On Wednesday John Swinney will start the long election campaign with the publication of his draft Budget, and his usual deft political sense appears to have deserted him.
We can tell a fair bit about his plans from the detailed advance briefing provided to the newspapers. First, and most inevitably, he will seek to continue the Council Tax freeze. The share of local services being funded through local taxation is diminishing, and so too their responsibility and accountability to local voters: but the advantage of this for the SNP is pure politics.
Having spent previous campaigns making a progressive case for fairer taxes and protecting public services, the SNP have apparently decided they can only win by claiming a crude low-tax position. Labour have rightly recognised that the freeze is untenable, given the consequences for local services, but their position still feels weak and nervous. If you’re aiming to top the poll, raising taxes may well be a brave move, but there has never been a greater need for devolved Ministers to find ways to raise more revenue.
The second frankly bizarre proposal from the SNP is to shift revenue spending into capital projects. Revenue spend is what pays the wages, and this shift is what is driving the cut in public sector pay they’re also floating – a cash freeze of course being a real terms cut.
Ministers would have us believe that the boost to capital budgets means “schools’n’hospitals”, but a quick look at the actual figures shows where this money will go in the longer term. By 2011-12, next year’s Budget, the absurd additional Forth Bridge will begin to be a massive drain on the capital budget, costing almost 50% more than the current total capital spend on education across the whole of Scotland. By 2015 it will be costing us almost £400m a year, assuming the costs don’t rocket and it’s somehow managed better than the SNP/Lib Dem coalition are managing the trams.
For SNP Ministers, that’s what capital is, roads. If they were honest, they’d say “roads and roads”, not “schools and hospitals”. That’s their priority, hardly a surprise given their own lifestyles – I would say the most common single story I get asked for a Green comment on is an FOI request showing SNP Ministers’ absolute addiction to the car. The most recent one showed Alex Salmond being driven from Holyrood to Holyroodhouse. Literally across the road and the First Minister was either too lazy or too regal to consider a two-minute walk.
This is a government of back-seat policy-makers, where the world passes by through the car window, not the bus or train window, let alone being seen from the cyclist’s or pedestrian’s perspective. And a dire squeeze on public funds is being aggravated by their absolute road-building obsession. The last lot were bad enough for it, with the M74 extension and the Aberdeen Western Peripheral, but now it’s front-line services and public sector staff that will really pay the price.
That £400m a year cost for the additional Forth Bridge is, by coincidence, what the Treasury estimated a penny on the Scottish Variable Rate would bring in this year. Next time you hear Ministers object to using the tax-varying powers they once supported, remember you’ll be paying the equivalent of a penny more on income tax simply for Alex Salmond’s contract-signing photo-op, an event already scheduled for the election campaign and bizarrely backed by the non-Green opposition parties.
And so we know what’s coming. As Brian Taylor said on the Politics Show today, cuts, cuts and more cuts. Tory-led economic illiteracy driven from Westminster with Lib Dem assistance. Those Tory cuts now being handed on by the SNP, apparently to woo the Daily Mail. A Tory austerity drive which will apparently be accepted by Labour too. If the Scottish Greens’ conference hadn’t decided to offer the public an alternative, the chance to use the existing powers to raise revenue rather than waiting for Calman (let alone independence), then the public would be looking forward to a choice of five Parliamentary parties with nothing different to say, no alternative to passing on a variation of the same cuts.
Scotland is a country which voted by 63% to 36% in favour of a tax-varying power. A country which has consistently voted for more progressive politics than England favours. A left-wing nation led by Ministers determined simply to implement Tory cuts, afraid to use the powers we endorsed in 1997. A governing party obsessed with independence as the universal panacea but who cannot see how the case for self-governance is undermined by their refusal to use the powers they already have. Ministers who behave like the Daily Mail speaks for Scotland. A country whose two largest parties dare not look at an alternative to the Coalition’s cuts.
#1 by Stuart Winton on November 15, 2010 - 7:53 am
All very principled, James, but electorally the shortest suicide note in history?
#2 by James on November 15, 2010 - 8:31 am
I don’t know, but I don’t think so. For one thing, we’re not realistically aiming for 40% of the vote. In fact 7.5% in the 2009 Euros was our best ever national result. I’m sure there’s more than 10% of the Scottish public would rather pay a bit more tax than see the kind of cuts the others will be proposing.
Secondly, the alternative would have been dire. We’d have spent the next six months having either to lie to the Scottish people (“efficiency savings” and the like), or to propose a version of the same cuts ourselves. Time will tell.
