Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Student fees and the West Lothian question

Nov 22

Posted by Jeff in Education | 14 Comments

The interesting thing about the lapsing of Scotland’s tax-varying powers is…….. No, just joking, I think 3 posts in a row is enough on that subject for now. Not that it’s necessarily time to move on but it may be time for a short break at least. (And yes, I know the power hasn’t lapsed, earlier error(s) on that score to one side)

A great hip-shaking man once said that we need a little less conversation and a little more action and so it will prove with regard to the great debate over tuition fees as a vote on the issue that has sent many a student into a foaming frenzy is drawing ever closer.

While frustrated Lib Dems are quite free to question what Labour’s alternative policy would be, you don’t enter into a powerful coalition only to point fingers at the other side when the going gets tough so Labour are equally free to vote the coalition proposal down. So, putting things simply, were the vote on tuition fees to be split by the parties of the coalition against everyone else, then, as I understand it, the result would be as follows:

For – 363
Conservatives – 306
Liberal Democrats – 57

Against – 286
Labour – 258
DUP – 8
SNP – 6
Sinn Fein – 5
PC – 3
SDLP – 3
Greens – 1
Others – 2

With students south of the border already successfully targetting Lib Dem MPs to make good on their signed pledges to oppose rises in tuition fees (through the unfortunately named ‘decapitation strategy’), the result of any future vote may well come down to what the Scottish MPs decide to do.

Needless to say, Scottish MPs do not have many constituents who will be affected by these changes (although it could be argued that Scotland would receive less money if England goes ahead with this plan for fees) so, following that logic, Scottish MPs should really abstain from the vote. However, it is unlikely to work that way in practice with the many Labour and SNP MPs expected to vote against the proposal and David Mundell (bless) expected to vote in favour. That leaves the 11 Scottish Lib Dems MPs in an even more awkward position than their southern colleagues and, even more awkwardly, quite possibly holding the balance of power.

It is therefore worthwhile to examine in detail what the position on tuition fees is for each of the Scottish Lib Dem MPs:

Charles Kennedy/Menzies Campbell – An open and shut case. The former Liberal Democrat leaders have stated unequivocally that they disagree with the “direction and thrust of the Coalition’s approach to tuition fees” and “would find it very difficult to abstain”. In what is a startling example of the change in direction that the Liberal Democrats have taken from recent past leaders to the current incumbent, it is clear that Kennedy and Campbell will be voting against Nick Clegg’s preferred result.

Mike Crockart – The newly-installed Edinburgh West MP is said to be considering his position as aide to Michael Moore as he wrestles with the “difficult” decision having signed a pledge not to raise fees. Looks likely to abstain or vote against.

Malcolm Bruce – Has said that he is “very sympathetic to the students’ cause” but has not yet stated how he will vote.

Alan Reid/John Thurso/Robert Smith – The latest explanation for not yet providing a decision from these Lib Dem MPs is a mix of waiting and seeing, wanting time to study the proposals and wanting as progressive a solution as possible. All perfectly valid points of view for such a complicated vote to have to make but this trio will have to go down as undecideds for now.

Alistair Carmichael – As Deputy Chief Whip, the Orkney & Shetland MP is largely expected to vote in favour of the increase to fees in what is, geographically, the most extreme example of the West Lothian Question in action. Indeed, the Daily Mail reports that he is at the forefront of a deal that would see backbenchers abstain and Minister vote in favour.

Jo Swinson – Has valiantly put her head above the parapet early and explained in fine detail why she will be voting in favour of a fee increase alongside the coalition.

Michael Moore – Cannot vote against the coalition’s proposals without losing his job and neither Nick Clegg nor David Cameron would want a third Scottish Secretary in such quick succession. Will surely vote in favour.

Danny Alexander – Given that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had written before the election that the Liberal Democrats should abandon their pledge on tuition fees, it will come as no surprise that the MP representing Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch, & Strathspey will vote in favour of increasing fees.

So, I make that to be:

2 Scottish Lib Dem MPs against
5 Scottish Lib Dem MPs undecideds
4 Scottish Lib Dem MPs for

It’s a mixed bag but the complications do not stop there. The next vote on tuition fees is largely expected to take place before Christmas and one of the biggest issues in the Holyrood campaign will be whether Scottish students should pay fees north of the border. Is it feasible for a constituency to have a Scottish MP voting in favour of English universities charging up to £9,000 a year in fees while the Scottish MSP of the same party and for the same constituency is campaigning for no fees to be applied in Scotland?

The West Lothian Question is a problem that won’t go away. There have been many proposed solutions to the anomaly, two of which came from either side of the coalition Government.

As far as I can make out, The Conservatives Party’s proposed solution is ‘English votes for English laws’ (as included in its manifesto) and the Liberal Democrats’ proposed solution is a form of federalism where England would have an English Parliament within which it would make its own devolved decisions. Both solutions would dictate that Scottish politicians, now and then, should not have a say over how other nations within the UK will conduct its own affairs.

