There is something crudely simplistic about Alex Salmond’s big announcement yesterday. You can sense the naked strategising behind the opening policy salvo in the Holyrood election campaign (with my personal image being an Apprentice style table, the FM as Lord Sugar and the Shadow Cabinet nervously pitching their ideas to the boss)
‘A holiday on St Andrew’s Day?’, ‘We’ve done that till we’re Saltire blue in the face’, ‘Bring back the rail link?’ ‘No chance!’, ‘Ok, Ive got it. The spiritual home of the Left, the biggest concern for voters and a nice big round number – let’s promise to spend £1bn extra on the NHS’, ‘Love it, you’re hired. Now, lunch…’.
Or something like that.
In the good old days (four years ago) the SNP wasn’t a party that just reacted to problems but sought to prevent them happening in the first place. Free School Meals, SFT and, recently, Minimum Pricing. Ideas that I’m sure will remain SNP policy and, arguably, the public and some Opposition parties have not yet caught up with.
Scotland won’t better itself with an army of doctors and nurses waiting in the wings for our inevitable sickness caused by poor diet, low exercise, increased smog and a penchant for booze, drugs and smoking. To be the party of the NHS these days is to risk being the party of profligacy.
Holding firm to the unpopular but ultimately correct course of action is frustrating with elections to be won, a media to satiate, a party to hold together and daunting poll results so has the SNP blinked already and opted for that old New Labour solution of throwing money at problems? Surely a confident Government would be promising to keep NHS costs down through presiding over a healthier populace, not boasting that costs are going to have match our lamentable standards?
There is of course the Scottish Greens who so often eschewed opposition for opposition’s sake and voted alongside the SNP for Minimum Pricing and Free School Meals while not being afraid to stand alone and fight for a Land Value Tax, an alternative to the Forth Bridge and better insulation for current housing stock. Perhaps it is because the Greens have less to lose but on current evidence they seem most likely to have the stomach and the belief to follow their principles through into May.
Set against two parties content with consoling its public rather than intent on leading it, the Greens look a good vote for a more robust Parliament.
#1 by Mike on January 26, 2011 - 10:07 am
I see it just as a commitment to a key social institution under threat of explicit privatisation after years of covert (PFI) privatisation under Labour.
Key blue water between SNP and marking it out as a party of the left. There’s definitely room for innovation and holism in health and social policy but the NHS – one of the concepts that used to define and bind ‘Britain’ needs defending. Be clear – it is under attack.
#2 by aonghas on January 26, 2011 - 10:17 am
The NHS ‘needs defending’ and we’re gonna do it with the extra money that comes to us due to increased spending on the NHS in England and Wales.
Something doesn’t quite add up there…
#3 by aonghas on January 26, 2011 - 10:12 am
I really don’t get the SNP – I skimmed a piece in the Scotsman recently where they were painting themselves as enemies of big government intent on ‘getting out of the way of business’, and now the message is ‘lets get tons more money from magic land and chuck it down the NHS hole’.
I can’t agree with you on the Greens being more credible though – their policies are even more pie-in-the-sky. Frankly who is worth voting for? No idea. Maybe the Lib Dems for the first time since that one school election many years ago 🙂
#4 by Jeff on January 26, 2011 - 10:28 am
Which Green policies do you have down as “pie-in-the-sky�
I fear the Greens have an historic image problem that they just can’t shake off despite reality. Look at what they are actually proposing and it’s pretty much bang on the money at every turn; on the economy, on the environment, on transport, on how we approach food, etc etc
#5 by Douglas McLellan on January 26, 2011 - 12:37 pm
Increasing taxes is pie-in-the-sky. Lets, for the sake of fantasy, say the the SVR was available and that the Greens got a majority. They want LVT but that will take some time to sort out. Three years at minimum. So raise taxes in the meantime?
Raise the SVR? Raise the taxes paid on the lowest paid is the only option. Not even the hated, allegedly evil Coalition will do that. Opposite in fact.
Oh, and LVT on personal households is regressive.
#6 by James on January 26, 2011 - 12:48 pm
LVT on personal households is regressive
This is simply untrue, and repeating it doesn’t alter that. See figure 10 on p16 of Andy Wightman’s report here (pdf).
#7 by Douglas McLellan on January 26, 2011 - 1:35 pm
I have that report printed out already. Respectfully, I disagree with you that the Table you have highlighted refutes my allegation of regressiveness. There is a difference between saying that something will result in a lower tax bill and the fact of the in-built disconnect between a tax and income (which is how I perceived regressiveness in a tax).
The Q&A section does highlight that a move to LVT would mean some people having to pay more despite having low fixed incomes.
Under LVT it is possible to buy a house with a land tax that the householder finds acceptable. However, if improvement in the surrounding community drive up land values (better transport, better schools, better environment, better retail and employment opportunities etc). This then drives up the LVT facing that householder. No matter that their income may not have risen or, in the case of many pensioners, has been fixed. Yet LVT demands that they pay more as they sit on a more valuable piece of land. One idea is to then not charge as much during their occupancy/lifetime but then to take a charge against their home that is sought when they move or die. Given that Councils are looking to equity held in houses to pay for care, we could end up someone owing lots in LVT taxes and care costs. And own no realisable asset.
#8 by Douglas McLellan on January 26, 2011 - 11:39 pm
I provide argument about the regressiveness of LVT and no Green ever manages to respond.
#9 by Jeff on January 27, 2011 - 8:08 am
James replied in no uncertain terms and did better than comment but pointed you to a report showing how much more progressive it is.
You of course drew a different conclusion though seem to want those in Bands A-D to only pay lollipops and badges for local taxation. Difficult to argue against that.
#10 by James on January 27, 2011 - 8:27 am
Thanks Jeff. “Some people on lower incomes own more valuable assets” doesn’t make LVT any more regressive overall than “some people with higher incomes own less valuable assets” makes Income Tax intrinsically regressive.
If public investment makes a property significantly more valuable, as per your last paragraph, the home-owner has received a capital windfall which has been paid for by the taxpayer. LVT is the only tax which fairly captures that private benefit. If the homeowner likes the new amenities or otherwise wishes to stay, they will pay a little more. If they don’t care about the new school or railway station, they can sell and move and receive a capital windfall. Hardly hard done-by.
#11 by aonghas on January 26, 2011 - 6:39 pm
OK Jeff, I’m going to go and read the Scottish Green Party website, to see if you’re right and I’m out of date. 🙂
#12 by Stuart on January 26, 2011 - 12:35 pm
Please Aonghas, do tell which Scottish Green policies you think are “pie in the sky?”
#13 by Douglas McLellan on January 26, 2011 - 10:14 am
But really, who is to blame for this? Parties or Voters?
The NHS is some freaky shibboleth that voters only think of in terms of money. More money = Better NHS. But money = something is how many voters and parties think. Take minimum pricing for alcohol for example. The argument that if you make something cost more then people will use it less hasn’t worked on things like petrol & cigarettes. With alcohol the increasing the price will not stop the Friday night fighters.
It will also do nothing to help reduce NHS admissions regarding alcohol abuse. Stats show that by far the biggest entrants to hospital with liver issues are people aged 50+ who have an income that would easily absorb minimum pricing. It is a long term health issue that needs preventative thought as is suggest by Jeff. Not the quick fix of putting it out of reach of the alcoholics on benefits.
Voters like a balance of optimism/aspiration and protectionism. Depending on where we are on a political/economic cycle will influence how those things are balanced. People feel under threat due to the economic situation so will be looking to Holyrood to help protect them. Thus the SNP have had to ditch the idea of aspiring to change Scotland to offering to protect it.
A LVT is a regressive tax that takes no account of someone ability to pay. I think it would be a good thing on commercially held land though. And I have not seen smog in the Scotland in my lifetime. Maybe I am lucky though.
#14 by somepapfaedundee on January 26, 2011 - 10:24 am
Why not just ‘simple’ instead of ‘crudely simplistic’?
It is a simple proposition certainly, why crude though? And simplistic is so much more pejorative than simple, eh? Simple things frequently have virtue, but the simplistic never seem to.
Your ‘Apprentice’ vignette certainly frames things as simplistic and crude, but that’s really about your framing of things rather than things themselves.
Perhaps in the time from the ‘good old days’ to now the SNP government has demonstrated that it is indeed a party that seeks, where it can, to act rather than react. Surely churlish now to simplisticly assume that because they seek to maintain the NHS in Scotland to levels they feel adequate, rather than passing on the ideological whims of ConDem Westminster they are now subject to being generalised as simply a reactive force in Scottish politcs.
Your framing of the situation – that it’s being done because the SNP think Scotland will be better by virtue of having an army of doctors and nurses – is IMO a sly slant on the the more reasonable and obvious notion that the SNP government believe Scotland will be worsened by *reducing* the size of the that ‘army’ of healthcare workers, and their consequent position that they will seek to prevent it.
What ‘correct course of action’ is this? Cuts at the bottom, loopholes at the top, the private sector will save us, trickle-down theory redux for the 21st century? You’re surely not serious?!
Again, it’s simply your presentation to say that ‘they’re throwing money at the ‘problem”, alternatively; they’re trying to use the money they are doled out to maintain what is obviously a critical tool in addressing problems. If the problem you refer to is the health of the population, SNP government have – by you’re own admission – tried to proactively address it, and that they will continue to do so, it is therefore unfair to try to represent the desire to maintain the NHS in Scotland as some kind of futile, unthinking, and reactionary strategy of ‘throwing money at the problem’, and that they now no longer have any will to raise the the health of the nation.
Jeff, if you know how to arrive suddenly at a radically healthier populace in time for the next parliament (and without requiring legislation to do it) just tell the First Minister and I’m sure you’ll be the apprentice hired 😉 Wishful thinking aside, how is it that an announcement that the NHS will be protected categorically precludes the betterment of standards in the NHS?
So the Greens sometimes acted like a genuine and rational political party. So what? That’s what I expect of political parties. Just because the Greens didn’t debase their position and the parliament at every opportunity is no cause for self-congratulatory back-patting, despite the fact it separates them from the coalition for opposition.
The Greens are a no vote for this election. ‘More spending cuts and tax increases folks, it’s medicinal and for your own good’. I doubt very much that when our economics are systemically broken, and the cost of everything is on the rise, the idea that that after the the Tories, the LibDems, and the Bank of England doing everything they can to squeeze the bulk of the population while offering tokenism in tackling the parasites at the top of the economy, the addition of the Greens telling people that more tax for them and cuts to the public sector are the hardly going to set them apart is it?
I’ll be stunned if the Greens return an MSP.
Has the SNP started to give in? I don’t believe so.
