The media pundits and the blogocracy have got their regular metaphor of choice for the Budget. It’s high-stakes poker, and you can see why. John Swinney publishes a draft Budget/deals, then each party decides how to respond/play their hand. Infamously, in 2009 the SNP thought we weren’t committed to the insulation scheme being universal/were bluffing, and when the cards were shown/buttons pressed, it turned out we weren’t. Pocket rockets.
The analogies continue this time, although I can’t work out what the poker equivalent is for the Tories siding early with the SNP and supporting what’s effectively an Osbornomics cuts Budget: suggestions welcome. Equally, by voting against such an ideological Budget at Stage One the Greens have apparently folded early. It doesn’t feel like that to me.
It’s a flawed and misleading metaphor, and its time has passed. Perhaps in previous years, with the overall pot rising, that might have been a justifiable way to see the new minority-Parliament Budget process. But not now.
Now the decision before Parliament is whether or not to sanction about £1.3bn worth of cuts. Even if, like the SNP and the other opposition parties, you’re not prepared to take a serious look at raising revenue (despite the options we’ve already proposed: 1, 2, 3 etc), that’s what a Yes or an Abstain means. There’s a lot of ink spilt about this being a centre-left country, but the reality is that they’re four of a kind on the revenue vs cuts issue.
But it’s not about the men and Margo around the table. As per my comment elsewhere, the parties are not playing a petty game to determine who gets a good headline, or they should not be. It’s a year of Scotland’s public services, services relied on by the vulnerable, the ill, the homeless, the working poor and the unemployed. These are the most crucial set of decisions made in Scottish politics. John’s chosen a Tory budget, and that’s the real reason the Tories were in the bag before it began. They’re not playing a good hand, they’re recognising one of their own. A pair, if you like.
It was a poker post on the first class Burdz Eye View that got me thinking about this. She’s not alone – the CalMerc followed with one the next day, and I’m sure I’ve used the metaphor myself before. Here’s the Herald in 2008, and there’s a story missing here which suggests the Sun actually posted Budget coverage to poker.thesun.co.uk
It’s compellingly simple. John, Andy, Derek, Jeremy, Patrick and Margo are the players. The aim of the game for the opposition parties, the argument goes, is to walk away with a good headline and a nice wee pot while the banker runs the game. It’s not even how it works – by the time there’s a full house in the Chamber the decisions have (generally) been taken as a result of a series of bilaterals. If you’re determined to find a games analogy, it’s more like Bohnanza, except it’s always the Minister’s turn.
The more the media and the bloggers treat it as a game, any game, the less seriously the real-life impacts of these cuts on communities across Scotland get taken. There are no points of principle at stake in poker – it’s just about your hand, how you play it and what you can take from the others. There’s a principle here, though – do we believe in public services or do we want lower taxes?
It all comes down to the Lib Dems now, they say. The Greens should step straight in and get a good deal, I’m told. Sure, we could no doubt negotiate for a little here or there, but it’d be set against those thousands of job losses, the thousands of vulnerable Scots who rely on local services currently under threat so John Swinney and the Tories can work together. If the SNP would rather try again (that’s perhaps the most important article on this year’s Budget)Â and find a centre-left consensus and look beyond the retailers levy to limit the cuts, we’ll be happy to talk, but any left party that backed this particular Budget in these circumstances would be a busted flush, pure and simple.
#1 by Burdzeyeview on February 6, 2011 - 8:11 pm
Actually, I was thinking of five card brag when I posted my analysis! Seriously though, it is simply an analogy to describe each of the parties’ positions. I’ve been a councillor, before the good times rolled when Brown was sticking to Tory spending plans, and I’ve been in a position between choosing between cuts. I get how serious this is. But in a situation where the budget is what it is, or has been passed on from Westminster, it behoves all MSPs to engage seriously in the “game” of determining which cuts where.
To stand up at Stage 1 and take a highly politicised position without offering to engage properly in the debate and offer up real alternatives rather than platitudes is to do a disservice to the Scottish people. Taking your ba’ away in such a serious piece of legislative business at the earliest opportunity is not what we elect MSPs to do. In my humble opinion!
I’ve a blog post coming lamenting councils’ failure to make changes to how they do budgets and instead opt for the easy option of passing the cuts along yes to the vulnerable in our communities. Shame on them. But the biggest shame will be the impact on our communities and their most vulnerable citizens.
