And on the other end of the spectrum from Kezia, we have Liberal Democrat Caron lambasting the SNP for not banging their heads against a brick wall by bringing forward legislation that was certain to be defeated. I share Caron's frustration for 'Scotland's poorest' who will continue to lose out under the council tax, but the only thing that could actually help such people would be local income tax on the statute book, not a glorious failure at the expense of dozens of hours of wasted parliamentary time.
At the end of her post is a frankly disturbing link to an appearance by Jeremy Purvis on something called 'Tavish TV'. I must admit I'd never previously heard of 'Tavish TV', but then these hip and trendy 'yoof' channels have never really been my thing.
Showing posts with label local income tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local income tax. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Labour 'we'
I've just had a look at Kezia Dugdale's take on the deferral of the local income tax legislation. My first observation is that it always makes me wince slightly to see someone like Kezia use a title such as 'how stupid do they think we are?'. The implication here being that 'they' are the establishment and 'we' are the general public. But Kezia, as I understand it, is a Labour activist. I think most of 'us' - if I can put it that way - can see there's a slight distinction between the general public on the one hand and Labour activists on the other, and indeed for all 'we' know the SNP might well regard one of these groups as being rather more stupid or intelligent than the other (in broad terms).
But as for the specifics of Kezia's complaint, she feels that the SNP's argument that there is no point in introducing legislation for which there is no 'stable majority' doesn't hold water, because they still plan to introduce the independence referendum bill, about which the same could be said. But that's not quite an accurate comparison, is it? Because in the case of the local income tax there has in fact been a stable majority against all along. Whereas in the case of the independence referendum, the state of play seems to change every five minutes - and Kezia needs look no further than the utterly chaotic internal politics of her own party to find the explanation for that. Until there's some sign of 'stability' in the opposition parties on this issue (and I mean for longer than a few months), the SNP have every reason to be optimistic that their powers of persuasion can triumph. After all, if a woman as intelligent as Wendy Alexander could suddenly and unexpectedly be persuaded of the merits of a referendum, why shouldn't we imagine such a thing could happen again?
But as for the specifics of Kezia's complaint, she feels that the SNP's argument that there is no point in introducing legislation for which there is no 'stable majority' doesn't hold water, because they still plan to introduce the independence referendum bill, about which the same could be said. But that's not quite an accurate comparison, is it? Because in the case of the local income tax there has in fact been a stable majority against all along. Whereas in the case of the independence referendum, the state of play seems to change every five minutes - and Kezia needs look no further than the utterly chaotic internal politics of her own party to find the explanation for that. Until there's some sign of 'stability' in the opposition parties on this issue (and I mean for longer than a few months), the SNP have every reason to be optimistic that their powers of persuasion can triumph. After all, if a woman as intelligent as Wendy Alexander could suddenly and unexpectedly be persuaded of the merits of a referendum, why shouldn't we imagine such a thing could happen again?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Getting the numbers straight
Within minutes of John Swinney announcing that he had been compelled by the stance of others to defer legislation for local income tax until after the 2011 election, Professor Richard Kerley suggested on television that the problem had been the failure of the SNP and Liberal Democrats to come to an agreement over the issue of the local variability of the tax rate - if that agreement had been there, a parliamentary majority would have been there, Kerley stated as if it were simple fact. Admittedly, Kerley is the leading expert on local government finance and not on parliamentary arithmetic, but you'd think someone so engaged with this issue would have explored it from all the angles. Either way, he's simply wrong. The SNP and Liberal Democrats between them have 63 seats, while the other parties in combination have 65. As John Swinney pointed out in his speech, without the Greens altering their position radically there was never the slightest prospect of getting the legislation through this side of an election. And, as we've recently learned, those who think that the Greens will back down easily are usually guilty of wishful thinking.
This is not a mere technicality - we saw from Andy Kerr's response that Labour are determined to propagate the fiction that the SNP have backed off the policy because they knew it was wrong, and that they have betrayed the electorate by not fulfilling their manifesto pledge. (Usual muddled message - if in Kerr's fantasy world the fabled "hard-working families" were to be hit by a tax bombshell, are they really meant to feel "betrayed" now that they've been spared such a calamity?) It's vital that this fiction is not allowed to take root, and that the electorate fully understands that not only was the majority in Holyrood not there, but that the Westminster government had used an array of outrageous tactics to make it logistically impossible for a local income tax to go forward even if a majority had been there. The real 'false prospectus' was not the SNP's manifesto pledge, it was the UK government's claim of respect for the devolution settlement.
This is not a mere technicality - we saw from Andy Kerr's response that Labour are determined to propagate the fiction that the SNP have backed off the policy because they knew it was wrong, and that they have betrayed the electorate by not fulfilling their manifesto pledge. (Usual muddled message - if in Kerr's fantasy world the fabled "hard-working families" were to be hit by a tax bombshell, are they really meant to feel "betrayed" now that they've been spared such a calamity?) It's vital that this fiction is not allowed to take root, and that the electorate fully understands that not only was the majority in Holyrood not there, but that the Westminster government had used an array of outrageous tactics to make it logistically impossible for a local income tax to go forward even if a majority had been there. The real 'false prospectus' was not the SNP's manifesto pledge, it was the UK government's claim of respect for the devolution settlement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)