Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Were the coalition’s pre-election promises FIT for purpose?

Oct 11

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Elections, Parties | 4 Comments

I don’t know how widely known the subject of Feed-In Tariffs (FITs) is, the green electricity that the public can generate from their own homes, put onto the Grid and make significant sums off the back of, all while reducing their own power bills. The approach forms just one small part of the innovative and creative fight against Climate Change and if you have a roof that fits the criteria and have the necessary cash then you should look into this in more detail. Well, that is save for the caveat that the lucrative opportunity looks set to be curtailed or even abolished when the scheme is reviewed in 2012.

Aside from questioning the logic of removing incentives to green energy, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a Government amending the projects of a previous Government. However, that is not where the story ends with these FITs and the new coalition.

As The Guardian points out, during the election campaign David Cameron pledged that:

“under a Conservative government, any micro-generation technologies that have already been installed … will be eligible for the new higher tariffs once they commence.”

However, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has ruled out paying these “early pioneers” what was promised to them by the now Prime Minister citing value-for-money as the reason.

Now, I can understand a Government that is long in the tooth, short of ideas and overtaken by events reneging on pre-election pledges, witness Labour’s welcome hiking of income tax to 50% for example, but the most recent election was only in May and it is difficult to count how many election pledges have already been broken. Difficult, but I’ll have a go:

– Increasing VAT when Tories said they had no plans to and the Lib Dems vigorously campaigned against such a rise
– Repealing the Human Rights Act
– Protecting the Winter Fuel Allowance
– Building the Summary Care Record database of medical data
– Removing tax breaks for the computer games industry
– make it a criminal offence to possess or bring into the country illegal timber

This of course is to overlook the hugely significant proposals that are already being planned in our name without our having a chance to vote on it in a General Election:

– Scrapping child benefit
– 5 year fixed term Parliaments
– giving power of NHS budgets to GPs
– a referendum on the Alternative Vote (a voting system that no one party is in favour of)
– increasing fees for students

Of course, what is even more bonkers is that the Conservatives are sticking to the election promises that are the most ludicrous – paying for nuclear weapons that will never be used and introducing tax breaks for married couples.

This blog was meant to be positive and I guess the above doesn’t quite meet that criteria but this blogger is increasingly exasperated at the yawning disconnect between what was said (and not said) before the May election and what has gone on afterwards. It wouldn’t even be so bad if the Conservatives and Lib Dems hadn’t bolted on an extra year to the standard 4-year term that a Government typically gets in office ensuring that the public don’t get a say until 2015.

This of course is not surprising. In what was perhaps a pivotal point in the election campaign and certainly the moment I knew for sure that voters were being shortchanged was when the Insititute for Fiscal Studies released its report stating that the Conservatives had only identified where 17.7% of the cuts that it was proposing were going to fall.

One pre-election pledge that the Conservatives have made good on is urging the public to take part in the Big Society, a coming together of communities all across the country to ensure the right thing is done and we progress together. Wouldn’t it be a delicious irony if one of the first Big Society successes was a large protest against the non-delivery of pledges and the ramming through of policies that we never received a heads up on?

Speaking for Scotland

Oct 9

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, International, Media | 4 Comments

A nation’s constitutional and political arrangement has to be particularly peculiar if it is not even clear who should and should not speak for its citizens in a national and/or international context.

Perhaps it is a regular problem across the world with Councillors, Members of Parliament, Senators, Governors, Mayors, Prime Ministers and Presidents all jostling to speak up for their part of the planet and, consequently, perhaps I should not be too concerned that Scotland seems to regularly face this problem. However, concerned I am and the latest talking point in this ongoing debate stems from the sad news that a Scottish aid worker, Linda Norgrove, has been killed in Afghanistan.

Tributes have been made by David Cameron, Alex Salmond, William Hague and U.S. General David Petraeus, all highlighting the courageous nature Linda possessed and the valuable contribution of her work. However, for Fraser Nelson at The Spectator, this collection of statements was one too many as the First Minister of Scotland should “confine his comments to the provision of public services”.

