The Case for a Living Wage

Today the Chancellor outlined just how much of an economic mess this country is in. According to George Osborne, the UK economy is now unlikely to grow beyond 1% in either this year or the next. Various factors are trotted out to explain our decline; so far Osborne has blamed snow, strikes, riots, Europeans, and even Kate and Wills.

As for answers, most of the Government's rhetoric has been directed towards 'deregulation' and 'easing burdens on businesses'. Examples of this include Vince Cable's plan to make it easier to sack people and Chris Grayling's intention to scrap the vast majority of EU health and safety provisions. Welfare reforms designed to encourage people back into work have very much taken on the 'stick' rather than the 'carrot' tone with punitive new measures for job seekers who refuse work.

The problems in the British economy mainly derive from an absence of key demand. Growth is stagnant because people are not working and therefore not spending. Any plan to change our economic fortunes must be geared towards motivating the human capital largely wasted at the current time.

One way of doing this is to introduce what has been called the 'living wage'. Put simply, this involves raising the national minimum wage rate to £7.20 (£8.30 in London) from its current level at £6.08. The living wage is designed to enable every worker in the country to provide their family with the essentials of life. Currently, the scheme is voluntary and there are a number of employers that adhere to the campaign by paying their workers the higher rate. If it was incorporated into law, however, the economic benefits would be significant.

Firstly, it would serve as genuine encouragement for those on welfare to find work. Many young people in particular fail to see the incentive in finding a full time job that promises a weekly income of £200 at the most. Instead, they are content to spend their time on benefits at a huge cost to the taxpayer or, failing that, many turn to a life of crime to supplement their earnings. While tough welfare reform to prevent abuse is also required, the introduction of a living wage would motivate those in desperate situations to turn their lives around.

Secondly, it would improve levels of productivity in the economy. If employees know that they are receiving a decent wage they will be more likely to work hard to keep their jobs. In addition, they would be more likely to actively seek out promotion opportunities in order to rise further up the income scale. Improving productivity in the workforce is hugely important for the UK given the fierce competition from highly efficient economies, such as China and India.

Employers who have brought in the living wage have reported a 25% drop in absenteeism and significant gains in terms of work quality as a result of moving to the higher rate. Rather than making employers more cautious before taking on new staff, therefore, there is every chance that the living wage could actually boost recruitment.

David Cameron and other senior Conservatives like Boris Johnson have voiced support for the living wage campaign. If they truly believe in the merits of this cause, however, they will pledge to enact the living wage as law in order to get our economy moving again. Doing so would send out a positive message that trust and optimism will get us out of this mess, rather than the fear and division current policies are producing. Time will tell if the Government has the bravery to face down its demons and do what is right for our country.

We Must Not Let Eurosceptics Ruin Our Future

It's decidedly unfashionable these days to say anything positive about the European Union. Received wisdom is that European integration has become a 'failed project', an obsession of the political class enjoyed at the expense of ordinary people in the UK. The recent problems in the Eurozone have served to add fuel to the fire with any prospect of the UK joining the single currency howled at with derision by almost all mainstream commentators.

While only one national newspaper, the Daily Express, advocates outright withdrawal, it surely cannot be long before all centre-right media clambers onto the bandwagon. British politics has become hugely Eurosceptic in recent years. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is set to replace the pro-european Liberal Democrats as the third largest party at election time. This in turn has shifted the centre-ground further towards the Eurosceptic cause. Whearas the Conservative Party was previously divided on the issue of Europe, with fierce battles between the likes of Ken Clarke and John Redwood, these days Tory backbenchers and activists are almost exclusively hostile to all things European. The debate now within the party is how to go about distancing the UK from the EU, not whether this is a desirable objective.

There is no doubt that Europe faces challenges and needs reform. The aysemmetric development it has undertaken since the advent of the Euro was always going to create problems. Economies in southern Europe, such as Greece and Italy, are fundamentally different from Germany and France and require contrasting monetary policies in the abscence of fiscal harmonisation. As George Osborne has pointed out, it is a matter of 'remorseless logic' that the only solution to the Eurozone crisis is full fiscal integration (without the UK, of course).

This should not, however, obscure the cold hard reality that the UK needs Europe. Eurosceptics like Nigel Farage & Co simply have no idea of the modern world in which the UK has to exist. For them, it is still 1910 and the British Empire serves to protect our economic and military hegemony across the planet. We do not need help from a bunch of lazy, uncivilised countries on the continent.

The fact is that Britannia no longer rules the waves. China, India, Brazil, and Russia now rule the waves. The only possible way in which we can survive in this new world is by co-operating with our nearest neighbours on a more integrated basis. A Chinese trade delegation would not give much weight to a British representative claiming to represent a mere 60 million people. If that represenative spoke for 500 million European citizens, however, he may start listening.

So what does the EU need to do now? It must re-connect its leaders with the people and convince them of the merits of integration. One biproduct of economic downturns throughout the ages is nationalism. Only by making the argument that trade and co-operation promote growth and jobs will European leaders begin to really sell Europe. It must also address the continuing issue of the democratic deficit. The time has come for direct elections for the European President and the Commissioners. This will go someway towards ameliorating the sense of it all being a bit of a 'stitch up' by a bunch of unaccountable technocrats.

What cannot happen is for national leaders to turn their backs on Europe for good. It would be a fundamental mistake for politicians to retreat into a nationalistic comfort zone and indulge the false claims of Eurosceptics that we are 'better off out'. After all, the loser will not be the mandarins in Brussels, it will be the British people.

Ferries, Fredalos and Flying Boots: How Harsh Should We Treat Sportsmen?

It goes without saying that England sports fans are used to disappointment. Year after year we endure frustrated expectations and, more often than not, outright embarrassment. The latest such episode was the failure of the England rugby team in the World Cup.

England were dumped out by a fairly average French side after much of the damage was done in the first half when 'Les Blues' savaged our defence. Throughout the tournament, England had struggled to string any kind of form together so it was little surprise when we collapsed to our inevitable defeat. Perhaps naturally, therefore, the headlines were dominated by off the field antics.

Our campaign in New Zealand was more akin to a club rugby tour than a professional, determined attempt to win a major international sporting event. The players were frequently spotted getting wasted in local bars in between matches. Mike Tindall, the England captain and member of the royal family, was photographed appearing to cheat on his new wife in the early hours of one morning. Surely the most notorious incident, however, came after our collapse against France when centre Manu Tuilagi was reported to have jumped off a ferry in Aukland harbour.

England coach Martin Johnson attempted to defend these antics by claiming to treat the players as 'adults'. In his view, professional sportsmen should be given the freedom to enjoy themselves on tour and to take responsibility for their own performance. If this includes binge drinking, fooling around in bars, and midnight swimming, then so be it.

Fabio Capello attracted a great deal of criticism (from me included) for the way he conducted his disciplinarian, military approach to the England football team's campaign during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. On one hand, it surely cannot be helpful to induce a state of fear into players before they take the field. Nerves stifle creativity and inhibit any kind of relaxation on the pitch. On the other hand, there is something to be said for treating a professional expedition as just that, rather than as a glorified piss-up where players are free to do as they please.

