Why I’ve only voted Labour once

Orbit Communications - Jordan Ferguson
By, Jordan Ferguson  @JordanwFerguson

Jordan Ferguson talks frankly about his own personal experience of falling out of love with Scottish Labour

With five weeks to go until we elect arguably the most powerful parliament Scotland has ever known I find myself party-less. That is to say I no longer have membership of a political party. I let my membership lapse last month through predictable forgetfulness and my refusal to arrange yet another direct debit.  So I decided to make the most of my unexpected political freedom and shop around a little.

After a month of high expectations it turns out I’m not green enough for the Greens, not liberal enough for the Liberals, not conservative enough for the Conservatives and, having no interest venturing as far left as Rise, was left with Labour.

Like most people from Glasgow, I was brought up to support Labour and overall I mostly agree with Labour policies. I grew up around the whole Cool Britannia thing and was just young enough to think Tony Blair was cool because he had Oasis at No. 10, although I am now however ashamed to admit I ever thought Noel or Liam were cool.  I like what Gordon Brown did as chancellor and most of what Labour achieved for Scotland. Thing is, the only time I ever voted Labour was 2010 and that was more a vote against the Tories.  So why have I only ever put an X in the box next to labour once?

It’s not because the candidates where I’ve lived have been bad they have been quite good at times. I just find the parties taste in leaders terrible.

Now, I’ve heard veteran members in pubs and podcasts praise Kezia’s leadership of the Scottish Labour Party and for the life of me cannot understand why. My assumption is she does a lot behind the scenes that only party members are aware of. Well that would make her a good politician not necessarily a good leader.

I genuinely cringe when I hear her talk at FMQs. She stirs up memories of sitting through countless university presentations when someone read a script on something they neither understood nor cared about.  She has just the right amount of media training to know to over emphasise key words but, to me, still comes off as disingenuous and entirely unnatural.

At FMQs, Kezia seems to follows a very simple format.  Open with an attack on the SNP, big or small, back up the statement with some mock outrage and then slot a question loosely relating to the first statement at the end. It seems to me as though her objective is to slag off the SNP and asking questions is really just an inconvenience for her.  Is this really the great Labour plan? A strategy modelled on Andy Dufresne’s escape from Shawshank, just chip away small amounts over 20 years and eventually you’ll break through.

Like it or not the SNP are quite popular in Scotland. They may not have won the independence referendum but they definitely won the Scottish people. They hold a majority government in a parliament designed specifically to stop any one party having a majority and come May that majority will probably increase.

They have realised a potential of the Scottish Parliament that Labour never could.  And let’s be honest, they have actually done a good job of being in Government. Even its record on education isn’t really as bad as Labour tries to make out.  Actually all attempts at vilifying them have backfired and given them more credibility. So maybe, just maybe, it is not a good idea to attack as Labour seem so determined to do.

I understand the role of the opposition is to hold the government to account but only when there is something to be held to account on. I thought with parliament dissolved she might see her role differently. As I watched the leaders debate I realised I was wrong.

The other leaders seemed to have moved away from the expected SNP bashing with Patrick Harvie staying remarkably quiet and Ruth Davidson choosing to target Labour in the fight for second place.

Either arrogance or ignorance has led to this positon where the party feels no need to justify past actions or even attempt to repair its reputation. Instead it seems to me that the Labour Party in Scotland only exists to destroy the SNP.  It seems to have no concern for its own reputation or in holding power. Instead it appears focussed on ruining one party so badly that it’s willing to destroy itself in order to do so.  As a result, I suspect I will remain in my party political no-mans land for a little while yet.

Advertisements

Scottish Parliament election is set to be a truly taxing affair

Orbit Communications - Alex Orr 01
By Alex Orr Alex_M_Orr

 

The issue of tax is set to form the key battleground for the political parties at the forthcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections on 5th May.

In April 2017, the Scottish Parliament will receive a package of powers. These include:

  • power to set the rates and bands of income tax on non-savings and non-dividend income
  • half the share of VAT receipts in Scotland being assigned to the Scottish government’s budget
  • and power over Air Passenger Duty and Aggregates LevySo, for the first time, significant powers will form a key plank of party manifestoes, and voters will face a spread of ideas and choices over the best balance of taxation and spending.

