UK: Snap Election, how would you vote?

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/feb/08/scotland.britishidentity1

...Scotland may only account for 8.5% of the British population but it accounts for 9.7% of all spending. The difference may not sound huge, but it is. And this is where much of the fight about Scottish independence centres.

The latest figures from the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) report illustrate the problem. Public spending in Scotland in 2004-05 was £47.7bn, while total revenues are estimated at £36.4bn, equivalent to 8.1% of all UK revenues. The deficit was thus more than £11bn, or 12% of Scottish GDP - three times the percentage deficit of the UK as a whole.

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe you need to look at what happened to the GERS figures once the pauchled Labour statistics were binned in favour of how the civil servants calculated it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Things seem to have moved even further since then, but I can't get the data. I'm only seeing second-hand posts on blogs.

A poster has responded to my request for source data for the most recent Westminster polls.

The full populus poll for the Times is here
www.tinyurl.com/5a4k8r

The Independent's Comres poll is here
www.tinyurl.com/696alm

Both links are to PDF files giving all the data. The Scottish figures form a sub-set extracted from a larger poll, so they are based on very small numbers of respondents - which in turn means a very high margin of error on each individual sub-sample.

Over time though, they build up into a useful picture of trends in voting intention. I've been collating the Scottish sub-sets from all the polls published this year (because I'm a saddo geek) - the Tories and Lib-Dems are basically flat-lining, Labour is declining at a rapid rate, and the SNP's lead is steadily increasing. But we all probably knew that anyway.

www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/ is a good place for information and analysis of polls.

I think the posters may have extracted the Scottish data and run the stats themselves - I haven't had time to follow it all up. However these seem to be the sources of the quoted data.

Rolfe.

 

[andyandy]

I would love to vote for the Liberal Democrats......

The real crying shame is that the Liberal Democrats are not sufficiently organised to exploit Labour's weaknesses to the centre and centre-left. It's been handed to them on a plate. Greater liberalisation of government controls in the public sector. Devolution of autonomy back to grass-roots workers. Opposition to centralised databases. More civil liberties. It is on a plate! All traditional liberal policies are precisely what large chunks of the electorate want. And yet they are unable to actually convey this message under any unifying theme. They could have opened up clear ground with the Conservatives on taxation policy and hammered home the smaller state alternative.

the trouble is they seem to have abandoned the previous LibDem policy on higher taxation for high earners. Last week calamity Clegg made a speech promising to be the party of tax cuts. This is an absolutely baffling repositioning. It allows them virtually no daylight with the Tories (they can hardly hope to be seen as to the right of the Conservatives).

The Lib Dems have the luxury of being able to be brave. They currently seem to be aping David Cameron's approach in that they are trying not to say anything offensive to anyone. This will work just fine for the Conservatives, it would be a disaster for the Lib Dems - who is going to vote for a third party with nothing to say?

At a stroke the Lib Dems could capture the left and centre-left:

A restructuring of council tax to make it less regressive, a 5% sales duty on luxury items, tax disincentives on second home ownership, replacement of working tax credits with a higher personal threshold on earnings, and a graduated two tier higher earnings tax kicking in at £50,000 and £100,000 (45% and 50%)

Yes it's risky. Yes large swathes of the southern middle classes will not vote for them. But these votes are already lost to the Conservatives. There's no way the Lib Dems can compete here, so why not make a play for the left?

If economic policy was combined with a centralised theme to review, restrict and rescind the majority of public-sector targets, then this would garner tremendous support amongst the public sector workers (themselves several million strong voting bloc). Strike up an alliance with the unions. Labour shouldn't have it all its own way over trade union support. Campaign over civil liberties, the end of ID cards, a moratorium on all major IT project and PFI initiatives.

In a nutshell LibDem policy should be a less regressive tax regime (with greater taxation for the wealthy) allied with smaller government through a devolution of authority back to public sector workers.

On the civil liberties side, the Lib Dems already have these as issues. But without a clear break with the Conservatives on taxation, civil liberties considerations will be co-opted by the Tories.

And as for Nick Clegg? He just seems a very unimpressive politician. He doesn't clearly enunciate a coherent Liberal Democrat policy. He comes across as David Cameron lite, the kind of person who would go into politics as a career rather than because of any political belief. His new taxation policy is a disaster. And he simply does not have the gravitas of either Huhne or Cable.