Of course, the ideal situation would be one where the players themselves recognise the importance of representing their country. An excellent example of this can be found in the current England cricket team, where coach Andy Flower and captain Andrew Strauss have created an atmosphere of constant professionalism and high standards. This is a far cry from England teams of old, which would include frequent day trips to vineyards (David Gower) and moonlit pedalo voyages (Andrew Flintoff). Today's England side recognise the importance of fitness, quality, and conducting themselves properly off the field. It is no coincidence that under Flower and Strauss they have become the world's number one side.

The Foolishness of Interfering With the Family

Last week I lambasted commentators on the left for blaming the Government's economic policy for the senseless destruction seen in what is now being referred to as the 'England riots'. Shortly after writing that piece, however, I felt I had unfairly singled out the lefties for criticism. Many of those at the other end of the political spectrum have also come out with bonkers theories about the causes of the riots.

One such theory, repeated almost as if it were gospel by those on the right, is that a major factor in leading to the violence and looting was the failure of the last Labour Government to properly instil 'family values' in society.

Peter Oborne, for example, writing in the Telegraph, railed against the decay of family values under Blair and Brown:

Most disturbing of all was New Labour’s teaching on the family. Behind much of the outrage of the past few days lies the absent father, and the collapse of traditional marriage. Young children, boys in particular, need male role models. If they cannot find such figures at home, they will look elsewhere. Horrifically, this means joining the gangs that caused such mayhem and destruction.

He was joined by Daily Mail columnist, Melanie Phillips, who loves a good old moral panic even at the best of times:

When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.

So apparently, it is Tony Blair and the Labour party who are responsible for the destruction of families and the 'feral youth' roaming our streets.

The sheer ridiculousness of these comments is not immediately apparent. It is true that there are more households with fatherless families than ever before. It is equally true that there is a disproportionate number of young people in the criminal justice system who come from such families. To imply that the Government is somehow responsible for this, however, is absolute, unbelievable nonsense.

Oborne and Phillips seem to imply that there was a Minister in Whitehall, who for 13 years was charged with monitoring the daily routines of Britain's families. If Mr and Mrs Smith in Coventry had a row, this was obviously a failing on the part of the Labour Government to properly buttress the married, two parent family. Whenever a father deserted his pregnant partner, this was a clear and unforgivable error that had been perpetrated by Labour party officials. Of course it was nothing at all to do with that particular couple, who for any number of reasons, had separated. The fault had to lie with Labour.

Much is said of the abolition of the married couples' tax allowance. It is argued that by making it more financially viable for single parents to live on their own, Labour, in Phillips' words set out to 'destroy the traditional nuclear family'. What a load of rubbish. Only a person with a warped sense of the realities of life could suggest that a tax break would have any impact on a family's choices. If a father loves a mother, he will stay with her. That is true whether or not he receives favourable treatment in the tax system.

The Government simply cannot influence what goes on in the homes of its citizens. To suggest otherwise represents a Stalinist imposition of rules and regulations totally alien to a liberal democracy. It is a particularly curious angle for those on the right to take, given their hostility towards government when it tries to introduce basic controls like the minimum wage and maternity rights.

Even if, as in the disturbed minds of Oborne and Phillips, the Government had absolute influence over the choices of people in adult relationships, preserving the 'traditional nuclear family' might not always have the desired effect. Huge numbers of successful and prosperous individuals now come from one parent households. It is frankly insulting to those people to suggest that the Government ought to have prevented their parents from separating. Coercing fathers - financially or otherwise - into staying with their partners against their will may not produce the happiest children.

No, the cause of the riots was not the decline of two parent households under Labour, or the deficit reduction programme under the coalition. Nor was it immigration (an odd argument to make in light of the amazing unity shown by different communities across the country), police brutality (I am certain most of those seen looting foot locker did not know the man shot in Tottenham), or our 'celebrity culture' (the rioters only seemed to idolise themselves). When all is said and done it was nothing more than opportunistic crime committed by those who made a rational decision to take that course of action. So please stop the moralising.

There is Nothing 'Inevitable' or 'Understandable' About Rioting

Those of us on the left like to believe that we are on the 'nice' side of politics. Left wingers tend to advocate good things like help for the disadvantaged, fair taxation, and social tolerance. My own view is that this is broadly the best place to be in terms of political positioning. Every now and then, however, those on the left undermine that theory and make me wonder whether they are really standing up for the right things.

The latest example of this is the response to fierce rioting in London - and now, as I write, Birmingham - in the last view days. Most observers were united in unequivocally condemning the rioters, who tore through the streets attacking the police, smashing up property, and looting local businesses. Despite this general consensus, a few on the harder left tried to present the riots as the inevitable consequence of Government economic and social policy.

Former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for example took the opportunity to attack the coalition's cuts shortly after the Tottenham riots on Saturday:

“The economic stagnation and cuts being imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division. As when Margaret Thatcher imposed such policies during her recessions this creates the threat of people losing control, acting in completely unacceptable ways that threaten everyone, and culminating in events of the type we saw in Tottenham.'

He was joined by socialist campaigner Peter Tatchell, who tweeted the following:

Well-off communities don’t riot. #Riots occur in deprived areas. Mere coincidence? I don’t think so. Injustice > riots #Tottenham #MetPolice

In these comments, therefore, both Livingstone and Tatchell attempted to imply that the riots had a degree of justification and could have been avoided were it not for the dogmatic policies of the Tory-led government.

Not only is this offensive to any notion of moral responsibility, it is also factually questionable. The people seen looting shops on Saturday night did not seem to be crusaders against the cuts. They are clearly not the same people who flocked to London for the TUC march earlier this year. Rather, they are criminal opportunists who spotted a chance to get something for nothing and took it.

There is not and will never be any justification for the violence seen in the last few days. The victims of this behaviour will not be members of the government (whose leaders were not even bothered enough to return from their holidays), the Conservative party (not many Tory voters in north London), or the evil bankers (still earning their bonuses). Instead, it will be small business owners, individual police officers, and the hard-working majority of residents in these areas. It will be people like the Turkish immigrant interviewed on BBC News, whose van was destroyed in the riots, preventing him from working as a painter and decorator and from supporting his family.

The people seen taking part in riots today do not warrant sympathy for the 'injustice' they have suffered at the hands of the government or the police. They forfeited their right to be heard when they started destroying homes and livelihoods. Until commentators on the left like Livingstone and Tatchell start standing up for hard-working Londoners and condemning looting opportunists, their prospects of winning back the support of the public will be like most of north London - up in smoke.

Standing Up for Multiculturalism

Last week a number of Lithuanian men died after an accident on an industrial estate in Lincolnshire. The men died while trying to brew 'super-strength' vodka, which they intended to supply to shops serving the Eastern European community. The alcohol is illegal in the United Kingdom.

This incident is a stark example of the problems surrounding integration that have become common with certain immigrant groups. Naturally, when you move to a foreign country, you tend to group yourself around other people who speak your language, share your culture, and experience the same difficulties in seeking to live abroad. The issue with this is that it, in the short term at least, prevents you from fully embracing new values, culture, and language.

It is in this context that tabloid headlines and populist politicians have called for an end to 'multiculturalism'. By promoting difference, it is argued, you create division. Division leads to conflict and hostility, which, at its most extreme, results in terrorism and violence. David Cameron articulated this argument in a speech in Munich earlier in the year where he declared that multiculturalism had failed.