#15 by An Duine Gruamach on January 26, 2011 - 10:52 am
Hm, you’ve confused this simplistic cybernat, Jeff. The SNP *have* tried the proactive, preventative measures. They were voted down. What can they do? Keep introducing and re-introducing the minimum pricing bill until the end of the parliament? Send nice letters to Glesca cooncil asking them to use money for school meals rather than cocaine parties?
When these routes have been blocked they have to try something else.
In any case, this is a spending commitment, and does not in any way preclude *also* implementing more proactive measures should the SNP win in May.
#16 by Jeff on January 26, 2011 - 11:09 am
It sounds a bit like you’re agreeing with me An Duine that the SNP has thrown in the towel. You ask what else the SNP is supposed to do and my answer would be to stay the course. Eight years of an SNP Government and ever rising NHS bills would not be a good legacy, irrespective of how difficult minimum pricing and free school meals are to implement. But they are at a crossroads with this election – (1) back their original ideas, put them front and centre of the campaign and trust that they’ll be returned with an increased number of MSPs or (2) take the easy way out and promise to throw a £1bn at the NHS as a flagship policy and make everyone feel good in the short term while overlooking the overall problem.
I can understand if they do opt for the second option but it still smacks of giving in to me.
#17 by Chris on January 26, 2011 - 11:00 am
Maybe we should accept that in an election year there will be a lot of pie-in-the-sky. All parties will do it and political purists and other generally honest people won’t like it.
It is interesting watching the SNP defending a record in government and being faced with making hard choices rather than just saying anything. It’s a long journey from the days of Alex Salmond sending pizzas to the 50 Labour MPs and other silly stunts.
#18 by Chris on January 26, 2011 - 11:07 am
The problem the SNP has that it decided to go into minority government, rather than with the LIbDems: because the LibDems wouldn’t countenance a referendum – which the SNP didn’t put forward anyway.
By failing to build a coalition they really were doomed. Both the Lib/Lab coalition in Holyrood and the ConDem one in London shows how a major and minor party can balance off their interests if they are prepared to work together.
#19 by Colin on January 26, 2011 - 12:54 pm
Eh? It was the Lib Dems who refused to negotiate with the SNP, who were prepared to do so.
#20 by aonghas on January 26, 2011 - 6:12 pm
Well, the LDs had a red-line issue and the SNP had a red-line issue which prevented either from agreeing. It ended up that there was no referendum put in front of the parliament anyway. At the time, I was quite angered by the LD attitude and favoured a minority government, but in hindsight it’d be interesting to imagine how things might have turned out with a coalition.
#21 by Chris on January 26, 2011 - 1:08 pm
Life isn’t that simple. Negotiatons could have been undertaken with some determination and maturity.
If any party puts itself so far into a a corner that no one will negotiate with it then it doesn’t really have a right to complain that it can’t get anything done.
#22 by James on January 26, 2011 - 1:16 pm
Colin’s right. I was part of the Greens’ negotiating team and we tried several times to get the Lib Dems even to sit down with us and/or the SNP, no preconditions (e.g. on a referendum), and they simply wouldn’t.
#23 by Doug Daniel on January 26, 2011 - 4:53 pm
That’s an intriguing little insight. I had always assumed they had at least made an effort to reach an agreement, but were just being obstinate about the referendum. I had no idea they wouldn’t even go that far.
Any idea who the main blockers were? I’ve always assumed it was Tavish, because even when Nicol Stephen was the leader, he seemed the most vociferous when the referendum was mentioned. But maybe that’s wrong too.
#24 by James on January 26, 2011 - 7:47 pm
The impression I got was that it was driven by Tavish, and by a sense of bitterness at some losses (especially George Lyon).
#25 by aonghas on January 26, 2011 - 6:15 pm
Ah, interesting detail indeed James.
#26 by Mike on January 26, 2011 - 2:10 pm
I really don’t follow the logic of your argument that backing the NHS is ‘giving in’ Jeff – can you talk us through it?
What is it a retreat from (in your opinion)?
Given the fact that the LibToryLab pact today shot down any attempt to control mega supermarkets and the same bunch shot down Min Price for Alcohol the only people ‘giving in’ to big business are the unionist black block (© Mike)
#27 by Jeff on January 26, 2011 - 2:18 pm
It’s quite simple really Mike. Increasing NHS costs, above the rate of inflation (as the boast goes, bizarrely) is unsustainable unless we want to spend less on the rest of the budget every year onwards.
Blindly going along with picking up the cheque for whatever our health costs are is a retreat from the strategy that healthier lifestyles, more regular checkups and better diet can actually reduce NHS costs which, surely, should be the aim.
If more people are getting sick then of course provision should be made but it’s nothing to be cheerful about if you ask me.
Is there any reason why we shouldn’t aim to beat the Japanese with their macrobiotic diets and impressive mortality rates? After all, one of the best Macrobiotic staples is that old Scottish favourite…. porridge.
All I’m saying is, flinging money at the NHS isn’t aiming high enough as far as I’m concerned.
(but I of course take your point that the main villains of the piece are opponents of min pricing and proponents of mass produced, high-fat quick food)
#28 by AliMiller on January 26, 2011 - 9:04 pm
You are far too much of an Idealist Jeff, those kinds of public health changes would require a generation to effect and lots of money.
Plus even in everyone was to stop smoking drinking and eatting bad food tomorrow and start exercising regularly and eating a good diet it would still not deal with the principle reason for increasing costs which is the increase in the number of elderly people who no matter how good their lifestyle are going to get ill.
#29 by Jeff on January 26, 2011 - 10:19 pm
I am definitely too much of an idealist; I take that as a compliment (and I think you meant it as one too).
