The Scottish Government, together with Cosla, has announced plans to offset proposed cuts in council tax benefit at a cost of £40m in a new one year deal.
At present, councils administer council tax benefit, with rates and eligibility set nationally. Westminster will abolish the existing benefit in April 2013 as part of their welfare reforms, devolving a successor scheme to UK regions and nations, as well as cutting the budget of this replacement by 10%.
The Scottish Government and Cosla will plug this shortfall in 2013-14, providing £23m and £17m respectively.
Over half a million vulnerable people in Scotland are in receipt of council tax benefit, including the unemployed, pensioners, carers and people unable to work through disability. Cutting this vital support is yet another attack by Westminster on people who can least afford it, and the Scottish Government’s intervention is welcome, and necessary.
The UK Government’s welfare changes are going to have a devastating effect on low-income households across Scotland and the rest of the UK. From the ‘Granny tax’ to slashing welfare for disabled people to ending child tax credits for 73,300 Scottish families, Cameron’s government are simply cutting where they know they can get away with it.
So it isn’t news that the Scottish Government are going to announce spending where they can to mitigate the effects of Westminster cuts. I don’t think any voter in Scotland would be surprised to find out that the SNP wants to be a bulwark against slash and burn Tory policies that are going to ravage our society.
I don’t say this to negate the SNP’s announcement, in any way; my point is yet another note of disappointment with Scottish Labour instead, in refusing to see and act on the issues where their permanent stance of oppositionism achieves nothing.
Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie took a position of “try harder” with “Everybody knows the Tories are cutting too hard and too fast, but we can’t pretend this announcement plugs the gap.”
But then she frustratingly adds: “This timing of this is deeply peculiar. If the SNP were serious about supporting local councils, they would not have waited until two weeks before the council elections – flagrantly breaching purdah – to make this announcement”.
I think purdah, the convention of not announcing policy or spending during an election period, is as outdated as the colonial and sexist overtones of the word itself. Between rolling news, Twitter and a cynical electorate I don’t think government announcements have a tremendous sway over voting intentions, with an electorate that surely knows they’re trying to be bought or bribed instead of seduced.
The impact of this announcement by the Scottish Government will be tremendous on the lives and livelihoods of people who need council tax benefit to get by, and will be exactly zero on the local election results on May 3rd.
For Scottish Labour’s main comment to be that this vital measure breaches an almost-obsolete civil service standard is ridiculous.
This week the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee took evidence that the UK Government’s plans could result in 100,000 extra children living in poverty in Scotland. There needs to be no other statistic which shows why Scottish Government needs to act fast against Westminster cuts. This week, Johann Lamont criticised Salmond in FMQs for not announcing the withdrawal of investment by Doosan: “If he will suppress serious issues like this iconic project before the local elections, what is he capable of hiding before the referendum?”
So which announcements do Labour want in the pre-election period? Just the bad ones and not the good ones? They do know how political communication and spin… oh wait.
I want a Scottish Labour Party that opposes every ConDem cut, and cajoles the SNP through criticism and through constructive opposition to ensure Scotland becomes a country and a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, and not the few. And yes, I quote Clause 4 quite deliberately. Too many Labour Party politicians have forgotten it.
When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable, sod the party politics. Sod the timing. Labour should welcome the spending, and fight the local elections on pledges and promises, not on being picky about purdah.
#1 by William Brown on April 20, 2012 - 11:30 am
Labour—the Greetin’ Faced Toerag Party!
#2 by MJL on April 20, 2012 - 11:39 am
Opposing all cuts is fool’s errand. The public (including Scots) are all resigned to the fact that some degree of fiscal consolidation is necessary. There is nothing progressive about spending more and more public money on debt repayment. Anyone who proposes otherwise will simply look not credible. The argument should be not whether or not there should be cuts but where the axe falls. The government has arbitrary cut left, right and centre and not thought about what impacts each cut has on growth on job creation which should be the priority right now. That means that some difficult cuts will have to made in the short term, they could be reinstated at a later date once the finances are in order.
#3 by Indy on April 20, 2012 - 11:46 am
There are actually lots of things that could be cut that would not have an impact on peoples lives but it always seems to be support for people at the bottom that gets hit.
