Navigation
Latest Tweets
Adopt This Domain
Google Reader Shared Items
Search

Categories
Recent Comments
In Other Domains
Pick of the Feeds

Entries in Labour (18)

Monday
02Nov2009

Breaking up the banks will cost £40 Billion anyway. Why not remutualise?

DateMonday, November 2, 2009 at 10:53AM

News this weekend that Labour plan to force Lloyds and RBS to sell off large tranches of their branches, especially in Scotland is presumably a good thing. Not many people would argue that the dominance of a tiny number of mega-banks is doing anyone any favours, especially in Scotland, where the demise of HBOS is sorely felt. Even in Leith, if you want a bank with a branch in the neighbourhood people only have a choice between banks owned by Lloyds, RBS and Santander. I can imagine that in many small Scottish towns choice barely exists, if it ever existed before the credit crunch anyway.

However, as the papers digest the mechanics of these break-ups it seems that the best Labour are hoping for is that either Tesco, or Virgin Money will take on these new branch networks, because they will at least appear to be British. Frankly, I can't see Tesco taking on a branch network. They've got their own ubiquitous bricks and mortar portfolio that already spans the country. Why buy up a whole network of shops, most of which won't be big enough to accomodate a Tesco Metro? I can't see it. And as for Virgin? Well it's just a brand that wraps around other people's money - money that the Guardian says would probably be foreign anyway.

So, it looks as though, after all the UK tax payers money, Labour are going to have to spend another £40 Billion of tax payer cash to sell the assets to one or more foreign owned banks. This sounds like an immensely expensive own-goal. At some points during the banking crisis it looked as if the treasury were considering returning some of the tax payer owned banks to mutual status, but these ideas seem to have been dismissed as too complicated, and not lucrative enough in the short term.

Even if remutualising one, or all, of these de-merged banks is more expensive in the short term, even if it is immensely complicated, surely the right decision is to remutualise? The only people who'll benefit from a quick fire sale of UK Banking plc to foreign capital are the Labour politicians who'll be able to make a few headlines about paying down the national debt - presumably they'll want those headlines in time for the election too.

But over time a sale to other foreign mega-banks will see more money, more power, and more business credibility sucked out of the UK and repatriated elsewhere. We've already seen how a Lloyds Banking group are seeking to cut their funding for charities and good causes. How committed will foreign owned banks be to investing in the communities where the operate?

And when it's gone, it's gone. Labour, and perhaps the Tories who may follow them, have an historic opportunity to reshape UK banking for the good of all UK citizens - and bring an end to the era of 'Casino Capitalism'.

Some people have proposed that Labour could bring back the Trust Savings Bank in Scotland as a mutual bank, true to it's orignal aims of providing affordable banking services to the poorest in society. What a great idea, and one that would help to bring trust and stability to retail banking. It would also help to maintain resources in Scotland for the benefit of Scottish people. But most importantly it would be a fantastic symbol to people that politicians aren't just the servants of big, private capital in the city. It would show that that there is value in mutual ownership and control that is, in fact, priceless.

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Thursday
22Oct2009

Tactically Voting in Edinburgh East? Not Likely!

DateThursday, October 22, 2009 at 12:57PM

Because of the first past the post voting system in Westminster - elections throw everyone into the position of having to vote tactically and second guess how everyone else is going to vote. There is of course a general election looming, and so my thoughts have been turning recently - even as a green party member - to whom I should vote for.

Currently, I have Gavin Strang, a Labour MP, whom I've found singularly uninspiring as an MP, although he did at least vote against the Iraq War and replacing Trident. Most recently, I was disappointed to learn he voted against supporting the recent motion to support the 10:10 campaign, although I note that he's listed as being a 'moderate' supporter of climate change legislation on theyworkforyou.com

The trouble is of course, that whilst I want action from Westminster on environmental issues, climate change, and change on voting systems and transparency issues - all things a Green MP would be likely to major on - it's extremely unlikely that the Edinburgh East constituency will elect a Green MP. So, logically, what's to do?