I guess where I’m coming from (and I’m probably just repeating myself) but I work with people who celebrate every other day with a plate of cakes from Greggs in the morning, shared flats with people who drink themselves ill every weekend (and many school nights) and know many people who don’t get their heart rate up to a high level in a month let alone every day as suggested by doctors.
I’m no paragon of virtue but, barring any unfortunate accidents, I’m 99% sure that I will pay more into the NHS than I will take out of it in services. Now, I honestly don’t really resent that but I do resent a Government that is not willing to change a status quo that is quite clearly unsustainable. You say that the NHS needs funding above the rate of inflation and any change to that is basically unworkable. How can that be ok? How can that be the end of the story?
I can read a trend graph as well as you can I’m sure, the money will inevitably run out if we don’t get smarter about this and only after schools have deteriorated, public transport gets worse and councils are squeezed even further due to the NHS being a drain on the budget.
What are you suggesting I do about that? Shut up, pay my taxes and be glad I’m not American?
The SNP gets this more than most other parties (and looking above this comments seems a bit ranty which it really isn’t meant to be (i’m dog-tired)) so please don’t read it the wrong way. It’s just borne out of a frustration for a Parliament that promised so much and it seems to be slipping away.
Maybe all elections around the world on Day 1 involve the Opposition battering the hell out the Government and the Government making a big eye-catching announcement before the real debate starts so, idealist? Yeah, you’re probably right.
#30 by AliMiller on January 27, 2011 - 4:44 pm
Oh it was meant as a compliment! And yes I appreciate the despair of being is a situation where a lot of money is going on dealing with the self-inflicted woes of the populace. The smoking in public ban is seeing real effect and other Public Health measures are vital. Minimum unit pricing along with other measures are needed, and also action on sexual health is an area where big long term savings could be made.
The problem in my view is a question of fairness. As you rightly point out, is it fair that those who are obese/smokers damage their bodies and expect the government to preserve them? Is it right that a healthy person who pays their taxes sees the quality of their child’s education drop to fill the NHS funding black hole? Yet if money was diverted to public health initiatives from healthcare is it fair for a pensioner with a bad hip to wait for twice as long for a hip replacement?
Perhaps the NHS could be stricter with treatments for the obese/those that smoke? But the reaction to that would probably be that those that smoke would not disclose it. And to lower the standard of care for the obese throws up some big ethical issues.
An approach to satisfy all sides of the argument in the debate would be very difficult to find. I know the “spend more money” is reminisent of the New Labour days, but the SNP still has Minimum unit pricing to complement spending.
Most of the SNPs non-spending orientated policies have met really bitter oppositioin in the Parliament and Press: MUP, LIT, Independence referendum ect. After being beaten (politically not intellectually) on so many issues, they need something like this which is electorally bullet-proof.
#31 by AliMiller on January 26, 2011 - 2:16 pm
Jeff, I think you may not be fully appreciating what this £1 billion extra means – it wont be able to add to the “army” of doctors you speak of, rather it will maintain it at best. As the cost of running the NHS rises faster than inflation, this money will only acheive the protection of what we have.
Few people, and absolutely no person who is/has been ill, want to see cuts in the NHS, and today we should be celebrating that the SNP will protect the NHS. If you disgree with me, watch SICKO by Michael Moore, that will demonstrate how lucky we are to have it.
#32 by aonghas on January 26, 2011 - 6:21 pm
Sorry, but I’m afraid SICKO is propaganda and shouldn’t be cited it as evidence for anything.
As I understand it the NHS gets worse results in various metrics than other countries’ health services, even though we have upped its funding massively in recent years. But as somebody once said, it’s the closest thing we have to a religion these days, so is sacrosanct. I think rather than simply shovelling more money into it there must be scope for looking at how it’s run. (yes I really do think that, and I don’t eat babies, honest)
#33 by AliMiller on January 26, 2011 - 8:58 pm
Oh I know its primarily propaganda (especially the going over to Cuba bit), but you cant ignore the fact that we have a free Health Service which is currently at a good enough standard.
The reason it is so “sacrosanct” is that there are many people out there alive who would not be if we had the American system, people and their families really appreciate that.
Of course there might be ways to look at how things run though, but as I said, this “shovelling” of money is merely looking to preserve it. The alternative is peopel not getting life-saving drugs, operations not going ahead, short staffing ect. I know that sounds effusive but its the truth. If there is tangible reforms which maintain quality while seeing costs decrease then they should be considered but they would require time and substantial analysis to deliver, and in the meantim extra money is vital.
#34 by Indy on January 26, 2011 - 3:12 pm
I don’t think you get this Jeff. This is not about increasing the number of NHS staff, it is about maintaining it – I just realise that I have said the same as AliMiller there, oops!
I am prepared to be ageist here. You probably do not remember the days when hospital patients had to lie on trolleys in corridors because there were no beds available or the cases where people had to wait so long for NHS treatment that they died before they got it. That happened all to often and people don’t want to go back to those days.
The other factor that people often forget – perhaps deliberately – is that we have an ageing population. People live for much longer and they therefore require more medical treatment in their old age. That costs money.
We are already seeing debates about the types of treatment that should be available for geriatric patiients. These kinds of debates are not going to go away but they should not be based on money – as they would be if we have to start rationing resources.
