examples to support free schools.

Some people in the Labour Party have kicked up a lot of fuss about free schools. The main arguments against the idea are based around social division. The thinking here is that allowing a group of parents to create their own school will exclude children whose parents do not share the same social background as the schools' founders. As a result, it is argued, a two-tier divide will open up in state education between children of very privileged parents and children from deprived areas who are unable to access these opportunities. It is this reasoning that also prompted the Liberal Democrats to vote against the proposals at their recent party conference.

My objection to this is the belief that most parents want to do the best for their children. Therefore, most parents would be thrilled to send their kids to the kind of school Toby Young wants to create in West London. Young's school will have an admissions policy where 75% of places are allocated on lottery. So the intelligence or wealth of children in that area of London will make no difference as to their eligibility for admission. Everyone, whether or not they are investment bankers or care workers, will have an equal chance of their child getting in. Much fairer, arguably, than the current system which allocates places based on distance from school, driving up house prices and excluding less affluent children.

As such, I have no principled objection against free schools and wish Toby Young all the best. Here are my caveats, however:

1. Exclusions - Toby Young says he wants a school based on strict discipline and intolerance of bad behaviour. Fine. It's pretty clear though that the majority of children who exhibit signs of bad behaviour will come from the poorer areas of West London. Will they be excluded when they put up the first resistance to compulsory Latin? Will the school retreat into its middle class comfort zone and only admit suitable children? Will it introduce aptitude testing for admission?

2. Cost - I have always thought it odd that a Conservative Party so enthusiastic about cutting public expenditure would promote free schools at this time. Creating an extra school means heating an extra classroom, building new facilities, employing new teachers etc. Where are the funds for this? Will they be diverted from existing successful schools? Will they come from other public services? Vulnerable people will find it difficult to accept cuts in funding just so Toby Young can teach kids Latin.

3. Accountability - as one person pointed out in the programme, like them or loath them, local councillors are elected officials. The performance of schools in an area will directly influence their prospects of re-election. What happens if the West London Free School turns out to be a failure? Who carries the can? What will be the position where a school decides to teach children that homosexuality is wrong, for example? It was interesting to see a 13 year old lad try to tell Young that kids may not flourish by being forced to learn Latin.

4. Motivations - it seems strange that Toby Young would invest so much time and energy in creating a new school because the high-performing state school in his area tries to teach children about multi-culturalism and respect. This suggests that people may want to set up their own school for all kinds of nasty reasons. Maybe someone will object to his local school teaching kids about evolution?

If Gove, Young or Cameron can answer these points, I for one would stand up in support. So let's hear the case.

The Future of Labour

Whatever one says about the Labour Party conference, it sure has been dramatic. With a tale of sibling rivalry drawing Biblical comparisons, Union barons officially 'back' in business, and a new leader that publicly denounces one of the central claims of his predecessor, the 2010 Conference has certainly been one of the most memorable in recent years.

The question is, however, where do we go from now? What should everyone make of Ed (the younger, panda-eyed brother) Miliband? Is he in the pocket of the Unions? Is he only interested in seizing power, whatever the cost? What are his views on the deficit? Is he a Blairite or a Brownite?

Here are my suggestions on what the party needs to do in the immediate future:

1. Put clear distance between itself and the unions when talking about cuts - while it is arguably right to support people that have been consistently mistreated at work, the public simply will not treat the Labour Party seriously if it runs to the hills and calls for strikes every time the Government tries to balance the books. Ed Miliband accepted this in his speech. Actions speak louder than words, however. I for one will be disappointed if the public come to associate Labour with industrial unrest, as we were in the 1970s.

2. Make sensible appointments to the Shadow Cabinet - to my mind this means making sure Ed Balls does not become Shadow Chancellor. While he is definitely combative and well-placed to attack the Tories, his extreme reluctance to engage with the debate on cuts will again suggest to people that we are not a serious party. Having created the deficit we must bear the responsibility of proving that we were going to reduce it. Balls is incapable of understanding this. A better appointment, in my opinion, would be his wife Yvette, or Andy Burnham.

3. Take up the cause of progressive social policy - this is one of the key areas we can challenge the Liberals and inflict damage on the coalition. We should be advocating things like gay marriage and a living wage with increased enthusiasm. Put the ball in Cameron and Clegg's court. Labour should come to be viewed as the only party prepared to fully embrace these ideas.