Well, the SNP are alledgedly 'resurgent' in Scotland, and so let's check out their candidate. It's none other than George Kerevan, Scotsman columnist, with no website (OK, there's this blank joomla template). So the only way we can figure out anything he might beleive is through his columns: http://news.scotsman.com/georgekerevan

Oops! Most of those columns are premium content. I'm not so keen to read him that I'm going to pay. Fortunately, the grumpy spindoctor reveals a bit more info. It's not good reading. It turns out George quite likes Nuclear power, to put it mildly. So, I won't be voting for George. In fact, I'd consider voting tactically to stop him.

Sheila Gilmore is set to replace Gavin Strang for Labour, and in previous careers (both hers and mine), I had some dealings with her. And frankly I feel ambivalent about her. Neither inspired, nor offensive, I remember finding her hard to read. She was reasonably eloquent about explaining the case for Housing stock transfer, but we all know now that that wasn't enough to persuade Edinburgh tenants that she genuinely felt that stock transfer was the right way to go, and that she wasn't just pushing a new labour policy for the sake of it.  I somehow have a gut feeling that she will simply tow the party line were she to be elected. Lobby fodder for the westminster party elite - at least on the issues that matter to me at any rate.

And the LibDems? Well they haven't confirmed their candidate yet. So not much to go on there. They did get the 2nd largest share of the vote at the last general election, although now that Kenny MacKaskill is the SNP MSP there, George is seen as the main challenger these days. Besides, I find the LibDems the slipperiest of all political parties - what exactly would I be voting for if I voted LibDem? Without a face, I don't know. And besides, if they are 3rd place contenders now, they're not worth considering for a tactical vote.

So, if I were to tactically vote, what should I do?

If I felt that Labour would consider a 'stop the Tories' coaltion with the Libdems, then I might be persuaded to vote Labour to tactically push that alliance - not that the Lib/Lab coalition did much for the environment when in power in Scotland. I'm assuming Gordon would be kicked out whatever happens. In Westminster there's a chance they might do a bit better - again a gut feeling, based on the LibDem front bench in London.

Or should I hold my nose and vote SNP, increasing Georges chances of getting elected in the hope that he'll tow the 'no nuclear in Scotland' party line and rein in his Tory loving tendencies? Will Alex Salmond pull off his 20 MP's and will the numbers stuck up so that Westminster does indeed have to start dancing to Scottish jig? Another gut feeling, but that seems unlikely too. It seems more likely that the SNP block will end up larger, but ultimately they'll keep bleating pointlessly in Westminster, as irrelevant as usual. And besides, Nuclear power pledges aside, they SNP have not impressed me in government in Scotland.

Given all that murk and uncertainty, it seems I only have once choice afterall. To Vote Green - and hope that more people vote green too. We might not get an MP elected, but it may be the best way to put pressure on whoever does get elected to vote the right way on green issues. Of course, it would be nice to see the voting system changed, so that I didn't have to go through the process I've just been through. But until then...

 

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Tuesday
09Jun2009

Yes Mr Strang, We'll Have To Agree To Disagree

DateTuesday, June 9, 2009 at 11:11PM

I just got a reply to my Letter that I sent to Gavin Strang MP, where I asked him to support the Vote For A Change Campaign. After saying that he supported PR for Scottish Parliament as he was woried that people would have perceived that it would be dominated by the Central belt and West of Scotland because of Labours strength, bizzarely he goes on to say that a PR system for Westminster would not be appropriate. So PR is good enough for provincial parliaments, but not Westminster.

Firstly, he says that it's important to preserve a constituency link between the MP and the people that they're supposed to represent. He reckons it's stronger under First Past The Post (FPTP), than other systems. I don't agree. Afterall, I don't seem to be in agreement with Mr Strang on this issue, and I didn't vote for him in the first place. Perhaps if there were two or three people elected to represent my constituency, one of whom I'd voted for, maybe I'd find someone amongst them to take up my cause more seriously in parliament?