SNP

The SNP has said it will not adopt Mr Osborne’s announcement in the Budget to take anyone earning less than £45,000 out of the 40p tax rate. However, it does not intend to increase the 45p rate currently levied on those earning £150,000 or more a year.

The argument for not raising the top rate of income tax straight away is, according to Nicola Sturgeon, that this would see Scotland lose up to £30m a year due to income tax avoidance. She has however not ruled this out for future years and has asked the Council of Economic Advisers to see whether that risk can be mitigated.

George Osborne aims to put up the starting threshold for basic rate of tax from £11,000 to £12,500 by 2020. Nicola Sturgeon says she wants to put it up to £12,750 by the following year.

Scottish Labour

Scottish Labour has put on record that it does not want to see the threshold change north of the border. This is at odds with the UK party which has not objected to the Conservative government’s proposal.

Scottish Labour has also made clear that it wants to put 1p on tax rates in order to raise money “to protect public services”. It said it could give a rebate to those earning less than £20,000. In addition, it would like to see the highest rate of tax – affecting those earning more than £150,000 a year – raised from 45p to 50p.

Scottish Conservatives

A Scottish Conservative-appointed commission argued that the total tax burden should not rise any higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK. It backs the Chancellor’s approach to thresholds, arguing that the proposals by the other political parties would make Scotland the most highly taxed part of the UK, but tax cuts look set to remain merely “aspirational”.

Scottish Liberal Democrats

The Scottish Liberal Democrats want a similar penny increase as Scottish Labour, aimed at protection of education spending. It also says it objects to the 40p threshold change.

Scottish Greens

The Scottish Greens have set out plans to introduce a new 60p rate of income tax for Scotland’s highest earners. The party wants the new rate to apply to those earning more than £150,000 and it also plans a new 43p rate, starting at £43,000.

The Scottish Greens have also said they want to reduce the income tax paid by those earning less than £26,500 a year.

Conclusion

Napoleon’s strategy of the centre has, rightly, become military gospel

The French emperor consistently put his army in the middle of two or more larger opponents, allowing him to fight, and usually defeat each army in turn, rather than facing an overwhelming combined force.

Like Napoleon, its tax proposals leave the SNP as broadly camped across the middle ground of Scottish politics as it could ever wish to be, opting for a tax policy that risks the minimum amount of harm, by having the minimum difference with Westminster. Nicer than the Tories, more responsible than Labour.

Though it may be tempting to raise the 45% rate of tax on those earning more than £150,000, that is a choice that it currently sees as more symbolic than useful in raising revenue.

Given its lead in the polls the SNP can almost certainly live until early May’s election with the tensions and inconsistencies of talking radical and redistributive on one hand, while acting safely centrist on the other.

Labour’s pitch looks like one that is aimed at its traditional core – a narrower appeal to a chunk of the more radical left, and is designed to outflank the SNP by being more “progressive”. That’s in the hope it can be peeled away from its recent adherence to the SNP but leaves its leader, Kezia Dugdale, being exposed on all fronts as being irresponsible for wanting to raise tax.

The Scottish Conservatives, in with a sniff of a chance of coming second in this election, are standing on a centre-right platform, positioning itself as the party of the UK and appealing to a traditional middle class following through opposing any proposed tax rises by other parties.

With the parties having set out their stalls on tax and spend, the Scottish electorate will for the first time face a spread of genuine choices in front of them when they enter polling stations on the 5thMay.

Is Scotland at risk of losing more than popular idols in 2016?

Orbit Communications - Jordan Ferguson
Jordan Ferguson @jordanwferguson

2016 looks set to be remembered as the year we said goodbye to the Thin White Duke, the iron livered Lemmy and arguably the best bad guy Bruce Willis ever battered.  But this week has made me question if Scotland risks losing a lot more than popular idols in 2016?

Maybe less well known is that this week is the anniversary of Jim Sillars, John Robertson and Alex Neil forming the short-lived Scottish Labour Party (SLP).  Frustrated at the UK Governments inability to secure a devolved Scottish Assembly, on January 18th 1976 Sillars and Co. broke from the UK Labour Party but by 1979 had lost their seats in the House of Commons and, in 1981, fraught with infighting, the party was disbanded.

40 years later, the Labour Party in Scotland has rebranded as “Scottish Labour” seeking to avoid a similar annihilation but this time in the devolved Parliament to which the previous rebels were so committed. Polls this week predicted the SNP could repeat its General Election success swooping almost all of the 72 constituency seats and leaving Labour rushing around relying on the regional list system and trying to stay ahead of Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives.

Could this lead to Scotland losing an effective opposition?  

It would seem Nicola Sturgeon is the only one not taking an SNP win for granted.  In FMQ’s this week the First Minister thanked Kezia Dugdale for her assumption she would remain in office post-election.

Understandable as even the most optimistic of Labour voting optimists can’t deny a crippling General Election and a devastation series of polls.  The SNP Government look set to hold another five years in powered, and as leader the opposition the only hope Kezia has is to put together the best Shadow Cabinet she can and chip away at the crack in SNP policy.

Last year the Scottish people undeniably turned away from Labour leaving Ian Murray in a lonely positon. Flooding the party with new blood may rejuvenate the party and get some new policies but will this actually happen?  The regional list relies on the party membership deciding the order and likelihood of election but will those selected tend to be old faces?

Labours candidate list looks like a who’s who of failed politician, a mix of return candidates from the 2011 Holyrood elections and MPs who lost their seats in the 2015 General Election.  Can Anas Sarwar and Thomas Docherty, MPs voted out less than 12 months ago, really be the salvation Scottish Labour needs? Are they both hoping last year was merely ‘SNP mania’ and their experience can help lead the fightback?

It appears as though some existing Labour MSPs doubt this, with the politically experienced but still young Richard Baker retiring 10 weeks before the election for a job in the charitable sector.  Does Richard know something the others don’t?  However, others like Jackie Baillie, who was first elected in the maiden Scottish Parliament in 1999 remain.  Maybe she is right and all is not lost, maybe there is a long term strategy at play here or it could be it is too late and there are simply some in party not willing to accept defeat and force through the radical change in personality and policies needed to start a turnaround in the party’s fortunes.

This blog first appeared on PubAffairs

Beware political posturing on housing crisis

Orbit Communications - Graeme Downie 03
By Graeme Downie @graemedownie

Housing is being setup as one of the key election issues in Scotland for May, as it rightly should.  Politicians, house-builders, landlords, academics and charities are all now agreeing about one thing – there are not enough homes in Scotland and the situation can safely be described as a “crisis.”

With such a grouping of people agreeing on a problem, you would think it would be relatively easy to find a solution for both the short and long term and that the solution should be equally simple – build more houses.  And, to some extent, everyone does agree that this is the solution but what no-one can agree upon is: Who pays? Where should new homes be built? What type of homes are needed? How quickly are these homes needed?

House-builders point out that they need planning permission in areas people want to live to make it economically viable to build new homes, but local authorities are struggling to grant permission in these areas due to the desired land being in a green belt or because of significant community opposition.  Charities argue for more affordable housing, often delivered as a condition of private housing developments but question if this is being delivered in a way which allows those on lower incomes onto the housing ladder.  Private landlords point out that they are able to provide high-quality homes now as well as in the future but feel they are being unfairly demonised, with many likely to scale back investment as a result.

As a result, politicians find themselves in a situation where the public realise there is a crisis and are demanding a solution but where there are no quick fixes available and a range of competing interests.  However, instead of presenting a reasonable plan for the long-term which seeks to balance those interests, the SNP and Scottish Labour have engaged in what appears to be a game of chicken with the numbers, constantly just upping the ante.  At their conference in Perth in October, Labour called for 12,000 affordable homes a year, a policy repeated just this morning with the aggregated figure of 60,000 such homes over the term of the next Scottish Parliament.  The SNP, meanwhile, have pledged 50,000 affordable homes.  Whilst this all might be effective politics and positioning, it is very one-dimensional and seems to imply there is a silver bullet solution to what is a complex and serious problem.

A comprehensive solution to a housing crisis surely needs more than just stating numbers which, even if implemented in full, would only address one part of the problem.  For example, it ignores the need to build mid-level homes to incentivise upgrading which would free up entry-homes and reduce prices lower down the scale.  There also doesn’t seem to be any detail provided by the parties about where these new homes should be built – if they should be in areas of high-demand increasing the overall cost, or in outlying areas to attempt to promote growth and reduce hot-spots.  There is also scant detail on how these homes will be paid for – will they be publicly funded through central construction and managed by local authorities or will additional requirements be placed on the private sector in exchange for a stream-lined planning system?

There have been some attempts at a long-term policy on these issues, particularly in the guise of the excellent report produced by the Commission on Housing and Wellbeing, chaired by former Auditor-General, Bob Black.  That report examined not only the complexity of solving Scotland’s long-term housing crisis but also the huge costs to the public purse through poor health and social problems that will result if action is not taken.

Most of all, the report emphasised the need to bring a whole range of different players to the table to agree a strategy and then stick to it for the generation it will take to deliver the desired results.  Sadly, it seems like political posturing will reign for the time being will win out for the time being but voters are smart enough to know when politicians are simply out-bidding each other rather seeking a proper solution.

Dutch presidency of EU will have positive impact on Scotland

Orbit Communications - Alex Orr 01
By Alex Orr @alexorr2016

At the beginning of this year the Netherlands took over the Presidency of the European Union, and there can hardly be a more critical time in the EU’s history for it to take the helm.

The Presidency, which lasts until the end of June, will seek to address current challenges facing the EU, of which there are no lack. These include the migration crisis, the UK Referendum on EU membership and the fight against terrorism.

In this role the Dutch presidency will shape policies and drive forward legislation that will impact on the futures of 500 EU million citizens, boosting growth and job creation through innovation, and delivering security.

The presidency work programme focuses on four key areas: Europe as an innovator and job creator; migration and international security; sound finances and a robust eurozone, and a forward-looking climate and energy policy.

As such its outcomes will clearly have an impact on Scotland. As an example, around half our international exports are destined for the EU, on which 330,000 Scottish jobs are dependent, and climate change is an issue that affects us all.

The European Union provides the biggest internal market in the world and is pledged to innovate in order to grow stronger and more competitive. In this respect Dutch are looking for red tape to be cut and rules that operate throughout the EU to be simplified and modernised, reducing bureaucracy and costs for citizens, companies and public authorities. This will clearly advantage Scottish businesses and consumers, as will be a renewed focus on greater cross-border co-operation in research and development.

There is also the small matter of the UK’s renegotiation of its relationship with the EU, the outcome of which will be put to the British people in an In-Out referendum, to be held before the end of 2017. As well as this is the ongoing refugee crisis and the desire to deliver common border controls and a co-ordinated asylum and migration policy as a solution to this issue.

While EU Presidencies can be seen as rather distant affairs, its outcomes should clearly be followed with interest here in Scotland.

Scottish Parliament elections in 2016 likely to prove a taxing affair

Orbit Communications - Alex Orr 01
By Alex Orr @alexorr2016

Barring some disaster of cataclysmic proportions, the SNP is destined to win the next Holyrood elections in May 2016, with an outright majority if polls are to be believed.

For Scotland the key number in the political pantheon is ‘45’.

The SNP won 45 per cent of the constituency vote in the 2011 Holyrood elections and 45 per cent in last September’s independence referendum.

The key to deliver more seats will be for the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to convince some of those who voted ‘No’ and are concerned about a potential second independence referendum to put their cross in the SNP box.

The challenge in Scottish politics is now no longer between left and right, but between those who voted “Yes” and “No” in the referendum.

The really novel aspect of this election however is that for the first time since the first Holyrood elections in 1999, political parties will have to set out revenue-raising plans to match their spending plans.

Scottish Secretary, David Mundell MP, hopes to put the laws handing over full control of Scottish earned income tax to Holyrood into action in 2017 rather than 2018. Scottish politicians will be responsible for setting taxes to raise about a quarter (around £10.6 billion) of what they spend (£43 billion).

The Scottish Conservatives have become devoted tax devolution enthusiasts, now that the traditional Tory offering of cutting taxes is open to them.

The other parties will also have to come forward with their own fiscal proposals.

That said, there is little chance of the Tories being in, or close to power in Holyrood, although don’t be surprised if they gain a few percentage points and seats.

Labour is still in total disarray, with the election of Jeremy Corbyn leading to a steady decline in popularity.

While an SNP victory can be determined with a degree of certainty, the outcome of the big political decision facing the UK, the EU Referendum, is a little more uncertain, with support now neck and neck between “inners” and “outers”.

Prime Minister Cameron has pledged that the referendum will take place before the end of 2017, and don’t discount that happening next year, as governments are more likely to win referendums early in their term of office.

If business leaders want to secure an “in” vote they need to start campaigning now, as 2016 could indeed be a year of significant political decisions.