It seems to be a poorly timed and somewhat crass observation from the right-wing journalist and I daresay one that would not have been made if Boris Johnson was publicly regretting the death of a Londoner but, regrettable context to one side, the central thrust of Fraser’s point deserves consideration. Who is it that speaks for Scotland?

In quickly trying to research a decent answer to this question I noted that it is something that I have already considered in the not so distant past. There was no equivocal answer to the question of who would meet Barack Obama were the U.S. President to land at a Scottish airport on a UK visit but Alex Salmond was on hand to meet the Pope during the recent state visit and that did not seem to cause much controversy, despite the First Minister’s role extending beyond the confines of the provision of public services as Nelson’s Column would have it.

The appropriateness of speaking on behalf of a nation is of course dependent upon the circumstances. Most Scots agree that Kenny MacAskill is the most appropriate person to make decisions on Scotland’s behalf in a legal context, even if the Prime Minister recently suggested, mistakenly, that he may be able to intervene. Similarly, in a sporting, educational, health or environment related field, a Scottish voice is reasonable as such areas are devolved.

The converse of this argument of course is that areas reserved to Westminster are ‘off-limits’ for Holyrood MSPs. Trident, for example, is unavailable to be argued for or against as it falls outside of the Scottish Parliament’s remit. Those in favour and against renewing nuclear weapons have largely ignored this philosophy and have been vocal in sharing their opinion on the matter. Others, including former First Minister Jack McConnell in a literal sense, have run away from the issue but that does not solve the problem.

Personally (and this will come as no surprise coming from a blogger) opinions should not be stifled; minds are there to be spoken. If anyone wishes to release a statement on any matter, relating to any country and inviting whatever criticism then they should be free to do so.

Fraser Nelson wishes “periods of silence” from Scotland’s First Minister, something that the Chinese State wishes from recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo. This stifling of speech is the wrong approach for any situation that sits anywhere on the range from the sad news of a Scottish person dying to the delight of a Scottish person winning Olympic Gold.

There is little doubt that Scotland’s future is up for grabs with debate ranging in varying degrees of fervour and volume between politicians, interests groups, journalists and even lowly bloggers.

Fraser Nelson wonders “how you would train yourself to see political opportunity in times of crisis”. I wonder how someone can see journalistic opportunity in the aftermath of such a sad news story. Both exploits, wherever they exist, will no doubt continue so perhaps who shouts the loudest is the best way to settle such subtle disputes.

Labour’s Shadow Cabinet

Oct 8

Posted by Jeff in Parties, Westminster | 5 Comments

Labour has announced its Shadow Cabinet and the results have thrown up some interesting match-ups. I decided I’d have a quick look at the ones that caught my eye.

Alan Johnson vs George Osborne

Wisdom vs youth, working class background vs Bullingdon Club, it is not difficult to see why this match-up appealed to ‘left of the left’ Ed Miliband.

It is, inverted snobbery cynicism to one side, a good choice as it keeps Ed Balls conveniently out of the way of the big, financial decisions and also ensures that the next most important job in the Shadow Cabinet is not held by someone with aspirations of being Prime Minister one day. I can imagine Alan and Ed will be an effective team together, if not quite formidable.

Ed Balls vs Theresa May

Theresa will have her work well and truly cut out in parrying Ed’s blows on domestic affairs. Throughout the Labour leadership campaign, Ed Balls showed that he can ‘think wide and deliver deep’. His Bloomberg speech was unquestionably impressive but he pulled the debate out into new areas generally and throughout and if he does the same with Theresa May, pulling her in different directions, he could do Labour a great service in this role. He just has to keep his ambitions on ice for a while.

Yvette Cooper vs William Hague

A bit strange to have one of Labour’s most impressive performers (and female at that) in a fairly invisible slot. Yes, Foreign Secretary is an important position, but Shadow Foreign Secretary is not. There is not much to disagree with between the parties in this field.