#4 by Kirsty on April 20, 2012 - 12:00 pm
I don’t think opposing cuts in jobs, services, pay, pensions, and benefits is foolish – I think it’s utterly necessary to stand up and fight for what I and others believe is right and fair.
I think it’s far more foolish to think that what the Westminster government is doing is acceptable and should be suffered and endured in order for a better point in the future. Do you really think the Tories are going to reinstate council tax benefit, child tax credits, and the rest? Or do you not suspect that their cuts are driven more by ideology than the economy?
#5 by Craig on April 20, 2012 - 4:27 pm
Nobody is going to reinstate council tax benefit, child tax credits, AND the rest!
A large proportion of the deficit is structural – it existed before the financial crisis and, without intervention, it would exist once the economy recovers.
The simple fact is that the for past 10 years the United Kingdom has been living beyond it’s means. There cannot be any magical return to way previous Governments spent money before the financial crisis. That they left us in this state is neither right nor fair but we’re can’t change the past now.
It’s telling when parts of the English NHS are struggling to deal with the fact that they won’t go on receiving above inflation rises every year, let alone any actual cuts.
That is why opposing all cuts is a fool’s errand. And such is the magnitude of the deficit – only a handful of budget areas are larger – there is no way to avoid cuts to large budgets. Some people suggest we should pull out of Afghanistan or scrap Trident – we could cut the entire Defence budget and we wouldn’t even come close to halving the deficit (and that’s obviously not even taking into account the effect on the economy and benefit claims).
It doesn’t help if certain areas are left untouched – the NHS in particular. All that does is require even greater cuts in other budget areas – like benefits.
#6 by MJL on April 20, 2012 - 10:56 pm
I’d prefer the Labour party to reinstate them from Government not pressure the Tories into doing it from opposition.
Whether we like it or not, Labour has a credibility gap when it comes to the economy. We can either deal with that or leave it to the Tories.
I’d also point out again that money spent servicing debt is money that is not spent on public services. You simply cannot go on forever increasing the proportion of government expenditure that goes towards debt repayment. Eventually somethings got to give.
#7 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on April 20, 2012 - 2:47 pm
Purdah is a sensible convention for a variety of reasons, and it exists to protect democracy. Being annoyed with Labour’s response to this is one thing, but calling for purdah to be jettisoned is quite another. Social media and rolling news has no impact at all on the necessity for government announcements to be restricted during election periods. It’s a question of the dividing line between party politics and government, a line which must remain in place.
And if we are to consider ending the practice of purdah, this can start with an open discussion, not a unilateral action during an election campaign by a government long-practised in spin.
#8 by Kirsty on April 20, 2012 - 4:50 pm
The reality is though that government business continues throughout purdah, especially Scottish Government business during local government elections. I don’t see why it’s necessary for government announcements to be restricted during election periods – I don’t think the electorate are that gullible.
And for Labour (instead of welcoming a measure that protects vulnerable people from Westminster cuts) to cynically use the concept of purdah to criticise the SNP while at the same time calling for other government announcements like Doosan shows what a pointless convention it really is.
#9 by Craig Gallagher on April 21, 2012 - 12:27 am
“It’s a question of the dividing line between party politics and government, a line which must remain in place”
Nice to see a Labour activist confirming what we all know: that an attempt by the Scottish Government to shelter poor people and council authorities from Westminster cuts is regarded as “party politics” on the part of the SNP.
#10 by Indy on April 21, 2012 - 10:58 am
The advantage of doing this now is so that it actually gets some coverage although in Glasgow where I live it has hardly been reported. Yet over 100,000 people are going to be affected by this. Together with the housing benefit reforms it’s a very serious issue.
#11 by Hugh Jarse on April 20, 2012 - 4:02 pm
Whilst all would support the efforts to mitigate against the impact of the cuts. The implicit attack on Purdah is interesting though and chimes well with this Government’s cavalier attitude to playing it by the rules. The revelation that the SNP Government spent £100,000 of taxpayers money to suppress an FOI request on LIT before the May 2011 election only to drop opposition in July speaks volumes. Yesterday’s ‘non announcement’ on Doosan was another example of burying the bad news. If a Government repeatedly ignores its own rules how can we take it seriously to Govern our country, or am I just tiring of the Nat spin machine and the Newspeak we are fed daily.