So, for me, there are two and a half reasons why Scotland’s Liberal Democrat MPs should not be voting in favour of increasing tuition fees in England – (1) their party’s proposed solution to the West Lothian Question precludes them from having a say, (1.5) it would reduce the money going to Scotland and, more pertinently, (2.5) they signed a pledge promising not to.

I’m not going to talk about something as unseemly as ‘decapitation’ but, well, let’s just wait and see what all of our Scottish MPs contribute to this vote, and why, particularly unpredictable the Lib Dems.

Where the Lib Dem bloggers trump the Nats

Nov 21

Posted by James in Holyrood | 41 Comments

When you go into government, you get stuff wrong. Even the best governments do. Even – whisper it – Green governments have made mistakes in other countries. The voters and the media spot it, but it’s hardest on the activists who worked so hard to get their colleagues elected. What’s curious to me is the difference in how the various parties’ activists react.

Labour’s remaining left took pride in many of the TB/GB achievements – devolution, minimum wage etc, but still have regrets over a legacy that includes an undemocratic House of Lords and two continuing foreign wars. None of this critique was held back.

Lib Dem activists are catching up now, on fees, VAT, PR and so on, and even though Tory activists are getting most of what they want right now, many wish their Ministers were a tad more Eurosceptic. The online noise about it from their own side is sizeable and unavoidable.

It’s pretty obvious to everyone outside the SNP that it is a major mistake to have let a democratically-sealed power lapse in private in 2007, and then to have misled Parliament about it.

So what has the response of SNP activists been? On Twitter they circulate Salmond’s evasive and incomplete letter as if it answered the whole case. Yet their blogging activists are virtually silent about it, even the stars whose writing I read assiduously. Nothing from Calum Cashley, Will Patterson, Lallands Peat Worrier, Rob Gibson, nor even the disgraced Montague Burton, while Subrosa is silent. (I’ll look daft if they post on it now, but that’s a price worth paying to see the explanations, to be honest.)

The admirable Joan McAlpine did post on it, but it’s just Salmond’s letter with a short intro which neglects to address why Parliament wasn’t told about this decision in 2007 and simply talks about the cost, not the principle. After her, you have to get to Moridura, the wilder fringes of cybernatdom, who also reprints the same letter and has apparently forgotten that the SNP called for the SVR to be used in previous years.

Compare this to the Lib Dems. For all their party’s faults, their bloggers aren’t afraid to call them on it. Just to give a couple of examples, take Stephen Glenn or Caron Lindsay on fees. They can see that the issue has damaged their party, but that their continued defence of the principle may help do some good, even though it puts them in other bloggers’ firing line. It’s not the first time I’ve had cause to point out their merits either.

Are the Nat bloggers too embarrassed to write about this issue? Or do they really really think this isn’t a spectacular dereliction of duty? Seriously, what would they have written in 2006 if McConnell had let the tax-varying power lapse in 2003 without drawing it to Parliament’s attention? Like their MSPs, have they concluded that absolute loyalty is required irrespective of the circumstances? Has independent thought, like independent tax powers, died in the SNP?

One-word answers in the negative will be mocked. Let’s have some real answers.

Is it all over for LIT?

Nov 19

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 93 Comments

(Following on from James’ post yesterday and the fine debate that followed…)

With Michael Moore’s perfectly fair announcement that, back in 2007, the SNP let lapse the option to vary tax powers, the Scottish Greens’ policy of ‘revenue raising’ through said powers has been well and truly torpedoed. However, has the SNP shot itself in the foot by hampering its own 2011 policy of ushering in a Local Income Tax?

There are not expected to be too many big issues in the coming election campaign which makes the debate around what to replace the Council Tax with (if anything) all the more important. Labour and the Conservatives appear to be in favour of a variant of the status quo, the Greens are championing Land Value Tax and the SNP and Liberal Democrats prefer a Local Income Tax.

However, in order for Scotland to implement a Local Income Tax, we would need HM Revenues & Customs to collect different levels of tax rates from Scots to English and Welsh workers, an exercise that would be remarkably similar to receiving the income from use of the tax varying powers.

How can the Scottish Government bring in a Local Income Tax if it no longer has the option “to fund the upkeep of the Scottish Variable Rate (SVR), which allows MSPs to increase or lower income tax by 3p in the pound”?

The SNP has made similar short-sighted mistakes like this on big policy issues before:

The Scottish Futures Trust was stopped in its tracks upon the SNP learning that it couldn’t issue bonds to raise the necessary funds, a bodycheck that the policy has still not fully recovered from, particularly given the news that the Scottish Government is to dabble in the implementation of the much-maligned PPP

The reduction of class sizes to 18 was deemed illegal because parents had a right to put their child in a classroom as long as the class size was still below 30 and an embarrassing change of approach and shift in emphasis soon followed

It can’t be easy running a country, particularly when you want to simultaneously lead a devolved nation competently while convincing your electorate that it should choose independence. You only get to make so many mistakes though and this may be the one that decides the next election. After all, if this wasn’t a mistake, then why has it been brushed under the carpet for 3 years?

Labour may be arguing for an increase in Council Tax but set against a Local Income Tax that can’t be implemented for another three years (a policy we’ve already waited four years for) Labour’s offering might end up being accepted as the least worst option. Or, even better, Land Value Tax may come through the middle and be seen as an idea whose time has come.