A cursory glance of right-wing tabloids reveals a wider anti-immigrant fixation. The Daily Express routinely refers to 'waves' of immigrants and highlights crimes committed by foreign nationals. If you were to purchase the Express or the Daily Mail, it is almost certain that you would discover multiple reports on the evils of immigration in the first 10 pages.

This critique of immigration is not confined to the right, however. Very recently, Lord Glasman, the man behind the 'Blue Labour' movement and a key advisor to Ed Miliband, argued that there should be an immediate freeze on all non-EU immigration and that the UK should renegotiate the rules on free movement of labour with our EU partners. Glasman's whole strategy is based on tapping into working class disenchantment with low wages and fierce competition from foreign workers. This disenchantment has manifested itself in strong support for the BNP in working class areas.

So there appears to be a degree of consensus that immigration creates problems for society. The main political parties are now attempting to out flank each other in terms of being tough on further immigration. After Labour enacted a restrictive points regime which cut immigrant numbers significantly, the coalition government decided that this was not enough and put in place a firm quota on the numbers of people who can come and live in the UK. As a result, we now face absurd situations where the world's most talented scientists are unable to gain entry to the country as the quota has already been filled.

At this point it is probably worth reminding ourselves why so many people wish to come to the UK. After all, it's wet (I'm writing this listening to rain pounding my window in mid-July), cold, grey, expensive, with terrible food and many national flaws.

The reason these poor deluded people wish to abandon their home countries, pack up their lives and move to Britain is because of the promise it offers. The UK is seen as a beacon of tolerance, fairness, order and tradition, opportunity, and stability. There are plenty of nations that lack these attributes. If a person from one of those nations wishes to make their home here, is that such an ignoble ambition? Should the thought of that repulse us? Or should we take it as a source of national pride and seek to encourage, rather than discourage and stigmatise, this person?

And should we expect them to start living like 'British' people from the moment the plane hits the tarmac? Are we to require all newcomers to start binge drinking, complaining, cooking rubbish food, and instigating football riots from day one? Or is it more reasonable to allow them to live their own lives within our laws and regulations?

I'm not advocating total, uncontrolled immigration. What I am arguing for is a change in the way we look at individual immigrants, be they asylum seekers or economic migrants. Instead of rejecting new arrivals as sponging, insular, parasites, how about we view them as human beings trying to do what they can? If this means persisting with multiculturalism then so be it. In the long term, this will do far more for reducing division and hostility than the current consensus apparent on all ends of the political spectrum.

Consuming Students

I am coming to the end of my studies at BPP Law School. BPP is a private 'University College' that prides itself on providing good quality, practical education to its students. My campus is a glossy, modern building in the centre of London where tuition is given through interactive seminars, large group sessions, and electronic 'e-learning'. In return, it demands the paltry sum of £15,000.

Grateful though I am for this first-class teaching, it saddens me to think that BPP will come to represent the future of higher education provision. If Universities Minister David 'Two Brains' Willetts has his way, the coalition government will create a market in further education with students acting as consumers and businesses supplying degrees. Willetts intends to make it easier for private colleges such as BPP to compete with publicly funded institutions. This is part of a package of whole scale reform in this area, which has seen tuition fees trebled at public universities and more emphasis being placed on the publishing of graduate recruitment statistics.

At first glance, any attempt to improve the standards of higher education should be welcomed. In my last post I lamented the awful graduate employment prospects facing those currently leaving university. Therefore, the government is surely right to prioritise careers and to focus on students getting better value for money.

There is something fundamentally troubling, however, about students being turned into consumers. At BPP there is a strange atmosphere, which is totally different from the atmosphere I experienced at my undergraduate public university. It does not feel like a centre of academic discovery. That's not to say the standards are low; the tuition is of high quality and the assessment process is rigorous to say the least. Rather, it feels like a place where people pass through as a means to an end, not a place that it is enjoyable to be for the sole purpose of learning.

In order to understand why this is problematic it is necessary to consider the purpose of higher education. Is it to produce top graduates? Or is there more to it than that?

Certainly, one of the key aims of a university education is to gain a good qualification that will lead to a prosperous career. That is why most young people make the decision to spend money and head to university. In the global economy it is nothing short of essential for the UK to produce the best graduates in order to support our industries. So the government is right to be fixated with driving up standards and improving graduate recruitment.

This is surely not enough by itself, however. One of the core aspects of a university education must be to stimulate intellectual curiosity. To foster thinking for no reason other than to think. To learn more about one's opinions. My fondest memories of undergraduate life include having discussions with my tutors about points of law for reasons of interest alone, not to pass an exam or succeed in a job interview.

Willetts seems to forget this with his desire to commoditize higher education. 'Two Brains' has overlooked the need to learn how to use one's brain. His plan to allow more private universities to run degree courses is a recipe for taking the soul and meaning out of academic endeavour. In my last post I also mentioned the New College of the Humanities, a private university which will offer the best possible teaching in exchange for fees of £18,000 a year, making BPP look cheap. No doubt the graduates of the New College will be in an envious position in the labour market. What of their university experience though? Will there be genuine intellectual curiosity when the students are mere consumers? Or will it be, as at BPP, that the majority of students attend because they see it as a means to an end, having paid so much money?

Maybe the view I have expressed is a romantic vision of further study. It may be possible that the notion of spending three years debating and thinking for no vocational gain is simply outdated in the modern economy. If this is right though I think it is a sad reflection on our society. As with most things, the government seems to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

No Country for Young Men

Perhaps Neil Kinnock's greatest ever moment was his 1983 'I warn you' speech where he desparately tried to prevent the British public from re-electing Margaret Thatcher. Kinnock warned people not to be ill, ordinary, unemployed or anything else that could put them at risk in Thatcher's Britain. While the speech has now been forgotten and consigned to the history books, one remark has never been more appropriate: 'I warn you not to be young'.

There is no doubt that young people face the greatest challenges under this Conservative government. Across the board, changes are being made that will make it harder than ever for young people to study, get jobs, find housing or become valued members of society. This is nothing short of tragic with far-reaching implications for the future of this country.

Let's take employment. In February it was reported that youth unemployment had surged to 20.5%. 1 in 5 people between 16 and 24 who are looking for work are unable to find any. The economic crisis has hit younger people worse than any other group. Employers are reluctant to take on young employees as they are unwilling to spend the time and effort training them. Younger employees are by definition inexperienced and in need of development.

Even graduates cannot find jobs. In my own sector, law, it is becoming increasingly difficult for younger applicants to compete with older cross-qualifying professionals. The Crown Prosectuion Service, for example, has suspended recruitment of legal trainees. Instead, those approaching retirment in the CPS are being forced to work two or three jobs to make up for the shortfall.

Graduate employment in general is around the 20% mark. One of the key triggers of the Arab Spring was graduates angry at being able to find jobs, even blue collar jobs, and taking out their anger on the repressive regimes of North Africa and the Middle East. This was expressed most powerfully in the story of Mohammad Bouazizi, a Tunisian graduate, who set himself on fire in protest after he was prevented from selling fruit and vegetables on a market stall. Tunisia is of course a far cry from the UK. It is a stark example, however, of the extreme consequences of graduate joblessness.