When Cable talks about the economy you can tell that he knows what he's talking about (as you would expect from someone with a PhD in economics and a career in economics spanning university lecturing, industry advice and foreign development). When Nick Clegg talks about, well anything, he just seems like a career politician who has somehow stumbled into party leadership by dint of being considered "young" relative to Ming the mercilessly mocked.....

The Lib Dems will not progress under Nick Clegg. Which is a shame because Britain is crying out for a third party to break from the centre.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

IA restructuring of council tax to make it less regressive, a 5% sales duty on luxury items, tax disincentives on second home ownership, replacement of working tax credits with a higher personal threshold on earnings, and a graduated two tier higher earnings tax kicking in at £50,000 and £100,000 (45% and 50%)

My take on the above policies:

Restructure council tax - good in theory. Problem is that all those who will lose by it (and there will be a good number) will hate it while many of those who will "gain" already get council tax benefit so net position may be nil.

5% sales duty - think this might run into EU law problems as I think EU law forbids any sales taxes other than VAT. Might be possible to increase rates of VAT on such goods but don't see it as a big vote winner.

2nd home ownership - removing the incentives would be a start, never mind disincentives.

Working tax credits - terrible system, has to go.

Increased tax rates - I can almost hear the voters running away.

As for the "remove public sector targets" - might attract public sector support, but guess what, parents LIKE information about how their kids/school is doing and the public LIKE the idea that there is a maximum time they will have to wait to see a doctor/get an operation etc. A policy that effectively says "let the public sector get on with it and they will do a good job" is asking for a level of trust that I do not believe still exists.

 

[andyandy]

My take on the above policies:

Restructure council tax - good in theory. Problem is that all those who will lose by it (and there will be a good number) will hate it while many of those who will "gain" already get council tax benefit so net position may be nil.

5% sales duty - think this might run into EU law problems as I think EU law forbids any sales taxes other than VAT. Might be possible to increase rates of VAT on such goods but don't see it as a big vote winner.

2nd home ownership - removing the incentives would be a start, never mind disincentives.

Working tax credits - terrible system, has to go.

Increased tax rates - I can almost hear the voters running away.

As for the "remove public sector targets" - might attract public sector support, but guess what, parents LIKE information about how their kids/school is doing and the public LIKE the idea that there is a maximum time they will have to wait to see a doctor/get an operation etc. A policy that effectively says "let the public sector get on with it and they will do a good job" is asking for a level of trust that I do not believe still exists.

Well, it's a work in progress

the increased tax rates would only affect higher earners, so one should be able to expect support for this from everyone who isn't a high earner (and who doesn't expect to become one). I think the real problem with this particular policy is that the media would be very hostile to it, and by extension to the Liberal Democrats. After all the vast majority of influential media commentators will be among those on the 50% rate.

Council tax restructuring I agree is a tough one. Which is why politicians have been studiously avoiding doing anything to it regardless of how manifestly unfair it is. Still, one could at least begin to start to link it with ability to pay (maybe as a top up to a flat rate) to ensure that this didn't lead to radical changes overnight.

And as for those pesky European bureaucrats trampling all over my luxury sales tax.......

with regards to public targets, I think the public could be sold on the need for a big reduction in the government's reliance on them. Though maybe I am over estimating the general British public......... it would require an intelligent debate which outlined the damage they do to the public sector as well as a provision of alternative plans to provide some levels of public accountability. To take the example of schools we already have OFSTED in place to monitor and assess, they could still provide accountability even if the target driven culture was curtailed.

At this particular moment in time I can see the Liberal Democrats as well as Labour being wiped out at the next elections. As far as I can see the only reason for voting Lib Dem at the moment is not liking Labour and being a bit suspicious of the Conservatives..... which isn't a great platform

 

[Architect]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/feb/08/scotland.britishidentity1

Not only old news, but also fundamentally flawed. See below for details.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1804171.0.0.php

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not only old news, but also fundamentally flawed. See below for details.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1804171.0.0.php

I think it largely depends on what fraction of the revenues from North Sea oil an independent Scotland could expect to get.

Nationalists calculate based on getting most or all of them. However, even if this were the case, what would happen when North sea oil runs out?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think it largely depends on what fraction of the revenues from North Sea oil an independent Scotland could expect to get.

In part - however this is hardly surprising given the importance of that revenue to the UK as a whole.