Secondly, he claims that FPTP makes it easy for people to vote a government out, as opposed to a coalition administration that might be likley under some for of PR. Being a Labour MP, getting voted out may be at the forefront of Mr Strangs mind at the moment, however, I really don't understand this point. Labour is currently in power, but on what proportion of the votes cast? In 2005, Labour only received 35% of the vote, on a low turnout. Why then should they have such a huge majority in Westminster? This indicates to me that unpopular governments are as hard to get rid of under the current system as any other.

Thirdly, Mr Strang thinks that PR systems give a disproportionate amount of long-term influence to 'a third party'.  It's true that PR systems have the potential to give power to a minority interest in parliament, but then FPTP systems exclude small parties entirely. I think most people would agree that the Additional Member System that has elected Greens, Socialists and other independents to the Scottish Parliament has helped to improve the breadth of debate in Holyrood. Similar things could be said of the Welsh assembly and the London Assembly.

To me it sounds as though Mr Strang would prefer to keep the cosy two party system running in Westminster for as long as possible. Which is pretty surprising really, as you would have thought they'd be trying to work out a coalition deal with the LibDems in time for the next general election. Now that it looks like Brown has seen off the plotters, it's the only way I can imagine that Labour might stay in power in Westminster in the next parliament.

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Monday
08Jun2009

Democracy Seems So Unfair Sometimes

DateMonday, June 8, 2009 at 10:19AM

If you're in the Greens that is.The Greens haven't had a reversal of fortune in the euro elections, far from it - although the Greens story is almost absent from the mainstream reporting. In fact they've grown their vote more than any other party nationally, and they seem to be well set-up for more electoral success in their stronghold areas down south, like Brighton.

The sad part is, this hasn't been enough to get the Greens more MEPs, and the gains aren't as big as I was hoping. Of course, I'm particularly disappointed that we didn't get a Green MSP in Scotland, although it looks as though the Greens took the biggest share of the vote in Scotland that they've ever taken. 

Nationally, the turn-out was dismal, and the disillusionment with 'business as usual' parties palpable. Politics seems to have splintered into all sorts of unpredictable and strange directions - the most inexplicable is the dirft to the right represented by the fact that the Tories vote held up, and a surprisingly strong UKIP vote. It is astonishing to see the Tories do so well in Wales, for example, whilst the SNP have also made history - coming top in a national poll for the first time.

The fact that the BNP gained two MEP's is really depressing, especially considering that less people voted for them in this election than in the last Euro election. So even though there has in reality been a downturn in support for the BNP, they have gained because so few people on the left bothered to vote.

In times of economic strife you'd perhaps expect Left leaning parties to do better. It's hardly a surprise that Labour are down. But I was surprised to see the LibDems down too. This seems to leave the Greens as the only 'progressive' left leaning party to have gained something out of these Euro elections. The trouble is that gain was not enough.

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Tuesday
02Jun2009

Vote For A Change

DateTuesday, June 2, 2009 at 05:50PM

Local Labour Councillor Andrew Burns recently posted about the Vote For A Change campaign. He's supporting it, and so I thought I'd write to my local Labour MP Gavin Strang to see if he'll support it too. I look forward to his response.

In the meantime, you might want to check out the Vote for A Change campaign at www.voteforachange.co.uk

"Dear Gavin Strang,

In the wake of the recent Westminster expenses scandal, I am writing to you to ask that you support calls for a reform of the voting system. I'm asking you to support calls by the campaign group "Vote for a Change" (http://www.voteforachange.co.uk/) for a referendum at the next election on whether some form of proportional representation should be adopted for electing Westminster MPs.