Bottom line – I just can’t see how the SNP can campaign for varying our tax rates via LIT when it opens the party up to such easy, and deserving, criticism.

A Nationalist Government?

Nov 18

Posted by James in Holyrood | 36 Comments

I understand the SNP’s decision not to look at revenue options and simply to hand on Westminster’s cuts, though I disagree with it. But today UK Ministers have told us that someone in the Scottish Government let the powers lapse in 2007 when the SNP took office. Even the Labour/Lib Dem 1999-2007 coalition had the good sense to retain the power itself, though they didn’t use it (and during those budgetary boom years I think that was the right decision).

Michael Moore’s letter says it will now take two years to get the relevant HMRC systems up and running again, and then another ten months to bring any change in. It’s extraordinary. If some ultra-Unionist party had handed back a Scottish tax power the Scottish people explicitly and overwhelmingly endorsed in 1997, the SNP would be calling for Ministerial heads to roll. You simply cannot bang on about hypothetical future powers as an excuse for not using the existing ones, let alone when you’re returning them to Westminster.

Through SNP incompetence or deliberate intention, the voters now have their choice limited, and it will be much harder to find ways to raise revenue and step away from these Tory cuts. Someone should consider their position.

Does it remind anyone else of this epic speech? A nationalist Government, a nationalist Government, scurrying about in limos handing powers back to London.

Tags: , , , ,

Perception versus Reality

Nov 18

Posted by Malc in Governance, Westminster | 1 Comment

For the second time in recent weeks, teaching students on politics has provided inspiration for a post. This week we were discussing the relationship between the PM and Cabinet, the conventions which exist and how recent Prime Ministers (particularly Blair and Thatcher) broke with established conventions on how to work with the Cabinet. We also talked about the importance of collective responsibility – and how it is probably more important at the moment, with a coalition rather than single-party government. So that’s the context of the discussion.

One student made the case that perhaps we didn’t really have a coalition. In their view (and, they argued, the view of many others beside) the government was not a Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition (or even, as some lefty types have rather unhelpfully described it, the “ConDem coalition”). No, they argued that what we really had was simply a Conservative government with just a tinge of Lib Dem seasoning. From the student’s perspective, those Lib Dem’s in government were no longer “true” Lib Dems because they agreed with – and were enacting – so much Conservative policy. No, for the student, Nick Clegg and the other Lib Dem ministers had become a part of the Conservative party, with only backbench Lib Dem MPs maintaining their status as a separate party.

For my part, I pointed out that wasn’t quite the case (and yes, quite possibly this was the first time I’ve defended the Lib Dems!). I argued that a coalition was a combination of the interests and manifestos of two parties, that compromises had to be made and an agreement signed by both sides. I argued that, to provide stable government and a platform to address the economic situation, the Lib Dems had compromised on a lot of issues in order to try to help the country. But above all, I argued that, even though it appears that Nick Clegg and David Cameron are now “best mates”, they’ll still disagree on policy issues – and they’ll still be in different parties.

But the student wasn’t having any of it. What was true didn’t really matter in one sense, they argued, it was the perception of that reality that was important. From their perspective, Nick Clegg had morphed from a “likeable Lib Dem” pre-election to Cameron’s right-hand man, a liberal Tory, post election. And so too had those Lib Dem ministers in the Cabinet because they no longer stood for Lib Dem values – in particular PR, tuition fees and the Vince Cable promise not to raise VAT. In short, they’d simply backed the Conservatives to the extent that they were no longer a noticeably different party.

I’ve no doubt Lib Dem readers (if we have any left by this point!) will argue vociferously that this is not the case. In fact, I suspect Lib Dem members and activists (I’d put “if there are any left” in here, but I know I’d get skelped for being so cheeky) who disagree with some or most of the coalition’s actions will find aspects of it which are distinctively Lib Dem. And if not, they can always make the case that, whether there are Lib Dem policies in there or not it is still better for them to be in government than not, because if the Tories were left on their own then the cuts would be much worse. Now, I’m not sure that is entirely true (and I suspect we can’t really know, given we don’t know how much influence, if any, senior Lib Dems have in Cabinet and ministerial meetings) but again, I’m not sure it matters – its how the thing is spun.

And that really is the crux of the matter. How is the coalition perceived in public? Opinion polls have the coalition in negative approval ratings (by single digits, so not entirely unrecoverable) and a recent YouGov poll had the Lib Dems at 11% – up 2 points on the previous, but down by more than half of their 23% vote share in May. So “not well” is probably the answer. And if that result was returned in an election… well, let’s just say Nick Clegg is happy for the government to continue until 2015.

Of course reality matters – you only need to see the depth of feeling and anger of the masses evident in the student demo(lition) last Wednesday. And the reality is, there are two parties in government in the UK – one larger, and gets more policies through, the other smaller, helping them – and trying to pass some of its own ideas. But the perception – if indeed it is widely held, as the student suggested – is that this is a Conservative government simply being helped along by some supportive Lib Dems. And that might be more damaging to Clegg and co in the long run.