The SNP has enjoyed strong support over the past few years from two specific groups – the young and the male. Poll after poll has shown that the SNP, or quite possibly Alex Salmond in particular, has a woman problem and, possibly due to the ambition of independence, an elderly problem, problems that require to be dealt with if a Yes result is to be achieved in 2014.
We have seen a Mothers’ Day assault from the Nationalists with (*cough*) Joan McAlpine spearheading the attack. While it is sad that the provision of 600 hours nursery care is boxed into ‘female issue’ rather than ‘parent issue’, particularly when the SNP boasts of being a progressive beacon, the policy is nonetheless attractive and will go a long way to improving the party’s appeal to all Scots, including females. Similarly, a National Minimum Wage guarantee is something of a female-friendly policy by dint of such a high proportion of part-time work being taken by women. There are doubtlessly more female-friendly, recently concocted policies that an SNP activist could rhyme off on a whim.
So that’s the laydeez taken care of, what about the oldies? Well, this was always going to be a tougher challenge for Alex Salmond. How do you tempt a tranche of Scots away from the union and into a modern, fast-paced, export-driven independent Scotland when they are largely decided on the United Kingdom and/or stuck/set in their ways?
Well, perhaps George Osborne has given Salmond a helping hand there.
First things first, ‘granny tax’ is a horrendous phrase. It wilfully talks down those silver-permed, hair-netted, shed-dwelling dearies, but it is nonetheless effective, as today’s front pages testify, castigating the Chancellor for his tax cut on the elderly to pay for millionaires’ tax cuts as they do. Britain woke up today to learn, rightly or wrongly, that Osborne has shafted old people with his budget.
The First Minister’s tactics for winning independence often involve a well-rehearsed double whammy of making his party as ‘big tent’ as possible while fiercely attacking Westminster over anything and everything when they leave themselves vulnerable. He can employ both aspects over the next few months by rolling out a ‘granny friendly’ (I do apologise for how un-PC this post is) set of policies that will help to paint Osborne (and by extension the UK) as a place where the elderly are taxed to give the super-rich pay cuts while Scotland is a place where, I don’t know, free care for the elderly is guaranteed, bus passes are safeguarded and A.N.Other policy (I personally believe there is a role for the retired in schools, hospitals and colleges to provide expertise and experience on a voluntary or low paid basis; a sort of army of Non Exec Directors for the public sector and the young. It would work better if pensions were significantly more comfortable than they currently are of course).
Whatever policy Salmond may choose to entice the aggrieved victims of Osborne’s tax grab with, the First Minister may find that his independence deficit has ironically been filled in by the Chancellor trying to plug the UK deficit while keeping his right wing chums happy.
#1 by Craig Kelly on March 22, 2012 - 6:19 pm
This is an interesting problem, Jeff. And one which I am not so sure can be fixed by a few glitzy policies.
Osbourne has done, well, exactly the sort of thing you’d expect from a Tory Chancellor. Now it is undoubtedly more complex than it is shown, but why the Tories have just played into the stereotype of stealing from the poor to give to the rich, is beyond me. I can only posit that they are so blissfully unaware of how they come across that no one clicked that it might be a bad PR move if nothing else.
I am interested in your article. How exactly do the SNP start appealing to the elderly? Or perhaps more pressing, why do they not appeal? Is it simply a generational issue; the old don’t like change? Or is it perhaps to do with the fact the elderly spent their adulthood in a Britain that at least appeared to still have relevance, bring prosperity, and security to their daily lives?
#2 by Doug Daniel on March 22, 2012 - 9:49 pm
“but why the Tories have just played into the stereotype of stealing from the poor to give to the rich, is beyond me”
They just don’t care, I think that’s all there is to it. They’re here for one reason, and one reason only – to finish off what Thatcher started. They’ve got until 2015 to get everything sold off, and after that there’s no reason to even bother being in government. They’ve gotten the sacrificial lamb of the NHS, and they’re still here to tell the story. The amount of power they must feel now is like when someone escapes certain death and suddenly feels invincible, and similarly, they’ll start going further and further, pushing their luck and seeing how far they can go without suffering any consequences. Nothing’s out of bounds now. It also helps that, no matter how much people hate the Tories, they seem to hate the Lib Dems more.
Either that or it’s just because of their complete lack of empathy with normal people that they have absolutely no idea how things will be seen in the papers. Oh, and despite privileged educations, they’re monumentally stupid.