It is clear that the current First Past the Post system is increasingly anachronistic, and gives a disproportionate amount of power to a tiny group of swing voters. I believe that this would help to make parliament more accountable to all UK voters.

Making the switch to a proportional system will help to clean-up Westminster, but only alongside other measures too. I hope that you will also support measures to promote greater transparency, disclosure and reform of the MPs allowances system, and I'd be most grateful if you could let me know what action you are taking on this issue."

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Sunday
08Feb2009

Scotland can replace nuclear with green energy

DateSunday, February 8, 2009 at 09:19AM

The Scotsman reports today on the internal divisions in the Labour party in Scotland over their submission to the Calman Commission. It seems the Scots MPs (including Gordon Brown) want to take back planning powers from Holyrood, whereas the Scots MSPs want to keep them. This despite a poll that shows more and more support in Scotland for indepenance. Talk about putting yourself on the wrong side of the debate!

Essentially, it seems the Westminster Labour party MP's have taken the huff. They still want to build new nuclear plants, whilst there's a measure of agreement in Holyrood that Scots would be better investing in renewable energy.

The same old tired nonsense about Holyrood risking security of supply by blocking new nuclear is rehashed in the Scotsman. So, let's try and figure this out once and for all:

  1. Total Gross renewables installed in Scotland in 2001: 4202 GWh (10% of total consumption)
  2. Total Gross renewables installed in Scotland in 2007: 8226 GWh (20% of total consumption)
  3. Total Gross nuclear power generation has never been more than 18681 GW (or  37.9 % of total  consumption) over the same period.
  4. There's two nuclear power stations in Scotland, one is due to close in 2016 and the other 2023.
  5. 2007 Number of households: 2314,000 . Estimated 2023 number of households 2625,000 (13% more). We could assume we'll consume an extra 2428.5 GWh in 2023, but when you look at the stats you can see that actually Scotlands consumption has hovered around 50,000 GWh over the last 7 years. Lets be optimistic and assume that our efforts to boost our efficiency will maintain this static trend.
  6. Assuming that the nuclear reactors generate 50% of the total nuclear output each, in 2016, renewables will need to replace roughly 9000 GWh of capacity, when the first reactor closes.
  7. We've managed to add 4000GWh in the last 6 years. We'll need to add almost another 8000 GWh to meet the the SNP's 31% from renewables target by 2011 -  that'll take us to roughly 15,500GWh. The Scottish Government seem confident that currently consented renewables developments will meet that target. It therefore seems safe to assume we can handle the closure of the first one of the nuclear reactors.
  8. Looking onwards to 2023, even with a slowing growth rate in the easy to install stuff - like onshore wind, it looks like we can install another 9000Gwh of capacity.

Conclusion? Labour MP's are frustrated over the fact that their Westminster green policies are clearly mince, and are trying to find a way of scunnering Holyrood as it becomes clear that it's doing a better job of greening the scots economy than Westminster is - even with limited influence over the regulatory environment.

Of course, the energy policy debate is not simply one of nuclear vs renewables. Scotland relies on coal and gas for a large part of its electricity supplies too, and cutting electricity demand should really be the starting point for all of this. And what are the SNP proposing to do about those issues? If the last budget is anything to go by the answer is pretty much nothing. But that's a different question.

I just wanted to make it clear that if Holyrood can carry on supporting the growth of more renewables, as we're doing at the moment, we don't need new nuclear in Scotland and there'll be no risk to security of supply issues.

 

Comment1 Comment | | |
Wednesday
04Feb2009

LIBDEMS = BUDGET FAIL

DateWednesday, February 4, 2009 at 08:39PM

Seriously, is that all it takes? Astonishing to see that the LibDems and Labour have voted to support the SNP budget, and got so very little in return.

I had hoped that the price of buying the LibDems and Labour off would have cost more than the £11million extra that the Scottish Greens were asking for over the £20million that the SNP were offering. However, it seems that you can buy the entire Scottish LibDems for not much more than wishy washy commitments to participate in the Calman Commission and a toothless financial sector review.