Jim Murphy vs Liam Fox

Labour’s highest flying Scotsman Jim Murphy gets a very juicy brief in the Defence role. I daresay he’ll be perceived as doing very well north of the border but not so well south of the border. Jim and Liam are, as far as I can tell, chalk and cheese. What will be interesting is whether Jim will bow to Scottish opinion and campaign against Trident more vociferously given how strongly in favour Liam Fox is, not to mention David Cameron.

Ann McKechin vs Michael Moore

In many ways I have no thoughts on this. I don’t know much, if anything, about Ann McKechin and I quite like Michael Moore, poor performances at BBC Question Time notwithstanding. So this is something of a blank sheet for Scotland, certainly a turning of the page, which may be a good thing as the debate on the Scotland Bill approaches. I suppose both individuals are in favour of Calman so where the dividing lines will appear from is anyone’s guess.

And, well, I think I’ll leave it there. I can’t say I’m too excited by Andy Burnham vs Michael Gove or anyone else on the undercard to be honest.

Fairy tales on the economy

Oct 7

Posted by James in Economy, Westminster | 11 Comments

The tooth fairy of the cutsThe Tories are making progress with their arguments over the economy. The message has trickled down even to primary school children. Yesterday, six year old Niamh Riley offered David Cameron her tooth fairy money after hearing about the country’s economic situation.

“I heard about it and I wanted to write a letter. I wanted him to get the letter with the pound to make the country better and pay for jobs.”

Is there a better way to sum up Tory economics than this? David Cameron, the personification of the vested interests of the rich, telling us the cuts must come first and taking money directly from children.

Actually, he rejected the pound, but that seems pretty inconsistent given this week’s assault on child benefit.

Jeff’s made the case here that their move is a good idea, despite the widely shared concerns about the fairness of the specific proposal. Don Paskini, one of Labour’s brightest bloggers, has argued that the winning tactics for Ed Miliband would be to tackle the specifics and accept the principle. Tactically, perhaps, but on the principle I disagree with both, however progressive it may appear to being taking money away from the well off.

I’ve got four reasons for this position, even assuming the specifics are sorted out. First, means testing is inherently expensive. The savings will be partially offset by the cost of paying civil servants to work out who shouldn’t get child benefit. Second, child benefit gives a massive swathe of society a buy-in to benefits. It’s an incredibly powerful message, that benefits aren’t simply for the “others”, the people they read about in the Mail with their massive taxpayer-funded houses.

Next, although some have used child benefit for fine dining or other decadence, many find their partner gambling or drinking away money that they need for childcare, and that’s not just driven by class or income level. Some parents with partners on bigger incomes are in exactly the same position, and child benefit gets a little way past that problem.

Finally, it doesn’t look like the result of any considered and comprehensive policy on the public finances. A responsible government would look at the debt, current spending and current revenues, and start to prioritise. What are the most vital or cost-effective parts of our public services? What are the most progressive ways to raise funds? What will the economic impact be of cutting staff numbers at a particular rate, or of raising additional funds in a certain way?

They should be identifying the most obvious waste – like vast defence boondoggles and the damaging Afghan war – and cutting them first. Child benefit for anyone simply isn’t anywhere near the cut-off on that list, , even those on the civil list (who perhaps for equity should also also have a £26k limit on their income). Next, they should be looking at the most progressive ways to raise more money without damaging the economy, starting with taxing banks and bankers’ bonuses, or looking at (bear with me) Land Value Tax. Again, increasing VAT shouldn’t have featured there. As the Lib Dems told us before the election, it’s one of the most regressive taxes going.

That information should then have been plugged into projections about the deficit to estimate the optimum approach for tackling it. One thing the Tories are right about is this: paying ever-increasing interest on the national debt isn’t a good long-term use of taxpayers’ money. At the end of a long bubble like Labour’s property/cheap oil boom the national finances ought to have been in credit, which would have made it easier to invest in the lean years as Keynes knew. Leaving those regrets aside, though, can the cost-cutting and revenue options there allow deficit reduction now? Probably not without incurring other social costs too high to bear. More likely in a year or two, probably, but it’s hard to say without all this information being provided.