As for why the SNP don’t appeal to the elderly, it’s a conundrum. Free prescriptions, free bus passes, the council tax freeze… these are all policies that particularly benefit the elderly. They’ve also lived right through the 80s, so it’s not like they can’t remember what the Tories are like and how poorly Scotland has been served by the union over the past 30 years.
But then against that, you’re talking about people whose formative years were during the war or just after, with rationing and the creation of the NHS etc. A time when the expression “we’re all in this together” would have had a bit more substance, when people were likely brought up to be very proud of being British, and when Scottish independence wasn’t really on the horizon. It’s difficult to shake that kind of stuff.
Then again, none of my family are unionist, and that includes some very old people. They do live in Buchan, of course, which has always been rather keen on the SNP…
#3 by Iain Menzies on March 22, 2012 - 10:21 pm
so in summary……tories are evil.
impressive political commentary that.
#4 by Doug Daniel on March 23, 2012 - 11:10 am
Well, actually I was saying that the Tories are out to privatise everything they can, but if you want to call that “evil”, then I won’t disagree with you.
Glad we’re on the same page 😉
#5 by GMcM on March 23, 2012 - 9:19 am
Free prescriptions help rich pensioners and the free bus travel was brought in by Labour/Lib-Dems.
Also one of my late neighbours told me that she never had it so good when Labour came in to power in 1997 thanks to central heating schemes, the free bus pass and winter fuel allowance. Labour also drastically reduced pensioner poverty while in power.
I think your own views on the Union are clouding your view history.
#6 by Doug Daniel on March 24, 2012 - 2:38 am
Dunno why I included bus passes there because you’re absolutely correct – I think I was confusing myself with the fact that the SNP are committed to keeping it that way, whereas the Lib Dems called for an end to it last year, and I imagine the Tories would too, if they haven’t already.
Free prescriptions helping rich pensioners is a red herring though. That doesn’t stop it being an OAP-friendly policy, and it’s a bit odd of you to bring it up – unless I’m missing something here and free bus passes are means tested? Seems like you’re saying universal benefits for the elderly are fine if introduced by Labour, but not the SNP…
As for winter fuel allowance, that is of course under Westminster control, and they cut it last year despite calls from the SNP not to do so. So not really sure that’s particularly relevant when we’re talking about why the SNP apparently has a problem with the elderly. If anything, it’s another stick to hit the union with.
#7 by GMcM on March 26, 2012 - 12:12 pm
I accept the point on free bus passes and the universal nature of that policy.
The winter fuel allowance is under Westminster control but that doesn’t mean the Scottish Government couldn’t have made up the cut – Labour led Glasgow City Council have acted in such a manner to protect the mkost vulnerable from this cut. It’s easy to blame Westminster all the time but sometimes it would be better if the SNP started to think outside the box and protect the people of Scotland properly.
#8 by Don McC on March 26, 2012 - 6:49 pm
Using the criteria of means tested benefit to decide who’s vulnerable and who can afford their prescriptions is far too simplistic to be a decent yardstick, though, yet this is the yardstick Labour insist on applying. Some people are just above this threshold and can’t afford their prescriptions, council tax, etc.
It’s time Labour started thinking outside the box and protecting the people of Scotland properly too.
#9 by Allan on March 22, 2012 - 7:21 pm
I don’t think it’s fear of change, but fear of uncertain change. Remember that many people have grown up with the welfare state and have pensions. Salmond has obviously not adequately explained (in many people’s eyes) how these will be continued/replaced in an independent Scotland.
Of course it could just be the 1979 factor rearing its head again…
#10 by Iain Menzies on March 22, 2012 - 7:29 pm
I think the problem for the SNP in this one is that the vast majority of pensioners will see little if any change in their lives as a result of this.
I was generally happy with the budget (except the extra cost on fags) until all this granny tax stuff kicked off. Then i read abit of the analysis of it and I am getting less and less concerned by it.
The only way this stays a problem is if by this time next week the papers are still running headlines on it, but i very much doubt they will be.
On the female stuff, SNP policy doesn’t seem to be for women so much as mums, now granted I am neither a woman nor a mum, but i would be very surprised if you saw any real shift in the polls as a result of this.
#11 by Barbarian on March 22, 2012 - 8:01 pm
Hate to say it, but Salmond got grannied in spectacular fashion at FMQs today. And all over hospital blankets!
Too the edge of his attack on Osbourne.
Seems the score is:
Grannies 2 Politicians Nil
#12 by Robert Blake on March 22, 2012 - 8:15 pm
I fail to see how Johann Lamont, repeating an untruth that Jackie Baillie already had to apologise for, is some kind of killer blow
#13 by Barbarian on March 22, 2012 - 10:28 pm
I didn’t say it was a killer blow, but if you watch FMQs, Salmond is getting very good at not answering questions and blaming Westminster.
Pulling the two oap’s was an effective ambush.
OK, Lamont’s overegging the pudding a bit, and the story will blow over. I’m also a strong supporter of Sturgeon and the general handling of Health in Scotland, but it showed that Salmond is not invulnerable. And credit to him, he did not shirk the issue.
#14 by Doug Daniel on March 23, 2012 - 11:19 am
Effective ambush? Perhaps, but there was something very queasy about it. Trundling in a couple of pensioners to score a cheap political point? I don’t recall the SNP herding a mass of people with serious illnesses but without the ability to pay for all their prescriptions into the chamber pre-2007 to highlight the need for free prescriptions.
For all its flaws, at least the House of Commons doesn’t see the opposition in PMQs resorting to these sort of cheap tactics.
That’s without even going into the fallacy of holding up two examples as proof of widespread neglect. No organisation ever gets 100% approval. Otherwise, the SNP could use the same tactics by wheeling in a couple of former patients who had absolutely no problem getting blankets and saying “look, this is proof that there are no problems!”
#15 by GMcM on March 23, 2012 - 9:37 am
As Barbarian says it may be over-egged however it is not an untruth.
I think yesterday was more about exposing the fact Salmond will call anyone who says something that reflects badly on his government a liar. He called Jackie Baillie a liar and then ditto Johann Lamont – unfortunately they were telling the truth and his obsession with shouting down any opposition was laid bare.
Barbarian never said it was a killer blow either, but it was embarassing for him at the very least.
#16 by Allan on March 24, 2012 - 2:14 pm
Nice wee plug for the Paisley Daily Express by Lamont in there too, as they have been the ones running this story too, while the spats have been raging in various politicians columns for that paper.
It wasn’t just Salmond that got grannied over this though, the local MSP’s got grannied too, especially George Adams who attacked Jackie Baillie in his own fortnightly PDE column.
#17 by AliMiller on March 22, 2012 - 8:21 pm
I find it interesting that when it comes to the demographics of who-supports-who, the debate is always seen through the prism of how the SNP/independence has a weaker support among women, and never that Labour/Unionism is less appealing to men. Maybe in these days of political over-correctness people see the votes of women/old people/needier people in general as being more important?
Although politically necessary, I really despise all this demographic targeting. A marker of a great society is that its composite groups appreciate each others worth and that goals which acheive collective benifit are prioritised. Independence (should) improve Scotland’s fiscal position, but it simply isnt credible for the SNP to pretend that it will offer all things to all people. I am a big supporter of Independence but we cant lead people into thinking they are voting for some paradise – old people have to take their share of the pain, its not is if they don’t benifit from high government spending (especially with regard to healthcare). If an independent Scotland wants to maintain our Gold-standard social provisions of free Education and Healthcare then we simply cant positively discriminate for particular groups based on political expediency.
#18 by douglas clark on March 22, 2012 - 11:01 pm
Ré AliMiller @ 6
It seems to me that there are choices for a government to make. Moving resources from the elderly to the rich is not a policy that I’d want any Scottish government in the future to pursue. Indeed, I’d vote against any party that proposed it.
I appreciate that both ‘the elderly’ and ‘the rich’ are only approximations to the truth and that neither is mutually exclusive, but it is really not political expediency to ally ones party with ‘the elderly’ rather than ‘the rich’. It is an arguement that I’d have hoped had no currency is a free Scotland.
#19 by AliMiller on March 23, 2012 - 6:43 pm
Thanks for your response. I think the “elderly” v “rich” argument over-simplifies the debate, it just so happens that more money is going to be taken from pensioners while less is going to be taken from the rich. Although the perception is that money is flowing from one to the other, it is better to see the two changes as being seperate. It could as easily be said that the money will be spent on Education, Roads, deficit reduction or Defense. Im not arguing that the SNP should be supporting the “rich” v “pensioners”, but I am saying that we can’t say that there would be no tough choices in an independent Scotland. Similarly with pensions the Scottish Government says they wouldnt increase public sector worker’s contributions in an independent Scotland, which is a load of baloney, it would have to be done. Independence offers a better society but we cant pretend that Pensioners wouldn’t have to make a contribution towards stopping the terrifying growth in debt which will blight our future.