#2 by James on February 6, 2011 - 8:15 pm
“..which cuts where..”
That’s not our starting point. We’re asking where can we most fairly raise revenue, and how much? What you describe is at best the second stage. If we start there, to quote War Games, the only way to win is not to play.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on February 6, 2011 - 8:32 pm
And that point is the key failure I think of the Greens and some of the other parties. A reduced budget is not, in of itself, a bad thing.
I’ve posted responses on other articles on this blog referencing both council waste & NHS Waste as well as council expenditure that is far removed from services to the “vulnerable, the ill, the homeless, the working poor and the unemployed”.
Until a local authority in Scotland turns around and says here are the figures. The real figures. The figures that show what they legally have to provide under varies pieces of legislation. Here are the figures that show what we have to spend to make that mandated spend meaningful. I want to see the local authority that stands up and says we cant even deliver those two points first and foremost without superfluous spending elsewhere.
But none of them can.
#4 by somepapfaedundee on February 6, 2011 - 9:20 pm
So where can you ‘fairly’ raise revenue?
#5 by James on February 6, 2011 - 9:27 pm
I have linked to three suggestions above. Feel free to disagree with the detail though.
#6 by somepapfaedundee on February 6, 2011 - 10:27 pm
Ok, followed your links –
I don’t believe the Large Business Supplement hike you want would get through Holyrood any more than the the ‘supermarket tax’ did. Sure, the political cover of ‘unfairly impacting a single sector’ (wtf sort of BS is that?) is gone, but on the other side of the scales raising the levy ~300% would have big biz in its entirety pressuring the opposition – No chance, IMHO. Even if it did, surely we all know by now that none are more adept than banks and energy sector firms at passing externally imposed costs down the chain – ultimately to me, so thanks.
Council tax – I’ll not lie to you James, I’m right on the edge. If the council tax goes up – i’m f****d. My services won’t improve, my finances will suffer. I don’t think it’s something that the SNP can continue with in perpetuity (nor should they want to, the costs of services do go up), but local govt services are appallingly inefficient and I think the concordat gave local councils the cover required to really try and tighten up – most didn’t. You’re telling me you want to push me and my family over the financial edge, so that I can hand a lifeline to some very inefficient organisations.
As for levying appropriate taxes on vacant property, you’ll get no argument from me. The more the green party want to get on the job about the inequities around property and land, the better.
I’m sorry you feel badly that the SNP’s budget decisions aren’t the same as the Greens. I’m more sorry that the result is to seek to paint them as tory bagmen north of the border (original stuff), but in know you’re in the politics ‘game’.
The fact of the matter is that in real terms, it doesn’t matter which Scottish party’s ‘budget’ gets passed – it’s all completely within the context of the UK Conservative/LibDem budget; it’s just some Scottish flavouring over a UK handout.
That’s the real problem. Slinging metaphors or mud about on the basis of how best we align our wee Scottish cogs to the gears of London is as far from radical as I can imagine – the radical solution is independence.
#7 by cynicalHighlander on February 6, 2011 - 8:34 pm
Type your comment here
Try the richest and not try to cream a little of the majority who are going to suffer Westminster’s cuts thanks to Labour/ConDems mismanagement of the UK economy. Until Scotland gets FULL FISCAL AUTONOMY, at the least, we are stuck playing games with our pocket money parliament.
By playing games we dance to UK’s tune as they don’t give a tosh as long as they can keep control of our energy which is the key driver of any economy.
#8 by Laura on February 6, 2011 - 9:05 pm
I don’t see what you won from taking that position, James. You are doing a disservice to green policies. Even something as simple as a doubling of the climate challenge fund would have made a massive difference – but you got nothing. It may be a principled place to be, but it’s also a wasted opportunity. Margo is far wiser on this one and gets what she can for the Lothians.
#9 by James on February 6, 2011 - 9:28 pm
In poker terms, we didn’t win, and I’m sure that Margo will as usual. But I’m rejecting the metaphor because the overall direction is so flawed.
#10 by Steve on February 6, 2011 - 9:33 pm
I respect the green’s position, but I think that politically they’ve been a bit of a let down in the parliament. They don’t seem to behave in ways that are commensurate with their power. No one in the parliament wants to put up taxes, apart from the snp with their already defeated rates increase. It isn’t going to happen.