4. Maintain a tough stance on crime - it is my firmly held view that being tough on crime is in no way "right-wing". The overwhelming majority of crime takes place against the poor. It doesn't happen in middle-class suburban communities inhabited by Guardian readers. Rather, it occurs in the most deprived places in Britain. Labour must understand this and maintain our commitment to rooting it out. This means supporting tough sentencing, police powers, and DNA records.

5. Get rid of the dead wood - as a young member of the party I am dismayed by the influence ageing politicians have in the modern set-up. Ken Livingstone has again been nominated for London Mayor, beating a young woman with new ideas. Lord Kinnock appeared to be one of the most vocal figures at conference, despite last leading the party in 1992. Charlie Whelan. Lord Prescott. Michael Meacher. The list goes on. If Ed is serious about belonging to a new generation then he should put faith in exciting younger talent like Chuka Umunna and Caroline Flint and make us a dynamic alternative.

6. Last but most importantly - let us please unite. No more soap operas. I supported David Miliband from the start and thought he was clearly the best candidate. So did many others. It doesn't matter anymore. The Labour Party should for once speak with a sole united voice and get to work booting out the grubby coalition about to inflict all kinds of problems on this country.

Last of the summer wine

Where did the time go?

This summer, for whatever reason, has gone by far quicker than any other. It only feels like yesterday that I was sitting my final undergraduate exam. Next week I start a new course in London.

On the whole I think it's been a good summer - I've had a great holiday, improved my CV, and earned a reasonable amount of cash. Despite this, I feel like there is some big thing that was meant to happen but didn't. Summer just, well, stopped.

Moving to London means leaving the countryside once again. While I can well understand the gradual boredom one experiences when living here for an extended period of time, to my mind it is impossible not to appreciate the calming and refreshing qualities of country life. I love it. Whether it is the stunning landscapes, the warmth of the local people, or the fact that one can walk for miles without hearing a single sound, the countryside will always be home for me.

That said, I'm sure I will find living in London a diverse and valuable experience. Out with the old and in with the new, as they say.

No Justice at the MOJ

In the news today was the report that 15,000 jobs could be lost from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The news was announced by the Public and Commercial Services union, who are understandably concerned about the position of their members. While I fully acknowledge the harshness of creating yet more unemployment, I am more worried by the implications these cuts may have on some of the most vulnerable people in society.

One major part of the MOJ budget is legal aid. Legal aid is an essential way of ensuring that those in need of legal representation are able to receive it without incurring huge costs. It is fundamentally important in preserving the principle of equality before the law. Without it, there is a very real danger that the poor will be unable to effectively contest hearings that may have significant consequences for their lives. Cutting the number of people within the MOJ who help to administer legal aid may have negative results in terms of provision and accessibility. This just cannot be right.

Reducing MOJ staff may also lead to delays in childcare proceedings. In the most serious cases, it is essential that legal actions are brought in the shortest possible time in order to remove children from abusive families. Baby Peter and Khyra Ishaq are shameful examples of system failure arising from delay. Under MOJ plans, fewer staff will be left to deal with an already massive case load. The result will be more children kept in dangerous situations.

Underlying these plans is a general obsession to cut the budget deficit. Most people in economics agree that maintaining a long-term budget deficit is unsustainable. There is, however, disagreement on the way in which the deficit is reduced. The Conservative Party has consistently argued that cuts need to be made as soon as possible with minimal increases in tax. The Liberal Democrats also now believe this to be necessary (apparently they changed their position a day after the election, which may have co-incidentally been the day they decided to negotiate with the Tories). By contrast, the Labour Party has always argued that cuts should be phased over a number of years, coupled with tax rises, in order to mitigate the damage to public services. This view is supported by economists like Danny Blanchflower, former MPC member, and Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner.

In my opinion, there is no pressing need to take such a sharp knife to budgets relied upon by the poorest sections of society. Yes, action does need to be taken in the next few years. But to decimate services designed to protect vulnerable individuals is a morally reprehensible course of conduct. This is especially so when such a course is justified in terms of 'necessity'. In reality, the position taken up by the Conservatives is motivated by an ideological desire to shrink the state. Has anyone noticed that support for the savage cuts agenda is always forthcoming from the right-wing media?

