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.