The greens held the balance of power on the issue of local taxation. They could have used this power to help us get a fairer local tax, whether property based, income based or a bit of both. Had they taken that chance their calls to increase local taxation might be less detrimental to lower income families and so harder to resist.
I wrote to my local green MSP setting this out a few years ago and I didn’t get a reply.
Politics is to a large part about power and timing, and the greens blew it on local tax, and they blew it at the last budget too, which they brought down, cutting their call for increased funding for home energy saving measures out of the budget in the process.
#11 by James on February 6, 2011 - 10:49 pm
Steve, the only thing that was on offer was a national salary tax, one which would have rewarded the tax avoiders and those who live off their assets and share income. We’ve been trying to get a better property tax through to no avail.
I’m also mystified by the logic that because the others haven’t agreed with us we should just vote against our views. Ain’t going to happen.
#12 by Douglas McLellan on February 7, 2011 - 12:24 pm
“reward … those who live off their assets and share income”
You write this as if it were evil and should not be countenanced.
Can you not develop policies that contain nuances? Not every property owner is a speculator and exploiter of the poor. My aunt has retired. She has no private pension. She was lucky enough to be in position to downsize from a larger home and used the difference in capital to arrange finance for two other properties which she rented out. She uses Shelter approved contracts and has a high occupancy rate has her rent is cheaper than surround homes and takes housing benefit.
She paid PAYE on her income. She pays tax on her rental income. What has she done that is so wrong?
My uncle (different side of the family) and his wife live off his share income. Those shares were from a company that he built from nothing, launched on the stock exchange, grew it more, too a few risks and then sold to a multi-national for shares in their company which provides for him and his wife. He paid tax at every stage of that cycle. He worked hard, created employment for others and rewarded those who invested in his company. He never arranged a pension as it was always his ambition to live off the proceeds of his company. What has he done that is so wrong?
Not every property owner is Duke of Westminster. Not every share owner is a private equity corporate raider.
#13 by James on February 7, 2011 - 12:29 pm
I’m not saying it’s evil – merely that taxing one form of income (from salaries) but not others (from shares and property) is unfair. Please, no more straw men today.
#14 by Douglas McLellan on February 7, 2011 - 2:09 pm
OK. No more examples. But how is it unfair? Who is avoiding tax and how? Can there not be a difference between an individuals behaviour post-tax economic behaviour (like my examples) and complex (yet legal) tax avoidance schemes favoured by the very rich?
How many times does a person need to be taxed? As far as I can tell (I may be wrong and am open to correct) it appears that you want an earner to pay income tax (more than they do just now), then pay taxes on purchases (goods, services, assets & investments), then pay taxes on any income received from those investments and assets. In any given £1 how much tax do you actually want.
There are tax avoidance schemes that need to be shut down. I totally agree with that. There needs to be a better tax system for land ownership and economic activity on that land, I agree with that.
All income is taxable after certain allowances. If you think that too many people are evading taxes then advocate the recruitment of more inspectors. If too much is lost in avoidance, advocate closing the schemes.
The Greens do vote with their principles and policies. I just wonder how effective that is. Does this ‘all or nothing’ approach actually help “vulnerable, the ill, the homeless, the working poor and the unemployedâ€. I suspect it doesn’t.
#15 by Steve on February 7, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Statements like all that was on offer was a salary tax aren’t very helpful. I’d have thought that of all the parties the greens would be most in favour of a legislative process that is open, fluid and allows for changes and compromise as a bill goes through parliament. What was on offer was a starting point and could have been amemded and improved.
Instead we’ve gone from majority partnership politics where the Scottish Executive pushed their programme through parliament to minority government where progress on issues constantly gets blocked by parties unwilling to compromise.
#16 by James on February 7, 2011 - 9:01 pm
We would certainly have tried to improve the Bill, much as we couldn’t support taking property out of tax and putting an undue emphasis on on sort of income. We’d have proposed amendments to allow local authorities to choose between a mix of taxes, including land value tax, a Burt-style property value tax and even the salary tax.
But a “salary tax” really is just what they proposed. “Income from savings and dividends and other types of unearned income, such as gifts or loans would not be subject to income tax due to the potentially prohibitive cost and bureaucracy associated with collecting these types of income may prove.”
And then they withdrew it before it came to Parliament.
