A full picture of the battle of ideas amongst the Holyrood parties is beginning to emerge with the SNP manifesto launched today.
I have not had a chance to read through it but the headline item appears to be the pledge to freeze council tax for five years, ‘beating’ Labour’s pledge by three years. The promise appears to be an extension of the narrative of this campaign so far – how much can one party promise with dwindling moneys in the bank.
Freezing Council Tax was initially supposed to be a short-term precursor to Local Income Tax but, as I predicted earlier this week, Local Income Tax does not seem to have made the cut for this manifesto – too tricky, too icky. Seemingly, a problem delayed is a problem solved for this campaign.
The rest of the manifesto seems very appealing, exciting even – 100% renewables by 2020, 130,000 low carbon jobs, early cancer detection, £50m for a national football academy (taken from the BBC report as Scotsman rather bizarrely has an “SNP rattled after Labour capitalises on anti-Tory fears†article rather than a more substantial take on the SNP’s pledges. I wonder who the publication will be backing).
The SNP giveaways are well judged but they are predicated on a shortfall in spending on a bridge that hasn’t been built yet. That doesn’t seem to be the firmest terrain to make promises on, though I suspect most voters won’t consider this when they come to deciding who to vote for.
The key consideration that I expect will be made is whether to back the SNP’s five year freeze on Council tax or Labour’s two year freeze. It’s no contest really so isn’t it lucky for Salmond that he got to release his manifesto later than Gray did!
Iain Gray is in a very sticky situation – he cannot attack the SNP for freezing the tax for five years while he has frozen it for two so what possible argument can be made for his policy in the debates to come? Labour’s chickens are coming to roost here in stealing SNP policies rather than fully forming their own.
Once again the ball is in Iain Gray’s court and once again he has to deal with a mess of his own making.
I’ve not even read their manifesto but it looks like upper hand to the SNP so far today.
#1 by Fraser on April 14, 2011 - 12:21 pm
Please someone tell me they are going to release it as a PDF, the website is really poor quality images and un-navigable!
#2 by Aidan Skinner on April 14, 2011 - 1:19 pm
It’s finally up here: http://bit.ly/dIuK4N?r=td
#3 by GMcM on April 14, 2011 - 1:20 pm
A five year Council Tax Freeze? If you’re unemployed that won’t affect you (Apart from the fact the SNP would probably underfund it again and you would be affected by reductions in services).
This has to be about creating jobs and for AS to say Govt can’t create jobs and it’s all on the private sector is shocking. I believe this is also the same line spouted by Cameron/Osborne.
Just leave the private sector to create jobs. They’ll be fine.
I don’t think the unemployed will find these promises very ‘exciting’.
#4 by Colin on April 14, 2011 - 1:26 pm
Perhaps not, but I think the SNP can appeal to the very positive employment figures from the last couple of months. Whilst nowhere near what we would like or want, surely it is a step in the right direction. If the SNP can raise employment in Scotland whilst it falls in the UK, what reason is there to think that they couldn’t continue to do this?
Furthermore, even if the can’t – I’ve seen very little from the other parties that would suggest massive job creation except bald statements of ‘create 250,000 jobs’, etc.
#5 by GMcM on April 14, 2011 - 2:37 pm
Of course, decreasing unemployment figures are excellent. My concern is that not enough is being done and that the SNP lack ambition when it comes to employment.
It’s a bit of swings and roundabouts with the Scotland Vs UK figures if you ask me. When Labour were in power before the GE last year unemployment was dropping in the rest of the UK and rising in Scotland.
If you look back at the previous Labour administration in Scotland you’ll see 200,000 jobs were created in 8 years. Labour want 250,000 in 9 years. It’s achievable. Why haven’t the SNP shown the same ambition?
All the SNP have done is postpone their manifesto launch so they could beef up one of their populist policies and try and achieve an easy ‘we’ll do more than you’. I get the feeling the SNP didn’t orignally have this in their manifesto, hence the postponement of the launch until today.
#6 by Colin on April 14, 2011 - 6:46 pm
Did Labour create 250,000 jobs personally per se, or did a ‘booming’ economy create them? There is a clear link between John Swinney’s spending of capital budges on construction at the moment, during a recession, and this reasonable, although not great, increase in jobs. There is a clear link between Tory cuts and the lack of a job creation programme that has led to unemployment in England and Wales.