What do the LibDems gain from this? After the tough stance Tavish took on the 2p tax cut issue in the first round of negotiations, what was he thinking when he decided to roll over for Alex in the 2nd round? I just don't get it at all. Unless Tavish has made a secret back room deal, it seems to me that the LibDems have just made themselves even more irrelevent to Scottish politics.

At least Labour got £7million quid out the SNP for more apprenticeships. However, given the number of MSPs they have £7million quid seems like very little - albeit that the SNP have made a commitment for a further £7million next year. It at least means that Labour can claim they got something tangible out of Swinney, and I've no doubt that the 'more apprenticeships' with Labour message will play well to the core vote. However, the £7million was won at the expense of the Greens.

The Greens may have lost this battle, but who'd have thought that Labour and the LibDems would be so easily bought? I don't blame Patrick Harvie for gambling that his proposals would always be cheaper to fund than the other opposition parties.

I still think that the Greens have the most coherent response to the credit crunch, and every single person who lives in fuel poverty, or in a hard to heat home, many of whom probably live in a 'traditional Labour voting area,' should reflect on whether £7million worth of extra apprenticeships is really all that voting Labour means, when voting Green could've meant that every single household in Scotland would benefit from housing that is cheaper to heat and better for the planet.  Not to mention the jobs - and training opportunities - that would have been created by funding the Greens proposals.

Still, the Greens may have lost the battle, but in a sense they won the war because they stuck to their principles. The SNP have shown themselves up as well, more fond of the roads and house building lobbies than doing anything green when the chips are down. If there is any silver lining from this whole sorry mess, at least there is now clear 'Green water' between the Greens and any other party that may try to steal their clothes.

 

Comment1 Comment | | |
Tuesday
06Jan2009

SNP: Don't Take Me To The Bridge

DateTuesday, January 6, 2009 at 08:20AM

You would have thought that after the Glenrothes byelection set back the SNP would start to pick their fights a little bit more carefully. However, the SNP seem determined to push this one as far as they can.

First they abolish bridge tolls on the current Forth road bridge. A populist move that may have had something to do with them winning some votes in the kingdom admittedly. But given the uncertainty at the time over the remaining working life of the bridge it wasn't a prudent long term move, as it meant that the SNP could not perform an about turn to introduce tolls to pay for a replacement bridge, or indeed a 2nd bridge. Nor could 'smart' tolls be introduced on the crossing to incentivise green travel or manage congestion.

Then, when it became clear that the current bridge had a much longer lifetime than previously thought, the SNP continued to support the building of another crossing, right next to the current one, despite predictions that this would increase congestion in the surrounding areas, not to mention increases in pollution and CO2 emissions. I'm sure I remember the original proposals, with a fancy dan double decker approach - with trams, cycle lanes, dedicated bus lanes and so on, on a seperate deck from the heavy traffic.

Now, we see these all singing, all dancing proposals stripped right down to a straightforward road bridge, halving the cost of the project to a mere £2billion or so. The cuts make the design even less appealing of course, and will mean that the increased congestion and pollution linked to the bridge will be even worse in the surrounding areas.

The fact that the bridge isn't needed now hasn't detered the SNP from trying to use it to blackmail westminster into providing them with a loan to cover the cost of the project. Unsurprisingly, Gordon Brown isn't going to help Alex Salmond build his vanity project during the credit crunch. However, the idealogical opposition the SNP have to PFI, and the fact that the SNP alternative - the Scottish Futures Trust - hasn't delivered a single capital project whatsoever yet, means that any new bridge must be directly funded by the Scottish Government. This means other capital projects will have to "wait in line".

