91热爆

Cock-up or conspiracy?

• Brian Taylor
• 16 Apr 07, 05:49 PM

I was speaking recently to a journalist who went over to the Dark Side. (He became a Government spin doctor.) As a reporter, he was forever seeking to uncover conspiracies, constantly alert to cunning plans.

In Government, he told me, he had learned that pretty well everything was the result of some cock-up or other.

Well, certainly, most Ministers of my acquaintance are wrapped in a miasma of honourable uncertainty most of the time: unsure what, precisely, is the right course to follow. (That鈥檚 not because they鈥檙e thick but because government is tough.)

I think we can discern cock-up at the core of the controversy over the Scottish TUC General Council鈥檚 vote on whether to back the Labour Party in the current Holyrood election.

Strictly, the debate was over whether to intervene in the election at all by issuing a statement.

Apparently, that motion was only carried by a single vote - with Unison declining to support it.

Somewhat embarrassing, to say the least. Entirely understandably, much is being made of this by the Scottish National Party and others, including the SSP and Solidarity.

The Scottish trades unions are currently in Congress in Glasgow. From there, I鈥檓 told how this came about. I鈥檓 reminded that the STUC is autonomous - despite the fact that the unions created the Labour Party in the first place.

There are unions in the STUC who are affiliated to Labour and unions who aren鈥檛.

It鈥檚 claimed that led to the trouble. Some disliked the idea of a motion backing Labour, fearing it would inevitably divide the STUC. On that basis, they opposed the suggested endorsement - or abstained.

I鈥檓 told that a 鈥渕assaged鈥� version is now being prepared for a vote at the congress on Wednesday. It praises Labour but stresses the need for the STUC to engage with all parties. It encourages folk to vote.

The object, apparently, had been to avoid a divisive issue which might embarrass Labour. Nae luck, eh?

• Permalink
• Comments (8)

Taxing issues

• Brian Taylor
• 16 Apr 07, 07:12 AM

Bet the Tories wish they鈥檇 never scrapped the rates. Ever since that decision, driven by a particularly hideous property revaluation, local taxation has remained a highly contentious issue.

We had the Poll Tax (does anyone still remember that its Sunday name was the Community Charge?) Then the Council Tax, with properties ranked in bands.

Now two parties in this election are proposing to scrap that and bring in a Local Income Tax. The other two majors offer reforms to the council tax.

The issue again dominated a rather sparky debate on 91热爆 Scotland on Sunday, with the four major leaders taking part.

For fun, let鈥檚 pick a few holes in all the options. Broadly, every tax strikes a balance between equity and efficiency. Property taxes are, generally, efficient: it鈥檚 pretty hard to hide your house. Snag is - are they fair?

Well, mostly, wealthy folk live in big posh houses - but there isn鈥檛 a straight correlation.

Neither the Tories nor Labour are proclaiming the council tax as wonderful. In the debate, Annabel Goldie said the system had 鈥渨arts鈥�. Invited to describe the council tax as fair, Jack McConnell called it 鈥渟table鈥�.

The Tories are offering to halve council tax for pensioners over 65. Hole-picking time. By definition, such universality of approach benefits those who have cash as well as those who don鈥檛. Also, it does nothing for those below the age of 65.

Labour wants two extra bands at the bottom and top of the property ladder.
But Jack McConnell today was careful to stress that these changes would have limited scope.

My guess is that鈥檚 because any bigger change would demand a revaluation 鈥� and Labour is determined to avoid that at all costs.

Instead, Mr McConnell stresses the scheme to halve and eventually abolish water charges for pensioners over 65. That probably means uncoupling water costs still further from the local taxation to which they are nominally linked.

(That鈥檚 to avoid any risk of Whitehall clawing back the cash in benefit withdrawal.)

Then look at Local Income Tax. It鈥檚 already been pointed out that those who get their money from share dividends or savings will pay nothing locally under LIT.

Now there鈥檚 controversy over Council Tax Benefits. Would they be scrapped in Scotland under LIT - just as attendance allowance vanished when free personal care was brought in?

No, say the proponents, the SNP and the LibDems. Whitehall wouldn鈥檛 be so wicked or politically inept as to punish Scotland for a devolved decision.

But consider this. Its advocates insist that LIT is a much fairer system. Some 500,000 pensioners, for example, would pay nothing.

If it is so equitable, if it genuinely matches taxation to ability to pay, then why should the State continue to pay benefits?

Further, Council Tax benefit is worth some 拢381m annually in Scotland, paid to defray the imposition upon individuals.

The advocates of LIT want the Treasury to continue to pay this sum - but directly to the executive.

On what basis would that sum be calculated in future? Let us assume that the Treasury agreed to pay 拢381m in year one, to placate Scotland. What do they pay in 10 or 20 years when the Council Tax upon which the benefit was based has long been abolished - and there is no Barnett consequential to assist the calculation?

I鈥檓 very far from saying it鈥檚 impossible. Everything鈥檚 possible, with good political will. Further, there are very few people willing to act as cheerleaders for the Council Tax.

However, this is far from a simple choice. Isn鈥檛 electoral politics fun?

• Permalink
• Comments (9)