#3 by commenter on November 15, 2010 - 8:11 am
We’re skint. The ecosocialist fantasies will need to go on the back burner. Upping taxes will ultimately shrink even further the paltry 40% of the economy that actually generates the wealth that you want to spend on everyone’s behalf.
#4 by Gaz on November 15, 2010 - 9:52 am
I think it is time to nail this nonsense about ministerial cars once and for all. This is continually used by observers as a tactic to discredit governments (of whatever shade) and, by extension, its policies.
Do you honestly believe that ministers just sit on their bum doing nothing while they are being driven around the place? Of course not – these cars are used as mobile offices for reading, calls and confidential briefings. Every 5 minutes during the working day is precious and should not be squandered lightly by choosing to dawdle down the road instead of maximising productive time.
If you expect your ministers to work hard and be on top of their brief then you have to give them every chance to do so.
Do we really want ministers who have to refer to notes hastily retrieved from a saddle-bag every time they are asked a question? No – we want ministers who have information at theit fingertips and who exude the confidence that only a command of their brief allows.
I also believe that any time official papers have to move with a minister they have to be transported securely as they are crown property. In short, the car is going anyway.
In terms of priorities I agree that the Forth Bridge replacement should be re-assessed. Even if a replacement is deemed necessary, I’m not sure the right option has been chosen.
I wonder whether improving the road infrastructure between Edinburgh – Stirling – Perth and Kincardine Bridge – Dunfermline might be a more cost effective fall back position?
#5 by James on November 15, 2010 - 10:02 am
The bridge is a far far bigger issue, and I’m happier to find agreement on that than disagreement about limos (although my preference would be boosting train capacity rather than roads elsewhere).
But one question on the limos: you know it takes longer to walk from Ministerial offices to the carpark at Holyrood than it does to walk from there to Holyroodhouse?
#6 by Colin on November 15, 2010 - 10:14 am
Perhaps the FM’s watching his figure.
#7 by somepapfaedundee on November 15, 2010 - 10:16 am
I’m a pedestrian first and foremost – when possible I enjoy walking several miles to and from work – so i’m all ears to a genuine proposal to change the country’s infrastructure to one less dominated by the car.
So, ‘stop spending on roads’ to one side, how exactly is it you plan on refactoring the transport infrastructure (and the residential, leisure, business and industry zones embedded therein), how long will it take(while not having the country grind to a halt), and how much is it going to cost? What is the plan behind the green soundbites?
btw – don’t you like Mr Salmond?
#8 by James on November 15, 2010 - 10:30 am
The change wouldn’t be all centrally driven, command-economy style, so the question is a little flawed. However, there are some pretty obvious short-term solutions and they’d all save money. Retaining the existing bridge would save a bit more than £2.1bn, whereas we could build Aberdeen Crossrail (£373m in 2003), Glasgow Crossrail (£130m in 2008), the Edinburgh South Suburban (£38m in 2008) etc etc all for far less money. With better public transport and a planning system that isn’t based on long commutes by car we’d see change begin. But, with reference to your last point, Mr Salmond has taken us no nearer any of this since 2007.
#9 by somepapfaedundee on November 15, 2010 - 11:27 am
The reason I asked my apparently flawed question (i’m not quite sure what a flawed question is) is that while the mainstream parties approach to transport planning is clearly not good enough, and frankly haphazard, it is nonetheless part of an overarching policy for how we ‘do’ transport infrastructure at the national scale. Note that the level of scale doesn’t dicate the mechanisms by which it is implemented, simply hte scale of the policy.
So to reframe my inadequate question a bit – I get the discontent with current transport infrastructure and future plans, I get the dissatisfaction with Mr Salmond et al in progressing towards a better model, what I don’t get from the greens is a a coherent plan for transport policy at the national scale spelled out in any detail whatsoever. I’ve been to the green site and can see none there either. Simply eschewing ‘centrally driven, command-economy style’ approaches in favour of some other bottom up approach tells me nothing unless you describe what this emergent approach is and how it manages to fulfil the aims of some clearly-formed national policy.
I’m actually very sympathetic to a radical refactoring of our national transport infrastructure, unfortunately IMO a few examples (obvious or not) and the insistence that these would constitute sufficient improvement in public transport to have people start commuting & school-running etc sans cars doesn’t sound like a coherent national policy at all.