Nationalists calculate based on getting most or all of them. However, even if this were the case, what would happen when North sea oil runs out?

Well a sensible small country (like say, Norway) would take part of the oil revenue and put it in a fund which would then generate income from investing that money.

A stupid large country (like say, the UK) would use the revenue to fund tax cuts and increase public spending with not a thought to the future.

I guess that when it runs out, Scotland will have to stand on its own two feet and live within its means. A bit like every other independent country on the face of the planet. England would need to do the same.

 

[gtc]

It sounds obvious, but independence would give Scotland control over all its spending and all its taxation policies (subject to EU rules of course).

The worries about a fiscal imbalance assume that Scotland would keep the same spending policies in areas where policy is currently set by Westminster and would keep taxes to the same levels as set by Westminster.

 

[Architect]

Nationalists calculate based on getting most or all of them. However, even if this were the case, what would happen when North sea oil runs out?

You do know that there are believed to be substantial oil reserves off the northwest coast as well, don't you?

It sounds obvious, but independence would give Scotland control over all its spending and all its taxation policies (subject to EU rules of course).

The worries about a fiscal imbalance assume that Scotland would keep the same spending policies in areas where policy is currently set by Westminster and would keep taxes to the same levels as set by Westminster.

Exactly!

 

[Darat]

Bagsey that!

 

[gtc]

The other issue that is raised is the amount of the British government's debt that Scotland would incurr.

England would need to do the same.

You're kind of suggesting Wales and Northern Ireland have nothing to contribute financially.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You're kind of suggesting Wales and Northern Ireland have nothing to contribute financially.

Well if the shoe fits...

{runs for cover}

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does Scottish nationalism prove that multiculturalism in the UK is doomed to failure?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Does Scottish nationalism prove that multiculturalism in the UK is doomed to failure?

No.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No.

So what's so unique about Scottish culture that they (you?) feel the need to separate totally from the UK?

I can't help but think it's motivated largely by an inferiority complex, which manifests itself in such behaviour as taking pleasure in the failure of English sporting teams.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So what's so unique about Scottish culture that they (you?) feel the need to separate totally from the UK?

They don't. They want to control the political policies that are enacted in their own country. In the same way that every other independent country in the world does.

You appear to be the one making some bizarre connection with "multiculturalism", maybe you would like to expand on why you think that is even remotely relevant.

I can't help but think

Don't be so sure, you appear to be managing to avoid it just fine.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

They don't. They want to control the political policies that are enacted in their own country. In the same way that every other independent country in the world does.

How many states of the USA, many of which have far larger populations than Scotland, whine about power being focused in Washington DC to the extent they want total political freedom?

You appear to be the one making some bizarre connection with "multiculturalism", maybe you would like to expand on why you think that is even remotely relevant.

<snip>

Other than minor cultural differences, I see little reason to think of Scottish people as different to English people*. The whole push for Scottish independence seems to be based on an irrational emotional reaction to the outcome of battles and politics which are both ancient history and totally irrelevant today, and canny politicians on the make.

How this relates to multiculturalism is that there are plenty of communities in the UK made up of large numbers of people whose cultural history is very different from people born and raised in the UK. If the Scottish and English cannot integrate, why on earth should we expect people from these communities to be able to?



*Except Scottish people should be banned from answering the phones in call centers unless they can speak intelligible English.

 

[andyandy]

Ivor, stop poking your stick into the hornets nest

As far as I can see, there are four huge issues to be resolved if a vote for independence would be forthcoming:

division of the oil wealth

division of the national debt

division of the armed forces

membership to the EU

if, by some miracle these could be amicably solved, there would have to be another referendum put to the people of Scotland as to whether or not they agreed to the terms. And even after that Westminster would have the final say as to whether it could all go ahead.

Realistically, if there was an initial referendum in 2010 I would be amazed if actual independence could happen before 2020. Though that would at least solve one of the problems, as the North Sea oilfields are in pretty rapid decline and there might not be much left to squabble over by then.

I was listening to a discussion about possible Scottish independence, and the experts seem to think that EU approval might not be easily forthcoming. Countries such as Spain who have their own separatist regions would be unlikely to wish to set any precedent, and could well veto any membership nominations. Though I don't really know how important EU membership actually is to a country, I'm sure the Brussels bureaucrats would argue that it is important, but then they would say that wouldn't they?