I’ve not had a chance to read or see the exact speech that Johann Lamont gave when she attacked the Scottish Government’s ‘something for nothing’ attitude, or Nicola Sturgeon’s widely agreed hammering of the Labour leader on the same. While I do believe that tying quickly exaggerated Scottish politics bunfights to reality is worthwhile, I believe I can understand the argument that was being made well enough to comment. A recent poll did after all show that a majority of Scots wanted students to pay directly for their tuition, contrary to current Scottish Governmental policy, and with the majority of the cuts not yet in Swinney’s budgets, there is fertile ground here for Labour to make hay, if they want to do so.
My main concern over this speech is that the Government providing for certain sections of society is seemingly seen as ‘something for nothing’, likening students, patients, welfare claimants to charity cases rather than taxpayers receiving a service. It would be an unfortunate linkage from any politician, but it’s particularly shocking from a Labour one.
Money can only go so far, and I must admit I treated the SNP manifesto with a heavy dose of suspicion when I read it, believing that it was only the Greens who were playing straight with the electorate when they proposed revenue raising in order to pay for similar commitments. It has been so far so good from the SNP of course, and John Swinney in particular, but to what extent councils can absorb the pain to get through this funding pinch over the next few years remains to be seen. It is difficult to criticise a political party for delivering a manifesto that it won a majority for though. Manifestoes should be written on stone, despite what Nick Clegg says.
Not that the above is necessarily the discussion that is being played out in the press at the moment, I’ve noticed that the debate has very quickly got personal.
There is something quite grubby about trying to link the Sturgeon household’s income to a substantial debate on Scotland’s spending policy, but it’s worth noting that a household earning £200k gross salary (as ‘The Sturgeons’ are reported to do) will be paying tax at a level not too far off £100k. Should we really begrudge such people the odd ‘free’ hayfever prescription? It all just seems a bit petty and parochial.
The real debate should be around how much money we need to pay for the things we want which, by definition, requires Scotland to agree on what it wants. Johann Lamont’s approach to that debate is to meekly accept the money that is heading north from UK coalition spending decisions and trying to make do on that. That is Johann’s decision but it doesn’t suggest much in the way of ambition or big picture politics. The choice will ultimately come down to either compromising on our principles due to the constraints of the money we receive from George Osborne or breaking that link through independence or fiscal autonomy and raising whatever we need. Put another way, does Scotland want the means to raise the revenue required in order to fund the public sector that we want? I would have hoped so.
I don’t really see how Scotland can harmoniously coexist with the rest of the UK when south of the border moves towards free schools, privatised NHS, £9k/year tuition fees and needlessly expensive non-devolved defence spending which prohibits, through the allocated spending block, Scotland taking too markedly a different path.
There are not many political decisions that I feel that passionately about. Higher education free at the point of use is one and universal healthy school meals for all school children up to a certain age is another. They are not giveaways, they are a value-for-money price of a healthy, educated populace that will power the economy and take the strain off the health service (which should also be free at the point of use, right up to getting your prescription). They operate in blessed ignorance of background and class, of whether your parents earn £20k, £200k or £2m. Universal provision is, surely, the bulwark of social mobility, with tax rates required to flex affordability, not means testing. I am concerned that Scottish Labour seemingly disagrees.
Johann Lamont bringing alternative suggestions to John Swinney’s budgets to the table would be welcome (not that she has as yet that I have seen) but my heels will be unapologetically dug in on the side of the direction that the SNP is trying to take us and the universal provision that will move all of Scotland, not just those who can afford it, forwards to a healthier, smarter and happier future.
#1 by Doug Daniel on September 28, 2012 - 4:45 pm
“The choice will ultimately come down to either compromising on our principles due to the constraints of the money we receive from George Osborne or breaking that link through independence or fiscal autonomy and raising whatever we need.”