Regarding the comments about throwing money at the NHS etc. I am sure everyone here knows that the UK spends a much LOWER percentage of its GDP on healthcare than countries which have largely privatised healthcare systems. The US spends almost 16 per cent of GDP on healthcare despite the fact that (in our eyes at least) they barely have a healthcare system. On the other hand you can buy plastic surgeons who will do pretty much anything if the price is right. France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Norway – all spend more on healthcare as a percentage of GDP than we do.
So it is not about what you spend, it is about how you soend it. Those who favour a market-driven system should be honest enough to admit that this would lead to increased healthcare costs, both for individuals and for employers.
As for saying is this the SNP giving in the towel. No I don’t think so. It is more like them throwing down the gauntlet. Labour will surely lose the election if they do not match the SNP’s commitment, yet matching it means that they will have to start talking about their own spending plans, which they don’t want to do.
#35 by Erchie on January 26, 2011 - 3:42 pm
I am surprised at the Greens, yet again.
Thanks to PFI and inflation, just staying still in terms of the NHS provision requires more cash to be spent on the medical side of the budget.
ANd this has been discussed here before, so you have no excuse
#36 by Michael on January 26, 2011 - 4:37 pm
Oh, that’s a funny one about the SNP having made a mistake be being a minority government. Unlike those exciting, dynamic, inspirational Lab/Lib coalitions we had for the first 8 years of this Parliament. Which in practice meant the supine Libs rubber stamping whatever lacklustre policy idea that Labour came up with and allowing the most pointless and dull series of FMs and Ministers to get away with basically arsing around playing at grown up politics.
#37 by Burdzeyeview on January 26, 2011 - 8:57 pm
I agree with Jeff (mostly!)
This is crudely simplistic electioneering. What the SNP has retreated from is their stance in government on delivering outcomes. Putting £1 billion into the NHS is an input – what is it going to deliver? Some key health targets have been achieved (but again more like outputs – waiting times etc than outcomes). By any stretch, the picture on outcome related health targets is mixed – reduction in hospital acquired infections, reduction in neonatal deaths – outcomes achieved (though arguably fixing problems caused by NHS in the first place), others have failed – increased breastfeeding, obesity etc. Indicating a need for reform in how NHS does things.
I repeat £1 billion to do what exactly? The input should not come without strings attached in terms of improving health and reducing the ongoing costs of our health service.
#38 by somepapfaedundee on January 26, 2011 - 11:30 pm
Type your comment here
The lion’s share of that billion is required to maintain current levels of activity in the NHS i think, the draft budget (on the Scottish Govt website) does include some info on what the breakdown of spending is and compares it to the last year’s.
The draft budget document also mentions both of the strings you’d like attached to that projected expenditure.
That’s not to say that you’d necessarily find their proposals satisfactory, but there is some actual information there.
#39 by Indy on January 27, 2011 - 10:05 am
“Putting £1 billion into the NHS is an input – what is it going to deliver?”
Keeping people alive?
Look at the demographic trends. The number of people aged 65 and older in Scotland is expected to rise by about 60 per cent from around 800,000 in 2002 to around 1.3 million by 2042.
That has huge implications for the NHS.
Why do so many people not want to discuss this?
People who want to cut NHS spending need to be honest about the implications of that.
#40 by Observer on January 26, 2011 - 9:04 pm
I think I agree with Jeff here, if he is meaning what I am meaning. You can’t protect the NHS in isolation, which logically must be at the expense of other budgets.
Take Indy’s older population – they don’t just rely on the NHS – they rely on local government services to keep them out of Hospital in the first place. Cut back on carers budgets, cut back on the housing disabled adaptation budgets, cut back on sheltered housing provision by cutting the housing budget & you run the risk of more older people bed blocking thus increasing the cost to the NHS.
That is just one example prompted by Indy.
Public services should work together if you protect one then you inevitably cut the others & that doesn’t really make sense.
I could chunter on with loads more examples but I hope you know what I mean.
#41 by somepapfaedundee on January 26, 2011 - 11:13 pm
But if you don’t protect it, it suffers. There seems to be an unspoken assumption that the ‘extra’ money the NHS will get is to grow it or something, as i understand it, it’s to maintain it at roughly the level it is currently at. We risk damageing a critical service if you don’t protect it.
The desire to keep people out of hospital in the first place is laudable (you’ll find bits about it in the draft budget if you go and have a look), but you need to be sure those systems are working as you’d hope *before* you start effectively removing resource from the safety net surely.
If were possible to immediately improve the health outcomes of the Scottish populace now, then starting a process of cutting the unarguably large flow of money to the NHS would be reasonable – but Scotland aren’t going to magically turn on to Jeff’s macrobiotic diet overnight.
As you say, you can’t protect one area without preventing that same sum from going to somewhere else, it works both ways though.
You think the safety net should be cut before we adjust the rigging; maybe it’s the right time, maybe not, but characterising one view on it as crude, simplistic, electioneering as some would have it is unfair.
#42 by Indy on January 27, 2011 - 10:38 am
Except that the current thinking is to bring community care under the NHS umbrella. That’s the way both Labour and the SNP are heading.
#43 by Doug Daniel on January 27, 2011 - 1:48 am
Incidentally Jeff, there are going to be another seven campaign launches by the SNP after this one – I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that the next seven announcements will include the following (and in this order):
– Small Business Jobs Plan (i.e. job creation)
– National Parenting Strategy and Education Rights and Responsibilities bill (i.e. education)
– full roll out of the “No Knives, Better Lives” piloted scheme and a recommittal to action on alcohol abuse (i.e. law & order)
– expanding the Climate Challenge Fund to support the development of Carbon Neutral Communities (i.e. climate change)
– a Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill and a National Litter Strategy, as well as creating Local Endowment Funds and Social Impact Bonds (i.e. community)
That’s what the SNP website seems to be suggesting, anyway. I would be surprised if we don’t also get announcements on: the council tax freeze and possible replacements; the SNP’s preferred choice for university funding; renewable energy projects; and, with any luck, a big independence announcement as the Pièce de résistance.
