Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Elections

Just choose your cuts?

Nov 8

Posted by James in Elections, Holyrood | 61 Comments

Caroline Lucas and Patrick Harvie at Conference 2010 Less than a month ago, Jeff wondered whether any of the parties would be brave enough to consider using the tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament. I held off commenting because I hoped the Scottish Greens would vote at Conference to back revenue-raising to block the worst of the cuts, and indeed we did this weekend, overwhelmingly so.

The UK Government, has, we believe, made the wrong decisions with their deficit plans and spending cuts. They are enthusiastically regressive in the detail – a return to the work-house? – and economically illiterate in their overall effect.

Greens don’t want to see massive deficits pile up and have taxpayers’ money wasted on interest payments, but neither do we believe the payback should be made by the poor.

A massive clampdown on tax avoidance, a Robin Hood tax, a one-off wealth tax on the richest, these are the ways in which a progressive UK Government would act. But we do not have such a thing, any more than we had one prior to May.

UK Ministers have three dimensions to consider. Revenue, expenditure and borrowing. Scottish Ministers have only the first two (which is probably a good thing given the perverse desire of the other four parties here to blow billions on the Alex Salmond Additional Forth Bridge).

Without significant borrowing powers for the Scottish Government, John Swinney can only look at revenue and expenditure. Yet the SNP have themselves ruled out revenue changes. The tax varying power is “impractical”, despite having campaigned for it to be used not so long ago as the old Penny For Scotland. Council Tax will be frozen too, despite the regressive nature of the freeze as well as the tax itself.

The Labour leader has done the same, telling the Today Programme two weeks ago that:

“the debate in Scotland is about managing the reduction in the finances that we’ll have available”.

Both the SNP and Labour are terrified of frightening the rightwing press who have cheered on the coalition, and neither party feels they can afford the other slamming them for some “tax bombshell” or similar. In Jeff’s post he said he thought the Nats would be the most likely to be brave, but I never believed that. Their political proximity to the Tories has been striking, as has their growing terror at being evicted from office having achieved not much.

Neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems could credibly take a position which criticised their London colleagues’ cuts, either. Again, Jeff had the Libs down as second most likely to take a progressive position: that struck me as impossible too.

Contrary to the Scotsman headline, Scottish Green Party conference didn’t pass a call for a 3p increase in income tax. We voted for a manifesto which would find progressive ways to raise revenue, within the limits on Holyrood to do so, including Land Value Tax and the Scottish Variable Rate. The detailed proposals will go through the party’s Council, but I’ll eat my hat if they recommend the full 3p.

Every other party in Holyrood is now apparently committed to passing on the Westminster cuts in their entirety. The only debates for them are about where they fall. Should they hit health or housing harder? Should capital budgets be cut for roads or schools? (not a hard one, that)

So here’s the dividing line. The election will be about the cuts above all, and the Scottish Greens will be the only party in the next election offering an alternative to them.

Here’s how Patrick had it yesterday.

“Labour and the SNP are just bickering about how to implement the Coalition’s cuts. This vote today means the Scottish Greens will provide the people of Scotland with a pragmatic alternative, the only alternative to those cuts. When the Scottish public voted in 1999, they voted not just for a Parliament but also for that Parliament to have tax-varying powers. The options are limited, but they are there. If they remain unused during the gravest threat to public services in the post-war era, when will they be used?

“In May, the public will have a choice. They can vote for one of the four parties who either relish the cuts or are too afraid to challenge them. But they will also have an alternative – to vote Green, to boost the green economy, and to protect the public services we all rely upon.”

I’m proud of our position, and I’m looking forward to fighting an election on this basis – who’s with me?

Incidentally, the March 2010 UK Budget said what the powers would bring in: around £400m a year in 2011-12 (pdf, see A9) for a 1p increase.

Tags: , , , ,

Prediction contest – 6 months to May 5th 2011

Nov 5

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 70 Comments

It is now exactly six months until the big vote and Scotland is on tenterhooks as to what the result could possibly be. Will it be AV or not!?

I jest, of course. It is the destiny of Salmond, Gray, Scott, Harvie and Goldie that provides the frissons of delight across the electorate.

Well, again, maybe not, but the politicos are getting excited at least.

To celebrate, we here at Better Nation thought it may be fun to predict what the final result will be so, without further ado, here is our best bets:

Jeff
Labour – 48 seats
SNP – 43 seats
Conservatives – 19 seats
Lib Dems – 11 seats
Greens – 7 seats
Socialists – 1 seat

Result: Labour/Lib Dem/Green/Socialist ‘Progressive Alliance’

James
(Professional complications prevent James from playing – let’s nominally say a d’hondt-busting 129 Green MSPs)

Malc
Labour – 50 seats
SNP – 44 seats
Conservatives – 17 seats
Lib Dems – 12 seats
Greens – 5 seats
Ind – 1 seat

Result: Labour minority administration

Hope to see plenty of predictions in the comments, prizes may be awarded (Ed – on your dime, Breslin)……

Yer Tea’s oot Palin

Nov 3

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 8 Comments

Despite not knowing many, or even any, of the characters involved, watching some of the Tea Party’s high-fiving, whooping and hollering candidates each get put to the electoral sword is highly satisfying indeed.