#17 by Burdzeyeview on February 6, 2011 - 9:41 pm
Look what you started James! ;o)
#3 Douglas, one council I know of have at least taken a different approach to budgeting but you’ll have to read Tuesday’s blogpost to find out which one! Not sure it will have achieved what you are looking for but certainly taking a more honest approach to funding.
#18 by Douglas McLellan on February 7, 2011 - 12:10 pm
I look forward to it. The honesty thing is important because I really think that council spending falls into three broad categories – have to spend, should be spending, want to spend. Whilst there is obviously a blurring at the edges of these three spending areas I want to know why spends in the first area and in some in the second area are cut due to a desire to spend in the third.
#19 by Doug Daniel on February 7, 2011 - 3:23 pm
This is true, and Aberdeen council are a perfect example of this. Hundreds of people possibly being made redundant and projects such as an Olympic-sized swimming pool at the new Aberdeen Sports Village site possibly being dumped, meanwhile they’re pressing ahead with Sir Ian Wood’s Civic Square vanity project, because apparently it makes sense to spend £140 million you don’t have, just because some old rich dude is waving £50 million in your face.
Perhaps councils need to have some powers revoked. Maybe they shouldn’t be in charge of spending money on capital investment, and just leave them to running services instead?
#20 by Douglas McLellan on February 8, 2011 - 2:00 am
Read it and totally agree on the issue of incredible lack of foresight and better planning.
#21 by Dubbyside on February 6, 2011 - 9:57 pm
I looked at your proposal Number 1. Not a lot of detail there, specifically, how many vacant properties are we talking about? How much revenue would this raise if it could all be collected?
As most business premises are empty for a reason, what % of these business premises were owned by companies or individuals that have ceased trading or have gone bankrupt? Who will pay the rates due on these premises?
How many more companies will this tax drive into bankruptcy if they are forced to continue to pay rates on locations that they have been forced to vacate as they are no longer viable? A prime example would be town centers that are no longer viable due to supermarkets opening out of town centers.
#22 by James on February 6, 2011 - 10:47 pm
The UK model has exemptions for small properties and for the first six months. If it’s not too dangerously lefty for Dave Cameron I reckon we could stomach it up here.
#23 by Dubbyside on February 6, 2011 - 11:33 pm
So can we take from your answer the following.
You do not know the number of vacant properties.
You do not know how much revenue this would raise.
You do not know the the % of these properties where the owners have gone bankrupt or ceased trading.
If the UK model has exemptions for small properties how much income would be lost because of this?
I suppose there could be some comfort to companies, in as much as they may defer their bankruptcy for six months, as they would not have to pay rates for six months on properties that they have had to close as they were not viable.
Who cares about Cameron? This is Scottish companies and in a lot of cases individuals who have had to close non viable businesses that we are talking about.
#24 by James on February 7, 2011 - 8:07 am
Disagree with the policy, but don’t be an insufferable jerk.
Most recent Scottish Government data – the exemption costs £125,917,000 (table 2.12). When the UK Government closed the specific loophole we’re talking about in 2008-9, the cost of the exemption to the taxpayer fell by 62.4%.
#25 by James on February 7, 2011 - 12:14 pm
And yes, I’ve held your further reply for trolling. Feel free to try again, but ignoring information you’ve been given and pretending otherwise will see future comments held too.
#26 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 9:10 am
Great post James. I do see the budget round as a game but I don’t work in Politics so can perhaps afford to humour myself by counting it more as entertainment than I perhaps should. I totally accept the argument that raising revenue is preferable to meekly implementing cuts, while nonetheless mindful that many are on the edge financially.
I will say this though – the Greens, at a political and even sometimes at a personal level, can come over as a bit huffy. I just worry that this gambit, sorry philosophical objection, will reinforce that stereotype at an inopportune time, electorally speaking.
#27 by James on February 7, 2011 - 9:53 am
Fair point. It’s certainly weird being in a Chamber where, on a number of issues we care about, all the other parties share a single indistinguishable view. Voting against them is essential on those occasions, but I can see how it might look.
#28 by CassiusClaymore on February 7, 2011 - 11:10 am
James
In a previous post I explained why the vacant property tax doesn’t work, and linked to reportage regarding why it didn’t work in England.
You didn’t respond – would you like to do so now?
As a generality, calling for Scots people/businesses to be lumbered with a heavier tax burden than those in England/Wales is a recipe for depopulation and (economic) depression.
You are effectively saying that Scots should pay more tax due to the failure of a Labour Westminster government to properly manage the UK economy. Sorry, but that’s an abhorrent attack on the ordinary honest working people of Scotland.
CC
#29 by James on February 7, 2011 - 11:39 am
In that case I’m showing how businesses could pay the same rates in Scotland as elsewhere to offset the cuts.
#30 by CassiusClaymore on February 7, 2011 - 12:13 pm
Surely you’re not seriously saying that abolishing empty property relief will “offset the cuts”? Will it raise 1.3bn p.a.?!
You’d be lucky if it raised £1.3m. It’s just far too easy to avoid. This is a proven fact.
CC
#31 by James on February 7, 2011 - 12:20 pm
What’s wrong with you people? Follow the link – it’ll raise an estimated £75m. It’s just one measure to “offset the cuts”, not something that can “cancel the cuts” by itself. Saying something’s “a proven fact” without any supportive evidence is the kind of utter mince you expect from climate change deniers.
#32 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 12:25 pm
CC, surely that’s a similar objection to those who said ‘minimum pricing isn’t worth it because it won’t stop people getting drunk and raising hell’, as if there is one single, golden solution to every ill in each Government department when, in reality, you need lots of little solutions before real progress can be made.
Also, an ‘offset’ doesn’t necessarily mean in entirety, you get partial offsets of which this would be one. I offset my regular Easyjet journeys by rigorous recycling but I don’t think for one second that the carbon footprint of one matches the carbon saving of the other.
#33 by CassiusClaymore on February 7, 2011 - 12:54 pm
James/Jeff
Empty property taxes are easy to avoid. Here are some of your options.
1. Don’t build a building until you have an occupier tied up. Here, your tax is disincentivising speculative construction activity (which means, amongst other things, construction jobs).
2. Build a building, but don’t finish it. Unfinished buildings aren’t taxed. In this scenario, your tax blights the urban environment with unfinished and unoccupied buildings.
3. Instal your own ‘tenant’ until you find a real one. This ‘tenant’ is a newly incorporated company, which you allow to bear the tax burden and eventually go bankrupt. It’s like a corporate version of a human shield. In this scenario, your tax actually costs money rather than raises it, as councils try in vain to recover taxes from insolvent entities with no assets.
4. Let a charity ‘occupy’ (on paper, but not actually) for free. Charities are exempt from the tax and regularly collude with landlords to allow the latter to avoid taxes, in exchange for a donation to the charity. Here your tax does nothing except serve as an elaborate mechanism to incentivise property developers to donate to charity.
You may say I have no “supporting evidence” – but I have professional experience of all of the these scenarios. They are normal, not exceptional. Only disorganised/uninformed businesses end up paying these taxes. For a business in receipt of appropriate professional advice, these taxes are effectively voluntary. I appreciate that this may be an inconvenient truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.
The spending cuts are imposed on the Scottish Government by Westminster. The block grant is the block grant. The only question left is how you spend it. If you insist on punishing Scots for the failings of the previous Westminster government then many will see your policy as unjust and unjustifiable.
Jeff – on a point of order, James said “offset” not “partially offset”. Hence my comment.
CC
#34 by James on February 7, 2011 - 1:01 pm
And Jeff and I already distinguished “offset” from “cancel”.
CC, we’d also bring in urban vacant and derelict land which tackles points 1 and 2. Points 3 & 4 are fraud, so..
#35 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 1:12 pm
Yes, I can’t combat the (seemingly perfectly valid) detailed points but I would imagine the Committee stage of any Bill (ha!) would see to them or, for now, James with that mountain of knowledge of his.
I will say (again) that “offset” can mean partially or in entirety, although it really isn’t worth focussing on.
And there seems to be a sense, certainly from some comments on this blog, that some people want tax rises or cuts that won’t hurt anybody at all and we can all somehow come out as winners.
#36 by Douglas McLellan on February 7, 2011 - 6:24 pm
Of course we cant come out of this situation (or even go through it first) with everyone being winners. There will be losers. So it depends on who the losers are.
So what can a single term of the Scottish Parliament achieve. It could not implement a LVT in a short timescale and even the SVR will take time to implement. Raise council tax? Politically difficult. So we have a situation where business taxes may have to take the biggest hit. Yet how is this done without damaging the Scottish Economy? There is probably an answer to that question but I dont have it too hand.