I appreciate it’s a comment on a blog and you can’t spell out your party’s policy in that space, so could you perhaps point me to someplace where it is spelled out?
#10 by James on November 15, 2010 - 12:19 pm
I’m sorry if that sounded snarky – I just meant that there would be both costs and benefits from a move to a sustainable Scotland, that some of the process would take a long time even if we started now, that the costs and benefits would be distributed amongst taxpayers, employers, employees, and the rest of society, and no, you’re right, one example of bad spending and three examples we support isn’t a coherent national policy. Apologies again, but for now I think the 2007 manifesto remains the best place to point you to. Hope that doesn’t look like a cop-out, and yes, there’ll be a newer one along soon.
#11 by somepapfaedundee on November 15, 2010 - 1:04 pm
Cheers James, no need for kid gloves
You’re entitled to respond in whatever style you think best (or frequently without thinking at all if you’re like me) – i didn’t get ‘snarky’ from your comment – I just didn’t see the question as flawed, and all honest questions are legitimate queries imo (my style of response is as much a part of any misunderstanding).
I’ve reframed, you’ve responded, and all’s well with the world.
So please don’t feel any need to apologise, I certainly don’t believe any is required.
Thanks for the link, I’ll take a peek later on.
So assuming for discussion’s sake that the ’07 manifesto presents enough of a policy, do you think that meaningful progress can be made in this area to
a) advance the policy goals
b) do it without adversely affecting people’s day-to-day & the economy *as it stands*
within the current budget constraints?
What sorts of policies would have to be given up? or is it a case of the UK pays for austerity, and in Scotland (if we want greener infrastructure policy) we simply have to pay that and more?
#12 by James on November 15, 2010 - 3:52 pm
Well, I think you’re spot on at the end. UK Ministers have decided that austerity is required, and we dispute the economic wisdom but have only got relatively limted ways to respond to that.
The point of the bridge example is that if we scrapped it and saved £2bn plus then Scottish taxpayers wouldn’t have to pay as much towards a happier and more sustainable economy.
The scale of the squeeze on the Scottish block grant is such, though, that I’m pretty sure if we want to retain decent public services we will need to pay more taxes even so. I think that’s reasonable, responsible politics.
Someone suggested it was electoral suicide, and although we need to do a lot more work on the detail, it’s a risk in general terms that I’m delighted we’re taking.
#13 by somepapfaedundee on November 15, 2010 - 4:29 pm
I’ve no problem with not replacing the Forth road bridge. It’s a stature project imo – in our case demonstrating that we’re not just a wee pretendy – certainly misguided, foolishly so at the moment.
It’s certainly a risk you can afford to take, even if you fared badly electorally I don’t think it would be anything less than would be expected of your party. For the SNP it is much different, the green agenda is not the heart of that party, and to gamble at the ballot on non-core policy would surely seem senseless from their perspective.
Hopefully the the greens can find a way to develop an achievable, costed policy, that can be worked to from where we are now, that the electorate would find readily acceptable – If they do, I don’t think they’ll have to wait long for at least one of the mainstream parties to get on board – I guess that’s the real problem though, no such policy currently exists; the greens should keep on slugging though.
#14 by Indy on November 15, 2010 - 10:59 am
I think you will find that the SNP will go into the 2011 election with a policy of introducing a local income tax based on ability to pay. That is the SNP’s policy and it has not changed. Until such time as we can gain a majority for that policy – or for a form of local taxation which is based on ability to pay – we will campaign to keep the council tax freze. The reason for that is quite straightforward – because the amount raised by increasing the council tax would not, in reality, be quite small in the context of overall local government spending but the hardship a council tax increase would cause for pensioners and low income families would be significant,
If the Greens want to out knocking doors in working class areas and tell folk who are already struggling to get by that they will have to pay more council tax because the banks have messed up the economy and someone has to pay for it then be my guest. It would be interesting to see what kind of responses you get.
#15 by CSbungo on November 15, 2010 - 12:13 pm
Just to say I was recently unimpressed by the Green blogger & twitterer who recently told us that he would like to be without a car but has to buy a new one as he *needs* it to visit his girlfriend as it takes longer by public transport.
#16 by James on November 15, 2010 - 12:43 pm
Link please!
#17 by CSbungo on November 16, 2010 - 8:25 am
http://suitablydespairing.blogspot.com/search/label/Cars
#18 by steve on November 15, 2010 - 8:44 pm
I support an increase to income tax, and whilst it may be electoral suicide, it’s a shame that something that has majority support of the scottish electorate should be so electorally devastating.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/1110pollspendingbbcsb.pdf
page 40
#19 by Malc on November 15, 2010 - 9:10 pm
I don’t know that a poll of 1,000 people can be said to be the “majority support of the Scottish electorate” but that’s just my usual hang-ups with opinion polling talking. I’m also not convinced that just because the public think something is a good idea we should do it. Support for the death penalty in the USA apparently stands at 83 percent at the moment for example – but I still think the US is wrong to have the death penalty whether its citizens back it or not.
On the issue at hand… I don’t think going into an election (while the country is still economically weak no less) with the message that you are going to raise tax is ever going to be a vote winner. Electorally speaking, both are playing it safe. But that, I don’t think, precludes them from doing it if they win…
#20 by steve on November 15, 2010 - 9:28 pm
Fair point about opinion polls. But I didn’t say we should be doing it because it’s popular, just that it shouldn’t be such an electoral no go, especially given that it is (possibly) popular. You can pick examples to suit your argument but surely in a democracy, to some extent or another, what is popular needs to be translated into public policy, otherwise there’s not much point in voting.
I agree though that the parties aren’t going to offer this up. I am interested in putting this more on the agenda so politicians are ready to make that decision if they need to.
#21 by Malc on November 15, 2010 - 9:39 pm
Sorry Steve – that’s fair comment. All I was saying was that a) sometimes opinion polling can be misleading (read: wrong!) and b) majority opinion isn’t always “right” opinion (read: tyranny of the majority). I know that you were not saying we should do it because its popular – that we should be doing it because it is the right thing to do.
But you are right – perhaps now that the Greens have decided to back it, we may actually have a public discussion on the topic. But don’t hold your breath!
#22 by Stuart Winton on November 16, 2010 - 1:19 am
James @ #2
“I don’t know, but I don’t think so. For one thing, we’re not realistically aiming for 40% of the vote. In fact 7.5% in the 2009 Euros was our best ever national result. I’m sure there’s more than 10% of the Scottish public would rather pay a bit more tax than see the kind of cuts the others will be proposing.”
Indeed, so if realistically you know you’re not going to be forming a government then what’s the point of the policy? Wouldn’t the same people be voting Green anyway?
And if you’re saying that higher taxes might attract a few more votes then surely these people are being deluded because you admit that you won’t be forming an administration?
And even if the Greens have a bit of leverage in a hung parliament that’s unlikely to lead to a rise in taxation, so essentially tbe policy is little more than posturing?
#23 by James on November 16, 2010 - 7:54 am
Stuart, I think it’s the right policy. Thanks to a commenter above I see it’s also more popular than the party is (that Ipsos Mori poll shows 55% support), and I hope we get more than 7.5%. 40% would be unrealistic. I think we could be in government, although obviously not as the larger party, and that a really strong Green vote after this campaign would be a mandate to argue for looking at revenue rather than simply inflicting these cuts.
So in short, I see where you’re coming from, but the answers to your questions are:
1) I don’t accept the premise
2) No, I think this reaches parts of the public we haven’t touched before.
3) No, I think we can be in government, tough though the numbers and policy questions are, and I’m puzzled as to why you think I’ve ruled that out
4) And no again, I think that a strong Green mandate is now the only way Scotland can choose an alternative to just handing on all the Westminster cuts.
#24 by Stuart Winton on November 16, 2010 - 8:26 am
James, I admire your optimism, but if you get anywhere near the levers of power with that policy intact then I’ll abandon my car (joke).
But if you do have some influence on the next Holyrood administration then I hope that none of the Greens were criticising last week’s disclosure about the Lib Dems dumping the tuition fees pledge ;0)
#25 by James on November 16, 2010 - 8:54 am
I know you’re just teasing, but if you see us signing big pledge sheets committing to something (or the equivalent) then we’ll damn well stick to them. We do understand coalition and compromise.
Last time we had one red line: we would not enter talks with a party planning to build new nuclear power stations during the next Parliament.
#26 by Stuart Winton on November 16, 2010 - 1:36 am
Malc @ 20:
“b) majority opinion isn’t always “right†opinion (read: tyranny of the majority)”
There’s a few thread-worths in there Malc ;0)
#27 by Malc on November 16, 2010 - 8:19 am
You’re not wrong Stuart – its kind of what I was going for!
Pingback: Better The Devil You Know? « Better Nation