Younger people are not just facing a raw deal in the labour market. The reforms pushed through by this government will make it harder for ordinary young people to go to university. Tuition fees have now been trebled to £9,000 a year at almost all universities. It was reported a few weeks ago that a new college is being created in London with fees of £18,000 a year. Most observers predict that this model of higher education will become the norm in the next few years. The effect of this will be huge, irreparable damage to social mobility. There is simply no way that young people from modest social backgrounds will be able to access this kind of education. So what are they to do instead? Get a job? Fat chance.

Everywhere you look younger people are being placed at a disadvantage in society. In addition to trebling tuition fees, this government have abolished the educational maintenance allowance, providing a lifeline to students from less affluent homes. It has scrapped the future jobs fund, which would have created up to 200,000 jobs for young people. It has axed building schools for the future and consigned places of education to ruin and disrepair. Its failure to deal with the rising cost of living has disproportionately affected younger members of society. Its failure to put measures in place to guarantee affordable housing has left younger people unable to take their first steps on the property ladder.

Why is all this bad? It risks creating a 'lost generation' of people who have underdeveloped CVs. Research shows that a prolonged period of unemployment earlier in life can be fundamentally damaging for a person's employment prospects as they get older. This is bad for the individual, the economy, and society as a whole. In addition, having fewer people go to university is problematic in terms of the skills set of the workforce and the general need to create an educated citizenry. More than this though, it is a betrayal by an older generation who benefited from free higher education and an easy pathway into top jobs.

Until the political class take note of the vast challenges facing young people in Cameron's Britain, this state of affairs is unlikely to change. While young people are the losers now, the real loser will be society in the long-term.

The Burglar's Gamble

Last week the Sentencing Council published a new consultation on the sentencing regime applicable to offences of burglary. The consultation invited responses on the Council's proposals to increase sentences depending on the consequences of the burglary, particularly the actual harm inflicted on the victim. Sir Brian Leveson, Chairman of the Council, summed up the new approach by stating that it would ensure 'that the impact on victims is at the centre of considerations about what sentence should be passed on a burglar.'

The Council's latest intervention represents a continuation in thinking in criminal justice policy apparent over the last 10 years with victims placed at the forefront of political rhetoric. Successive Home Secretaries have hit the airwaves promising to make victims the most important players in the criminal justice system. Much of the reform has been largely symbolic, such as the unenforceable Victims Charter, and victims have gained few new rights despite the political posturing. This suggested change, however, may do more to improve the standing of victims when it comes to the consequences of offending.

Is this really right though? For those of us who would like to see tougher sentences across the board, any change that increases the punishment for people who commit burglary is to be welcomed. However, there are wider considerations that make this a problematic development in the theory of sentencing.

Traditionally, sentencing has concentrated on the culpability of offenders, rather than the actual harm caused. This is why attempted murder is treated largely the same as murder itself. Society recognises that failing to commit an offence - whether by luck or bad judgment - does not extinguish the offender's culpability. That person is as morally responsible as if he had succeeded in committing the crime.

Applying these principles, the sentence for a burglar should be the same whether or not his victims are upstairs asleep, downstairs watching TV, or out of the house. The burglar's act and mental state are the same in each case. The presence or absence of any victim is a matter of simple luck. Under the Council's new proposals, however, a burglar who frightens victims inside a house will receive a markedly longer sentence than a burglar who has the happy fortune of finding his house unoccupied.

This reflects a general trend towards compensating victims for harm caused. I once witnessed a case where a drunk driver drove from Cambridge to Huntingdon as high as a kite, swerving around moving vehicles, riding the kerb, and driving over roundabouts. Amazingly, his tripped out journey resulted in no casualties or damage. As a result he was given a suspended sentence. Just imagine the sentence he would have received had he hit a child. What would be the principled difference? His culpability would be the same in both cases and sentencing ought to recognise this.

While I am always satisfied, therefore, to hear about offenders being dealt with more severely, I have a profound objection to the current obsession with consequence rather than culpability. I see no reason why a burglar who finds his victim in the house should face different treatment to the burglar who guesses right and discovers an empty house. Both are serious acts warranting significant punishment. To punish one but not the other is a bizarre social choice.

Opening Up a Can of Worms

The news that Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US Special Forces in a fire fight in a Pakistani town will be greeted by celebrations across the Western world. Already reports are emerging of Americans donning 'we got him' T-shirts and waving the stars and stripes. I must confess that I'm not in such a celebratory mood for the following reasons.

Firstly, if the West is to prevail in the war against terror, it is essential that it retains some form of moral legitimacy. The sight of Americans and Europeans dancing around the camp fire after the murder of a Muslim in a Muslim country is not likely to go down too well with those already contemplating embracing radical Islam. Wouldn't it be better if we demonstrated quiet dignity in moments like these? Western moral standing, already weakened by Iraq, cannot afford to suffer such damage.

Secondly, there is a very real chance of revenge attacks. Many people have been questioning for years the extent to which Bin Laden really controls Al-Qaeda. According to some observers, his death is unlikely to have much of a disruptive influence on the planning of Al-Qaeda in Asia and the West. The closed cell nature of Al-Qaeda's operations, where only a few operatives know the nature of what they are working on, means that the loss of one person is not likely to be terminal. What it will do, however, is lead to massive calls for revenge attacks in Islamist circles.

Thirdly, the circumstances of Bin Laden's death raise important questions about Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Bin Laden was killed in a town not far from Islamabad, which included an elite military training centre of the Pakistani military. This is a far cry from the remote border caves in which he has supposedly been hiding for years. How the Pakistani intelligence and armed forces can not have known about this is a matter for speculation. How long has Bin Laden been in Pakistan? These questions will be repeated by those already critical of Pakistan's reluctance to fully engage with radical elements in its population.

I'm not so sure that making Osama Bin Laden a martyr was really the best tactical approach to adopt in the war on terror. Regardless of its strategic implications, it makes me upset to see that people in the West cannot rise above celebrating the murder of a human being in moments like these, even that of a human being as evil and despicable as Bin Laden. Despite not being a Christian myself, I think those who profess to follow that religion would do well to remember this Proverb: 'Do not rejoice when your enemy falls. And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.'

Why I'm Saying No to AV

Blink and you will have missed it. It's almost gone unnoticed amidst the unexpected April sunshine but in just a few weeks we will have the opportunity to change our voting system. As someone who is on the left of politics, sometimes I feel compelled to support 'change' and be 'progressive'. Therefore, I was tempted to throw my support behind the Yes2AV campaign in the name of electoral reform and solidarity with nice people like Charles Kennedy and Caroline Lucas. On closer examination, however, I can't help but feel that the NO2AV folks have the stronger arguments, even though it means agreeing with nasty people like Michael Howard and Matthew Elliott.

Here are the main reasons I'm against the change:

1. AV is harder to understand than FPTP - while clever people like Mr Kennedy and Miss Lucas are clearly able to comprehend the nuances of AV, a lot of people in this country will not. For me, this is the stand out argument against change. Many people find politics boring and incomprehensible as it is. I reckon that a whole lot more will share this opinion if they have to sit down with a calculator to work out why the person who won the most votes in their constituency was not returned as their MP. Those who are discontented with politics are likely to be extremely turned off by a voting system that allows second and third placed candidates to win. This is not a good thing for civic engagement.