So, can Labour really take credit for those jobs or does the economy take credit for them?
Also, the next nine years will be nothing compared to the last eight years in terms of economic strength or growth, so perhaps rather than saying that Labour are being ambitious and the SNP lacking ambition that could be turned onto its head as ‘Labour are being unreasonable whilst the SNP are being reasonable.’
The problem is, its like dying – you won’t know heaven exists until you get there (or not) and if atheism is correct then we will never know who is right. We will never know if Labour are being unreasonable or ambitious unless they win and we will never know if the SNP are being unambitious or reasonable unless they win.
#7 by Doug Daniel on April 14, 2011 - 6:20 pm
So are you suggesting that the SNP should be promising to create more jobs in the public sector? I’m not entirely sure how they would fund that – after all, if councils have to be persuaded to avoid compulsory redundancies, then how are they supposed to manage to create new posts?
#8 by John Ruddy on April 14, 2011 - 7:42 pm
Yes the council tax freeze has not been funded, and local government finance has been under pressure for the last 4 years. It will be interesting to see if they continue with their blackmail policy of freezing, or whether they actually do the honourable thing and fund their policy.
#9 by Colin on April 14, 2011 - 1:23 pm
I have a feeling, what with the polls now being so close, that this manifesto, coupled with Salmond’s appearance on BBC Questiontime and the coming two debates will be what pips the SNP ahead of Labour.
But we shall wait and see!
I have been most impressed with the SNP and Liberal Democrat manifestos. However, as I’ve said before, my vote in this election will be switching from the Liberal Democrats (who I’ve always supported) to the SNP. As a student I cannot bring myself to vote Liberal after the debacle in London. They are no longer the party that Charles Kennedy led. As for the Tories, I can’t vote for them for the same reason as the Liberals, although i expected them to act as they did, so in a sense they are less culpable. Finally, I don’t want the East of Scotland to be saddled with the corruption and stagnation that I’ve seen in the West of Scotland. Labour rule for 50 years has not been good for them, so Labour cannot get my vote. Also, I hope to never forgive them for the war.
#10 by Indy on April 14, 2011 - 1:35 pm
It’s safe to say that G McM has not actually read the SNP’s manifesto.
#11 by Aidan Skinner on April 14, 2011 - 1:52 pm
I think Labour do have a more of a problem with the similarities in policies than the SNP do, the policy nicking’s gone both ways but the SNP have been better at the “anything you can do I can do better (by magicing some money out of a bridge)” and have the benefit of incumbency.
#12 by John Ruddy on April 14, 2011 - 7:34 pm
Yes, I see the early cancer detection policy seems to be something nicked from Labour – maybe a last minute addition after seeing how popular it was playing with the voters?
#13 by cynicalHighlander on April 15, 2011 - 9:53 am
Just because you believe something doesn’t make it fact.
Whan Labour ran the Scottish NHS….
#14 by dcomerf on April 14, 2011 - 1:55 pm
Presumably it’s bad BBC reporting and not a massively ambitious/impossible target that the SNP have set? BBC report says 100% renewable energy – I assume the actual target is 100% renewable electricity? Energy includes that used to power transport i.e. petrol/diesel which is not possible over next 9 years whereas 100% renewable electricity is possible (though ambitious) over this timescale – but only accounts for ~40% energy. Hopefully the SNP manifesto writers appreciate this distinction…
#15 by Malc on April 14, 2011 - 2:22 pm
I wondered that too. I’ll look into that and see if I can find out what the score is.
#16 by Meme on April 14, 2011 - 3:38 pm
The target is for 100 per cent renewable electricity consumption by 2020. The previous 80 per cent target was tough enough given that we’re still under 40 per cent with only nine years to go…
#17 by Malc on April 14, 2011 - 3:56 pm
Thanks. So presumably the “bad BBC reporting” comment was warranted?
#18 by John Ruddy on April 14, 2011 - 7:40 pm
I would argue that 100% renewable by 2020 is impossible to achieve. I though 80% was heroic, although something to have as an aim.
