Only a barrister could say "there's no evidence"
Starmer's insistence that there's no evidence of harm to schools from an Education Tax is at odds with...well, the only time it's ever been tried
As I wrote here, it would be wise for the Government to consider the experience of the Marxist government in Greece before inflicting Corbyn’s Education Tax.
Now check this excellent video and please share it widely in which Starmer repeatedly insists “there’s no evidence schools will close”. They can just absorb a 20pc tax with their spare money, so no parents or children will be harmed in this experiment, and pigs will fly etc….so Maxwell Marlow of the Adam Smith Institute rightly takes him to task.
Just last night a friend offered me up some praise for Starmer because he’s a brilliant lawyer. Now perhaps he is, indeed, a brilliant lawyer, and not just a public sector apparatchik as others insist. Either way I don’t agree one iota that being a lawyer is a necessary or sufficient quality to be a good Prime Minister. It might even be undesirable.
Barristers like Starmer have a unique and special job that requires an unusual relationship with the truth, and that relationship is on full display in this video. As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not a lawyer):
The purpose of the trial is to reveal the truth about guilt-beyond-reasonable-doubt.
The purpose of the judge is to manage the process of revealing the truth without bias. The judge must not directly contribute to, or take away from, the evidence unless it fails on some procedural basis. If the judge has a strong perspective or privileged knowledge, he must keep it strictly to himself or stand aside.
Meanwhile the purpose of the barrister in defence or prosecution is to argue, interrogate evidence, and construct a narrative whether or not they believe that narrative to be the truth. They must not assert falsehoods….but they must not assume the role of the judge or jury by failing in their service to defend or prosecute. That’s all important stuff so people get a fair trial, innocent-until-proven-guilty and all that.
Call me old-fashioned but I’d rather our Prime Minister acted less like a barrister, advocating his corner with full-fat bias, and more like…well, a judge. I’d like him energetically to ensure a process designed to reveal the truth.
I don’t think it’s OK for him to say “there’s no evidence” of harms arising from an education tax, when
It’s only been tried once, globally, ever, because other governments recognise
education has social benefit, regardless who pays, and it’s bizarre to tax the private sector provision of social benefit
independent education has particular social benefit, in context of a state-obligated supply, by saving the taxpayer serious dosh. £8-12k per child, in UK, for a total of £4-6bn.
It was tried by Marxists, and he wants us to believe his government has left Marxism behind
It was catastrophic, causing well-documented harm exactly as the Education Not Taxation campaign and Adam Smith Institute are warning, and which the Economist described as “unsurprising” and as “general mayhem”.
The Greek Education Tax lasted about a year and was abandoned as a failure
The trial deserves better than a prosecution barrister without judge, jury or defence.
My child has spent three years in the independence system. She is overachiever because she has the space within the classroom to ask the question ‘why?’ which is answered. She is a thriving nine-year-old child. She is strong, she is independent, she is excelling in sports, she comes home in thrilled and tired and stimulated.
In my area, there are three schools that have space for her school years. They are all in desperate measures.
I ask anybody who has read the two paragraphs of text above… to convince me that she is not going to be harmed by leaving the independent system and going to an oversubscribed school that is in desperate measures?
We all can agree that the state system should be providing better. It isn’t because it is massively under funded. But also I don’t need to be a barrister or an accountant or a politician to realise that this state system isn’t going to get significantly better within two or three years on a £1.6 billion cash boost from adding VAT to independent education. I’ve done my sums with the help of a friend who is in finance at a very large UK LEA and they can’t get the number above £423 million.a year clear profit from this new VAT based on a 10% fall out.
As a lawyer, perhaps Starmer should adopt the fundamental principle of another profession and "first, do no harm". So, rather than claiming there's no evidence of harm, he should be able to present us with evidence of benefit, before making the change.