2. AV will weaken democratic accountability - my main argument here is that AV will lead to more hung parliaments and hung parliaments are bad for democracy. I'll be honest, this Lib-Con rose garden love-in has put me right off coalitions for life. Putting aside their political views, however, one can see how the mere fact of coalition has weakened trust in politics. During the tuition fee fiasco, it was all too easy for Clegg & Co to retreat to their standard defence of 'we couldn't help it, we're only in coalition' to justify trebling tuition fees after campaigning vociferously to abolish fees outright. I have written before about how stunts like this turn people away from politics. Allowing more hung parliaments will make people really question what is the point of voting when the party they vote for are liable to cave into their coalition partners and renege on their manifesto commitments.

3. AV will elect more fascist MPs - there is a running debate at the moment between the two campaigns about whether the BNP will stand to benefit from AV. Logic dictates that as AV is more favourable to smaller parties (which is why the Lib Dems, the Greens, the nationalists, and UKIP are all in favour), a small party like the BNP will have a greater chance of winning a seat. In particular, they are highly likely to take second and third preference votes from Labour in deprived areas. Whether or not AV does benefit the BNP and other extremist parties remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that FPTP is no friend of fascists, with the BNP getting nowhere near winning any seat in UK general elections. When it comes to European elections, which are held under proportional representation, however, Nick Griffin and another one of his cronies were elected to represent our nation.

4. It gives the Liberal Democrats too much power - OK, I'll admit that this objection is partly based on my utter repulsion to the Lib Dems. Sorry. But there is a serious point here: if AV were used, there is a very real chance that the leader of this party would wield tremendous influence in deciding which government is formed after a general election. The Lib Dems have too few seats to be in a position where they could govern in their own right. They have just enough seats, though, to hold the balance when Labour and the Conservatives are tied. The more seats they gain, the more frequent compromises like last summer are likely to become. I'm not sure it's healthy to place such a large amount of political power in the hands of one man. Especially where that man is a little weasel like Nick Clegg.

So I urge my friends on the left to resist the temptation to play in the sunshine with Ed Miliband and Simon Hughes and invite them to join the real voices of fairness, William Hague and Norman Tebbit. Strange as it may seem, the only way of securing civic engagement, moderation and accountability is to vote no to AV. If not, Nick Clegg can look forward to a glorious future as the perpetual king maker of British politics.

Pain But No Gain

Today over 250,000 protesters descended on London. Their aim was to vent their anger at the Government's programme of dramatic spending cuts. Workers from all the main trade unions, students, and supporters came together to march against the coalition's plan to eliminate the entire structural deficit in just four years.

For some the grievances expressed today will be seen as the manifestation of an unreasonable sense of entitlement that has developed in the last few years. Public sector workers, they would say, must be turfed out as part of a fundamental economic re-structuring after years of dependence on the state. Many pro-cuts figures also reach for the statistics for how much the government spends on servicing debt interest in order to justify the government's cuts agenda.

Observing the protest at close quarters, it was clear to me that some of the marchers were in absolute denial about the need to reduce the fiscal deficit. Some people had banners calling for there to be no cuts at all. Others tried to explain their position by highlighting the amount spent on trident and the sums lost through tax avoidance. I would say, however, that the majority of people in attendance accepted the need for spending reductions. Their criticism would be that the coalition are going about it too far and too fast.

This is a position that has been advocated by the last two Nobel prize winners for economics. Leading economists on both sides of the Atlantic have argued that cutting back state support while the recovery remains fragile risks plunging us back into recession. The basic premise is that making more people unemployed through public sector redundancies will dampen demand in the economy. This will make it more difficult for firms to grow and it will harm business confidence. Those people who lose their job in the public sector are unlikely to be absorbed by the private sector given the perilous state of the economy.

It is in this context that the Chancellor produced his 'budget for growth' on Wednesday. The budget statement began with Mr Osborne downgrading his growth forecasts, blaming it largely on last year's snow and global instability. Afterwards, he pledged to cut corporation tax and tax on fuel (although this was clearly a political red herring as he increased VAT on fuel only a matter of months ago).

Until the recovery is in full-swing, these measures will be like moving deckchairs on the Titanic as long as they are accompanied by the government's cuts programme. I have never heard a convincing argument as to why the entire deficit has to be eliminated in four years. Why not 5? Or 6? Or 10? The markets will back a plan they view to be credible. This does not mean the deficit reduction plan has to be the most aggressive one available.

Surely the best plan is one that commits to deficit reduction but recognises the need for basic economic stability. The goal must be to put the economy back into a position where it can support people who lose their jobs in the public sector. Putting more people on the dole when the recovery is fragile just appears reckless to me. It seems like ideological nonsense spouted by a government that is obsessed with re-balancing the economy away from reliance on the state, whatever the consequences.

I hope that Mr Osborne listens to the concerns of ordinary people (and it was, by and large, ordinary people: families and all generations) put forward today about the dangers of his policy. Failing that, I hope he listens to the Nobel laureates and leading economists who have warned about the need for growth before there can be cuts. If he continues on his current course he may find that his obsession with deficit reduction leads to years of financial stagnation.

When Would You Pull The Trigger?

Thanks to the Inner Temple (easily the best of the four Inns of Court, incidentally, for any aspiring barristers) today I was able to gain a rare insight into how the police train with and use firearms. I visited the Metropolitan Police Specialist Training Centre down in Kent where I was shown the training officers go through and given the chance to step into their shoes by participating in simulated exercises.

Like many people, before the trip I regarded the police as somewhat trigger happy when given the chance to run around with guns. Having read about cases like the de Menezes debacle, and more recently the murky shooting of barrister Mark Saunders, it's fair to say I didn't have a great deal of faith in the police's ability to exercise restraint.

My pre-conceptions were turned on their head by some of the things I learned. Firstly, the police instructors demonstrated the rigorous testing firearms officers have to undertake in order to carry a gun and the equally demanding re-accreditation programme they must pass each year in order to maintain their license. The officers are all required to hit moving targets from large distances with all kinds of weapon, including pistols, and to do so with 80% accuracy. Some of the more specialist guys are required to hit targets in combat situations, being fired at and challenged by difficult circumstances. To think that cops in the US and most other countries carry guns as of right is unbelievable in comparison to the high standards of assessment UK officers are expected to meet. It certainly made me feel a new found sense of confidence in the Met's ability to handle firearms incidents.

Secondly, all the officers are put through a series of simulated firearms scenarios. These will involve situations like high-school shootings and domestic violence. The officers are examined on when they choose to fire and why. You might think this is relatively simple; surely they shoot the bad guys, and only when they are being shot at first? Well having taken part myself, I can assure you it's not so easy. I found that I was the most trigger-happy of the group, prepared to fire whenever I saw a person with a weapon.

Cases like the Stockwell shooting and the Saunders tragedy will be scrutinised by the media and the courts for years after the event. Experts will assess whether the officers made the right decision. Sometimes, inevitably, they will get it wrong. But when you have literally split-seconds to make hugely complicated judgment calls, you do not have the benefit of careful, considered analysis. You have to do what you think is right there and then, often on the basis of incomplete information. After taking part in some fake exercises with no real sense of pressure, I certainly will think twice before criticising the police for making mistakes in these situations.

Take the de Menezes case. Clearly there were serious flaws in the intelligence, which the Met has rightly been chastised for. Can anyone really blame the officers that fired though? They saw a man running into a Tube station days after the worst terrorist attack in recent British history. They had reason to believe that he was a suicide bomber, intent on blowing up the tube. Should they have (a) waited and done nothing; (b) shot him or engaged him in a non-fatal way; or (c) shot him in the head?