This is the crux of it for me. Labour are talking about a need for a “debate”, but they’re choosing the wrong debate (or “the wrong prescription”, as Neighbours fans might put it…) The debate we should be having (and indeed, the debate we will have) is whether Scotland wants to continue along the path we’re on (something at the very least resembling social democracy) or if we want to change direction and go down the same path as rUK. But by ruling out independence from the start, Johann has already started on the debate on the presumption that Scotland chooses to cut services, rather than protect them.
Nicola Sturgeon said she relished a debate, as do I, and as should every other nationalist/pro-indy person, because by telling us that we have to choose what to cut, Lamont has turned the independence debate into right versus left. Every single speaker on that stage in Princes Street Gardens talked about choosing to protect the services we care about, whereas all people like Lamont and Darling can do is spell out doom and gloom. They try to tell us There Is No Alternative, but there is – control of our own revenues, ditching Trident, choosing not to give tax cuts to those paying the top rate of income tax and not choosing the false economy of means testing (or “going through a process” if you want to use James Kelly MSP’s euphemism from Good Morning Scotland today.)
The idea that you cut to get out of a recession has been exposed as a total fallacy after two years of Osborne’s failed economics, and here’s Johann Lamont jumping on the train just as it’s about to go over a cliff. Whatever. I would suggest anyone who thinks Johann has a point reads the past two articles on the Reid Foundation website, which extol the virtues of universal benefits brilliantly. That’s the kind of thinking Scotland needs, not Lamont’s complete surrender to Tory economics. If she wants to start a debate about raising revenues, then let’s hear it, but after five years in the cold, all Scottish Labour’s best minds can come up with is a hint towards raising council tax, without having the guts to actually call for it – as both Lamont on Newsnicht and Kelly on Good Morning Scotland have shown. Forgive me if I don’t hold out much hope of her policy committee reporting (after the referendum) that it’s reached the conclusion that we need a wholesale reform of local taxation, or even FFA for Holyrood…
It’s a shame Johann didn’t find this new-found love of “honesty” before her party pledged to continue the council tax freeze for five years in Glasgow in May…
#2 by BM on September 28, 2012 - 4:47 pm
Most politicians, if they’re not offering is jam today, they’re offering jam tomorrow. Johann Lamont, on the other hand, is offering us a shooken up jar of angry wasps.
And for what? Some sort of class-based fight that could end up costing us more in the end that at the beginning? We know that free eye checks has actually saved money. We know that tuition fees stop those from low-income backgrounds from applying, even if they would have gotten a bursary or grant. We know that universal benefits destigmatises the collection of welfare goods. And, we know that means-testing is costly and would require a new bureaucracy to deliver (and maybe that’s the point: more means-testing == more jobs).
While I do have sympathy for the argument that those who are better off should pay for what they receive from the state, that’s exactly what the taxation system is for. By using variation in tax levels between the rich and poor, we can get all the advantages of universal benefits without letting the rich “get away” with getting “something for nothing” (although, the irony here is that the richest very often get nothing for something if they choose private schooling, medical insurance, and travel exclusively by helicopter…).
I think we would do well to remember too that Johann Lamont was voted into Parliament on the basis of the Labour party’s manifesto, which included such “freebies” as the council tax freeze, free tuition at Scotland’s universities, and free swimming lessons, amongst others. Johann Lamont was elected as an MSP to deliver these things, not to take them away, and that’s exactly what she plans on doing.
Before Johann Lamont announced Labour’s new “policy flavour”, I considered that if the SNP lost the referendum, them they it would be very difficult for them to win the next Scottish election. Now, however, I don’t see how they could loose.
Nicola Sturgeon’s jam pieces or Johann Lamont’s moothfu o wasps? Tough choice – not.
#3 by Commenter on September 28, 2012 - 5:14 pm
I think Lamont’s train of thought is:
1) There is going to be a spending squeeze that we can do nothing about (independence is certainly off the table), so we should cut some benefits for more well-off people so that the money we do have is targeted at Labour voters sorry the Vulnerable.