Sharron Anglein has pulled defeat from the jaws of victory against Harry Reid in Nevada, out-of-her-depth Christine O’Donnell barely got a look-in in Delaware and the California Governor candidate managed to blow £160m and still come up short. Lovely. How d’ya like them apples, Ms Palin?

Not that the current situation can be painted as good news for Barack Obama and Team Democrat; the Tea Party did make some impressive gains. The Democrats are losing the debate, possibly mostly due to the political cycle. However, some respite is in evidence through the lack of an attractive Republican for the US to revolve around.

What continues to get me is how the supposedly religious right can vote for tax cuts, smaller state Governing and a very individualist approach to society. It’s all a far cry from any sort of commitment to love thy neighbour…

Anyway, the worst news for Obama today? Sarah Palin now cannot possibly be the Republicans’ Presidential candidate. Surely. Right?

I got polls but I’m not a pollster

Oct 22

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 4 Comments

There has been a clutch of polling figures released from YouGov that, taken together, really do offer up a lot of valuable information.

The main headlines appear to be:

Labour vote looks firm with stronger consistency from constituency vote to regional vote
SNP voters are lending more support to the Socialists
Greens are pulling more votes from the Lib Dems at a regional level
Conservatives and Lib Dems down to their core vote

The detail of the poll is particularly interesting as it shows how Scots split their voting intentions between Westminster, Holyrood constituency and Holyrood region. I decided to, somewhat arbitrarily, compare this split with that of November 2006 (thanks to YouGov’s archives). I really just wanted to compare voting behaviour at the end of the SNP Government to that of the end of the Lab/Lib Government to pull out any significant changes.

The SNP, perhaps unsurprisingly, holds the most consistent support. 97% of its Westminster support carries into the Holyrood Constituency vote (Nov 2006: 96%). This then weakens to 86% of its Westminster support and 85% of its Holyrood Constituency vote carrying on into the Holyrood Regional vote (Nov 2006: 83% and 73%), with 10% support being passed to ‘Other’ and an eyebrow-raising 7% of that going to the Socialists (Nov 2006: 1%).

The Lib Dems, again unsurprisingly, have the flakiest support. Of the paltry 7% of the public who would vote for ‘Scotland’s second party’ at Westminster elections, only 77% is carried into the Holyrood Constituency vote and 68% into the Holyrood Regional vote. The biggest leaking of support from Westminster to Holyrood of any of the main parties. (However, Nov 2006 comparisons are an even lower 72% and 61% respectively)

Of the lost Holyrood Constituency support, 14% goes to the SNP, 4% to the Conservatives and 3% to Labour.
(Nov 2006 figures: 16% to the SNP, 4% to the Conservatives and 3% to Labour)

Of the lost Holyrood Regional support, a considerable 13% goes to the Greens, 12% to the SNP, 5% to the Conservatives and only 2% to Labour.
(Nov 2006 figures: 11% to the Greens, 15% to the SNP, 5% to the Conservatives and 4% to Labour)

I do find it interesting that, for both 2010 and 2006 polls, there are more Lib Dems who see the Conservatives as a second preference than they do Labour.

Speaking of Labour, in today’s poll they hold onto 89% of their Westminster support in the Holyrood Constituency vote, with 9% of that support going to the SNP (Nov 2006: 84% & 9%). That’s a firmer position now than four years ago that should give Salmond some cause for concern perhaps, particularly given how resounding the Labour victory was north of the border at the Westminster election.

One interesting difference is going from the Holyrood Constituency vote to the Holyrood Regional vote.

Labour holds onto 92% of its FPTP support in Oct 2010 with 3% to the SNP, 2% to the Lib Dems and 3% to the Greens.
Labour held onto 78% of that support in Nov 2006 with 5% to the SNP, 9% to the Lib Dems and 5% to the Greens.

The Conservative figures also contains an interesting change:

Conservatives hold onto 94% of its FPTP support in Oct 2010 with 4% to the Lib Dems.
Conservatives held onto 84% of that support in Nov 2006 with 2% to Labour, 6% to the SNP and 4% to the Lib Dems.