#12 by Jeff on April 20, 2012 - 4:49 pm
I can see why purdah is an appropriate rule to have, official or unofficial, so I would have raised an eyebrow at the Scottish Government’s announcement if Labour hadn’t done it for me. You are correct though Kirsty that it’s not going to make any difference to the voting so Labour should pick its battles much better.
I fear Scotland is not protesting against Westminster’s cuts as best as they can. Too much squabbling between Labour and the SNP (both sides to blame) is preventing a joined up, loud objection to be heard in London. Significant Scottish pressure should be being placed on the Lib Dem MPs to not be signing up to this direction of travel but it gets lost in the noise of Lab vs Nat, unfortunately.
(And I agree, you can’t oppose “all” cuts. That’s just silly, surely, unless you want to raise income taxes significantly?)
#13 by Robert Blake on April 21, 2012 - 1:10 am
I am a former Labour voter. The tweet from Willie Bain set the tin lid on it
The notion that Labour would rather have a Conservative Government instead of an Independent Labour one was well known to me.
But to not support a motion that aligns with labour principles, just because the SNP or Plaid propose it is flat disgusting, and it is that that prevents any kind of unified front.
The reason some of my in my former party gave for opposing Scottish Indepence was that they were “Internationalist”
But it was funny that that Internationalism stopped at the UK borders. It wasn’t the Internationalism that saw Scots resisting the Fascist uprising in Spain, but more like queueing up for buggin’s turn at the trough
Labour was, should and could be more than that
#14 by Indy on April 21, 2012 - 11:02 am
We can object until the cows come home I am afraid Jeff. In my view the Tories and their Lib Dem allies have made a very calculated political judgement that the kind of people who receive council tax or housing benefit or incapacity benefit etc are not likely to vote for them so they basically don’t care what objections are made – because it can be presented as cutting back on unnecessary spending going to subsidise the workshy types so beloved of the Daily Mail.
#15 by Barbarian on April 20, 2012 - 7:28 pm
I’m not disagreeing with the criticism of cuts imposed by Westminster.
However, the withholding of the news about Doosan cannot be supported in any way. Salmond’s lame excuse was even worse. Lamont was absolutely correct with her criticism.
Labour’s approach on the “purdah” is clumsy, and no doubt some other blogs will be questionning Baillie’s abilities. But once again everyone is blaming each other. The SNP are electioneering, but then so are Labour. Meanwhile, Westminster quite happily gives money to India and IMF. Money that could have been used to avoid the cuts.
#16 by Robert Blake on April 21, 2012 - 1:15 am
This information was published on 9th February
Douglas Fraser made a mention of it in an interview with John Swinney a few days ago
Yet it is splashed as an exclusive now?
No. No wonder the Nationalists suspect collusion between the press and Labour
They may be wrong, but the circumstancial evidence can certainly be interpreted this way
#17 by the Burd on April 20, 2012 - 10:20 pm
Jeff, I must take issue with your girn that Scotland is not protesting the welfare reform changes at Westminster as best they can. Frankly, no one did more than Scottish organisations and civic Scotland working with people of all parties – including Tory peers! – to try and defeat some of the worst excesses of the welfare reform proposals. At the same time, we got welfare reform right to the top of the political agenda and persuaded MSPs to set up the welfare reform committee. Labour and the SNP MSPs came together to refuse the LCM, devolving key aspects of reform to Scotland. They ARE working together on the cuts and welfare reform, even if they don’t sound like they are! And more power to all their elbows I say.
#18 by Kirsty on April 21, 2012 - 5:43 am
Yep, fully agree. More fool Labour then for their persistent oppositionism, instead of portraying their work with the rest of Scotland to oppose the cuts.
#19 by Craig Gallagher on April 21, 2012 - 12:25 am
Purdah is a moronic convention, particularly during an election cycle that isn’t even for the national government. I expect the government and parliament of Scotland to be doing their damndest at all times when they’re in session to alleviate the burden of debt and poverty on Scots, as this announcement does, and screw political favour or ramification. For your commenters to suggest, Kirsty, that the Scottish Government should allow vicious Tory cuts to go unalleviated just because we have local council elections coming up is short-sighted and craven. I agree wholeheartedly with your dismissal of it.