2) And anyway, the SNP are just trying to make people vote for them, (and they’re doing it deliberately). If the SNP came up with policy X then it’s a bad policy and should be ditched because making voters in Scotland happy is a nefarious plan to breed division amongst the people of Britain.
In summary, what she’s saying doesn’t out her as some sort of Thatcherite, and there is a heavy dose of SNP Derangement Syndrome at work.
#4 by Iain Menzies on September 28, 2012 - 6:24 pm
If ‘yer granny’ needs some help about the house…why should she get to pocket £50-80 rather than use that 50-80 to pay for it?
#5 by BM on October 1, 2012 - 8:53 am
Because my granny can barely walk upright without the help of expensive supports. Because my granny has had to refit her bathroom, since she can’t climb into the bath any more. Because my granny had to fit a hearing aid thingumabob to the TV, telephone and wireless to be able to hear it. Because my granny is drawing not from her own saved-up state pension, but from the state pension credits her children transferred to her so that she could have a state pension.
In short, because my granny needs that money to pay for all the other things old age brings, in order to live with dignity.
#6 by Grahamski on September 29, 2012 - 9:11 am
That this is a high-risk strategy from Labour is beyond doubt.
The response from the McChatterati and nat fellow-travellers (that would be Ian and Iain) was as cliched as it was expected.
My own feeling is that while Labour are saying that everything is on the table, ultimately the real targets will be the CT freeze and a look at how we better fund higher education.
Let’s not kid ourselves here: the CT freeze is pretty much Thatcherite rate-capping dressed up as a progressive policy and the idea that we can afford to put so many of our kids through uni without looking at proper funding is not just cynical – it is irresponsible.
There has been much celebrating at SNP HQ over Ms Lamont’s speech. The SNP can’t believe their luck, it has been reported that Mr Salmond was considering taking a flight back to Scotland so that he could get a kick in at FMQs on Thursday.
Indeed in their haste to attack Labour and crow about their own achievements the SNP have now committed themselves to a further CT freeze and taken off the table any kind of examination of how we navigate through these troubled times in favour of one single, silver bullet argument: separation.
Which is fine for the 2014 referendum but if Scotland votes against separation where do the SNP go from there?
#7 by BM on October 1, 2012 - 8:58 am
The big freeze will no longer be relevant at the next election (regardless of the outcome of the 2014 referendum). Because of the latest Scotland Act, the Scottish Parliament will have the right to create new taxes, so the SNP and Liberals will be promising LIT, and the Greens will be promising LVT. The trouble for Labour of course is that they will be two steps behind, offering to lift the freeze on the council tax (or even re-band) instead of offering to replace it with something fairer.
But that’s been the MO of Labour for a while now – react, and react so slowly that the debate has moved on by the time a response has been formulated.
#8 by Commenter on October 1, 2012 - 10:55 am
“Let’s not kid ourselves here: the CT freeze is pretty much Thatcherite rate-capping dressed up as a progressive policy”
Remember that Scotland consistently sends a majority of Labour MPs to Westminster, and voted in Tony Blair three times with large majorities, so the popularity of this policy shouldn’t surprise people.
I would be interested though, in whether the SNP policy of weighting council funding increasingly onto general taxation such as income tax, corporation tax etc might actually be more ‘progressive’ than finding the extra money via council tax rises. Council tax obviously is more progressive than the Poll tax, but not as progressive as income tax, for example.
#9 by Commenter on October 1, 2012 - 10:57 am
Also, is raising council tax in a council which is generally poorer more progressive than increasing funding to that council from general taxation?
#10 by Robert Blake on October 1, 2012 - 2:17 pm
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Scottish Labour offer a CT freeze at the last elections?
Didn’t Glasgow Labour put in place a CT freeze (after years of more than inflation rises)
Didn’t Stirling Labour join with the Tories to enact a 5% CT CUT?