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, option (a) was the right choice. That is easy for us now, six years after the event following a number of investigations. It wasn't so obvious to the officers at the time. They genuinely believed they had to disable a man in order to prevent him killing scores of men, women, and children. Those officers did not have the time to enter into such considered analysis.

If anyone disputes my point of view and believes that firearms officers should always know when to hold their fire, I challenge them to go down to Kent and take part in the simulation. They may just find that they are surprised by how eager they are to pull the trigger.

Is It Always Wrong to Ask?

The star of The Apprentice and Labour Party Peer, Lord Sugar, this week argued that employers should be allowed to ask prospective employees whether or not they plan to have children. This produced a storm of protest from feminists and successful women everywhere, who immediately branded Lord Sugar's view as unfair and unreasonable. Despite the law prohibiting employers questioning any potential employee about their childcare commitments, it is widely assumed that the candidates who would be asked this question most often would be female.

Lord Sugar justified his statement by pointing to the problems businesses (particularly small businesses) encounter when they hire women who then take maternity leave shortly after starting work. Running a small business would undoubtedly become more difficult when a significant part of the workforce chooses to leave with no guarantee of them coming back in the near future. The problems are surely more pressing given the dire economic climate in which small firms are required to operate.

Despite this, women are understandably worried about being asked such an intrusive and personal question. Many people would regard childcare to be a private matter and none of the employer's business. In addition, there is a fear that a person could be discriminated against merely for wishing to fulfil a human desire to raise children.

These objections are misguided, however. If a person is trying to run a business with four members of staff, they surely have a legitimate interest in wishing to know the time commitments of their employees. It's exactly the same as an employer asking whether they wish to take time out for any other reason, e.g. further study or holidays. The fact is that many businesses would simply fold if a key member of staff was absent for an extended period of time. Owners cannot be expected to gamble with recruitment in these situations.

Moreover, women surely encounter more discrimination under the present system. As Lord Sugar said, the fact that employers are not allowed to ask means that many simply fail to recruit as many women as they would otherwise do. If a woman says, 'I have absolutely no interest in having children in the immediate future', she would be in a more advantageous position than under the status quo, where the employer is none the wiser about her future plans. If she says 'Yes I wish to have children in the immediate future' then it's only fair for the employer to know this. There may be absolutely no issue, for example where it has been agreed that the woman's partner will take care of the children.

So rather than undermining female participation in the workplace, allowing employers to question prospective employees about their childcare commitments may actually enhance gender equality in this country. That would be a good thing for society in general but also for British business. Perhaps we should get away from this (forgive the pun) childish law that prevents employers talking to prospective employees about their ability to work for them.

The Big Society - Not Just a Harmless Gimmick

Every Government likes to have some sort of underlying theme. The motivation behind Margaret Thatcher's administration was always economic liberalism and the maximisation of individual freedom, even at the expense of social cohesion. Tony Blair wanted to govern from the 'radical centre' with the idea of making public services better by opening them up to competition and market forces. The central policy direction of this Government is undoubtedly David Cameron's idea of the 'Big Society'.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the 'Big Society' is that no-one really knows what it means. My interpretation of Mr Cameron's speeches is that it seems to refer to an emphasis on volunteer groups and individuals taking over public services. Indeed, one of the key intellectual contributors to the Big Society, Philip Blond, has often spoken of it encompassing worker co-operatives and other mutual means of ownership.

Not many people object to the goals of the Big Society. Everyone would like to see more people volunteering. The bonds of social commitment are inevitably strengthened where people willingly decide to give up their free time to help those less fortunate than themselves. Worker co-operatives would also be supported, especially on the left-of the political spectrum.

So why am I so uneasy about the Big Society?

My problem is that Mr Cameron is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. The Comprehensive Spending Review resulted in a 28% cut in the local government budget. This represents a huge reduction in spending on local services. Councils are under a statutory duty to provide certain essential services, such as education and transport. In addition, many Councils are actively involved in the promotion of other projects, such as youth work and mental health support. They carry out these additional services by receiving modest central government funding. Given the whopping cut in the local government budget, the time is up for these extra facilities. There is simply no way in which a local authority will be able to maintain additional services in addition to their statutory commitments when faced with a 28% cut in funding.

This is why senior charity figures, such as Dame Suzi Leather, Chair of the Charity Commission, and Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, Chair of Community Service Volunteers, have argued so forcefully that Mr Cameron's Big Society agenda is a sham. How on Earth are people going to be able to effectively volunteer if the financial support is not there? For example, as a result of the Government's cuts, many libraries are being forced to close. As Dame Elisabeth asked, how are people supposed to volunteer in the local library if it is being closed down?

These are the uncomfortable questions about the Big Society that Mr Cameron cannot answer. The truth is that his destructive cuts package is wrecking any chance of a genuine culture of volunteering and civic engagement developing in this country.

Conservatives have sought to blame the need for the massive cuts in public spending on the last Labour Government. Here again, therefore, we see the great lie of British politics. I have argued against this before but just in case anyone is any doubt: Labour did not cause the banking crisis. The bankers caused the banking crisis.

The fact of the matter is that before 2007, when the financial meltdown began, Britain had the second lowest debt in the G7. So it's false to say that the Labour Government's reckless overspending created the deficit. Furthermore, up to this point, the Conservatives pledged to match Labour's spending plans. So they didn't think it was reckless overspending either. The other governing party, the Liberal Democrats, were actually in favour of increasing public spending. Any claim by the Government that the deficit is the product of years of Labour indulgence with the public finances is consequently (a) wrong, and (b) hypocritical.

Why did we end up with the largest debt after the financial crisis? The answer is simple. Britain was the most reliant on revenues from the financial services sector in the City of London. When the City went into sharp decline, so unfortunately did the entire British economy. The Government was forced to spend millions bailing out the banks while hundreds of businesses collapsed as a result of being unable to benefit from credit supplied by financial institutions. The Labour Government should take some blame for putting all our economic eggs in one basket by being so dependent on financial services. However, both main parties were to blame for this, none more so than the Tories who began diverting resources towards the City and away from manufacturing in the 1980s.

Mr Cameron is undermining his own Big Society by his massive cuts agenda. His ideological commitment to shrinking the state will always come before his desire to support civic engagement. He is seeking to convince people that he would love to see more volunteers but he has to clean up Labour's mess. Don't believe him.

Why We Need Strasbourg

Arrogant. Smug. Self-satisfied. These are all adjectives that could be used to describe John Hirst, the principal campaigner for the rights of convicted prisoners to vote in UK elections. Hirst was convicted of killing his landlady back in 1979 with an axe. Despite only receiving a 15 year tariff, Hirst went on to serve 25 years after committing a number of violent offences in jail. Following his release in 2004, he has made it his life's ambition to secure the right to vote for jailed offenders.

Anyone that has heard Hirst give interviews will no doubt be repulsed by his sense of entitlement. He is a man who has committed one of the most unconscionable crimes in society but nevertheless feels free to demand rights and privileges on the same basis as law-abiding citizens. Particular revulsion can be attributed to Hirst's description of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), ruling the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting to be unlawful, as 'his' judgment. For all his cocky remarks, however, Hirst has made one solid point. Public opinion is absolutely irrelevant in upholding human rights.