Essentially, the SNP haven’t run out of steam, because the real campaigning has yet to begin. I think March would be a better time to start asking if they have or not (but then again, it’s never too early for a bit of pontification and political geekery, and this post has clearly stirred up a lot of debate amongst us Scottish politics junkies).
#44 by douglas clark on January 27, 2011 - 9:31 am
Jeff,
You say:
“It’s quite simple really Mike. Increasing NHS costs, above the rate of inflation (as the boast goes, bizarrely) is unsustainable unless we want to spend less on the rest of the budget every year onwards.
Blindly going along with picking up the cheque for whatever our health costs are is a retreat from the strategy that healthier lifestyles, more regular checkups and better diet can actually reduce NHS costs which, surely, should be the aim.
If more people are getting sick then of course provision should be made but it’s nothing to be cheerful about if you ask me.
Is there any reason why we shouldn’t aim to beat the Japanese with their macrobiotic diets and impressive mortality rates? After all, one of the best Macrobiotic staples is that old Scottish favourite…. porridge.
All I’m saying is, flinging money at the NHS isn’t aiming high enough as far as I’m concerned.
(but I of course take your point that the main villains of the piece are opponents of min pricing and proponents of mass produced, high-fat quick food)”
Sure, but what else do you do when you have an epidemic? For that is what it is. It doesn’t strike me that ‘fat boy’ Grey has ever considered a meal without having chips with it.
It is all very well to tell us all to eat sushi. Is that going to be Green policy?
(I quite like sushi. Not so sure I’d want to eat it all the time though.)
#45 by Jeff on January 27, 2011 - 10:04 am
Well, it won’t come as a surprise to you that I don’t set policy for the Scottish Greens; you know, not even being a member and all. Not everything has to be seen through the narrow prism of political parties you know.
And Scotland as a whole would be better off if more people ate Sushi but I’d settle for those that currently do eat the stuff not getting sneered and jeered at as much as they currently do for not having a pie & chips like ‘normal’ people.
You ask what we should do when there’s an epidemic. I’m not necessarily against NHS spending going up, but it shouldn’t be a flagship policy if it doesn’t address the underlying issues.
#46 by Indy on January 27, 2011 - 11:02 am
The underlying issue is the demographic one. I’ll give you the figures again. The number of people aged 65 and older in Scotland is expected to rise by about 60 per cent from around 800,000 in 2002 to around 1.3 million by 2042.
That means year on year we will have an increasing number of elderly people requiring to access healthcare. Even if you eat sushi all your life, by the time you get to your 80s things are going to start to go wrong.
What is the alternative to ensuring that the NHS is funded to enable it to accomodate the increased demand that we know is coming?
#47 by Jeff on January 27, 2011 - 12:23 pm
As ever, perfectly fair points Indy.
With an underlying issue of an ageing population, I hope you can still agree that increased spending on the NHS, while necessary in the short term, is not a long term solution.
Do we need to boost immigration levels in Scotland to keep tax receipts high? Do we need to control Corp Tax and slash it to stop the ‘brain drain’? Do we need to foster a strong sense of family so that elderly relatives are looked after within the family home as happens in places on the Continent?
I hope, and I do expect, that these issues will all come out in the coming campaign so, yes, perhaps I’m too harsh on the SNP in saying they’re ‘giving in’ when there’s a full 98 days to go. One is always stricter with the ones they love though, right? 😉
#48 by Douglas McLellan on January 27, 2011 - 12:54 pm
The point Indy raised and you have mentioned is an excellent point. The SNP were really the first party to take their heads out of the sand to really address the issue of an ageing population. Their reshaping the care of older people agenda is an excellent attempt at cross party party thinking on the matter. It is a pity that on occasion the response by other parties has, on occasion, been lukewarm at best.
Immigration will be key in the care of older people. In the timescale pointed out by Indy there will be a tremendous change in the population, not just more older people. If Scotland were to continue to provide the care and services to older people that it does just now (i.e. no new policies, no new money, no new ideas) then by the early 2030s every school leaver in the country will need to work in sectors care for older people. There will be far fewer younger people and people of working age than there are now and far more older people needing care and their pensions paid.
The SNP have taken a real lead in this and I will be interested in how it plays out in the campaign.
#49 by Douglas McLellan on January 27, 2011 - 12:45 pm
Sorry for replying down here to the point above. For some reason I can only quote. Not reply.
I have to confess to a level of confusion. I have heard much about the regressiveness of VAT as poorer people have to pay more of their income on VAT when it went up compared to richer people. I have heard the same thing about Council Tax. Yet having to pay more in LVT, regardless of level of income, is not regressive? Where is the difference? I never argued that Council Tax is less regressive than LVT, I am just highlighting that LVT is a regressive tax the same way that Council Tax and VAT are.
I am prepared to say when I get things wrong. I am openly prepared to question my own MSP (Purvis) when he needlessly attacked the Greens in Scotland. I openly agree with some Green policies (fishing quota/stocks for example). Yet I still cant see how a tax that is not related to ability to pay is not regressive.