CT has a bit problem. The Tories booby trapped it. The banding is linked, so you can’t decide that the rich should pay more without hitting the poorest. Raise it for the rich, you have to raise it for the poor.
In any case nothing stops the Labour Councils increasing CT> They say the freeze is underfunded. Very well. Let them forgo THAT money, and raise it as they wish. If the extra money they get is insufficient, then surely raising it would be a more lucrative exercise.
Of course, at least in the West, we have the difficulty on who Labour Councils gice that money to, the ALEO record for example is horrifying, but that’s a dfferent question
#11 by gavin on September 29, 2012 - 11:21 am
The Labour Party is totally free to change its mind on what platform it chooses to fight elections on. What it surely cannot do is attack others for keeping to their manifesto promises while they perform u-turns. If Labour is now against “universalism”, and uses powerful rhetoric to justify this change, then it should not be surprised if people to the right of them use their (labours ) logic and words to justify changes they make to existing benefits. Watch for Tory attacks on national bargaining etc using Lamonts own use of language to support change.
#12 by Observer on September 29, 2012 - 10:56 pm
Really good post from Jeff. Much enjoyed.
Lamont’s views run contrary to Ed Miliband’s who when questioned on universal child benefit said this:
“I’m in favour of that yes, and I’m in favour of it because it’s a cornerstone of our system to have universal benefits, and frankly there aren’t that many millionaires in this country”
If people pay in then they should be entitled to take out & frankly there aren’t that many millionaires in Scotland either.
#13 by Indy on October 1, 2012 - 3:36 pm
That’s really the point. You cannot expect people to go on paying tax for services they no longer receive. It has been said before but services which exist only to serve the poor will be poor services. We just have to look at the United States to see that and to see the impact of politicians competing on how little they can spend to provide publicly funded services, rather than how much! Of course that model is exactly why right wing free marketeers support an end to universal services and why Johann Lamont has made a colossal mistake here. Of course there are – and always will be – competing priorities that will be the subject of debate. That happens in the good times as well as the bad. But that was not the point she was making, no matter how hard Labour are trying to row back now.
#14 by GMcM on October 1, 2012 - 3:35 pm
Interesting that those who have put the boot into Johann Lamont have not really made it clear what their views are on the current SNP government agenda.
Do you deny that cuts are being made and some cuts are being amplified by the choices of the Holyrood administration?
The choices facing Scotland do not disappear by separating from the UK. Whether independent or not the problems exist. The debate that needs to be had IS one of right vs left. What would you raise taxes to? Where would you roll policies back? Where would you cut to maintain policies that are popular?
These choices are going to be made regardless of the constitutional arrangements. To palm this debate off with ‘independence is the answer’ is absurd.
Independence is not a silver bullet.
Take health for example. If you want to maintain universal provision of prescriptions via general taxation yet you know this is amplifying the pain within the NHS (reduction in nurse/midwives, increased complaints etc) do you keep with this choice, of cutting elsewhere to keep this policy afloat, or do you raise taxes to properly fund the policy and make the universal provision sustainable?
If neither of those options is palatable then the other option is charges for the richest in society.
The debate Labour want us all to have is one the SNP wanted until they realised it would undermine their popularity. Now some on here have poured scorn over the claim that the SNP only do these things because it makes them popular. However, can nats not see that doing the right thing, and being seen to be actively looking to do the right thing, is vitally important – possibly more improtant than just looking good.
Are SNP supporters really that happy to see a >2% budget cut being multiplied up to >5% cut to local authorities while simultaneously asking for the popular policies to be maintained?
Whether you like it or not the SNP have decided which of the three options they think are best for Scotland and they have chosen to cut in other areas to protect their popular policies. Is this what SNP supporters want? If not, should the SNP join in with the debate and decide the best way forward for the country regardless of constitutional setups?