The fact is, this announcement is a boon to all parties competing in the council elections, and gives those hoping to form majorities an idea of what their spending capabilities will be. No doubt if the Scottish Government had done nothing, Jackie Baillie would have found it in herself to charge the SNP with “doing nothing” and “creating uncertainty” about how councils post-election will be funded.
#20 by franwhi on April 21, 2012 - 2:01 am
On the one hand I actually feel some sympathy for Jackie Baillie – as the Pavlovian dog of Scottish Labour she seems to be forever tasked with having to attack, attack and attack again anything the SNP do or even didn’t do – like cause the financial crisis. I don’t believe that people primarily concerned with social justice come into politics to expend all their influence and energy on childish petty partisan pointscoring and blaming. How concerned can you be with the common weel when your modus operandi becomes limited to such divisive and tribal tactics ? What an unsatisfactory posturing remit for an able and competent politician. On the other hand such divisive, partisan tactics are questionable in their intent as arguably they really only benefit the Coalition in London who can exploit such divides and distractions while real unprecedented, unfair and damaging cuts are imposed largely on those who can least afford it and have the least power to fight back. In this Scottish context there must surely be value in cross party talks with like minded people proposing constructive policies and solutions in opposition not to each other but to the neo-liberal orthodoxy emanating from London. Am I the only person who thinks that we desperately need a different sort of conversation between Scottish politicians ?
#21 by Barbarian on April 21, 2012 - 9:07 am
Type your comment here
Then why did the Scottish Government not announce it then?
No, the criticism is justified. As to Labour’s tactics, they are precisely what the SNP would have done.
The bottom line is that the Scottish Government cocked up. They should have announced the reversal in the decision by Doosan, THEN pointed out that the company still intends to invest in Scotland etc etc. Instead they have hidden bad news.
Why blame the media? The SG gave them an open goal.
Go read Friday’s Sun editorial – even that is criticial of Salmond.
#22 by scottish_skier on April 21, 2012 - 11:06 am
I read about the Doosan pull out back in February, hence was surprised to find it splashed all over the BBC. Clearly they and the Labour party need to keep up with events better. Are they not following renewables news? Given the growing importance of this industry in Scotland that should be high priority surely?
Anyone who thinks the old Doosan news is going to have a negative impact on the Scottish Government is being a little over-optimistic.
#23 by Indy on April 21, 2012 - 12:24 pm
I agree it’s a bit of a cock-up I didn’t know that the Doosan thing wasn’t happening any more. But it’s also to do with the sheer volume of information. I knew that Mitsubishi, Doosan & what’s the other one – Ganesa – were setting up in Glasgow and these companies coming are all linked to the stuff at Strathclyde Uni and various other things. If I had read something about Doosan not doing it would it have impinged on my consciousness? Possibly not. Unless the SG had announced it with the same fanfare that they announced the Strathclyde Uni and other Glasgow renewables stuff. And realistically no government of any hue is going to do that!
It’s not like they actually hid it – they just didn’t trumpet it.
#24 by Doug Daniel on April 22, 2012 - 7:28 pm
I honestly don’t see the problem with the Doosan thing. I would understand if the government were still name-dropping Doosan and Doosan had pulled out of Scotland; but the fact is they haven’t.
Doosan are a private company. They are not a government department, they are not an offshoot of government, they are not an ALEO or anything like that. They are completely unrelated to the government. Therefore, not only is it weird to expect a government to make negative announcements for a private company, but it is positively not their place to do so.
To me, hiding something implies suppressing information, usually to avoid a scandal. There has been no suppression, as the facts have been out there for months. It’s not the government’s fault the media has been too caught up in other things to notice this before now.
I must say, I thought it would be at least another six months before we’d reach this level of pettiness.
#25 by John Ruddy on April 22, 2012 - 12:49 pm
What SNP supporters must ask themselves is this.
If a Labour Administration had made this announcement during an election campaign, would you have complained?
Since the answer is obviously yes, then the timing of this announcement by the SNP is wrong.