Oh, and is it now Green party policy to say to older people to that they should leave their homes that they have lived in, raised a family in, perhaps even had a partner have end-of-live care because they cant pay the tax on it? Which has gone up through no action of their own?
I think that there are excellent merits to LVT when it comes to commercial land or land that is undeveloped or held in a land bank by a developer or supermarket.
#50 by Stuart on January 30, 2011 - 5:23 pm
Hi Douglas,
Firstly, thanks for bringing some sensible, non partisan debate to the local taxation discussion. I think everyone appreciates it when debates are built on genuine questions and thoughts rather than on who’s party is right.
As someone who does support LVT, I think you’ve raised a good point- but I would also argue that you could go through every taxation system and find some level of regressiveness within certain situations- Is it regressive when someone who earns £12k pays the same rate of income tax than someone on £25k- I just don’t think you can just use income as a measure of regressiveness/progrssiveness.
So, the particular circumstance (out of hundrededs of different circumstances that occur in our society) you’ve raised is the elderly person living in a relatively large home. I personally don’t think this is a debate about someone who is retired, more how wealthy someone is. I can use one example here- my fathers father bought his house in the 50’s for £3,000- it is now worth £650,000- a good capital gain and he would probably pay a considerable increase on his investment in an LVT- he could probably use a small amount of that capital gain to pay the 3-4% LVT. I can’t imagine that many people in a similar situation would struggle to pay this?
So, going by the above example, a wealthy person could afford to buy the home, and has an asset that has gone up considerably in value- so they could technically pay for the tax. On the flip side, elderly people who either own a small home or rent will in the first instance pay a lot less tax, or not pay tax at all.
I believe there has been a disconnect that has lasted for well over a century between capital and assets vs income- why do we continually rely on income as a tax base- it isn’t particularly stable, is ultimately a tax on work, and in its current form I would argue is regressive.
So, I guess what I’m saying here is that there are lots of different circumstances in society and no tax will ever be perfect for everyone (some people would perhaps say no tax??!!) But I still believe that taxing the land would have more benefits for most of society than the Council tax or more income tax. It doesn’t tax tenants, it would be a natural control on spiraling property prices (which is the source of the global collapse in markets), it would encourage an end to derelict/vacant land, where it has been implemented it has encouraged economic growth (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) and it follows the rule that, in general, if you can afford to own land and benefit from the increase in values, then you can afford to pay the tax.
#51 by Douglas McLellan on February 1, 2011 - 1:28 am
Thanks for the response.
I think income tax is a progressive method of tax in that you never pay more tax that you can afford as you know that it is dependent on your income.
As I understand it LVT is an annual tax. Even if it is levied at 2.5% will your grandfather be happy at paying £16k in tax? Each year? Or would you tell him to move if he couldn’t?
I think that one of the problems of being concerned with capital and assets as a source of revenue for government is that it implies a level of concious thought on the captial/asset purchaser. For example, my gran bought a very good (antique) tea set on her marriage many decades ago. The value now far exceeds what she paid and is far above the Capital Gains Tax threshold. She wanted to sell them when she moved into council care (they were pretty much her only asset) to help pay for some additional services. But if she sold them she would be liable for CGT. So they are now in safe storage and will be sold upon her death (the value is nowhere near the level of inheritance tax). She did not intend to make herself liable for a large tax bill. Neither did your grandfather.
My concern with LVT is that by introducing it now it penalises those who did not see themselves being penalised. It could also have an unintended consequence – communities might feel that they are already being taxed highly and seek to avoid improvements in their local environment – like campaigning against new schools. Which would be odd.
#52 by James on February 1, 2011 - 7:45 am
If your grandpa has to pay £16k per annum if it’s levied at 2.5%, then his land alone is valued at £640,000. Looking back at Andy’s report, residential properties (as opposed to the land they sit on) in Scotland are typically worth 125% of the land, meaning poor old grandpa’s overall property value would be an estimated £1,440,000. My guess is he can afford to pay £16k per annum. See how progressive that is?
#53 by Douglas McLellan on February 1, 2011 - 1:36 pm
Oops. Sorry. I misread that. Serves me right for doing this stuff at half one in the morning. My sums were totally wrong.
I think we have to disagree on what progressive means in that I still think that for a tax to be progressive it needs to take into account peoples ability to pay it. LVT does not do that.
Here is an example for you – the CAB in Edinburgh are currently helping a 93 year old widow with her finances. She lives in the Grange in a very very expensive house. Her total income is the basic pension a women gets when over 85 without her own pension contributions (plus credits). They inherited the home over 60 years ago and even when her husband was alive difficult to maintain but, and I truly believe this is important, it was their *home* and they were not for selling. She still isnt and receives support to stay in her own home. She could not pay LVT at that rate and I think that the Greens should do the research into life expectancy of older people when they are forced to move home rather than choose to move home.
The benefits (economically, financially and environmentally) of LVT for business is well worth considering. Not being able to fully know my own tax liability as it is based on factors beyond my control is a little disconcerting for me as an employed person. It would my much more worrying for an older person or even a person in their 50s heading to retirement.
#54 by Laura on January 27, 2011 - 3:39 pm
I think Jeff is right, and the Burdz Eye View also got it spot on.
The SNP made some imaginative changes in 2007, with policies that crossed departments and a change of focus to outcomes. Boasting about how much money they will put into the NHS reminds me of the bad old lib-lab coalition days where they simply managed a budget without vision. A disappointing start to their campaign.