If you take out landfill gas (not really renewable!) and biofuels (problematic) it was less than 25%. It took 7 years to double to that level. I think quadrupling it in the same timeframe is nothing short of mad, without a fundamental change in the way the planning system works.
Interesting that the SNP have this policy nationally, while locally they are against wind turbines.
#19 by David on April 14, 2011 - 2:38 pm
I cannot understand where either Scottish Labour or the SNP are going to be able to find the money to fund all their pledges should they be elected. Surely with the decreases being passed on in the Barnett consequential there will be less money available? I think whichever one of them forms the next government is going to get a lot of flak in the next session for promising something it would not be able to deliver – as the Lib Dems have proved. Even more undecided now on who to vote for than previously.
#20 by Colin on April 14, 2011 - 6:40 pm
Well, I presume whoever takes power will be hoping they last the five years so they can make good on some of their pledges in the last 3-ish years, when the economy is hopefully out of recession.
Not all of these policies obviously have to be put into practice within the first ours of taking office!
#21 by Indy on April 14, 2011 - 5:22 pm
Maybe you should read the manifesto David. The SNP one has a section on balancing the budget.
#22 by David on April 14, 2011 - 8:53 pm
Thanks Indy. Had a look at the ‘Financial Statement’, which discusses their plans to balance the budget. I do have some concerns. With regards to the Scottish Futures Fund, there is a presumption that the new Forth crossing will not cost overrun, which seems very optimistic to me.
Secondly, efficiency savings are often hard to achieve as was seen by the Gerschen proposals to save money at Westminster and failed miserably to acheive their targets. However, the manifesto states they have already saved money in the previous two financial years, so there is the possibility.
Thirdly, with regard to the colleges and universities section, the SNP state they believe the funding gap to be £93 million, which is highly debatable. If my memory serves me correctly that figure is based on the majority of universities in England charging around £6000 per year in tuition fees. As time has gone on though, the average is looking to be a lot more closer to the top end of £9000. Plus, I would question the legality of charging EU students a management fee to help to close the funding gap.
However, at least the SNP gave an outline of how they plan to fund their pledges. By contrast, the Labour manifesto discussed what it would spend, but strangely not where it would come from. Anyone manage to get a hold of their numbers?
#23 by douglas clark on April 15, 2011 - 12:30 am
Seems to me that Jeff can legitimately point to the lack of a LIT in the manifesto. not so much on the referendum front though.
Still, pretty impressive, although like all manifestos it assumes that the UK economy will survive.
#24 by Brian on April 15, 2011 - 2:52 am
The renewable energy target is to acheive energy production from renewables equaivalent to total consumption by Scots by 2020. Given the growth in renewable projects over the last four years, I think it entirely acheivable.
One would think that those considering second vote green would be over the moon to have a choice to support a party advocating attainable green targets with their first ballot.
Politics can indeed cause strange scenarios.
#25 by Indy on April 15, 2011 - 12:26 pm
The council tax freeze has been funded assuming a 3 per cent increase year on year.
Just remember that guys when Labour say that the council tax freeze has not been funded.
Of course council tax went up by 60 per cent on their watch.
And as I recall local government was not too happy during the Labour years that they had to put up council tax in order to pay for unfunded policies coming from Edinburgh – and take the flak for doing so.
Perhaps that explains why – party politics aside – the SNP Government and local authorities have had an altogether more constructive relationship.
#26 by Indy on April 15, 2011 - 12:34 pm
David – yes efficiency savings are hard to achieve but they have been achieved over the past 4 years and can be again.
Regarding the possibility of the replacement Forth crossing over-running its costs – I appreciate that based on past experience of major public sector construction projects that is an understandable worry. But I would also say that the SNP has too much riding on this to allow that to happen.
On the funding of higher education – yes, there does seem to be a lot of debate around that. But I suggest that we are dealing with vested interests from the university management side of things as well as from the student side. Figures are being exaggerated on both sides I suggest.
#27 by Shuna on April 15, 2011 - 1:02 pm
Well done to the SNP – a leaflet finally arrived today, personally addressed…..to my son who will not be voting beacause….well he isnt 18 yet! And their plea to him was to re-elect them – but he was only 13 at the last election so how can he re-elect them when he wasnt part of the process the last time? (I know that alphabetically he comes first on the electoral roll in our house which is why he received it but someone should be aware that doesnt mean he can actually vote yet) I wont repeat his response to recieving the leaflet – lets just say Mr salmond has a wee bit of work to do persuading him to vote SNP any time soon!
#28 by Jeff on April 15, 2011 - 3:13 pm
I would like to think voters would have bigger picture reasons than that for not voting for any particular party.
#29 by Shuna on April 15, 2011 - 3:21 pm
Jeff – that wasnt he reasoning – sorry if I made it sound as if it was. He has bigger picture reasons.
#30 by Jeff on April 15, 2011 - 3:32 pm
No need to apologise, I wasn’t having a go. I do think that it must be frustrating for activists who are trying to reach out and keep democracy ticking over by delivering masses of leaflets/letters with dwindling numbers (people and money) only to receive responses of ‘you’ve got the wrong name on the letter’.
In other words, and in the nicest possible way, I’m trying to work out what your point is with this letter?
#31 by Aldos Rendos on April 15, 2011 - 4:49 pm
Jeff, slightly off topic but I notice like me you live in London.
Any thoughts on hosting a ‘Better Nation Scottish Election Party’ on May the 5th for us exiles?
#32 by Jeff on April 15, 2011 - 5:12 pm
Good idea, and I’d have been keen, but I’ll be in Edinburgh. There’s only one place to be on Holyrood night I’m afraid….!
#33 by Indy on April 15, 2011 - 6:10 pm
Political parties just print the names off the electoral register. If Shuna’s son is on the electoral register he will get an election address. It’s just one of these things.
#34 by steve on April 15, 2011 - 11:16 pm
The council tax freeze will cost £1billion over 5 years. That’s a terrible waste of money. What an unimaginative bunch the main parties all are.
#35 by Malc on April 16, 2011 - 8:54 am
I know the angle you are coming from, but I do take issue with your terminology. The council tax freeze doesn’t “cost” government anything. It simply doesn’t raise any additional revenue. That is a distinction which needs to be made in my opinion. You can argue that it is a “cost” against what revenue might be expected to be raised, but that is a hypothetical cost, not an actual cost.
But like I see – I see where you are coming from.
#36 by Indy on April 16, 2011 - 10:50 am
The council tax will cost £1 billion over 5 years?
That is quite a claim given that the Scottish Government says it will cost £210 million.
Maybe you can talk us through that one?
#37 by steve on April 16, 2011 - 11:12 am
Hi Malc, I know you take my point, but the only way a council tax freeze can be achieved is by the Scottish Government paying councils the £70million that they would otherwise have got by allowing council tax to rise with inflation.
So it literally does cost the SG money, in total over 5 years the SG will pay councils £1b that they otherwise wouldn’t have paid out.
It would be more like the opportunity cost you describe if councils weren’t getting compensated.
#38 by steve on April 16, 2011 - 1:41 pm
Hi Indy, I’ll have a look at SG figures and get back to you. My £1b is based on SG compensating councils in full for loss of the additional revunue they would have got if council tax had gone up 3% each year.
That’s 70m year 1, 140m year 2, 210m year 3, 280m year 4, and 350m year 5.
Adds up to £1 billion.
#39 by Indy on April 17, 2011 - 5:19 pm
I think you have made a mistake. The cost does not accumulate like that. You are double and triple counting.
The SG hands over 70 million each year. The total cost of a five year council tax freeze – i.e. how much money the SG hands over to councils – is therefore 350 million. The next twoi years are already funded. The cost of extending it 3 years is therefore 210 million or 3 x 70.
#40 by Steve on April 19, 2011 - 1:01 am
Hi Indy, I’ve just done a blog on it, it does accumulate the way I say. An article in the Record says “A separate document with financial implications estimates that the policy will cost about £420 million by 2014-15.”
You can see that is £70m for 2012/13 plus £140m for 2013/14 plus £210m for 2014/15.
If it was only £70m each year it would cost £210m.
I’m quoting (indirectly I admit) the SNP’s own figures here.
Pingback: Council tax Freeze – a “red line” issue? « taxing scotland