What are these capital projects that may need to wait? A new hospital in Glasgow? A whole host of urban public transport improvements (like expanding the tram network in Edinburgh, or developing rapid transit in Glasgow), perhaps the SNP could try to comission some new schools some time during their administration? All of this stuff is at risk of cancellation or delay. Investment in all of these areas is badly needed, and would support the development of the 'healthier, wealthier, fairer, greener' scotland that the SNP bang on about all time much better than a new bridge over the Forth.

Meanwhile the Scottish Government seems happy to pledge millions to save art for the nation or to subsidise a further freeze in council taxes.

And of course at the end of the day, there's no guarantee that residents of Fife would even thank the SNP for their efforts.

The big question is whether the ever higher stakes grievance politics of the SNP is going to keep washing with the Scottish people. A surprisingly large number of people seem to love it and buy the claptrap about 'sticking up for Scotland,' when really the SNP seems to be doing nothing but sticking up for the SNP and Alex Salmonds need to appear in ever more high profile press launches.

 

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Saturday
08Nov2008

A Tale Of 3 Elections

DateSaturday, November 8, 2008 at 09:48AM

"Naw they couldnae" as Holyrood Chronicles succinctly put it.

The SNP lost three out of 1, 2, 3 elections to Labour this week. Even though Labour themselves thought they were losing right up to the call. Needless to say Labour are delighted, nay overjoyed , at the fact that there seems to be some substance to the Brown bounce.

Are there lessons to learn from all this? In Glenrothes and Fife, Labour made astute candidate choices. They rejected the old guard, and chose new, but well kent, local faces with no previous public political convictions. This contrasts to the SNP whose candidates political exploits and ambitions were well known. The similarities don't stop there though.

In both Glenrothes and the Forth Ward, Labour could easily campaign on local social justice issues against the SNP who are in power in both local authorities. In Glenrothes, the issue was means tested care for the elderly. In Forth ward, the issue was the huge cuts made to a range of services in the area as a result of a reallocation of 'regeneration money,' to better off areas. Certainly there are people in Forth ward who almost take this personally and see it as Cllr Cardownies (the leader of the Edinburgh SNP group] personal crusade to settle old scores against his old Labour colleagues. Despite the fact that he defected to the SNP from Labour because he didn't like the New Labour drift to the right.

So local elections, won on local issues. But is that the whole story? It's notable that over in Baillieston Labour won, even when they control the local council, and in an area that had swung so far towards the SNP a few months before. Were those previous SNP victories down to local people punishing corrupt local Labour politicians and nothing to do with a general swing to the SNP afterall?

All the papers are claiming that the way Alex Salmond has handled the banking crisis has lost the SNP critical momentum, whilst Brown has benefited. There is perhaps some truth in this, but also I wonder whether there has been an "Obama effect" that has infused left leaning voters with a new confidence. I know - everyone is claiming an Obama effect on everything, but bear with me. Where people had become very cynical of the New Labour narrative, could it be that Obama has articulated a new vision of a vaguely progressive left politics that might rub off on voters wavering between the SNP and Labour?

Afterall, Obama has had more media covereage here than any of the local Scottish elections. And concious that this perhaps sounds trite, the US election has perhaps inspired people to believe in the power of democracy to change things and shown everyone that politics can be about a little bit more than just the narrow constitutional issues that animate the SNP. Whether it comes to pass or not, the hype around the Obama victory has given people hope that they can come together, despite their differences, around a progressive project. This message is anathema to the divisive politics of the SNP.

This, combined with the ongoing economic turmoil, says to me that parties that can successfully lay claim to some form of track record on social justice and dealing with crises are going to benefit. If this is the end of the SNP honeymoon, then it is because the gloss is coming off their populist polices for the people who aren't represented by a lobby group with a loud voice - the SNP losers. The fact is that the origninal lobby group for the poorest people in Scotland, who seem to be the main SNP losers - is the Labour party. Even if they haven't been very good at coming up with any solutions.