The above is to look at the tactical considerations and to purposefully gloss over the main voting intentions, which, for a flourish of a finish, are:

2010 Holyrood Constituency/Regional
Labour – 40% / 36%
SNP – 34% / 31%
Conservatives – 14% / 15%
Lib Dems – 8% / 8%
Greens – ? / 6%

Nov 2006 Holyrood Constituency/Regional
Labour – 32% / 29%
SNP – 32% / 28%
Conservatives – 15% / 17%
Lib Dems – 15% / 15%
Greens – ? / 8%

So the Greens are worryingly down on four years ago and at risk of not adding to their 2 MSPs, even if the Lib Dem vote continues to look soft. In terms of the biggest two parties, the SNP is up on its pre-2007 position but still trailing Labour who has managed to sweep up considerable Lib Dem support.

We have not yet entered the period when Iain Gray will be scrutinised as a potential First Minister as opposed to merely raking in the coalition/Scottish Government protest vote. The effect of this remains the biggest unknown factor in the Scottish political polling.

Overall, it is fascinating and striking that many facets of the 2006 and 2010 political polls are so similar. It’s almost like an intractable Scottish public made up its mind how it would behave in elections many, many years ago.

Tartan Penny – We’re gonna Parly like it’s 1999

Oct 15

Posted by Jeff in Economy, Elections, Holyrood, Parties | 12 Comments

With October 20th and the detail of George Osborne’s Spending Review now less than one week away, the pressure on Finance Secretary John Swinney to point out where the requisite savings in Scotland’s budget will be made is building. Education Secretary Mike Russell has tried to take the sting out of the growing media focus on the spending problems facing Scotland by delaying a decision on university funding until after the election. However, procrastination of the big decisions will not work forever, particularly as the SNP has stated a big generous giveaway for the next parliamentary term in the shape of a continued Council tax freeze, a decision that has led to much of the press, unfairly I reckon, to attack the SNP’s supposed ‘lack of wisdom’.

It is difficult to predict where in Scotland’s budget a largely left wing public would accept significant slicing, particularly when the cost of policies is difficult to pin down (does abolition of student fees cost £15m or £1.5bn?). Consequently, if savings simply politically can’t be made, the growing pressure will result in having to let off some steam through tax rises.

Is it for financially squeezed moments like these that Scots decided to give the Scottish Parliament tax-varying powers for? Should political parties start looking at raising tax by 1p or 2p in the pound north of the border? It would be an enormously difficult decision.

Again, the numbers are hazy, but an undated Scottish Office document states that raising income tax by 1p in the pound would raise around £150m a year. I am, of course, happy to be corrected on that but if it is pensioners, students and the unemployed who deserve the most protection from cuts, then surely the employed are fair game. The question is, who is most likely to adopt this high-risk strategy in the election campaign.

For me, the SNP would be the most likely of the main five parties to resurrect their ‘tartan penny’ tactic from the 1999 election campaign. Alex Salmond has the most to lose from reversing policies that he presided over in the past four years and, over and above potential reversals, the FM will struggle to avoid committing to policies such as tuition fees, free care for the elderly and the latest Forth Bridge before May 5th. Increasing tax may well be the least worst option as the SNP seek to find that coveted fine line between financial credibility and public popularity.

The Lib Dems may join the SNP in pushing for an increase in tax rates, rekindling the party’s ‘Penny for Scotland’ campaign of 1999. Tavish Scott needs something as he must be keen to mark his party out in this election campaign for fear of anonymity or, worse, being seen only as Cameron’s little helpers down south. Mimicking an SNP penny in the pound would mark them out as frontrunners for coalition partners.

The Green Party may also consider campaigning on this extra tax. It’s not my position to say but investment in a renewable industry, keeping tuition fees abolished and bringing housing stock up to a higher standard of insulation appear to be top priorities, and expensive ones too.

The Conservatives, needless to say, will not be in favour of a tax rise in Scotland. The UK Tories preferred an austere 80/20 blend of cuts/tax rises to combat the deficit and will no doubt continue to ‘trust hard working families to spend their own money rather than the state’. Pah, the Scottish Government Finance Secretary can spend our hard-earned money better than any of us, everyone knows that… (I jest, sort of)

Labour, I would expect, will be staunchly against any use of the tax varying powers which would throw up an interesting dividing line for the voters if they had the choice of the SNP (higher income rates and frozen Council tax) or Labour (consistent income rates and increased Council Tax). Iain Gray would doubtless try to attack the SNP as both ‘cutters’ and ‘tax raisers’ which, while incongruous to me, may well go down well with certain parts of the electorate.

In short, will the 2011 election be 1999 all over again?

I personally hope so but with a different result. Scotland can be bold, brave and follow Finland and Sweden down the path of high tax, wide provision services, all the while climbing the regular ‘happiness indices’ that Scandinavian countries find themselves near the top of as a direct result of their relatively higher taxation levels.

(Update – It seems the SNP has already categorically denied raising income tax rates in the Parliament chamber, in response to a direct question from Lord George Foulkes. Courtesy of NewsnetScotland. I still have the Nats favourite to increase the income tax though. It is, after all, the right thing to do….)