If you talk to members of the judiciary, most will frankly admit that public opinion is a consideration when decisions are made. This is particularly so in sentencing in criminal justice, where many judges are afraid of being seen as 'soft on crime' by passing a lenient sentence. The extent to which public opinion should be a legitimate factor in ordinary judicial decision making is debatable. What is clear, however, is that the views of the majority should have no impact in the interpretation and application of human rights.

This is so because human rights are about the protection of the individual against the state. The very reason the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was founded in 1950 was to ensure that individuals had binding protection against the tyranny of the majority, which had been so clearly dominant in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Majoritarian views cannot and should not alter fundamental human rights. Accepting that principle sometimes involves taking unpopular decisions like letting suspected terrorists walk free on the streets, or allowing people like Hirst to visit the ballot box alongside decent citizens.

It is very difficult for domestic judges to remain insulated from public opinion. Lord Phillips, President of the Supreme Court, recently claimed that judges were totally detached from the political arena and made decisions entirely according to the law. This is clearly false, as a cursory glance of the law reports in the area of human rights will reveal to you. Judges of different political persuasions can differ markedly on issues of liberty and security. Whenever a significant ruling is made by the Supreme Court it is almost inevitable that the members of the court will have considered the front-page implications the next day. They are first and foremost British lawyers, who have grown up in British society with British morals and values.

Human rights, by their very nature, are universal. A person's right to a fair trial should be the same whether he is in England or Saudi Arabia. As a result, there cannot be any scope for the tailoring of human rights to particular national concerns. It is true that states, under the ECHR, have a 'margin of appreciation', within which they can make their own judgments on aspects of human rights law. However, this margin is clearly circumscribed so as to prevent individual states denying people fundamental liberties, such as the right to vote in elections.

As such, it is essential that there is some checking mechanism to ensure that individual countries respect the key principles of the ECHR. A right-leaning think tank recently called for the UK to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR, claiming that it was unable to understand the particular morals and norms of the UK in certain areas. However, the peculiar characteristics of nation states should be an irrelevant factor in applying human rights law. In order to guarantee compliance with the Convention it is necessary, therefore, to have an independent tribunal in place to consider a case without all the pressure and scrutiny involved in domestic proceedings.

Judges in Strasbourg are far less likely to take into account the views of the British public when making rulings about the provisions of the ECHR. Jack Straw, writing in The Times, has used this is an argument for refusing to abide by the ECtHR's judgment on votes for prisoners. By contrast, this is exactly why we should submit to its jurisdiction and accept its rulings with good grace. Domestic judges, for all their independence and intelligence, are inevitably more liable to be swayed by majoritarian tendencies than those from different countries, backgrounds and cultures. This is an invaluable safeguard in human rights cases, where the only bulwark between tyranny and freedom may be a person in a gown sitting in a court.

Law, Love and Marriage

The most senior family judge in England and Wales this week called for unmarried co-habiting couples to be given the same rights on separation as divorcing spouses. Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division of the High Court, argued that those who have lived together in a relationship should have entrenched legal rights governing the distribution of property when they break up. His intervention is the latest contribution in a debate that has vexed family and property lawyers for some time now.

When married couples get divorced, both parties are entitled to a share of the marital assets. Usually, this will involve taking a percentage of the value of the family home. Each party's share is based on a number of complex factors but the general rule is that both are entitled to equal division.

The historical position in relation to unmarried co-habitees is that there has been no rights for either party to make claims on the other following separation. This has changed in recent years following the ruling of the House of Lords in Stack v Dowden (2007). In this case, the House of Lords held that when co-habiting partners are the joint legal owners of the family home, but have not made any express declaration in relation to their beneficial interests, there is a presumption that both parties own the house in equal shares.

Therefore, if you register property in joint names, the starting point is you both have 50% ownership. This is the case even if one person has bought the house outright. That party would need to show that he or she had made an exceptionally high contribution in order to justify departing from the equal division principle.

As a result of this, I was surprised to see Sir Nicholas making the case for more rights for co-habiting couples. In his view, the current state of the law, despite the ruling in Stack, does not do enough to help the weaker party (usually the woman) when a relationship comes to an end. In support of this view two points can be made. Firstly, the ruling only applies to situations where the home is registered in the parties' joint names. As such, if the other co-habiting partner is not a joint owner, there is a presumption that they are entitled to 0% of the beneficial interest. Secondly, in order to enforce rights under Stack, the co-habitee would have to resort to the complex law of trusts, rather than the more sensitive provisions of family law.

As someone who profoundly disagrees with the decision in Stack, I simply cannot see the justification for imposing yet more obligations on couples who have expressly declined to enter into marriage with all the legal responsibilities that entails. In my view, where two people choose to live together in a house purchased in joint names, it should not be automatically presumed that they intend to be joint beneficial owners. It is true that if property is purchased in joint names, it is often the intention of the parties to consider themselves to have the property on equal terms. However, this surely only applies during the relationship itself. Once that relationship has come to an end, the very fact of joint registration should not give rise to a presumption of 50% ownership.

It is open to the parties at any time during the relationship to expressly declare themselves to be joint beneficial owners. If they do this, that will be conclusive. The fact that the parties have chosen not to do this should be regarded as compelling evidence that they intend to share the property in some other way. In the absence of such a declaration and marriage, the state has no right to impose these obligations on two adults.

Critics of this view would perhaps claim that such an approach pays insufficient attention to the needs of children of co-habiting partners. However, courts must consider the needs of the children under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, which allows judges to make a number of orders in relation to property where there are young children involved. Indeed, Baroness Deech, Chairman of the Bar Standards Board and senior family lawyer, made this point when responding to Sir Nicholas' comments during the week.

Whatever way one views the debate, it cannot be disputed that if Sir Nicholas' suggestions were implemented, the distinction between marriage and co-habitation would be sharply eroded. If two people wish to enter into a marriage and put their relationship on a firm, legal footing they should be free to do so. If, however, they don't want the legal and social implications that come with marriage, they should be free to live without it. The different regimes involved in the classification of property rights guarantees a significant degree of individual freedom for people to dictate the terms of their family life. It would be wrong of the state to take away this liberty.

Iraq, Regret and Responsibility

Last week saw the re-appearance of Tony Blair in public life for a few hours. The former Prime Minister was answering questions put to him by the members of the Iraq Inquiry, who required him to 'clarify' some of his evidence given last year. Mr Blair's presence before the committee brought out the usual coalition of Islamists, Trots, and Guardian readers, all of whom expressed their disgust at Mr Blair's belated remorse for the war.

Many people felt Mr Blair did not do enough when he first gave evidence to get across how sorry he was for Iraq. Some people want a full and frank apology for his role in the conflict, citing the thousands of Iraqis who 'unnecessarily' died as a result of his actions. Others go further and demand Mr Blair's indictment before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

One such individual is the former Respect MP, George Galloway. Mr Galloway has consistently opposed the war in Iraq. This is perhaps unsurprising given his previous support for Sadaam Hussein - on one visit to Baghdad Mr Galloway told Sadaam that he 'saluted' his 'strength, courage and indefatigability'.

I'm sure many Iraqis would agree with the description of Sadaam as 'indefatigable'. He was a man who reigned over his people for over 20 years and never for a moment relaxed his repressive grasp on power. Moreover, he led a brutal regime in its persecution of Shi'a Muslims and Kurdish minorities. During the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds, Sadaam's Government murdered over 180,000 people. Sadaam's victims could pay testament to his indefatigability.

This brings me back to the issue of Mr Blair and his regret for the Iraq war. Should it ever be necessary to regret the overthrow of a fascist, genocidal maniac? There should be a distinction here between the means and the end. Obviously everyone regrets the number of people who died in order to effect regime change in Iraq. Thousands of innocent people were killed as a result of poor planning on behalf of coalition forces; thousands more as a result of poor implementation. Those mistakes should never be forgotten and should always be regretted. However, how can anyone regret the forcing out of one of the world's most repressive, vile dictators?

Not many Guardian columnists stood up to oppose Mr Blair's interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, where British forces saved the lives of thousands of people. So why the difference with Iraq? Surely Sierra Leone and Yugoslavia were sovereign states too? Why should the Iraqi people deserve less protection from genocidal rulers than people in those countries? These are all questions neither Mr Galloway nor Guardian leader writers would be able to answer.

When Mr Galloway appeared on Question Time last week, one of his fellow panellists was the Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, who most people now acknowledge to be the slipperiest man in British politics. Mr Hughes was asked the question I posed a few paragraphs above, namely why we should regret the overthrow of a brutal dictator. His reply was that we shouldn't, but only where that overthrow has been sanctioned by international law. This was a response utterly devoid of thought.

Anyone who has ever stumbled across international law will know that it doesn't really work. Jurisprudential scholars agree that in order for something to be a law, it must be clear and socially effective. Neither of these things can be said about international law. Where is my proof? Firstly, no-one really knows whether it was necessary to obtain a second UN resolution before invading Iraq. Lawyers of the most senior stature disagree. Therefore, it can hardly be said that international law is clear. Secondly, the UN Security Council system allows any one of five (yes five) countries to veto military action. These countries include China and Russia, neither of whom are exactly beacons of tolerance, democracy and freedom. As a result, there is a very real chance that intervention in countries where there has been genocide or crimes against humanity will fall foul of international law. This being the case, how can it be said that international law is socially effective?

If you were to take Mr Hughes' view through to its logical conclusion, the international community could be faced with a situation where it is illegal to take action against states who perpetually murder and violate the dignity of their people. I'm not too keen on this. In my view, whenever a country has the economic and military means to effect regime change in countries that follow such a course of conduct, it should do so, 'legally' or 'illegally'. International law did not serve the people of Iraq, Rwanda or Bosnia that well.

So in conclusion, it is right that Mr Blair should have regrets about the Iraq war. However, those regrets should be about the planning and implementation of the campaign. They should never be about the outcome of the war: the overthrow of a menacing, vile, murderous dictator. The day that civilised people demand such regrets is the day we lose all sense of morality and principle.

Why Prisoners Must Get the Vote

David Cameron has described the thought of prisoners being able to vote in UK General Elections as making him 'physically ill'. No doubt a lot of people would share his disgust. The thought does not exactly fill me with joy either. Despite this, there are very important reasons why the franchise should be extended to those behind bars.

The first is based on the concept of human rights. Human rights are by definition universal. They apply to all human beings. They are non-delegable and they cannot be waived. Why not? Because you can't stop being human. The fact that you may have committed the most serious, violent criminal offence does not disqualify you from being a human. It might disqualify you from being a decent human, but it doesn't change the basic fact.

Therefore, everyone is entitled to human rights, even criminals. We accept that criminals cannot be tortured. Furthermore, we accept that prisoners are entitled to fair trials. We allow offenders to get married and to practise freedom of religion. The big question, then, is whether the right to vote should properly be seen as a 'human right'.

This is a matter of debate. It is arguable that voting should be viewed as a civil or constitutional right, extended by law by a state to its citizens. The effect of this would be to say that the North Korean Government does not violate the human rights of its people when it denies them the opportunity to elect their leaders. One would be suggesting that the North Korean Government merely violates civil or political rights.

The opposite view is that the right to elect a government is a basic human right. In support of this, it is possible to argue that without democratic freedom, a person cannot truly be 'free' at all. If one is not given the opportunity to vote in elections, one remains in a state of perpetual subjugation. The social contract an individual is born into with society involves an implicit understanding that when the government of the day takes decisions with public resources that proves to be unacceptable, that individual has the ability to replace the government. If this were not so, the social contract would be an illegitimate tool of oppression by the political classes.

It is to this view that I subscribe. The right to vote in elections should be considered to be a fundamental, unalienable human right. That is why I, like many others, find it so disturbing when I see the wishes of people in places like Zimbabwe, China, Iran, and North Korea continuously treated with contempt.

Once the right to vote in elections has been established as a human right, the case for allowing prisoners to access the ballot box is unanswerable. Public opinion is irrelevant. That is why human rights are enshrined in law. If there was no binding protection for human rights in the UK, the government of the day could pick and choose which freedoms to guarantee and which to abandon. This is plainly incompatible with the notion of 'human rights' and justifies the position of unelected judges upholding such rights in a democratic society.

The other, more practical, reason why prisoners must get the vote is cost. Every day the UK Government fails to pay prisoners who have brought claims under the European Convention on Human Rights, the taxpayer incurs serious financial penalties. Given the precarious position of the public purse, this is a mounting debt the Exchequer can ill afford. The bill for claims currently stands at £35 million. As troubling as the thought of prisoners voting is, it is arguably less problematic than the prospect of convicted offenders enriching themselves at the expense of law-abiding UK citizens.

So for these reasons, it is imperative that Parliament complies with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and changes the law. The UK is one of the only countries in Europe that has a blanket ban on prisoners voting. If we have any respect for human rights and the rule of law in general, we should grit our teeth and bite the bullet.

VAT and all that

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, decided to give the economy the new year's boost it needs today by raising the rate of VAT by 2.5%. In doing so he proved his coalition colleague, Nick Clegg, correct when he warned before the election of a Tory 'VAT Bombshell' if they were returned to office.

Mr Osborne, like Mr Clegg has on so many occasions in the past few months, attempted to justify this seemingly regressive, unhelpful, policy by pointing to its 'progressive' qualities, saying it would be a fairer alternative to other measures. In doing so he was partly supported by research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which highlighted the fact that those with the most limited means tend to spend less on the majority of items subject to VAT.

The problem with a rise in VAT, however, is that it reduces the purchasing power of those on lower incomes. Research clearly demonstrates that the poorest bracket of the population in terms of household income will lose disproportionately more from this policy. When it comes to decisions as to whether or not to buy certain consumer goods, those struggling to make ends meet will increasingly decline to take the plunge. This is bad for the poor, whose quality of living decreases further.

Moreover, it is bad for the economy as a whole. Every time people spend money on things like televisions and computers, the shop they buy them from makes money. The more money the shop makes, the more employees they can afford to hire. The more employees they hire, the more those employees spend in other shops. And so on. Discouraging people from purchasing is not good economics. It's especially damaging given the weak growth projections for the UK economy following Osborne's cuts package.

If it has any sense, the coalition will execute one of its now famous U-turns before the rise starts to pour further misery on British retailers. Given the unfortunate timing of this tax rise, coinciding with the start of the Oldham by-election campaign, Mr Clegg may well have a word in Mr Cameron's ear.