So when the next tragic story about the failure of child protection reaches the headlines, keep in mind budgetary decisions taken by central Government. Ask yourself whether they are really 'necessary' or whether they have been taken for other more vague reasons.

The Benefits of Taxing Graduates

As someone who graduated from University only a few weeks ago, it may seem strange to read that I am fully in favour of plans for a "graduate tax". Unveiled this week by Business Secretary, Vince Cable, an extra income tax for graduates would replace the current system of tuition fees. In my opinion, this is a long overdue reform.

Tuition fees, as a flat levy on all those who attend University, are a hugely regressive measure. A graduate who goes on to work for a large City law firm has the potential to earn massive sums of money each year. A graduate who chooses to work as a teacher, or a social worker, will never see such pay checks. Despite this, both graduates will be liable for the same debt repayment. How on earth can this be right?

A graduate tax will ensure that those who benefit most from a University education will pay back the most. Those who choose to pursue a career solely dedicated to monetary enrichment will have to pay back more than those who choose to enter into socially beneficial careers, or those unable to reach the same heights.

Some say that a graduate tax will stifle ambition. This is a pretty standard argument against progressive taxation. I would place a bet - a University leaver who accepts a place on a Goldman Sachs graduate scheme will not be hugely damaged by an extra 1 or 2 per cent added to their income tax. A person with the intellectual capacity to aspire to these kind of jobs will not be deterred from applying to University because of the massive earnings potential they will still be able to exploit. By contrast, there is a very real risk that a young person hoping to be a teacher will be discouraged from making an application if the current tuition fee system remains. Life could be very hard for a young graduate attempting to pay back the cost of their education if the existing cap on tuition fees is raised.

For me, a graduate tax is the fairest way of recognising the enormous advantage enjoyed by University leavers. This view is shared by a number of campaign organisations, such as the NUS. I hope that the Liberal voice in the coalition is able to prevail over objections from Conservative backbenchers and ensure that those who gain more, pay more.

A First Day at Work

I thought I would write about my first day in a new job. As a temporary worker, you get shifted around various jobs depending on demand. To date, I have carried out work in an office, a factory, and a canteen (proof that a law degree really doesn't carry much weight). My latest employment is with a distribution warehouse in Royston.

I've only been there a day but I've learned an incredible amount about people. For one of my co-workers, this was the first employment he had managed to obtain in six months. He was made redundant earlier in the year and has been on the dole until being given the same opportunity as me - a three day placement with a possible extension next week. Hearing his situation really brought it home to me just how hard things are out in the "real world". As a student you are somewhat insulated from things out there. Sure, I share the same fears when I hear of depressing graduate employment statistics (especially when the news stories are always accompanied by pictures of University of Birmingham graduations). But these people are concerned about keeping a roof over their head - not about walking into a plush high-level job. It's a feeling I just cannot begin to comprehend.

On the other hand, things cannot be that bad in the UK. Another of my colleagues is a white South African, who had moved to Britain after being turfed out of his farm as part of a racial distribution policy. Rather than remain in his own country, he is apparently more content to accept low-level temp work in the UK.

Listening to both guys was an interesting exercise in perspective. For one, he had endured a terrible year with constant worries about the next week or the next month. For another, his work represented a new start immeasurably better than life in his home country. Combined with my own perspective, that of a student with an uncertain future, it enabled me to better understand the way that it is possible to view things differently depending on the lens you look down.

All this from picking stock in a warehouse! Anyway, off to bed now (it's a 6.30 start).

Where It All Went Wrong

I thought that I would wait until the conclusion of the tournament before giving my thoughts on England's World Cup performance. Two reasons for this: firstly to fully let the dust settle before coming up with views, secondly to be able to compare England to some of the more successful teams.

Below I have listed five main areas that I believe were responsible for our dismal showing. Most of these should not be taken in isolation; they often overlap to paint a general picture of the problems we encountered.

1. Fabio Capello - as the manager the buck ultimately stops with him. Much has been written about the position of a foreigner as England manager. Personally I have no problem with a foreign manager taking charge of the team. There is only one condition. The manager must understand the pressures that the team are under. It is vital that a coach comprehends the overwhelming expectations held in relation to the national team. A foreigner will logically find this harder than a person brought up in English football. This is especially so if the foreigner has no experience of the national game, which was the case with Capello. Given his background, he may have overlooked the pressure on the team. His decisions to run the training camp like a military facility and to reveal who was playing two hours before kick-off exacerbated this pre-existing tension and made the team nervy. Evidence for this comes from Rob Green's howler in the very first game. Goalkeepers above all need certainty and consistency. Capello's policy of 'keeping them on their toes' was clearly flawed.

