Loadsa luck, pal
The story is no doubt apocryphal - but it bears repetition nonetheless.
Roughly a thousand years ago, the Conservative government was agitating, especially in Scotland, about the system of collecting local taxation from the citizenry.
It consulted an international expert on such matters. Said expert examined the options then pronounced: "Tell me more about these rates. We do not have them in my country. They sound very interesting."
Bit of a snag given that the object was to replace the rates. The rates were to be scrapped. Their very name had become a hissing and a byword to all right-thinking people. They were bad. They were an intrinsic evil.
And so was born the poll tax.
Now Iain Gray, one of the contenders for the Labour leadership in Scotland, says he will urgently convene talks, if elected, to find a method to replace or reform the council tax.
It must be changed. Its very name has become a . . . see above.
You know, this reminds me of nothing more than John Major's campaign to succeed Margaret Thatcher.
He too promised an urgent examination of local taxation. After he won, the poll tax was scrapped - and thus was born the council tax.
Admittedly, Iain Gray wasn't in the last Holyrood Parliament from 2003-07. But, as a special adviser at the Scotland Office, I feel sure he kept up to speed with developments on local taxation.
Indeed, he says that the extensive Burt Review commissioned by Jack McConnell will form part of his fresh thinking on the council tax - as, presumably, will the proposals for rebanding upon which he stood at the elections last May.
You see the problem, of course. Scotland does not lack reviews. There is no shortage of data, no deficit in the scrutiny department. What is missing is action.
That, in my opinion, for very good reasons. It may not seem like it but local taxation, however framed, bears a very small proportion of the cost of local services.
The financial mechanism known as gearing means, therefore, that any attempt to tinker with local taxation can have a disproportionately big effect. It can skew the charges substantially for individuals or whole sectors of society. Witness the poll tax.
Plus council taxation is not just about the provision of services. There must be equity, efficiency, ease of collection - together with retaining local accounability.
The SNP Government is proposing a local income tax. Except it isn't truly local. It would be set nationally at a rate of 3p in the pound.
Now that may be equitable - although it wouldn't be levied on savings income. It may be efficient and easy to collect - although that's disputed by some who question the impact on employers and the Revenue.
However, it scarcely enhances local accountability.
Plus there's the issue of council tax benefit. If council tax is scrapped in favour of an allegedly fairer scheme, then what is the case for council tax benefit continuing to be paid by Whitehall?
SNP ministers say it has become an intrinsic part of Scotland's funding set-up and is recognised as such by the Treasury.
It has become, in short, formulaic rather than entirely claimant dependent. But that is, to say the least, open to argument.
Plus, the Lib Dems like LIT - but want it truly local. They don't approve of the SNP system.
Mr Gray indicates he will seek to build a coalition with the Tories who favour council tax reform. And he nods towards the Greens who back land value taxation.
To all our politicians who are trying to wrestle with this problem, may I simply quote the words of that great American comedian, Allan Sherman? Loadsa luck, pal, loadsa luck.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~26~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Brian,
A can of worms, to be sure.
The biggest problem, to which you only make passing reference, is that Council Tax and its predecessors only constitute a small part of "local" government expenditure - in the case of my "local" authority (so local that one end of it is closer to Nottingham than to its other end), I was informed that the Council tax (and business rates) only constituted 13% of the budget.
Any reform of local government finance must attempt to raise a much larger part of the needed revenue more locally. In any sensible re-arrangement of funding, this would necessarily mean a reduction in central taxation.
I do recommend a reading of progress and Poverty, by Henry George.
This thread may run and run...
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
Some well made points Brian
Interesting that rather than discuss the pros and cons of this very complex problem, that everyone is running for cover - or scared!
Let's have some meaningful, useful debate from all sides, but please - don't repeat past mistakes. Everyone knows they have to pay for local services, but surely it should be a level playing field?
Complain about this comment
Brian
How dare you suggest that this is a difficult problem? All the political parties "know" the right answer - shame they're all different.
I've always assumed that the Burt report got short shrift from Labour because McConnell was told by London not even to think about having a different system from England.
The SNP and Lib-Dem support for LIT, always seemed to be a populist political move, rather than a principled decision.
Frankly, it doesn't make much sense to me to try to work out the mechanics of how to raise the 13% of LA expenditure without a much deeper consideration of which functions should be handled at LA and which at national level, and the structures of local government required to deliver those functions.
Ref Ed's
(Thanks Ed - that's another of your tips I've learned to do)
Complain about this comment
We concentrate far too much on the local tax rate as a measure of the performance of our councils. As Brian says, gearing means that small changes in expenditure mean big changes in the tax rate.
I would be much happier with a nationally set rate, where employers and revenue collectors have a much easier, and cheaper, task in raising the money. A mechanism to allocate funds to councils based on need would have to be formalised, but I'm sure this could be done.
To evaluate the performance of our local councils we need to look much more at what the councils do with the money given to them. Things like levels of service, the efficency of delivery of services and ingenuity in developing services are far more useful measures than the crude tax rate. The above is what we should be using when we decide who to vote for as their performance is what really matters.
Complain about this comment
Just scrap the very idea of local taxraising itself.
With the vast majority of councils' income coming from Government sources, there is precious little accountability anyway.
If you take away the tax-setting powers (however constrained at present), then councillors will - or, at least, should - be elected upon what they will do with the funds available.
Complain about this comment
To add to my friend and neighbour Ed's comment, one of the problems is that 'local' government in Scotland is not local: Scotland has the largest 'local' government regions in Europe.
Dumfries and Galloway, not Scotland's largest local government division, is larger than Palestine; larger than Brunei; larger than Trinidad and Tobago; more than twice as large as Samoa or Luxembourg; more than six times as large as Hong Kong; more than ten times as large as Singapore or Bahrain; more than 40 times as large as Liechtenstein; more than four thousand times the size of Monaco. There are 43 independent NATIONS that are smaller than Dumfries and Galloway.
Put it differently: Dumfries and Galloway has three times the population of the average Danish local authority; four times of the average Swedish or Dutch; twelve times the average for Norway; thirty six times the average for Iceland. You think Iceland is an extreme case? Get this. Dumfries and Galloway has eighty four times the population of the average - the average - French commune.
Local taxation is a problem, and it does need to be solved. But the problem of local governance and local accountability needs to be solved first.
Complain about this comment
In thee matter of efficiency, I'd like to consider the number of accountants involved in any proposed system of revenue collection and distribution.
It seems, on first thoughts, that to collect any tax locally certainly requires at least one accountancy department at local level. Probably the same department could also handle the distribution of the proceeds to the operating service arms.
If funds collected locally have to be accounted to Central government, more accountants will be needed, and another corresponding set will be needed in Central Government. If funds collected nationally are to be sent to local government, yet another pair of accountancy units will be needed (one at each end)..., and, if there is any "tiered" system, each additional tier will need accountants...
So, not to extend this mental exercise too far, it seems to me that it would be most efficient to collect ALL of local government's resources locally and deal with ALL disbursements locally. Of course, we might have to add some accountants to the welfare rolls, but every exercise in efficiency has it's benefits.
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
As much as the "poll tax" was decride I have yet to meet any tax payer who doesnt accept the concept of everyone paying there way . For eg most people have a tv and a licence (a tax) if you want sky,virgin etc you pay for it ,so why shouldnt everyone pay towards the upkeep of local services
Complain about this comment
#5 cousteau669: Instinct tells me you are right. Let councils appply to government for what they need, and judge them on how they handle it. I also think there's a case for an "elected mayor" system, whereby the putative leader names his executives and lays a programme before the people at election time. This has led to corruption in the US, but don't let's kid ourselves that we are "clean" here.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Simon!
~~ Hesiod, some 2800 years ago...;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
If you take away tax raising powers from councils, rather than becoming more efficient, they'll just become better at begging and spinning their case. It will of course help if the council is controlled by the same party as the government.
Complain about this comment
#7 Ed_Iglehart
Fine, in theory, to collect all locally. However, rather simplistic when examined further.
If tax is income based and collected at source, the fairest and most efficient, then what about the poor employer who has employees in different council areas, very common situation in Glasgow, for example. Costs are then passed from Govt to firms.
Also central government can alleviate situations, such as urban deprivation by allocating more funds to authorities disproportionately affected.
Each council would have to run a parallel system, including IT and bad debt depts. Not very efficient, I think.
Local government would still have to account for monies to central govt, or we risk situations like the Western Isles and BCCI or the recent travails in Aberdeen becoming even more common
Complain about this comment
Simon Brooke's interesting analysis of the size of Dumfries and Galloway compared to nation states, communes etc. is of little use because he leaves out the most important element of all which is a comparison of the differing responsibilities of communies, municipalities etc.
I have always found it odd that we need local councils to manage education when the state decides every detail of what is being taught and the selection and management of schools, same applies to social work. What is the benefit in having a management structure in Dumfries and another one in Ayr? Are children and other vulnerable individuals better served?
I believe in subsiduarity, where decisions are taken at the lowest practical level. However, I think when it comes to schools and social work that level ceased to be local government a long time ago.
Would it not be better to free councils from having to manage the services which the Scottish Government wants to control and allow them to concentrate on those things which really should be organised and controlled locally, such as planning and transport?
Two other points. Firstly, I think Brian's blog sets out clearly why we should take steps to move towards increasing the amount of their budgets which councils raise through their own direct taxes. Grants are a bad thing and we should want to free councils to stand on their own feet.
Secondly, I think it is sad that politicians don't want to rectify the disgraceful gerrymandered boundaries for local government which the Tories imposed on Scotland. Above all council boundaries should reflect the communities which mean something to the people who live locally.
Complain about this comment
#6 Simon
Must visit Palnackie again soon!
Presumably these other countries you list decided on their systems, as best suited their peoples. Unfortunately that wasn't what happened in Scotland.
The Acts of 1890, 1929, and 1947 democratised local government and allowed a range of different types of authorities to serve the different circumstances of rural and urban Scotland.
The 1969 Wheatley Commission recommended a Regional structure (implemented 1973) because it was not allowed to examine the case for an all-Scottish body.
The resulting 1973 Act was similar to the Act for England that had been passed 3 years earlier - a piece of legislation entirely based on Labour's concept of "central planning".
The current mess was the result of Tory gerrymandering to kill the powerful Labour dominated Regions and to create little enclaves for themselves like East Renfrewshire and Angus though that didn't work!
We need a root and branch change after independence.
Complain about this comment
#13 scottishpatriot
I see we share views on the 1994 disgrace.
Also, the pretence that education (with most of the budget) is a "local authority" function, while HMIe are in practice all-powerful is a nonsense.
Complain about this comment
Scot2010,
Simple is sometimes best.Agreed.I believe this is already the situation. My little thought experiment was intended to stimulate some consideration of both the present situation, in which a considerable portion of revenue is used up in watching its movement, and any proposed "improvements" which might be made in implementing new systems.I have often thought we might have been better off if writing had never been invented by accountants, and so eagerly taken up by lawyers. We now live in a culture in which probably half the folk in employment produce nothing but documents, and personal status is in direct proportion to how indoor and abstract one's "employment" is - tough luck builders and farmers and other "practical" folk.
Think on...
ed
Complain about this comment
#11 Anaxim: Why should the council be controlled by a party? Why not a business team? By all means have elected scrutineers, but not party ciphers who never speak but vote as they're told.
Complain about this comment
i fink wee shood get rid ov lokal oforitys. its not as if we need skools and moozeeums aneway
Complain about this comment
While I agree with Brian that this is a very complex issue, and no one in the far or recent past seems to have come up with a plan that has satisfied those who have to pay tax, or those who have to pay for services using revenue, I do think that it is encourging that Iain Gray is taking on the SNP at their own game and offering to fully examine the issue. I also agree that we do have data, but I think that it is very important that the information gathering keeps happening, so no one can accuse him of working out his figures on data and analysis that are already a couple of years old.
Iain Gray may not be able to come up with a magic tax that keeps everyone happy but despite the no doubt relelvant views of Hesiod, I'm impressed that there's a politician out there who is at least willing to try, and to accept new methods to solve an old problem.
Complain about this comment
Re #6: if I was being argumentative I might point out that you have merely illustrated the enormous variability in the populations of local authorities. Ok, Scotland lies at one end of this spectrum, but is that a bad thing? Or are the French muttering "zut alors" into their pastis because their local authority consists of only 16 people and a poodle? I suspect, as with most things in this world, the Danes, Swedes, Dutch and Norwegians are sitting back contentedly knowing that their system is working just fine.
Thankfully I'm not being argumentative though ;o) I don't think anyone would disagree with the principle that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level. But sadly that agreement is also the starting block for the divergence of opinions about which responsibilies belong at which level. No answers here I'm afraid.
One issue not yet mentioned is that of transparency. Whether I pay council tax, local income tax, poll tax or window tax I don't have a clue where the money goes. It just disappears into a big pot, gets stirred around a bit (much of it evaporating in the process), and is then dribbled out into various different places. Just one example: I might be happier paying tax on petrol if I knew it was going to be spent on the environment, say, or on transport, rather than on Trident.
Ditto for the myriad other taxes in life. So here's a radical (and therefore half-baked!) thought: how about properly hypothecated taxes? Education tax, health tax, police tax, fire brigade tax, military tax, transport tax, etc., etc. The relevant Ministers and authority beaks then get grilled on how they spent their money once a year.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat, (14), I arrived in Scotland to be immediately surprised thaat existing local government units and systems were being comprehensively dismantled and re-constructed according to the conclusions of a distant Whitehall unit (Wheatley). As a Jeffersonian democrat, I was amazed that anyone (including most of my new neighbours) could accept the competence (in both the legal and colloquial sense) of the centre to dictate the shape of so-called local government.
I still reckon that, due to the long tradition of monarchy (however limited), the average Brit believes authority increases as one moves towards the centre - further from the individual. We simple rebellious colonials, on the other hand, tend to think otherwise.
A simple example: Career paths for those who study forestry (presumably due to an interest in trees and forests), lead, if successful, to an air-conditioned office in a tower in Edinburgh, where the only forests one is likely to see are in computer landscape simulations. Admittedly, this is an improvement upon a few decades ago, when all you had were paper files and maps....
My friends in the Forestry Commission like nothing better than when some of us troublesome radicals insist upon a meeting in the forest - preferably on a Friday morning...
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
I dont know if many people have worked this out yet however in most cases council tax is a tax based on the abilty to pay. I will put this very simply, the more expensive your home the more you pay for council tax. Capital assests are as fundamantal an indicator of personal wealth as anything else.
Or is someone going to try and tell me that the value of someones home has no corelation to their personal income?
LiT is a tax on earned incomes, so those who do not earn their incomes (ie those who earn income from shares or investments) will pay nothing, in effect workers will pay yet their boss will not.
In my opinion thats far more unfair than any sort of current rate fo taxation.
Complain about this comment
Brigadier,
No comment needed. As Brian noted, we are not short of studies... All the links to the McIntosh Commission now return error 404....again, no comment needed.The idea of a "proper" executive is somewhat appealing. We have always had "officials", and a "Chief Executive", but drawn from career civil servants, rather than elected... Some of them have done very good work indeed. Neil McIntosh, who headed The (McIntosh) Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament, commissioned by Donald Dewar, being a case in point. His commission reported with recommendations, a key one of which was
;-(
ed
Complain about this comment
#20 forfar-loon
Hadn't really thought before about an entire system based on hypothecated taxes.
It has a certain attraction, but I suspect, impractical since politicians and bureaucrats are the ones who like the opaqueness of the system. Can't see MSPs of any party voting for it.
Complain about this comment
#11 Anaxim
Thanks for your responses on the previous thread - if it was yours, I quite liked your letter in the Herald today. We differ, but fair do's.
I quite agree, and that's the core reason for reducing the financial power of central over local government.
Complain about this comment
#23 Ed Iglehart
I noticed the broken link a day or so ago when I followed a link provided by you on a previous blog.
I wonder if one of the links below are of any use?
http://politicsforpeople.org/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn99-14.pdf
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc04/ser-01.htm
Complain about this comment
#19 hollygolightly
Ah, the sweet unbiased reasoned words from the Kirriemuir Labour Party!
Pity that your London bosses stopped Jack McConnell considering this the first time round.
Complain about this comment
There are some great view points made here, I think the current system is unfair on many levels, personaly i pay my fair share of Council tax. What I do object to is the amount of people who as usual pay not a jot to anything but get access to everything.
I know plenty of people who are working but staying in bed sit land who dont pay a thing in council tax but is never out of local libraries, internet cafes etc run by the council.
This is just plainly wrong, everyone should pay in this country if they earn or have more money than sense but use the sevices of the council.
I am all for a local income tax, the sooner the better.
Complain about this comment
Roll_On,
Thanks for that. Amusing to note Bendy's name on the lead page for the response to McIntosh ;-) That link in my paper works, but I'll add the one for the McIntosh report. Thanks again.
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
I've been employed at Local Authority level for 6 months now. Coming from a predominantly private sector work history, I'm amazed at some of the "working" practices in use. Suffice to say, If I ran the council, there would be several workshy people working for their dole ;-)
Taxes have always confused me, in so far as they are essentially a self sustaining idea. If we didnt have people to administer the collection of taxes, there would be no need for the taxes to pay their wages.
I do, however, understand that there is an essential requirement for any form of government to provide some basic services to those it serves.
What I disagree with is the manner in which taxation is implemented at the moment. Take Landfill tax for example....
So, as a Local Authority, you have a Landfill allowance (# of Tonnes allowed to be landfilled) For every ton over this, the current fine is £150.
Add that to the £32 per ton for EVERY ton you put in landfill (reckon on a min of 50000 tons for a small LA) and what do you have?
A BIG bill.
Why can that money not be invested directly into providng wide ranging recycling and waste minimisation schemes to Householders?
In essence, the issue is not just where the funding comes FROM (be it central gov't or Council Tax) but also what it is SPENT ON.
Surely some development of national purchasing schemes for things like equipment/consumables (from pens to Kitchen Units) would ensure that
A- A competitive price is achieved due to bulk buying
B- The Funding Trail is clearly auditable on several key service provisions.
Sorry if Its rambling, or utter mush- I'm trying o get the hang of this...
Complain about this comment
#30 320touring
Neither "rambling, nor utter mush".
We're all trying to get our heads round this!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
A very interesting article.
The Conservative Poll tax whilst fairer than the present system for most people had a similar fault to the present system - 'it bore no relationship to income or ability to pay' In addition, in the case of the latter it retained the old problem with the rates and, many who had adequate means, paid nothing for the services we all use.
Changing names is a popular political ploy to disguise one bad system replacing another - 'rates' - 'poll tax' - 'council tax'
The Burt review was a masterpiece in avoiding a fair solution to the problem - it recommended replacement by a property tax - nothing to do with payment for local services and no allowance made for income except the recommendation the poorer should be able to defray their taxes thus 'taking on debt' - what a disgraceful way to tax people! 'tax them into debt'
Rebranding will not solve the issue of fairness in relation to income and again many of those who can afford to pay, who use the services, will not be asked to pay.
The correct way would have been for local taxation to be replaced by National income tax but if this is a non runner, as it seems to be, then Local income tax is the next best thing. After Scotland is independent, this can become part of National taxation.
Local income tax is as you say efficient and easy to collect - I am sure that the Government could come up with some method of ensuring that any household that does not pay income tax but does have income from another source could receive an annual bill as at present, but I do not perceive this to be a major problem if we can get rid of the present unfair system.
The Lib Dem's attitude is strange to say the least - they will lose many votes for not backing the SNP's plans - why should the people in Aberdeen pay more than the people in Glasgow? for local services - we all use and should be entitled to the same quality of services and any Councillors, (not the Council), not providing same should be fined personally - the Government should provide the money to provide the services they already stipulate - their can hardly be anything that is not subject to National specification now.
I do not believe Labour will come up with a satisfactory solution because they are entrenched in their opposition to the common sense and fairest solution - as a result, they will lose even more votes in Scotland and, combined with their demise in England, will spend a long time in the political wilderness.
It may be the Conservatives will have more common sense but I doubt it - it would go against the grain for them to agree an increase in taxation, no matter how small, for the vastly better off and the rich.
Former Labour supporter 1966-2006
Complain about this comment
#29 Ed Iglehart
You are welcome Ed.
Funny that, bendie's name was the first thing that caught my attention to. She was the Minister for Communities - no less.
My how times have changed, and so quickly!
Just when you think that NuLabour has hit rock bottom they can still surprise you!
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Civil-war-engulfs-Labour-Party.4352478.jp
Looks like they may have a lot further to fall.
By the way the site you gave me is very informative, thanks for that.
Complain about this comment
What is needed may be action, but in order for there to be action there needs first of all to be a parliamentary majority in favour of a particular course of action.
There being no such majority for LIT and probably no scope for the creation of a majority for it before the next Holyrood elections, we are left with the prospect of further inaction on this matter until 2011.
However, never say never. Something totally unexpected may turn up between now and then. Always expect the unexpected, because it keeps turning up . . . when you least expect it.
Complain about this comment
After spending some time in New Hampshire USA the local county councils produce a yearly report on what tax money was raised and what it was spent on, im unsure if we have a system similar in Scotland but to me it would make councils more aware of us the voter .
Complain about this comment
#20: it is 118 miles by road from Langholm to Drummore. Put it another way, from Langholm you can drive to Stafford (in Staffordshire) or to Dunkeld (in Perthshire) quicker than you could drive to Drummore. Even allowing for the ferry, from Drummore you can drive to places in the Irish Republic quicker than you can drive to Langholm. So in what sense is a councillor from Langholm 'local' to Drummore, or vice versa?
#13, local authorities in Iceland have exactly the same responsibilities over education and social services as local authorities in Scotland, so your argument that I'm ignoring 'the differing responsibilities of communies, municipalities, etc' just won't wash.
I'm also not at all persuaded that it would be a good thing for education to be controlled nationally. Local government ought to be able to set standards to suit local conditions. One size - even in education and social services - does not fit all, and it's because we have education services designed for Glasgow being applied in rural Galloway that we're having to close so many village schools.
Exams should be set nationally, certainly, so that local electors can see how well their local education service is doing against national norms. But beyond that, central government really has no role in primary or secondary education.
Complain about this comment
Interesting points 320touring,whats the most expensive,employment or non employment.Ah, landfill tax,oldnat may have something to say about Scotland being the dumping ground for the UK.The big question was always coming for AS and the economics of independence,and you no what,it's all a question of tax,regional or central the sums dont stack up and what services will be cut.
Complain about this comment
Brian -
If we are trotting out the scare stories about discontinuing council tax benefit then it's only fair to remind the Scottish people of the time we had the poll tax forced upon us a year before anywhere else in the UK - as if we were no better than a bunch of lab rats.
So in the spirit of time-honoured BBC impartiality here is another "scare story" with a slightly different slant:
If Lord Snooty gets voted in by the English at the next General Election - as he surely will - are the Scots going to stand idly by and let him impose his own version of the poll tax on them - replacing incapacity benefit with a "work for benefits" scheme?
Hmmmm....I expect the voters of Glasgow East are really struggling to work out what they can do to stop that.............not!!!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
There will always be winners and losers whether we have rates, community charge, council tax, LIT, or property taxes. I preferred the Community Charge simply because I think it is fair to ask everyone to contribute to local authority funding even though I lost out as it was higher than the rates I paid.
Maybe a better idea would be to consider the nature and function of local government itself. The problem I have with any discussion on local taxes is no-one ever considers what we really need our local authorities to provide and what we could easily do without, or fund privately ourselves.
Perhaps Mr Gray would be better looking what are the essential and desirable functions of local government: what we really need and what we could do without. I find much discussion of local taxation is geared towards increasing funding, rarely towards efficiency or necessity in order to cut the required level of funding and so lowering local taxes.
Even so, a more interesting debate would be to ask the question "For What Purposes Are Our Local Councils Really Necessary?" Alas, in a country used to looking to government and politicians to solve its problems, this is a question I fear no-one will address
Best Wishes,
William1957
Complain about this comment
What would be wrong with collecting the 3p/Pound LIT nationally (as Scotland is not as big as some previous posters have suggested, it is still a lot smaller than that big over funded sponge called London).
Then all we have to do is have a small independent panel (independent from political and local biases, who spend each year reviewing the various needs of each LA, based on visits to the LA's and reports from the LA's regarding their achievements, requirements and areas of special importance or investment etc. The reports conclusions can then be provided to the Scottish Government for inclusion within the budget in order to let the Scottish Government provide all the necessary funding to each area in a logical and fair manner which helps to minimise waste and preserves essential services.
...or is that just too sensible?
Complain about this comment
#22, masingo
"Or is someone going to try and tell me that the value of someones home has no corelation to their personal income? "
Yes, I am.
There are all manner of reasons why a person may live in an expensive house (beyond their visible means), usually historical - inheriting from a relative, or related to PAST income levels.
The problem with property-based taxation is that the value of a house is inevtiably a matter of judgement. There are sound health reasons why we would not return to a window tax, but it would be no more iniquitous.
Income is not a matter of judgement; it is a matter of indisputable fact.
Governments' obsession with reducing income tax, whilst ramping up stealth taxes, is attention-grabbing but bad for the economy.
The level of income tax (which should, by the way, be made a permanent tax) and corresponding corporation tax should be sufficiently high to meet the cost of all services provided by a governmental structure.
If one was devising a taxation structure, one wouldn't choose to start from here. But tinkering will do little to help matters.
Labour are destined to lose the next general election. If Gordon Brown wants to go down in history as a man who did great things for the good of the country, he should use the next two years to push through the necessary legislation to change matters. (Only trouble being that if it works, the Tories will reap the benefits.)
Complain about this comment
#37 derek
Quite the contrary, one of the benefits of the UK is the number of Labour numpties that we've dumped in London.
If you bothered to check the actual figures (instead of repeating propaganda), you would know that the Scottish fiscal deficit is 10% of the UK fiscal deficit. Since Scotland has 10% of the UK population, that's a match.
The UK deficit is currently higher than the 2.5% average for the last 10 years, but still within manageable limits. Both the UK and Scotland are financially viable.
Yours is a dead parrot of an argument.
Come back to me when you have some evidence based arguments.
Complain about this comment
#30, 320touring
"Surely some development of national purchasing schemes for things like equipment/consumables..."
Not sure what your role is in the relevant local authority, but you're apparently not aware that this does in fact already exist. Or, rather, each local authority can choose to be (and invariably is) part of a defined collective purchasing scheme.
This is not, however, always the best solution. ALL purchases are made through this channel, and authorities are not able to take advantage of special or one-off deals which might be obtained elsewhere.
A consistent and competitive level of value, but not necessarily BEST value.
Complain about this comment
IRONIC PROPOSAL
This sums up New Labour in one !
John Prescott today apologised for "inadvertently" charging the council tax bill for his official London residence to the public purse.
The Deputy Prime Minister admitted £3,830 of taxpayers' money had been paid out on his grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House, near Trafalgar Square in London, since 1997.
Mr Prescott, whose department has presided over a hugely unpopular 76 per cent rise in council tax since Labour took power, said the payment was the result of an "inadvertent error... based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The backlog built up because Mr Prescott claimed that Admiralty House, which has a market rental value estimated at £8,000 a month, was his ?secondary residence? when in fact it was his main home.
Labour: (Short) Change is what we do.
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
Cousteau,
Nah! They'll spend a couple of years dismantling it.Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
I would prefer a different system to what we have now, but i agree as someone else has pointed out that local councils need a boot in the arse. Theres to much dodgyness about, ie corrupt councilors getting gardening leave or leaving with big golden handshakes and huge pensions when they are found out. Nobody seems to care and it just keeps happening. If i knew where my money was being spent then that would be a good thing, but where i live i see nothing.... well apart from roadworkers spending days fixing one pot hole. If a local income tax cost me slightly more to pay then i could live with that as long as it was fair and not buying the local planning officer a nice garden when he retires.
Complain about this comment
Here in Ireland, we have no rates, council tax, poll tax or local income tax. Mind you we have a fair whack of central income tax to pay and a chunk of that revenue is disbursed to the local authorities to provide local services, etc.
In that sense we do have the SNP's version of a national, 'local income tax'. Income tax in that it is based on ability to pay, local in that the revenue centrally obtained is paid into addressing local priorities, but national in that it avoids punitively high income tax levels in the regions that have the highest need for local services, if you see what I mean.
Local authorities have fairly limited powers however and it is a fairly centralised state which means that even local bus routes need to be approved in Dublin rather than locally, although they are run by a nationalised bus service, something else Scotland might not have any more!
Anyway, the most efficient way out of this impasse is of course to be fully independent with a Scottish revenue service that can administer tax matters.
Complain about this comment
#44 Wansanshoo (my favourite user name on the blog)
The Prescott story is in the Guardian while a similar story on Blunkett is in the Mail (not my favourite paper!
Complain about this comment
#44 Wansanshoo
What we have to remember with Prescott's example (as with all of our honourable members of parliament is that, when a financial irregularity of any kind is discovered, no one is investigated by the authorities because there was "no intentional wrongdoing".
It is also worth bearing in mind that if you or I are a penny short in paying our council tax then our feet won't touch the ground on our way to Barlinnie because "ignorance of the law is no defence."
And politicians can't understand why people hold them in utter contempt?!!
Complain about this comment
22# Masingo
I am in agreement with #41
in 1999 - I rented a 1 bedroom flat in the centre of Aberdeen for nearly 5 years earning less than £12,000 p/a - the flat was BARELY within my means to pay for and the additional £1100 per annum I had to stump up for "cooncil tax" reduced any aspirations of me owning my own home within that 5 years - unless of course I'd accepted to take a 125% mortgage - repayable over 90 years with the northern Rock...
aye, right - That would have worked out fine, wouldn't it?
Complain about this comment
22 Masingo
What has paying for publice services got to do with the value of your house?
If you are saying Council tax should be payable from your wealth then there should be an annual wealth tax which would include all your wealth, income, bank account, shares, value of your car etc. etc. - again it has nothing to do with paying for Council services but if that's what you are advocating?
What about the people with income and other wealth who currently pay nothing whilst using these services because they live in someone else's home?
The value of your house can reflect your income at a particular stage in your life but your income can decrease, in some cases dramatically, after you retire or change jobs etc.
In any event as I have already said the value of your house, or anything else for that matter, has nothing to do with paying for local services, which are, in almost all instances, dictated by central Government.>
Complain about this comment
#48 oldnat
I liked the following section from that article in 2006;
Ironic really one honest? MP calling another MP bent.
What a cruel world we live in.
Complain about this comment
#22 masingo, #41 cousteau699
Yup, I'm a prime example of someone living in a house which doesn't match my income. Not asking for sympathy - I had my eyes open and I love it here.
One pay rise in the last five years.
Come October and the change in national minimum wage, I'll earn a princely 7p per hour more than the minimum.
Yes, the house is on the market now, for totally unrelated family reasons.
No, no-one is buying.
Guess which option I'm supporting, anyone?
Wanna buya house?
Complain about this comment
Ah,so,the oldnat wants an independent state, with the status quo on taxation,the repeating process of stale mate,gone have the principles of betterment and in it's place are the sentiments of nationalism,control by numbers wont resolve the plight of poverty.
Complain about this comment
p.s. to #53
More to the point, property values can change rapidly in either direction.
Theoretically, property values in Scotland are more resilient than those in England at present, but this isn't being borne out by buyers at present.
Being taxed on changeable or relative values would demand a banding system.
That would just be council tax with a name change then?
Complain about this comment
Whatever system of local government taxation is finally decided on, the local authorities must not be allowed to decide on the level of taxation. This gives free rein to the excesses of councils who create non jobs, overpay higher grade executives who in most cases would not find like employment or renumeration in the private sector, and pour money into projects that should be way down the list of neccessity.Most of the elected councillors in Scotland will nod their heads to anything suggested by their director of finance whether the expenditure is needed or not. A gross reduction in personnel not employed in actually delivering front line services should be the first priority of local government. There is no reason why a net reduction in taxes should not be achievable rather than having the present situation where taxes are raised as a matter of course to make up for councils being unable to stay within budget. If this situation arose in the private sector, the finance director would be out of a job.
Complain about this comment
#54 derek
SQA results out today - see you failed Foundation English again!
It might help you to see the minimum requirements for an award -
Writing ? Summary GRC
Foundation Level (Grades 6, 5)
In finished work the candidate managed to communicate meaning largely at a first reading
despite formal errors and weaknesses. The writing was limited in ideas and language, but
showed a few signs of awareness of the requirements of the task. Where appropriate, the candidate was able to sustain a length of at least 100 words.
Complain about this comment
The arguement that a centrally collected tax at a uniform rate cannot be a local tax is semantics. If the proceed is given to local authorities specifically to fund local services it is a "local" tax and the local council will be judged on how sensibley they spend it.
However I can see the case for allowing local authorities other limited means of raising revenue.
In some other countries a huge array of taxes are utilised to fund local services from a system that has all taxation collected locally and monies sent to the national treasury in return for services to a system of a basket of taxes - income tax, property tax, land tax and sales tax etc - being levied in conjunction to fund local expenditure.The Council Tax as presently levied is a blunt, inefficient and unfair tax and LIT is a better concept. Essentially however the Scottish Government should be applying pressure on Councils to become much more efficient.
Presently they are hugely over-staffed and functionally incompetent in huge areas.
I believe John Swinney is on this case.
Complain about this comment
On the vodka again oldnat,lost the plot,take the carpet slippers off and address the issue,what type of taxation system would an independent Scotland have.point made in less than 50 words.
Complain about this comment
#59 Derek
To address your direct question - I have no idea. I'm not a member of the SNP, and in any case that party may or may not have a majority in a post-independence Scotland. That will be decided by the representatives of the Scottish people, but I suspect will be redistributive, since the centre of Scottish politics is well to the left of The UK Labour Party that you tragically hang onto.
If you would devolve yourselves you might have a chance of being listened to.
If you want my personal opinion, a redistributive system is preferable, but that by itself will not address the problems of multiple deprivation.
(By the way that answer meets the Grade Related Criteria for Credit Writing, where complex arguments are required, as opposed to simple statements).
Complain about this comment
Brigadier asks:
"Why should the council be controlled by a party? Why not a business team? By all means have elected scrutineers, but not party ciphers who never speak but vote as they're told."
Councils are already expected to outsource everything, so I suppose a privatised council is the next step. But it would be a very bad idea, I think. You'd have even more money spent on useless PR people, idiot rebrandings and 'solutions'.
oldnat says:
"Thanks for your responses on the previous thread - if it was yours, I quite liked your letter in the Herald today. We differ, but fair do's."
It's not my letter, I'm hardly the only cosmopolitan in Scotland. It is a very eloquent defence of the cosmopolitan outlook, thank you for pointing it out.
Complain about this comment
Thank you oldnat,i do concur with many of your points,critical theory on balance is often more positive than the swan song,i look forward to your future inputs and must say your unique presentation on this blog is always uplifting.ciao 4 now
Complain about this comment
#62 derek
I like a good wind-up even when I'm the victim! Enjoy.
Complain about this comment
Old Nat - It's always great to have evidence based arguments. Here's some for you. Local income tax, as I understand it, is based not on the ability to pay, but the ability to earn. so, those on low income, students (whose income the SNP state they wish to protect), single income parents, those who live alone, those with disabilities, the elderly, the needy - all of whom receive a discount or rebate under the current system - all of whom earn money, even though it may be a pittance from which they can ill afford an extra 50 pounds or so - will all be eligible to pay that 50 pounds. Sounds much fairer to me, but then I'm a nice middle class Scot who is able to wax lyrical about my principles. The people the local income tax is really going to hurt are the ones who are far too busy worrying about where they are going to find that extra £50 to pay for political posturing. By the way - It's great to hear your not a member of the SNP. Just to let you know that I am not a member of "the dark side" and have, as yet, no London bosses to answer to (that I know of, but hey, maybe that's what they want me to think). However, if you are concerned that a secret Labour cell has infiltrated SNP heartland - I'd be straight on the phone to Christine Graeme, if I were you. According to a recent radio 4 interview she thinks her phones are being tapped by MI5 - perhaps they could give you some tips on how to "re -educate" the masses...
Complain about this comment
#64: You'd thing that, since we've had income tax in this country for more than 200 years, people would understand it by now - but clearly not.
Income tax is, as you say, a tax on income. But it isn't a tax on all income. Everyone gets an allowance of income which is not taxed. For the people on the lowest incomes, that's all or virtually all of their total income. The fact that an extra amount is added to income tax does not affect that allowance.
So the people on the lowest incomes will not only pay least tax, they will also pay the smallest proportion of their income in tax.
There are a lot of things which worry me about the SNP proposal. The tax is being set nationally - so who will decide what share of the pie each local authority gets? That's going to be a very political decision.
Also, in my home village, almost all the houses are now 'second homes' occupied only a few weekends a year. Local Income Tax risks subsidising second home owners, who are already pricing local people out of the housing market, when in any rational social policy we should be heavily penalising second home owners.
But there is this much which is absolutely right about local income tax: the rich pay more, and the poor pay less. Wealth is redistributed from the rich to the poor, as it should be. The Labour Party's attempts to obscure this fact - to pretend that somehow this proposal will hurt poorer people - is transparently dishonest. It seeks to hide the fact that Labour is now the party of the rich middle class, and it is the rich middle class who have most to lose under the SNPs proposals.
Complain about this comment
#65 Simon_Brooke.
I originally posted this on the previous thread (sorry to all who have read it) although I have edited it slightly. It has more relevance here. In my analysis, it is the rich middle class who are likely to be better off under the SNP proposals.
Ignoring the paradox that a tax that is set centrally, collected centrally and distributed centrally, is being called "Local", I actually think that the proposals for Local Income Tax are not very fair at all.
As a starting point for my points, I am assuming that the council tax budgets will NOT go down under the new system, so that the LIT (plus whatever else) must raise the same amount of money as the current system.
So, looking at my own situation, I live in a reasonably large house (Aberdeenshire) and together with my wife we have a reasonably large income. I calculate that even at 3% of our GROSS income, we are going to be better off under LIT. People around me that earn more than me tend to live in larger houses so I would expect them to pay less as well. People who earn much more that me would already be employing accountants to reduce their exposure to income tax (and if not would probably do so) and people who earn much, much more that me will have already minimised their taxable income by offshoring, share ownership etc. For those wealthy people in the South, they could even move to England because wealth actually means "mobility".
So as I see it, most of the weathly people will already be in a position to avoid a lot of LIT. Let's not forget that LIT doesn't tax land, doesn't tax income from shares or savings, doesn't tax second homes, etc. In general it doesn't tax ASSETS at all.
So, who's likely to be worse off? Here's a couple I can think of right off the top of my head...
1) Working couples who deliberatly (and prudently) bought a small house to minimise their mortgage and debts
2) Poorer working families who may have 3 or even 4 wage earners under 1 roof.
Secondly, the scheme assumes that the current council tax benefit will be used to prop up the system. Assuming that is true (and it is by no means certain), then the CTB will effectivly be subsidising the LIT. So, in other words, a benefit intended for the poorest in society will be subsidising MY LIT.
Thirdly, some of the accounts I've read say that LIT AND the Council Tax benefit still won't cover the council budgets. So the system will have to be subsidised from general taxation - again benefiting me.
Finally, if the LIT doesn't work out properly then councils will end up cutting budgets, reducing services for the most needy - again in order to subsidise MY LIT.
None of the above seems very fair to me as someone who could probably afford to pay more.
So, in general, it strikes me that although the headline is "tax cuts" the ones who are actually going to benefit overall are, in most likelyhood, the wealthy, because the system will end up subsidising them.
I agree with earlier posters that the whole system of council service provision and the funding of that provision needs to be reviewed. There needs to be some local accountability and transparency.
Under the proposed system, the councils will just pass the buck to Holyrood.
If you want to set the tax on the ability to pay then it should be based to some extent on ASSETS because, if you want to get the wealthy to pay more, that's where the wealthy have their money.
Complain about this comment
#64 Holly
I'd be surprised if modern technology allowed people to know whether their phones were being tapped (though I think the Americans are tapping virtually everybody, and monitoring the net (now that job would be even more boring than a BBC mod - Hi guys!). In the 1970s (when I was in SNP and CND) my phone was tapped - only the GPO engineer who they used to install it was actually a friend of mine!)
Of course, it's only because I'm in the Labour Thought Police that I know where you live and that you commute to work, that you're married, and around the same age as my son, and other things about you - be worried, be very, very worried!
To your point, however, I'm no great fan of putting all taxation onto current income, as I suggested previously, a range of resources need to be taxed to ensure that we can as near equitable taxation as possible.
The only short term benefit of the SNP proposal, is that the Council Tax (which is a fairly poor property tax) could be replaced by a tax which is already built in to the Scotland Act.
Complain about this comment
#65 & #66
I think it important to distinguish between the long term tax structure for Scotland, and the current circumstances when every party (it seems to me) has made the calculation that far fewer of the poor and young actually vote.
Hence the greatest electoral advantage is to appeal to "people like us" (abolition of 10% tax rate, property tax to income tax etc).
Complain about this comment
Banging on,
Some very good points. Wealth taxes, however, have difficulty getting through in a culture in which, despite centuries of efforts at "reform", wealth still confers POWER. I remind my friends here of the disproportionale land ownerhip, and recommend Andy Wightman's excellent "Scotland; Land and Power".
Simon,
Auchencairn, being scenic and picturesque, may have more second homes, but Palnackie, being more "ordinary-looking" has more cousins. ;-)
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
# 66
How can you have 'Poorer working families who may have 3 or even 4 wage earners under 1 roof'? Doesn't make sense.
Wealthy people have made arrangements for years not to pay a penny more tax than they have to. We all know that and perhaps it's unfair but that's how the tax laws work.
I live in a lovely house which I've worked for over 40+ years. Now I'm pensionable age I find the £1600 community charge has to be paid from savings. I certainly would benefit from LIT.
Plenty pensioners in this country are in a similar position to me and many are considering 'down sizing' to avoid using the little savings they have. Why should we have to move to a one bedroomed property when we've worked so hard for the home we presently own? Truly I feel that once our big taxes stop (upon retirement) that we're a complete waste of space to society. Let me remind you, many pensioners still pay taxes on their pensions - perhaps not a lot but they continue to pay their way.
Complain about this comment
#61 Anaxim: An elected team is hardly privatisation. Remember, they've set out a programme. If, for example, they fail to clean up the park but employ "useless PRs" you vote them out. That simple. And surely better than half a dozen old codgers drawing huge allowances for dozing on the planning committee, elected year in, year out, on the votes of 10% of the eolectorate.
At the very least, something new and radical might encourage more than the usual 30% to turn out.
We no longer have local democracy. We have a ruling party "cabinet" of five or six people, answerable to the constituency party - usually unelectable grotesques - and the rest is window dressing. Party politics has destroyed local government.
Complain about this comment
#70 quietscotsmac: We're in the same position. Sadly, too many people envy you your nice house. Why should you have that? We don't have that. That's the attitude. We're gonna fleece you to pay our dole money.
I once spoke at great length with Jimmy Reid in the old Burgh Bar, opposite the Clydebank Council Offices. It was before UCS and he was a local Communist councillor.
Jimmy, who I grew to like very much, regaled us, entrancingly, about how a Communist UK might be. I asked him what would happen to me, a newly-married man who had just bought his first home.
He said: The state would assume ownership, and might rent it back to you... if it was deemed appropriate to your needs."
They say if you're not a Socialist at 21 there's something wrong with your heart. If you're still a Socialist at 31, there's something wrong with your head.
I suddenly became 31 - five years early - that night.
Have nothing to do with the politics of envy, however they dress it up.
Complain about this comment
Brigadier,
Too true! My own local authority's leadership did manage to avoid the problem for a good few years, being run by a 'coalition' headed by 'independents' (some say crypto-Tories) and electing as convener a man who adamantly held that party politics had no place in local government.Interestingly, the coalition usually comprised folk from all the parties except the tories - led by 'independents' (who may well have voted a 'blue' ticket in General Elections), with a Tory 'opposition....
Sadly, Party politics now rule the roost. This ties in with my (and others') objection to such large and unweildy units of 'local' government. The smaller the unit, the less danger of falling into the hands of party organisations.
It has, of course, been pointed out to me that before the re-organisation of 1974, local government had its share of corruption, to which i have two answers:
1. At least you knew where they lived.
2. Is LG free of corruption now?
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
#70
Easy.
Mum and Dad both work but earn very little. They have had 2 or 3 kids. None of these have had many opportunities in their lives and hence have very low paid work as well.
The kids don't earn enough to move out on their own so they stay at home with Mum and Dad to save money.
It doesn't take much imagination to come up with other similar scenarios.
Complain about this comment
#73 Ed: As you say, most of the old independents were indeed crypto-Tories. How did the nation survive? Well, they were genuine one-nation Tories, who understood the concept of greater good. Today, it's about staying in power and keeping people under a political thumb.
Complain about this comment
#74 Bangingonabout: That looks to me like at least five minimum wages, not great for individuals. But more than £1000 a week household income!
My monthly, repeat monthly, income is £800 from an occupational pension, and my council tax is just under £2000.
I have a nice house, that I feel entitled to keep after 45 years' labour.
Tell me, which is the poorer family? I know I'll feel like a millionaire when the state pension kicks in next year. Not!
Complain about this comment
gah! I cant post up
Complain about this comment
Local Taxes? Who needs them?
Does anyone actually know what we actually pay the local councils for? I mean really know?
It seems to me that the london government demands ever increasing "services" to be provided but no one has got a grip on the reality of the cost of provision. Politically, I suspect they do; hoisting these onto the local councils allows them to increase the tax burden indirectly with out any direct repercussions. Nice trick Gordon! I see your doing it with the NHS dentists too! Money we pay in NI to you to provide this service now costs me a pretty penny to receive them. No chance to offset this cost against revenues received from us all, is there Gordon!
Strip down the local councils to the size of a board of directors and use private contractors to provide the services. Not a new idea but let me talk this one through. Firstly I am sure we are all agreed that local councillors are a bit lacking in the old skill of arithmetic (see Aberdeen for a prime example). Contractors have to budget their services as is the norm or they would go bust.
This relieves the current crop of poor councillors of this mammoth task. In addition all future councillors should be "Trained" in the job that they aspire to. Not a bad idea if I say so myself! I need to be trained and educated and to gather relevant experience in order to hold down my current job and be ready for promotion when it inevitably comes around.
What is wrong with expecting the same of our councillors?
Only then should we have a truely local tax, until then I would be more inclined for a centrally set tax levy for local services. I suggest a consumption or local sales tax. Bit like Canada in fact!
Complain about this comment
In the highlands we were the last bastion of independant "local government". Sadly this has now been eroded by party politics and we are much the worse off for it.
We have recently had a local councillor expelled from the SNP group as he had the cheek to represent the views of his electorate over that of the party. Unfortunately he is in a minority. But he has my vote for the next election.
I doubt we ever had a truely independant council, people have political opinions, but without the organised structure of politics in local government the council managed to make decisions that generally refleceted the wishes of the people.
Now we have deals done in private with no accountability, and a general rise in the dissatisfaction with politicans.
Excellent Blog Brian, you have hit the nail on the head, we need politicans to have the courage to make real significant change, not populist changes that tinker with problems.
I feel the LIT will have a difficult passage through Holyrood and hope it never sees the light of day as it will just replace a poorly thought out system with another equally poor system.
Complain about this comment
# 78 Learnfromthepast -
"Strip down the local councils to the size of a board of directors and use private contractors to provide the services."
Oh, I see what you mean!
Like when the UK's gas and electricity companies were sold off to private companies and now we're all sitting ducks for obscene profiteering that we can do absolutely nothing about?
What have you learned from that particular lesson from our past?
Complain about this comment
My friends,
On re-reading my throwaway quip about Palnackie, I wouldn't want it to be taken wrongly, so a You'll see I'm one of Palnackie's biggest fansand feel that what many might disparage as close-bred actually means strength in community!
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
Re 80
I think the electricity, water (In England) Gas, BT etc tells us that municpal services by Private Companies tend to lead to just as costly a service and in a different way no more efficient.
Making a council answerable to the electorate is the only way in our democratic system to govern. We should allow councils to decide what type of tax and at what rate they appy it at
We need more Independance for councils to deliver what is required locally and less central government interference.
We won't get this from any of the current politicans irrespective of the party they represent.
Complain about this comment
#82 northhighlander
I distrust monopolies under all circumstances, but where we need to have them (Network Rail seems an obvious example), I'd rather have them in public rather than private hands. A cartel like the energy companies is just as much a monopoly as a single company.Complain about this comment
Some people seem to see a potential shift from incompetent councillors to a local management team as akin to privatisation. Not at all. These people will be elected, and ejected, on the whim of the voters.
As for outsourcing, very few councils still retain a significant workforce. A classic example is social work: if your elderly mum needs care at home the council go to an agency. Some are better than others. Other outside contracts go to home insulators, double glazers, meals-on-wheels etc.
All this can be done, without palaver, from national taxation. But the spending is done on local priorities, not what Gordon or Alex dictate.
However, I don't think we'll come up with the perfect solution here. Still, people might vote for common sense over party dogma.
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander writes
These are core principles to me, but.I wouldn't start from here. "Councils" as they exist are entirely artificial constructs, defined and constructed from the top down for the convenience of Central Government, which, after all, pays the piper.
Ideally, Councils (Town, Parish, County), would be self-generating, self-organising entities, growing from the bottom up, as I've always imagined the democratic ideal - it begins at the family dinner table as pseudo-democratic benevolent despotism, and from there proceeds to extended family, neighbourhood, village/town, etc. Sovereignty is pooled (and authority delegated) only to the degree appropriate.....but I'm talking ideals.
We have to consider ideals as a starting point, and then try and imagine how nearly we can achieve them from the non-ideal starting point. And that's damned difficult in a culture where most of the folk are so jaded and bored with politics (and who can blame them?) that they can scarcely be bothered to turn out for General Elections, never mind a meeting to devise a Parish Council (or elect one).
To return (yet again) to Tom Paine Bottom up!
I do recommend a reading of the lead-in to the quoted passage. It's classic Paine.Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
1/3
#31 Oldnat thanks.
#35 NConway sounds interesting, could you provide an example of this report?
#37 derekbarker as to what is more expensive, that would depend on whether the work for benefits scheme was introduced- If it was, the unemployed could undertake basic council tasks, but be paid by the welfare system (meaning that LA budgets were not affected, and no extra taxation required)
#43 cousteau699 my role is at the bottom of the ladder... you are indeed correct! What I was trying to convey was the idea that we should have a national purchasing system that is adaptable and based on best value, as opposed to this apparent cronyism that prevails.
Complain about this comment
Heer'e the thing. we bemoan Brown et al for disastrous fiscal policy, and the banks for irresponsible lending, but how many have suggested that the credit crunch comes down to the consumer?
As #50 GAberdeen points out- its blatantly obvious that the financial resources on offer from certain companies were less common sense than pie in the sky .
People have their own free will when it comes to choosing lenders/levels of loans, level of debt incurred etc. Nowhere does it state that to be successful in life you need...
50inch Plazma TV
DVD player
A BMW on Finance
3 Bed Semi detached house, on a 125 percent mortgage
Yet that is what I see all around me- Where I stay has had 4000 new homes built in the last 3 years, and people are clambering over themselves to get such paper walled monstrosities that they cant see the downsides of the debt they get themselves into. Time for people to take responsibility for their own actions and desires.
Complain about this comment
3/3
In a roundabout way, this applies to the Council tax/Local Income Tax etc- I believe that the councils should concentrate on providing a core group of services (I?m open to debate on what should be included...) in a cost effective and efficient manner. Too long, the councils have pandered to the folks who cannot (for various reasons) be bothered with undertaking things like basic maintenance on their home, raising their children properly etc. (I do, however understand that there are people who have a genuine reason for requiring council supplied services).
Complain about this comment
#86 touring
I was also interested in NConway's point. An example one county's report can be found here
Complain about this comment
#76 BrigadierJohn
With regard to my #74, I was really just answering QuietScotsMac's question.
With respect to your own situation, I wasn't really saying that the current system is particularly fair. I am sorry that you are currently losing out.
Personally, within the current system, I would try to do a lot more to help people like yourself while hitting hard second home owners, etc.
The main thing I object to with regard to LIT is the way it is being touted as "much fairer" than council tax. I don't believe it is and I think that, if anything, it will end up benefiting precisely the people it's meant to be targeting.
Complain about this comment
#86, 320touring
I appreciate the distinction made.
The major problem that I see with a national purchasing system is determining who has the final say as to the suppliers - a situation ripe for abuse!
Complain about this comment
Here's an off-the-wall notion.
How about an 'honesty box'?
The budgets for a council are drawn up, each householder is told how much their liability is calculated to be, and it left to each individual to determine how much they think their council is worth - with the option of OVERpaying if the concept of noblesse oblige has any resonance.
In truth, I suspect the proceeds would be meagre, notwithstanding the fact that people say they would 'gladly' pay more for education (suggesting that a departmental honesty box for education would be overflowing) and good roads.
Complain about this comment
#91 cousteau
Before Michael Forsyth commendably introduced DMS (Devolved Management to Schools - he pretended to Thatcher it was the same as the English scheme, though it was radically different) Health $amp;Safety inspections of Gyms/Games Halls/Equipment in my area were conducted by a firm who simultaneous with their report submitted their estimate for repairing the faults. Council officials happily authorised the repairs at that cost.
In the first year of DMS, the estimates came out to schools, since it was now our budget. If I remember the figures correctly, the estimate for replacing the 4 rubber feet on a gym bench came to 350 pounds. Every school in the area went elsewhere, and the firm went bankrupt.
Complain about this comment
Ed
I read that the pound symbol could be displayed in HTML with £ - but I can't get it to work.
Can you help?
Complain about this comment
#89 oldnat
behold, clear accountability! or did you note the word estimate on the title page..
Certainly an impressive attempt to provide some clarity as to funding utilisation, and worthy of investigation, although it would mean having a band of civil servants to count the beans so to speak (thus negating the "reduce the civil service" ethos discussed earlier)
#91 cousteau699
I wholeheartedly agree- ensuring you have a committee that is beyond reproach, and not on the board of any tendering companies is a very difficult situation. But could be tied to the idea of using only Scottish companies for Scottish council procurement, thus reducing the possibility of abuse?
Complain about this comment
Ed
I read that the pound symbol could be displayed in HTML with the ampersand symbol plus pound; - but I can't get it to work.
Can you help?
Complain about this comment
Test
&
Complain about this comment
Instead of commenting on how taxes are collected I'd prefer us to think about how taxes can be reduced? We have 32 local authorities all with 32 different systems and costs. Why can't we reduce this to 1 where it doesn't impact local democracy.
Do we really need, for example, 32 HR Directors, 32 HR systems and 32 different HR policies? Many Local Authorities have multiple wage structures and agreements.
Talk about a wate of public money! Rather than debate if a local income tax is better than a home based tax let's hear how we are going to reduce taxes! Nothing, surely, can be more equitable than that.
Complain about this comment
320touring
By the way, I'm assuming you're blogging from home. If not, you should be aware that most (if not all) council IT Depts have software in place to scan all their computers for "inappropriate use" - and that includes blogging.
Make a mistake and you could find yourself off the ladder, instead of at the bottom of it.
Complain about this comment
#98 Mungotroyd
Instead of commenting on how taxes are collected I'd prefer us to think about how taxes can be reduced? We have 32 local authorities all with 32 different systems and costs. Why can't we reduce this to 1 where it doesn't impact local democracy.
Do we really need, for example, 32 HR Directors, 32 HR systems and 32 different HR policies? Many Local Authorities have multiple wage structures and agreements.
At the moment, my council is in negatiations to implement a "Single Status" agreement. In principal, this is supposed to provide a single salary scale for each role throughout Scotland.
As you can imagine, it's taken some time, and funnily enough, several smaller "regional" areas have agreements amongst themselves, undermining the single status idea.
Whilst I wholeheartedly support your notion of a single approach to wage structures, having now seen the Local authority approach from the inside, I dont know how you could achieve that without legislation on a national level, and several upset unions.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat,
Not all of these work on this particular software.
I just tried the two for "pound" and the post got rejected
;-(
This software is far from the best, but better than it used to be..
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
#98, Mungotroyd
You seem to suggest that council officials have a free reign - they don't.
The make-up of each council (party, etc.) is different, with differing priorities, etc. - that's democracy for you.
If you want a one size fits all, which party gets to decide?
(There's considerably more continuity of policy and joined-up thinking at council level that there has ever been as Governmental level.)
Complain about this comment
#98, Mungotroyd
"... reduce taxes! Nothing, surely, can be more equitable than that."
Reducing taxes for the sake of it is why we lose public services.
However poor the management and delivery systems of local authorities, I am confident that they are doing as well as they believe they can.
I still believe that most politicians go in hoping to help their constituents to have a better life that if they had sat on their backsides moaning on a blog about the level of taxation.
We get the politicians we deserve!
Complain about this comment
From comment #2 "Everybody knows they need to pay for council services, but surely it should be a level playing field"
I agree with that and I don't think a local income tax is any fairer than setting council tax on the value of a house.
What I don't agree with is the Gov expecting to keep the council tax rebate if it abolishes council tax. Looking at it on a smaller scale, if a business abolished shift working, then any shift allowance would disappear too. This is no different.
Complain about this comment
# 74
Even if your hypothetical 4 workers in the one house earn the basic £200 a week then that's an income of £800 of course.
My point is that a single pensioner in their own home still has to pay the community charge less the 25% for a single person. They also have to heat their home etc.
Who is worse off? The 4 workers who have good opportunities to study further and increase their potential for better jobs or the pensioner who can't work more, has a small work pension plus the state pension?
It's your attitude that denies the elderly of this country the respect they deserve. It's your attitude that makes many pensioners feel they are now useless to society and that they are a drain on local government resources.
Let me tell you, when a pensioner has to give up their family home (which has been worked for over 40+ years) it can seriously traumatise them. The main reason most do move is because they cannot afford to live there and community charge is a big part of the expense. Many never recover from the experience and many become 'aged' within a short time.
Your time will come.
Complain about this comment
#105, quietscotmac
You're showing your age.
The community charge was done away with under the government headed by John Major (remember him?).
It's the COUNCIL TAX, as mentioned innumerable times above.
Complain about this comment
# 106
Ooops it's not age that caused that it's stupidity. My apologies.
Anyone can be stupid - do hope you realise that :)
I shall make efforts to re-read my posts prior to sending in future.
I shall take the tone of your post as a gentle jibe and not an insult.
Complain about this comment
#106 cousteau
That crack was unkind (and I speak as someone wh has made his fair share).
quietscotsmac makes a good point, and there are alternatives to taxing his assets which are not realisable.
In Maryland, they do not exempt houses from their equivalent of Capital Gains Tax (though there are numerous complex allowances against it.) Tax is levied on the increased value (which is after all largely unearned income) at the point of transfer of ownership.
Amongst other advantages the elderly on reduced income are not taxed on the increased value of their property, but their heirs pay a hefty tax on that increased value. I'm no expert on Maryland tax law, but I'm told it's revenue neutral in the long term.
Property taxes don't need to penalise those on low incomes.
Complain about this comment
Brigadier says:
"An elected team is hardly privatisation. Remember, they've set out a programme. If, for example, they fail to clean up the park but employ "useless PRs" you vote them out. That simple. And surely better than half a dozen old codgers drawing huge allowances for dozing on the planning committee, elected year in, year out, on the votes of 10% of the eolectorate."
The idea being that by employing useless PR people they can create the illusion of work being done. Sure, you can vote them out, but it may not be obvious that they're failing. We've had 11 years of Blair and Brown, and only now the wheels have come off.
What's the actual difference between an 'elected team', and the system we have now, anyway? There are already independents or small parties, if you want something radical and new.
Complain about this comment
Surely the most sensible thing to do is to have council tax, income tax etc. set a fixed percentage for everyone, then we'd have none of this sodding about with 10p tax bands or whatever and the super-wealthy would pay their fair share too. Or is this too simple to appeal to the Badger of the Exchequer?
Complain about this comment
#110 pttp
Typical right wing garbage!
Basics like food etc take a far higher percentage of income from the poor. Your proposal would reduce their disposable income even further, while the rich would do nothing to redistribute wealth.
Complain about this comment
re: 111
Oldnat what poppycock. The poor don't deserve to have any disposable income. They should think of it as a fine for being dirty and smelly and anybody that cannot afford to pay tax should be sent into the army. That'll teach them to be poor. These people today don't know they're born, why when I was a wee bairn I used to live in a crisp packet. These lazy sods don't know what poor means!
Complain about this comment
#112
"The poor don't deserve to have any disposable income."
Why not? These people do the jobs that are 'below' you. Least they actually do work, or if you have that attitude would they be better off claiming benefits?
"They should think of it as a fine for being dirty and smelly and anybody that cannot afford to pay tax should be sent into the army."
Cheeky. Those who have taken the opportunity to seek careers within the Army are what then? Well done. You insulted tens of thousands of workers in less then a paragragh.
"These lazy sods don't know what poor means!"
Who exactly are you on about now? The Army or those within society that do some of the worst jobs for the lowest pay?
I hope you are joking. Or you really are one of the most stuck up posters I have ever met.
Complain about this comment
#105 QuietScotsMac
You have no idea what "my attitude" is towards pensioners, etc. So stop with the patronising bs.
I have never said that pensioners are usleless and have never said that they are a drain on local government resources. So stop making out like I have.
As I implied in my reply to the Brigadier, I'd be happy for pensioners to have large rebates with regard to Council Tax etc. precisely because I DO value the contribution pensioners have and still do make to society.
It's attitudes like YOURS, by making up things that people haven't said and then spouting bile about it, that make this blog a less than enjoyable experience at times.
Yes, my time will come (in around 20 years) and I am currently doing all I can to pump any spare money I have into investing for the future. Why, because although I don't begrude a penny that pensioners get from the state, I don't want to be in a position where I have to rely on it.
Complain about this comment
re: 112 p (perplexed) p (pompous) l (lazy)
I don't think the problem is the poor as you have just shown!
Complain about this comment
re: 113
Nope, the poor don't deserve disposable income because they should've worked harder at school. In fact, I think they should get a good whipping for getting ideas above their station. As for those who are in the army, they should be whipped too, but slightly less so because they're more likely to enjoy it.
Complain about this comment
#107, quietscotsmac
I am glad you apparently took my comment in the good spirit it was indeed intended.
It's obviously impossible to gauge other people's senses of humour in an anonymous forum such as this, and sometimes you just have to hope for the best.
Maybe I should start putting 'smileys' when I am not to be taken too literally.
;-)
Complain about this comment
Local Income Tax sounds like a good idea in principle. But will it work in reality?
We would require either the entire UK to change to a LIT system (unlikely) or have to get another tax office to handle those who reside in LIT areas.
One factor may be the cost. Who will pay for initial set up?
How will the information be collected?
The HMRC would almost certainly refuse to hand over information to the Scottish Government or Local Councils, which would kill the idea stone dead.
Perhaps all the political parties throughout the UK should for once sit down and work together.
Councils are very good at spending taxpayers money - just look at Aberdeen. Millions in debt but prepared to spend ten grand on statues!
Anyone who spends taxpayers money should be legally bound to use it responsibly, and be able to justify all costs. But that won't happen as it would upset Government plans.
Councils are notorious for toeing the party line while appearing concerned at local issues. Good examples are hospital closures in my area. Planned under a Labour Government, but the Labour councillors all managed the photoshoots to show their concerns.
In my opinion too many councillors have aspirations to Parliament, and the only way to achieve this is to follow party lines. The fact that the local residents may lose services is of little concern.
Local Government needs to return to it's original purpose. There is no need for marketing departments except for dealing with inward investment. New and expensive logos - why? People don't give a monkeys what the local council logo is, they want good and efficient services without having to pay huge amounts of tax.
But the Local Income Tax has one major advantage - it is not based on current property values, something that is grossly unfair. My house when I bought it was worth way over what I could get as a mortgage. But I used the sale of another property as a major deposit so I would not be left with a dangerously expensive mortgage.
Council Tax needs reforming urgently, but only Westminster has the ability to deliver this.
Complain about this comment
#112, power_to_the_ppl
Gratuitous abuse just to gain attention isn't clever, and anyone with knowledge of elementary psychology would have a good idea of how to categorise you.
Your comment isn't even logical, since you equate being poor with being lazy, when anyone with two brain cells (i.e. at least one more than you seem to have) would tell you that it the very poor that work hardest to make ends meet.
I'm sure that you extending an offer to provide poor people with a job (with free lodgings, food and clothing) - ostensibly as a 'punishment' - would be far from unappreciated in some quarters.
I'm only surprised that the word 'workhouse' didn't crop up in your rant.
Complain about this comment
# 114
Please do not accuse me of patronising you. I patronise nobody I assure you.
True I don't know your attitude towards pensioners. Your reply at # 74 was to highlight this very 'poor' family of 4 who live in the same house. I trust you mean the single adults have a bedroom to themselves thus it's not a small house by any means.
'It's attitudes like YOURS, by making up things that people haven't said and then spouting bile about it, that make this blog a less than enjoyable experience at times.'
I find the above comment most offensive and I shall go further insofar as to say I find it abusive. I have made nothing up about you or anyone else and I do not spout bile, I speak the truth when I speak about pensioners. Wait until you become a pensioner and see how 'visible' you are to the next generations.
I would appreciate an example of 'making something up'. You may have replied to the Brigadier but certainly not to me about pensioners and they were the focus of my initial post.
Complain about this comment
# 117
Thanks for acknowledging my post. Not all the older generation lack humour - in fact we need it more than most these days :-)
Complain about this comment
#118 Neil
"only Westminster has the ability to deliver this."
You explain why the UK Parliament won't co-operate. I quite agree with your analysis.
But your statement is simply an excellent reason for Westminster having no control over local government here.
1947 was the last occasion on which Westminster legislated in an appropriate way for Scotland's circumstances. Since then we've had
1973 forcing a version of the 1971 English Local Government on us - all designed to push their strategy of "central planning" on us.
1994 Tory gerrymandered council boundaries created to try to create some kind of electoral enclaves for themselves.
Poll Tax - a pilot version for England trialled up here, and a "No Surrender" attitude from them until they tried it in England. When the English rioted, they rapidly introduced the ill thought out Council Tax for England and shoved that on us
How long do you want to wait until the English decide to reform their LAs and again make Scotland conform.
I'd call your ideas mince (except that mince is tasty and nutritious).
Complain about this comment
re: 119
Excellent idea, thanks cousteau! Now the workhouse does have many benefits, though I think you're right to be wary of them. Nobody wants to eat thin gruel twice a day! But if workhouses were to be moved out into the countryside, then the poor could grow vegetables in the fields and learn a valuable skill: tilling the land. They could eat them too, for extra nutrition, and not only that, they'd be out of our way! (Ho ho ho).
But seriously now, joking aside, I don't think they're that bad as long as they aren't too Dickensian. Just as long as they're clean and safe and give the poor something to do other than watch Jerry Springer all day, everyone's a winner! :D
Complain about this comment
#120
"I would appreciate an example of 'making something up'."
Here it is....
"It's your attitude that makes many pensioners feel they are now useless to society and that they are a drain on local government resources."
Here you admit you don't know what my attitude was....
"True I don't know your attitude towards pensioners"
Therefore the statement...
"I have made nothing up about you "
is wrong.
But again you misunderstand my main point. The Council Tax may not be fair but the LIT is no fairer in my view it just makes a different set of winners and losers. The point is, according to the SNP, everyones a winner except the wealthy, I believe that the weathy will be the winners.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who still thinks Labour's establishment of a Scottish Parliament was anything other than a cynical ploy should read Brian Wilson's article
Complain about this comment
Oldnat,
Well judged invitation!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Brian,
You hit the nail on the head when you said:
"Scotland does not lack reviews. There is no shortage of data, no deficit in the scrutiny department. What is missing is action".
Council services, like free society, is a contradiction in terms. I don't remember the issue being a big problem before Thatcher interfered. Unfortunately, for us, the government solution to any problem is usually at least as bad as the problem.
As the writer Ernest Hemingway said: "never mistake motion for action".
Complain about this comment
#118 Neil_Small147,
As I understand it, the government's LIT proposal utilizes the authority to vary the basic rate of income tax by up to 3%. It is ten years since I looked at that legislation but HMRC would have no choice in the matter. They would have to levy the extra 3% upon those who who are subject to the tax and remit the collections to the Scottish Executive.
On the broader issue, I am not sure about LIT as it stands. A block grant to Holyrood from Westminster is unacceptable to many. So I have to wonder why it should be acceptable for funding councils (yes, I know about the 13% or whatever it is).
I can live more easily with the individual fairness aspect. Pensioners and students, for instance, will only pay LIT if they earn enough to pay UK income tax on their earnings. LIT does not, however, tax dividends. So owner-managers of companies can pay themselves a lesser salary and more in dividends. Meanwhile the business owner's employees will have to pay LIT on the full amount of their earnings from that same company.
I hope LIT is just a stop-gap measure until Scotland gets its independence. After that, a sensible range of taxing methods can be employed to spread the local tax burden as fairly as possible.
Complain about this comment
#126 Ed
We all make mistakes.
Complain about this comment
So far the debate has offered nothing new in terms of being construtive,the issue of tax,whether it be a cut or increase is too complex,the facts are, that we are in a recession and any new monies will not be there.With high inflation and the need for extra money we are only turning the clock back to 1978,i believe at this giving time and situation the country needs to stabilize energy and food cost,winter is only months away and unless massive pressure is brought to bear on the private energy companies,i fear the worst for the elderly and infirm and those who will most certainly find it extermely hard to cope with rising costs of living.
Complain about this comment
Derek,
More like 1929, I reckon.Enjoy the ride!
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
#130 Derek
I fear you are right.Good morning Derek (secretly thinking "dirty rotten swine") :-)
Actually there has been some constructive debate - though it was never going to reach any conclusion.
To your substantive point.
The core of the problem is the privatisation of the energy utilities and the utterly inadequate "regulatory" mechanisms which Tory and New Tory governments have put in place.
The "energy utilities" have been allowed to form a cartel, which is in effect a monopoly.
I have a distrust of monopolies on principle, but the private sector should NEVER be allowed to have one.
I can't see where any effective pressure would come from. The Westminster parties are totally thirled to an unrestrained free market. Even if a few individual Labour MPs have doubts, that has no effect on a Cabinet which can always rely on the Tories to ensure that the free market will reign without effective restriction. Add to that, the internal strife within the Labour Party and you have the classic ineffective government with no political authority.
Have you any practical suggestions? Don't suggest taking to the streets - we did that on Iraq and look where we ended up.
On an insubstantial point
Please use I instead of i. It would make your posts so much easier to read.
Complain about this comment
Post 132 - "The Westminster parties are totally thirled to an unrestrained free market."
Every party that supports EU membership is "totally thirled to an unrestrained free market" whether they know it or not. It's a pre-requisite for membership.
Complain about this comment
Derek,
And another unsubstantial point: A double space following a full stop also helps a lot for readability.
;-)
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
Morning all, careful, what sprIngs to mInd fIrst and for most Is a legal poInt,would we have the rIght to hold our representatIves responsIbIle of neglect,If thay faIl to brIng a sesIble and fast solutIon to these outrages Increases in energy cost.
Complain about this comment
#133 jam804
You are, of course right. However, the focus should be on the word "unrestrained". Article 81 of EU?s ban on restrictive business practices should be much more strictly enforced - and national governments within the EU vary on how vigilant they are in protecting their citizens.
My assertion is that the Westminster Governments regulatory structures have been weak on this front.
Complain about this comment
#135 derek
sIlly boy
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I wish Mr Taylor would look to his own church before Advising others, I have been viewing the bbc coverage of the demo in support of Tibet rights, not only have the bbc in London described the protesters as British well one has been Scots but so has the bbc in Scotland they don?t get the irony of covering and acclaiming such a protest which has it?s roots in identity well denying them at the same time no wonder they let these people off the hook, when they retort we do as you do not as you say.
As for who is king of the castle well we know it?s not the Staff of the bbc in Scotland when they can?t even keep Reporting Scotland on the Air when it?s started late. I will take you serious when you start to take your self seriously. When you say there is a bbc Scotland rather than the bbc in Scotland.
Remember do as we do not as we say Mr Taylor
Complain about this comment
Glad to note some posters do have sympathy with the older members of our society regarding Council Tax.
This tax has caused many serious problems to this branch of society since its inception, but that has gone unnoticed by our Westminster masters.
The obscene rises in gas charges is another which will be swept under the floorboards.
I'm astonished there's nothing that can be done in law to curb the enthusiasm of the utility companies whose main aim is to make shareholders and the big bosses happy.
Complain about this comment
# 140 quietscotsmac
I agree re your view of the blatant profiteering by the energy companies, but think it should be considered in the context of the business world.
As a private company, their main motive is to shift product for profit, ensuring a healthy profit and a decent dividend.
To this end, then, they are not failing in their efforts.
The issue with Scottish Gas/Scottish and Southern etc is the fact that they are private companies in charge of essential public commodities.
Do we re nationalise the energy and water industries, or do we charge them windfall taxes that are passed onto the consumer?
I have no magic answer...
Complain about this comment
Re 85
Ed
It is a sad truth that people have become very disconnected with politics, this in time will threaten the existence of democracy if it remains unchecked.
This attitude is already seriously impairing the efficiency and quality of the democracy we live in.
I feel that the best way of reconnecting people with politics is through local government.
Local government can provide a link that national politics cannot. Local government can be real and have an immediate effect on peoples lives. An easy link can be made to local issues people readily understand and feel.
To increase involvement we don't need to completely reorganise, we have community councils already, these need their role expanded to a more meaningful level and the role of the council cut accordingly.
This would get back to the position where those involved were unpaid, doing what they do for the good of their community and making decisions where they are most effective, in small local groups.
Councils are now full of career politicans. Gone are the days of part time councillors who had a full time job in addition to their council activities. This has killed the link between councils and the community and increased peoples dislike of politics.
Decisions are made in large groups, people now just feel that it makes no difference to their lives who is in power and don't bother to vote.
Something needs to be done quickly. Politicans don't seem to care, their agenda is always about self preservation and kicking each other like children in a playground.
Complain about this comment
#139 Drumoyne
Back to nit-picking Britsh versus Scots versus English (vs.Cornish?!) now? I can be European but British. I can also be European but a Scot. Ergo, I can likewise be Scottish but British. But in the Tibet context, does it matter? I really think we should look for bigger fish to fry.
In fact both protesters are English, although Iain Thom now resides in Edinburgh.
Alway better to wait for the whole story, rather than leap in with both feet, eh?
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander,
We seem to agree on much. I like the idea of working from Community Councils upwards, which goes directly against the intention of those who designed them as powerless "channels".
Councillors getting paid instead of being expected to 'volunteer' out of a sense of public duty does present difficulties and opportunities for "career" attitudes, but the opposite problem, of restricting participation to those who can afford to volunteer (the rich, the retired, etc.) also exists. I believe this was a major reason for implementing payment of councillors.
Perhaps the next move is a sort of UDI on the part of Community Councils? Stirred up communities can make a covenant to withhold their Council tax, and instead pay it to their Community Council....I anticipate loads of fun.
;-)
ed
(in the free state of Buittle Parish)
Complain about this comment
#135, derekbarker.
You mIssed one......
Complain about this comment
Anaxim #109: Sorry to be so long replying - some people seem to be here all night!
Anyway, the difference between an elected team and the present party system is hard to define, I admit.
Essentially, the team are not tied to any party model, and are not vulnerable to expulsion for political heresy. They will try to address the perceptions of the electorate, rather than attempt to convince them of the merits of party dogma.
Nor will they be seen as agents of the national party. So they will be judged on their own merits, rather than the performance of the PM or FM of the day.
I think that's a real difference, if perhaps a bit intangible and idealised - if you're determinedly opposed.
But none of the above is hand-engraved on my forearm. It's just a thought floated for discussion or comment. So feel free.
Complain about this comment
#144, Ed Iglehart
It is historically the Scottish way to evolve institutional power upwards - cf. Church of Scotland - whilst the English tickle power downwards from the top - cf. Church of England.
As for Community Councils, in my area there has NEVER been a contested election to and of the Community Councils within the local authority area.
It is bad for democracy that anyone who has ever self-nominated (since that is all that is required) has been elected unopposed, and indicates that the number of seats should be reduced.
If the Community Council (CC from now on) is to be adjudged to reflect a view of the people of an area, then there must be some test that the people of that area support the [claimed] stances of those serving.
I know that a CC (see, I told you that I would be using that abbreviation) has no REAL power, but it has the right to be consulted on planning matters in particular. And it costs money to run such a talking-shop.
Until the ludicrous decision to impose PR on local authorities (the ONE area of government where an elected member should have a tight bond to the area being served, and where wards were traditionally small) saw a prominent member of my local CC elected to the REAL Council, the local newspaper would regularly feature reports of CC proceedings where she had monopolised time in pursuit of petty personal vendettas to her personal benefit.
A CC has value iff (that's "if and only if," for the benefit of power_to_the_ppl) it is OF the Community.
Complain about this comment
#142/144 Ed and Northhighlander: "Bottom up" politics is great in theory. But it takes a determined participant to go out on a wet night to hear the community PC's list of crimes and the latest on speed bumps and dog-fouling.
If the CCs addressed major issues and exerted major influence, a new breed would appear instantly. Remember "entryism" in the Labour party? Basically, a dozen hardliners would join up and outvote the handful of party faithful, who quickly melted away under a hail of abusive and aggressive techniques by people who can quote the rule book verbatim. Suddenly it's run by some very nasty people who assume the air of an "official" group.
Some CCs are already in the grip of single-issue activists who go along to make a fuss about noisy kids in a nearby playpark, but are not really interested in wider issues.
I recently phoned the council about something I disliked and was told the CC "unanimously" voted for it. Six people!
I know I can go along and make my voice heard, and - yes - I have only myself to blame.
Perhaps your experiences of CCs are more positive? But if we struggle to get 30% turnout at district level, what prospects for CCs? And can that be democracy.
So I'm a grumpy old whinger?
Complain about this comment
Cousteau,
Pity such wisdom is largely consigned to history!Such a move would, of course, be totally irrelevant in the absence of parties at the local level.Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
#142 and #144
Northhighlander and Ed
It's hardly surprising that the two of you agree, since you both live in areas which were ill represented by the imposition of standardised models of LG imposed on the whole of Scotland by London Governments in 1973 and 1994, for their benefit not ours.
The 1947 revising Act was put through by Tom Johnson as Secretary of State who believed in central planning for the huge projects like the hydro schemes, but saw no need to interfere in local government on most issues.
There is no need for us to have one single form of local government with such varied geographies as Scotland has. I am against making any assumptions that we should necessarily start with community councils, then work upwards. It may well make sense in your areas, and you should be free to do so. With the denser (in both senses!) populations in the Central Belt, I doubt if many of the Community Councils are representative of anybody but themselves. A better starting point might be the 1947 Burghs.
Complain about this comment
Our views on local democracy are rendered academic and futile by one crushing fact: We do not have a participative democracy.
Even in general elections, in some areas the majority of the electorate don't vote and don't care. Locally, it's just a nonsense.
People just want their politicians do do the hard work and hard thinking, before laying a couple of simplistic options before us. So misinformation abounds, and this is why all of the parties con us, all of the time.
We have to accept that all our wee ideas expounded here would be dismissed as tripe by, say, electors in Glasgow East if the blog were shown (or read) to them.
Too jaundiced?
Complain about this comment
No
Complain about this comment
Re 144
Ed
I am in agreement with your sentiment on Community Councils, we need to go backwards to go forwards on this issue. Community councils need to be more like the model previously used for Parish councils.
I must admit to being born during the regionalisation period and don't recall parish councils, also I come form an area where independant councillors have reigned supreme until very recently. So maybe parish councils were a bad thing but I am arguing the geographical boundaries were of a good size and a basis for better local government.
When I argue against councillors being paid I do so not to exclude those who cannot afford to take part, but to exclude those who use councils as a training ground for national politics. The reform of local government where councils are elected by PR has entrenched the party system, and further eroded the public trust in politicians.
Councillors should be reimbursed their expenses, at good rates, but the structure and timing of council business should be such that those in paid employment are eligible to take part. The current set up excludes many in full time employment.
Anyway we should want councillors with a clear vision of what they are elected to do and that should be to represent the people who elect them, not a political party.
An interesting thought to declare unilateral Independence, In the far north it might take sometime for the centre to notice our rebellion, it takes a long time for them to notice any problems we have if that is anything to go by.
What would happen in an Independant Scotland? Would the army be despatched from Edinburgh to collect taxes and enforce the Queens writ? Or would it become President Alec's writ?
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander (and all),
for no better reason than I just love the sound of it...a reprise from #85
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
Television has a lot to answer for.
Oh for the days when general electioneering was NOT the only time a politician held public meetings, and people would go along to listen (and heckle, and the rest) and find out the kind of person they were being asked to vote for and/or had elected.
Nowadays, a political campaign seems to consist of a half-decent photograph, in all probability digitally enhanced, is slotted into a proforma provided by the London/Edinburgh party machine with a smattering of local place names to make it SEEM local (references to post office closures are a prime example).
Living on the top storey of a three-storey building, during the 2005 general election campaign I witnessed a leading national politician accompanying his local candidate in the cul-de-sac where I live. They entered the building but only visited the ground floor occupants. I later found out that he hadn't climbed stairs in ANY of the many multiple-storey buildings in the area.
Even if the former SNP leader in question could claim literal fatigue, the fact that the individual who was standing for election couldn't be bothered to solicit my support put him in a very poor light indeed. Of course, I still voted for him - you should have seen the numpties he was up against...
Complain about this comment
In such difficult times,will lord Coe and friends still believe it's right to spend an estimated £20 Bn on the 2012 olympic games>>>>>
any improvement. Ed, Oldnat...............
Complain about this comment
#156, derekbarker
"It's an 'investment.'"
Complain about this comment
#155 cousteau
For the last few elections our local Christian Action Group have at least had a Q & A session with all the candidates. We always managed to get a full house - on and off the stage.
Of course, they all parrotted the Party Line, but you could see their body language. Those who looked bored with us definitely lost votes.
Complain about this comment
#158, oldnat
Sounds wonderful.
Complain about this comment
# 141
I have no magic answer either although I do remember protesting loudly about the sale of our utilities. Improved service, wonder upgrading of infrastructure, better value for money - yes some of the propaganda that was part of the 'sell' and many fell for it.
Makes me wonder if those who did believe the hard sell ever feel they were wrong.
Complain about this comment
#141, #160
Tight regulation is even more powerful than renationalisation, since their prices can be controlled without the public purse having to undertake investment, etc.
The reason fuel prices have escalated so dramatically is that costs to fuel companies (months ahead of time) have escalated.
Commodity speculators - 'buying' when they have no means of distribution (you or I could do so), only to sell, almost certainly for profit, to a supply company nearer the delivery date - are to blame.
The government COULD restrict the commodities in which markets can be made by non-participants in the industry, almost certainly at EU level. This would mean, for example, that only gas-extraction companies would be allowed to sell gas wholesale and only gas distribution companies (such as supply our homes) would be allowed to sell wholesale.
At the same, a maximum markup in percentage terms (over cost) could be imposed upon sellers.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat,
On an insubstantial matter, I've managed to get puond signs to appear.
Are you, by any chance, using Firefox? I am, and have been for years with total satisfaction.
If so, try view/character encoding/western (ISO-8859-1)
This should give you pound signs, but because of a stupidity in the software, it'll probably switch back if you refresh the page....
See this for some more clarity
;-(
ed
Complain about this comment
#162
Top marks, and a gold star.
Complain about this comment
#122: Mince? Well, my only real ideas at the moment are for politicans to work together, but that is too simplistic for them.
#128 I live in Scotland, and was a supporter of devolution. That has all changed since devolution is just another tier of Government. I like the ide of independence, but too be honest I think the reality is too expensive and the changes could destroy the economy. Much as Alex Salmond might disagree, the Scottish economy would rely on an English economy doing well.
The Poll Tax was a disaster. Council Tax looked great, but it has been totally abused by Councils who can simply judge the level of tax based on the value of a property! Great if you have 10 people living at home.
LIT is probably the better option, but the setting up would require major investment, and there are many flaws in the current HMRC system which would be exploited. Don't be surprised if you suddenly found yourself paying two or three times what you should be.
The UK tax system should be simplified first. I'm no accountant, but why on earth can't things be simpler?
To #144: It would be better for all if councillors were volunteers. At least you would get people who were more interested in local issues rather than a potential ticket to Westminster or Holyrood (or wherever Alex Salmond is holding an audience - sorry cabinet meeting).
Complain about this comment
#162 Ed
Thanks, but if it reverts on refresh, that would probably annoy me more!
Think I'll wait till the Beeb updates its software.
Complain about this comment
"Cousteau"
"it's an investment"
To whom, my i ask,is it an investment (you will probably quote me: the sucess of the Australian 2004 games,however there are some marked differences from Britain and Australia,the currency and general economics,to mention two)
We already know that it has cost China, 20Bn (and that's with all it's slave labour)to host the olympic games.
So what projected cost and investment would you consider as acceptable to the tax payers of the UK, too hold an olympic "EVENT"
Complain about this comment
#166, derekbarker
For the avoidance of doubt, my response was an anticipation of the response likely to be given by Lord Coe and others if challenged as to the suitability of such expenditure - hence, the use of quotation marks.
My own view...?
With worldwide television audiences, is there any need for spectators?
Much of the costs of arenas is in accommodating the public - both within the buildings and intrastructure to get them into and out of the area - so if that variable is taken away the athletics could take place in any field surrounded by a bank of television cameras.
Anyone thinking the host stadium will be a jewel for decades to come could do worse than examine the checkered history of Meadowbank Stadium...
If the Olympics truly are a moneyspinning opportunity, then this is a perfect opportunity to put PFI/PPP to the test - let the private sector take on the risk, and good luck to them if they manage to turn a profit.
Of course, no sound business brain would entertain the notion.
Milton Keynes has its concrete cows, and post-2012 London will be awash with white elephants.
Complain about this comment
Hang on. What's wrong with council tax?! :)
Complain about this comment
Tom Harris (he of the "bl**dy miserable") has come out with a stirring defence of the status quo in the Herald
while Gray has a policy to dish the Nats by introducing mandatory ID cards for 18-21 year olds. Nice to see a Labour leadership candidate bringing out a unique Scottish policy
Complain about this comment
To get back to the subject of LIT.
I have been doing some calculations on this matter, specifically in the salary range 13,000 to 20,000 pounds which is the average salary for young single people who currently, in most cases, live at home and therefore pay no Council Tax whatsoever.
The figures are as follows - on 13,000 per year you pay 26 pounds per month or 342 pounds per year. Not a vast amount of money, but a fair whack if you're only earning 13 grand. On 20,000 per year you pay 63 pounds per month or 756 pounds per year, a rather larger whack. Given the current furore over removal of the 10 pence income tax rate, one could imagine considerable electoral turbulence against the party introducing LIT.
Up till now, this string has suggested a number of solutions to the problem, but thus far no one has joined up these solutions to fully address the problem.
Might I then suggest a solution for discussion - it is complicated, but no more so than the current tax system.
First of all, LIT should be reduced to one pence in the pound and not three pence, this would cut the tax take on the person on 13,000 to just over 8 pounds per month or around 100 pounds per year ( a rather lighter whack). Secondly, raise VAT from 17 per cent to 18 per cent, with the one per cent ring-fenced for Councils (effectively a Sales Tax, but an easily administered one with no additional costs). Thirdly, keep Council Tax, but reduce it as the tax take from LIT and VAT kick in with the additional benefit of collecting it 12 times per year as opposed to the current 10.
By way of example, I have chosen a Band F home in Glasgow currently paying just over 220 pounds in Council Tax. This would reduce (under my suggestions) to around 115 pounds per month. The recipient would therefore appear to be 105 pounds per month better off, a large percentage of which they'll spend thereby increasing the Sales Tax take. the reality is they will be rather less well off than 105 pounds per month, it just won't be immediately noticable. Any takers?
Complain about this comment
#170, Dick-Whittington
Re your calculations with respect to young single employed still living in the parental home:
A positive aspect is that a disincentive to children moving out is removed, and their only housing costs will be rent/mortgage-related (council tax is so often overlooked); a negative is that they will then be even more likely to overextend themselves in respect of the affordability of their chosen homes.
The community charge was almost certainly the most equitable form of local taxation - seeking to take account not only of the number of households but the composition of those households (it is not uncommon for a married couple to have three adult children still living at home, all five working; council tax views this household as having the same liability a pensioner couple living nextdoor) - but the management of its introduction was badly explained and poorly administered.
Complain about this comment
It should be obvious to anybody why the SNP is proposing a 3p income tax.
It is simply to get the infrastructure and paperwork in place so that on day one, after an independence vote, they'll know who you all are, where you all live and how much to bill you. Instead of there being any delay while HMRC tries to disentangle all the different company PAYE schemes north and south of the border. Get it all down now. Up front. And disguise the process as a local income tax.
But at least you're all getting a heads up as to what an SNP tax regime will look like. Remember they have the power to lower the tax rate by 3p too. They could just as easily have used that as an excuse to get the details.
Then of course you'll have all those unemployed revenue collection folk kicking about local council offices that you'll still have to pay. Or make work for to keep their pensions in the manner to which they've become accustomed.
The question I'd be asking the SNP is how many council workers they're going to fire with the savings in administration this LIT will involve. That should put them on the spot.
The next question I'd be asking (for sure the answer will be 'none') is why bother with an LIT since there'll be no overall saving. But I've told you the answer to that one too already.
Complain about this comment
#172, U9461192
"It should be obvious to anybody why the SNP is proposing a 3p income tax."
It is.
Like every new government is history, change is seen as a synonym for progress. Of course, governments are elected by pointing out the deficiencies of the previous incumbent and by proposing such changes, so it should hardly be surprising.
The 1997 General Election campaign was, to a limited extent, fairly refreshing:
Conservatives - "Vote for us and we'll enact our already-stated spending plans!"
Labour - "Vote for us and we'll enact the Conservatives' already-stated spending plans!"
As for taxation, the system should be turned on its head - instead of all money flowing the HM Treasury in London and an allocation being passed back to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government should be entrusted to raise and collect all taxes and then be required to settle an invoice from HM Treasury to cover Scotland's contribution to the expenses of UK Government.
Complain about this comment
You have to say this very quietly in Scotland, but the idea of the Poll Tax was sound.
The mistake that was made was trying to make everyone pay, instead of doing the sensible thing and providing Poll Tax Relief for those who could not.
And introducing it into Scotland as an experiment, of course.
And not learning from the Scottish experience when it was introduced to England and Wales. It was like running into a brick wall twice.
But the concept was good.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS