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.

Justice and the Paparazzi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Causes

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

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

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

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

The Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Consequences

Economic

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

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

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

Social

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

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

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

Political

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

'Victims' in Popular Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Beautiful Game?

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

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

Foster (Birmingham City, 18th in Premier League)

Jagielka (Everton)

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

Lescott (fails to make Man City first team)

Walcott (fails to make Arsenal first team)

Henderson (Sunderland, on debut)

Carrol (Newcastle, on debut)

Richards (fails to make Man City first team)

Smalling (fails to make Man Utd first team)

Cahill (Bolton Wanderers)

Johnson (fails to make Man City first team)

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

Green (West Ham, 20th in Premier League)

Bothroyd (Cardiff City, Championship, on debut)

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Balance between Premier League and National Game

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

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

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

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

We're All in This Together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

Welfare or Well unfair?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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