We should have been shown a review of this sort, a Domesday book of the British public finances. It’s a big job, sure, but if that’s not what the Treasury is for, then what really is its purpose? Telling tall tales to children?

Tags: , , ,

The MS Society, Leuchie and MSPs who agree

Oct 7

Posted by Malc in Governance, Health | 2 Comments

*NB: Declaration of interest – a relative of mine works for MS Society Scotland and I also ran the Loch Ness Marathon for them last year*

I was in Inverness this weekend, helping out MS Society Scotland, cheering on those running for the Society this year and generally helping promote the charity and its work. At the same time, the Politics Show was having a discussion about the impending closure of Leuchie House, Scotland’s only respite care centre for those with MS. Naturally, I missed it live (being outside in the rain in Inverness!) but caught it on iPlayer (the discussion is 45 minutes in, and you can see it here).

I have to say, I was a little disappointed by the tone of the debate. I’ve known about the closure plan for a  few months (since it became public knowledge) and I know a fair bit about the process. I also see that Jackie Baillie secured a Members’ Debate on the issue two weeks ago, which gained cross-party support against the decision. It’s not often that I disagree with a unanimous consensus (and how often do we lament politicians for arguing on minute points of disagreement) but I feel in this case this consensus is misplaced – for both general and specific reasons. I’ll deal with the general first.

As Shona Robison pointed out in the closing of the debate, the government cannot override the decision of an independent organisation, be that a charity, as in this case, or a business (as we saw in the case of the Johnnie Walker closure in Ayrshire). This was an internal decision taken by an organisation through a consultation process which included the entire membership of the MS Society UK – and a democratic decision as well (in spite of some of the more hysterical contributions to the debate) which was voted upon and supported at the MS Society’s AGM. The MS Society is a member-led organisation – and the membership, many of whom have MS, voted against keeping Leuchie House open. Yes, there were grass-roots campaigns (as Derek Brownlee pointed out) but policy decisions are not made by campaigners – they are made by members. That may be a harsh fact, but it is the truth.

More specifically, the MS Society is a charity, with a finite budget, dependent on the good will of the public to help raise funds for them. In the times of prosperity, it is all well and good to spend all the money on everything you can. But in times of austerity, such as we face at the moment, that spending cannot be sustained – we only have to look at the government’s cuts to see that. The MS Society Scotland has 10,500 people in Scotland with MS to consider. Their budget is split between research into how MS works and potential cures, treatment for it, and care for those who have what is a cruel, cruel condition. As Simon Gillespie points out in the piece above, only 13% of the MS Society’s members think they would use Leuchie House or a similar respite care centre, and that those who had the highest dependency needs were the lowest percentage of users of Leuchie. So, the Society has actually looked at what has been requested of it – by those who use its services – and adjusted its services accordingly. That to me seems an entirely logical process. Of course you can’t please everyone all of the time – and yes, some of those who suffer the most, who have the highest dependency needs, as Jackie Baillie points out, are those who will lose out from this decision.

The MS Society Scotland is entirely funded by donations. No public money is awarded to them. The money they spend has to be raised by people willing to do amazing things in order to fund the research and support provided by the society in Scotland. It irks me greatly that elected politicians are now attacking a charitable organisation which provides a service to those with the condition – a service which is NOT made available by the NHS.

I know the MS Society has to be a little more circumspect when dealing with MSPs – and more particularly with Jackie Baillie, who as Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, will potentially be Cabinet Secretary for Health next year. But for me, her objection to the closure of Leuchie – and, indeed, those of all parties – would ring a little less hollow if any of them had made a commitment in their manifesto to fund research into MS or, more particularly in this case, to dedicate some NHS funding to respite care centres like Leuchie. Of course, funding such a respite care centre out of the public purse is unlikely ever to happen, so a charity providing such a service is the only way it could be provided for. This then, makes it much easier for our elected politicians to stand on the sidelines and criticise, even though they probably recognise that the decision was taken out of necessity, difficult and unpopular though it is.