However, we can take the Obama link too far. His rhetorical skills may have encouraged people to lean leftwards, but his central theme was "change." And, the fact that Labour won all three elections means nothing will change locally. Labour are still in power in Glasgow and Westminster, and the balance of power in Edinburgh remains the same. It means the Gordon Brown will probably lead Labour into the next general election even if Labour in Westminster are still faced with the same problems. If Labour learn anything from this success, I'd hope it is that they must find a way to connect, and show they can move beyond the New Labour project. If Labour see this as an endorsement of the status quo and fail to change, then their traditional voters might yet be tempted to vote for another party instead come the next general election.

How did the other parties fair? The SNP did make gains on Labour in all the elections, but usually at the expense of the other parties and the LibDems in particular. The LibDems lost their deposit in Glenrothes,as they did in Glasgow East, coming in fourth behind the Tories. Tavish Scott must surely be starting to worry. It seems that far from challenging Labour, could it be that in some parts of Scotland the SNP are really becoming the credible protest vote for the more conservative, middle way, (with a small 'c') middle classes that the LibDems used to be?

The Greens stood in both council elections. Kate Joester, the Green candidate in Edinburgh did well to roughly hold onto the Green share of the vote, despite the SNP squeeze, so the Greens remain in fifth place in the ward. The talk in the Edinburgh branch is of how much extra work it would take to get Greens into fourth place. Afterall, it is a ward that elects 4 councillors. That is probably a decision that will need to be taken at the next local government elections. Sadly, the Green candidate in Glasgow got just 32 votes, beaten even by the BNP.

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Tuesday
28Oct2008

Local Income Tax is Workable, But It's Not Fair

DateTuesday, October 28, 2008 at 09:10AM

The Scottish local tax discussions lurch on one step further with the recent admission from John Swinney that the SNP are considering some of the LibDems proposals for a Local Income Tax (LIT) that is set by local authorities.

Although regular AD readers will know that I'm a fan of a Land Value Tax (LVT) not LIT, it must be said that Labours description of the proposals as having 32 different rates, for each local authority, is disingenuous to say the least, and doesn't do them much credit really.

The SNP propose to cap the maximum tax at 3p in the pound, so there will in theory be 4 different rates between 0p and 3p. However, I doubt very much that any local authority is going to choose to go below the 3p cap, particularly as the SNP have effectively given the green light to the 3p rate as this was the level the SNP themselves proposed.

Realistically then, employers will be unfortunate if they have to cope with more than 2 different rates of LIT. But even if they do, they're already set up to make these deductions. Employers already deduct trade union dues, bike to work fees, pensions, national insurance, charity donations, student loan repayments and goodness know what else from peoples salaries. In fact, I think the proposals would cut some council costs and bureaucracy, as they wouldn't need to employ hundreds of people across the country to chase people for council tax.

To me, that aspect of the SNP/LIT plan is perfectly workable so all those parties who deride it as unworkable probably need to come up with a different way to fight it.

However, the SNP may decide to tax income from shares too. Now, this is a good thing, in principle, as one of my main concerns about the LIT is that it really will affect the middle classes and the poorest workers disproportionately. If you subsist from 'unearned income' from owning shares, than you won't have to pay much in the way of LIT, unless income from shares is included. However, policing this really is going to be tricky, and it will require a bureaucracy of some sort to make it happen. Even then, I think the LIT proposals if implemented will still spawn a whole rash of offshore, or maybe just English based, share based tax avoidance schemes.

If I was self-employed, or had a nice employer, what's to stop me paying myself the minimum wage in Scotland, and paying the rest of my salary as dividends to an English based family member, or trust or whatever it is that people do to avoid income tax as it is? One of the reasons I prefer a LVT is because you can't hide land in an offshore trust, or move it south of the border. Perhaps the opposition parties should therefore be critiquing the LIT supporters not for producing unworkable proposals, but for favouring unfair ones?

CommentPost a Comment | | |
Page 1 2 Next 10 Entries »