So what to do – make cuts? Yes. Make cuts in needed services. No. Not yet. Why is Aberdeen spending tens of millions on something it doesnt need? Why do councils spend money on things that are not needed but are only wanted?
That is where there would be losers. People doing the jobs that the public sector doesnt need. Its harsh and I am glad I am not one now (and I have applied for several in the past). But I also have to wonder why so many people stay in such jobs when the dark clouds are gathering so thickly that even a mole can see them. I have moved jobs a few times as the firms were changing and suffering. Even now I know my job is not wholly safe (both from an organisations financial position and possible changes in service provision) and I make regular applications for other jobs that offer a longer period of stability. Some pay more and others pay less. I wonder why those in the public sector dont.
#37 by Indy on February 7, 2011 - 6:35 pm
Douglas, managerial staff in local authorities/NHS etc are applying for redundancy at a rate of knots.
There is an issue there. It’s fashionable to say that we don’t need managers but when you have a situation where service directors – and in many cases their deputies too – are all applying for redundancy at the same time then we will lose a massive amount of experience at one swoop.
#38 by Douglas McLellan on February 7, 2011 - 7:37 pm
You have a point. But a proper redundancy procedure/policy should have the option for the employer to reject the application. My last experience redundancy 14 months ago did. I am not questioning the need for managers (although there are perhaps, in some councils, one or two too many layers of management). I am calling into question some of the various activities of the councils and whether or not they are needed.
#39 by CassiusClaymore on February 7, 2011 - 1:31 pm
James
If you ‘bring in’ 1 and 2, then you disincentivise investment in urban regeneration.
3 and 4 are not “fraud”. They are both legal avoidance strategies and widely used south of the border and, formerly, here. Fraud, in Scotland at least, has the essential requirement that the perpetrator intentionally misleads another person, who suffers a loss as a result. Letting your property to a related company, or to a charity, involves nothing misleading whatsoever.
You’re going to tell me in a minute that I have adduced no “evidence” on the latter point. In anticipatory response, I’ll say that it’s very difficult to prove a negative proposition, but that the total lack of anyone ever suggesting that these measures are fraudulent are decent evidence that they are perfectly legal. That would be my legal opinion, certainly.
Of course, many people find the occasional abuse of limited liability corporate structures to be morally wrong. I’m sure that there are many such people in Green circles. However, that ship has pretty much sailed and it’s a bit late to reverse the decision In Re. Salomon.
CC
#40 by Indy on February 7, 2011 - 4:19 pm
It is not a good idea to bring any policies into play solely as a means of offsetting the cuts (either wholly or partly). Any party which puts forward a manifesto saying we can avoid cuts by doing X,Y or Z is likely to fall flat on their face.
LVT may or may not be a good idea, abolishing tax relief on empty properties may or may not be a good idea, increasing council tax may or may not be a good idea but these measures should be assessed on their own merits, not brought into play as a panic reaction to having the budget cut.
#41 by Steve on February 7, 2011 - 4:47 pm
Nonsense, as has already been said, any policy needs to be considered in context. The context is the cuts, and the argument for increasing income tax using the svr would probably be a bad idea ordinarily, but is currently less bad than the alternative which is to implement the Tory’s cuts.
And there’s a difference between a panic reaction and an urgent response.
#42 by Jeff on February 7, 2011 - 4:51 pm
Don’t some people say that the financial crisis is proof that Scotland needs to be independent? What’s the difference between that and any other policy argument in favour of LVT/Counciltax/empty homes etc?
(I do agree with you though)
#43 by Indy on February 7, 2011 - 5:29 pm
I don’t know if people say that the financial crisis is proof that Scotland needs to be independent. I certainly don’t. I think Scotland should be independent because I think it makes sense to elect a Scottish government to work for Scotland rather than the current arrangement – where we can end up being governed by a party most Scots did not vote for.
Regarding Steve’s point. I think the correct response to the situation we are in is to look at specific measures such as, for example, having a temporary pay freeze for people earning over 21,000 in the public sector. There are things that can be done to reduce expenditure, Equally there may well be things that can be done to increase revenue but let’s distinguish between measures which are to be brought in on a temporary basis to deal with a particular situation and changing policy in a major way. It would be madness to fundamentally change policy in any area on the basis that we need to fill a hole in the budget next year. You have to take a more long term approach than that.