2. The Premier League - our domestic league has often been referred to as the best in the world. This may well be true. If it is true, the reason for it is because it attracts the finest players from around the world. The result of this is that home-grown players get squeezed out. We will come to a time when we need to make a value judgment about the balance between club and country. While having a fantastic national game helps to inspire young English players, in my mind the game (and indeed the country) would be far better served if we had a strong national team to look up to. Only this would generate the excitement needed to truly inspire people. Whether or not this may require limits on foreign players is a matter for debate.

3. English grassroots football - this is the problem that has become more apparent through comparison with other countries. The way the Spanish pass and retain the ball is something completely alien to English football players. I reckon that Gerard Pique, the Spanish centre-back, is a better passer of the ball than every English midfielder in our squad. These differences start at an early age. Kids in Spain, Brazil, Argentina etc are encouraged to develop skills and run with the ball. In England, young kids are placed in 11-a-side contests where the emphasis is on the full time result rather than learning and progress. Anyone who has seen the mental passion of a child's father at a junior's match can testify to this. Common characteristics of junior games are long balls being hoofed up field and a swarm of players following it. Is our national team that different? Look how we relied on banging the ball up field for big Emile Heskey to hold it up. Even the Germans, who based their game on counter-attacks, passed the ball with such speed and accuracy I have never associated with England. It is striking that one of the most naturally talented players in the English squad, Joe Cole, was left on the bench while "strong" players like Heskey and James Milner got the nod.

4. Risk Management - to be successful at sport, like many other professional fields, requires risk and bold thinking. None of this existed in England's world cup bid. Our squad was full of tried and tested players; there were no real suprises. An example of this came in the selection of Matthew Upson, an experienced but woefully out of his depth centre-half, at the expense of Michael Dawson. Younger talents like Darren Bent, Adam Johnson, and Jack Wilshire were all overlooked. Even Sven recognised the need to take risks when he picked Theo Walcott for the last World Cup. Again, maybe Capello would have been more likely to take a punt if there were more young Englishmen to choose from. The prioritisation of foreign stars makes this difficult.

5. Luck - yes, lady luck was not on our side. The biggest example of this is, of course, was the Lampard goal-line fiasco. How the linesman failed to see that I will never know. Also, why could we not have played a team with a dodgy goalkeeper? And Rio Ferdinand's injury significantly disrupted our defensive preparations.

The reality is, however, that we only have ourselves to blame. We will never become serious contenders to win the World Cup until we sort out some of these underlying problems. This must start with re-organising the domestic game so as to encourage national success. Any change would have to begin with grassroots improvement and end with potentially damaging reforms to the Premier League. The question we may end up asking ourselves is: do we really want to win the World Cup?

Money Can't Buy Love

New research this week from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has suggested that the link between marriage and family stability isn't so strong. It had previously been thought that marriage encouraged stable families and prevented children from seeing their parents separate. The IFS have now disputed this claim, finding no tangible link between familial stability and marriage.

According to the IFS, married parents are more likely to stay together for other reasons than the very fact of their marriage. Married parents are often older, wealthier and better able to deal with the pressures of bringing up a family. The actual institution of marriage does nothing to prevent family breakdown.

These new findings seriously undermine conservative arguments that marriage should be recognised in the tax system. For years the Conservative Party have been making the case for marriage tax breaks by pointing to the link with stable families. Now that this logic has been challenged, any potential reforms must surely be shelved.

This is particularly necessary given the damage that a marriage tax break would do to the public finances. Conservative plans to give married couples £3 a week would create another billion pound hole that the UK can ill afford. The Government should think twice before making what would be a costly mistake.

A New Start

So I've just finished my law degree. I am moving on to the next stage of my life and decided to chronicle my next few years in this blog. I hope you enjoy what you read.

The blog will provide an insight into my thoughts on a range of topics, varying from politics to sport to anything that made me think during the day. Like a diary but way more accessible.

Comments and opinions are very welcome :)