#55 by Indy on January 27, 2011 - 4:56 pm
What nonsense. The Lab/Lib Exec put all that extra funding into the NHS for a reason – because the system they inherited from the Tories was so awful.
People waited years for operations. It was, as I said, not unusual for patients to die before they received treatment.
Don’t be so dismissive of the improvements that have been made.
#56 by Laura on January 28, 2011 - 7:21 pm
Nonsense? A bit harsh. I’m certainly not dismissive of improvements well-placed funding allows.
But the Tories say they are protecting funding levels, and look at what they are doing with it! Labour wasted millions of that extra funding on poorly-considered PFI deals (Hairmyres, anyone?).
Funding levels are not everything.
The SNP have protected services from the market forces that are sadly being let rip in England. The direction of travel for the NHS is very different now. I hope to see them fighting on this ideological platform, not simply how they will divide the money they get given.
#57 by Renée Slater on January 29, 2011 - 12:12 am
Laura – Check out the cuts by SNP and LibDems in Aberdeen!! Where facilities and funding for people with leaning and mobility problems were Ring-Fenced under Labour/Libdem coalition at Hollyrood – The SNP has broken to the utter horror of people here! Centres – homes – and other facilities are being systematically dismantled by the SNP/Libdem coalition in Aberdeen sending very needy people back to lonely houses with a massive lack of support. The SNP should be ashamed about what it has done here. It has spent it’s time kowtowing to the likes of Donald Trump and ACSEF and does little for the people who voted them in!! – See 86 year old Molly Forbes at Menie Estate http://bit.ly/gLx7e0 and the lack of statement on Compulsory Purchase orders. So be careful Laura of what you wish for!!
#58 by Renée Slater on January 28, 2011 - 9:54 am
Raiders of the Last Park
On Wednesday 19th May 2010, Aberdeen City Council voted to support the destruction of Union Terrace Gardens and the replacement of these with Sir Ian Wood’s vision of a City Square.
Many of Aberdeen’s citizens think this was a wrong decision for several important reasons:
1. It has destroyed Peacock Visual Arts proposals for a new Arts Centre in the existing gardens which would have made the gardens more accessible and provided handy facilities such as cafe and toilets.
2. No economic case for the City Square has been made and the mechanism for the £90m+ not “gifted†by Sir Ian Wood would mean tax rises for local businesses.
3. The gardens themselves are used and loved. They are a vital cultural, historic and environmental asset to the City.
4. 55% of the people in the City Square consultation said No to the City Square proposals. Despite this ASCEF (Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future) wanted to pursue the issue and the City Council has agreed to this.
Aberdeen’s City Councillors have a fundamental duty to “represent their [constituents’] interests conscientiously” (source: The Scottish Government, Code of Conduct for Councillors) but have voted contrary to the public’s views following a consultation process that cost over £300,000.
For an excellent step-by-step analysis of the story so far, read Fraser Denholm’s blog.
What can we do?
There are thousands of people angry and upset at the prospect of City Square and the destruction of Union Terrace Gardens. If people work together, this can be stopped. There are sound planning reasons to keep the gardens and no economic case for their replacement with City Square has been made. So let’s group together as Friends of Union Terrace Gardens and do what we can to conserve and improve this beautiful part of our city. Click on the “Get Involved” link on the left to find out how you can help; or join us and make your voice heard..
More information here > http://friendsofutg.org/
#59 by James on January 28, 2011 - 10:15 am
A little off topic, but a good cause, so..
#60 by Doug Daniel on January 28, 2011 - 4:56 pm
The thing that annoys me about the campaigns to save UTG is that there’s often an assumption that because people don’t want Ian Wood’s silly plan to fill the gardens up with concrete (which one senior counciller told me would actually end up INCREASING the amount of green space, incidentally…) they automatically want the Peacock Visual Arts plans to go ahead instead. This allowed the debate to turn into Peacock vs Ian Wood, when the debate should really have focussed on conservation vs Ian Wood.
Most people want UTG left well alone and just utilised more, and a quick browse of online debates about the UTG plans reveals that before Ian Wood waded in, people were against the PVA plans because they just wanted the gardens left as they are. Quite right too, as they’re a grand spectacle. Although they’re not used nearly as much as people like to make out – the only times I’ve seen that place buzzing with folk has been when they’ve been trying to make a point. It’d be a great place to put on regular outdoor concerts, though.
#61 by Renée Slater on January 28, 2011 - 8:06 pm
Doug – I completely agree with you. PVA is now dead. The only reason it got support was because it was a better alternative than the ACSEF/ACC monstrosity! The voice by FoUTG is to open up the gardens for the sort of things you mentioned. I would like to see summer play-schemes there for the local children as many of them have no garden – ie Rosemount Square. There are no proper toilet facilities and people are forced to use those dirty mobile WCs or go to the Art Gallery. As far as going into the gardens – that is a bit unfair! I make a point of going into them at least twice per week – weather permitting. But I don’t have to go into them to appreciate the wonderful canopy of trees. The new Civic Square will never have mature trees if the roots have to dig themselves through a concrete car par roof. I am very concerned that the SNP – supposedly representing the community of Scotland has not argued for local representation on the City Square Project Implementation Team! Are they worried that local people will see their plan for what it is – a stitch up? I am afraid the SNP are in for a shock at the next election in Aberdeen in May. They aught to travel on public transport as I do and you will hear how people feel about the handling of the UTG consultation and how they feel about how politicians listen!!
#62 by Renée Slater on January 28, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Type your comment here
The above is a quote directly from FoUTGs web site – Please support the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens.