Well Done Alex

You know I don't often agree with Alex Salmond but he has said the following about nasty and underground Internet comments that cause offence or are untrue.

"The internet is a wonderful tool. It gives us a means to engage with the public, to motivate activists and to affirm our positive case for Scottish independence.

"We must use the internet for positive campaigns, to build our case and not get engaged in the negative agenda. The SNP can only win and will only win on a positive agenda."

Of course I don't agree with his ultimate aim of his use of the Internet as a tool, but I respect his right to use it in a positive way to try and convince the other 75% of Scots of the need for Independence.

One does wonder if he also means to cover whenever any argument in comments threads in papers also ends up in name calling of the other three main parties.

Sadly he went on to make a few errors himself:

"There is a strong public majority for a referendum, and our job is to translate that public support into a parliamentary majority.

"Each of the three London-based parties – Labour, Tory and Liberal – say no, no, no to Scotland, in the same arrogant manner as Margaret Thatcher did."

For a start not all of those who want there to be a referendum on the subject want to vote SNP, nor do they want to vote yes in that referendum.

Second not all of the parties are London based. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are free to make their own policy decisions as far as Scotland is concerned, that is the nature of our party. That is why there are four occasions a year that we get to debate and vote on policy.

However, who really is saying no to Scotland?

The SNP have said no to Scotland over removing the unfair council tax.

The SNP are saying no to Scotland and Glasgow over GARL.

The SNP have said no to Scottish students for ending student debt.

So the SNP have said no, no, no to Scotland. In the same arrogant way that Thatcher did Alex is only saying on some of the above my way or no way.

Nats Want Freedom: Just Not Their Information

The double standards for the SNP have come to light again this time over the Freedom of Information.

Last month they were up in arms with Jack Straw about the UK Government's failure to release Cabinet papers in the run up to the Iraq war. However, when the Scotsman asked them to release the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 10 February when the Cabinet decided to drop plans to ditch replacing Council Tax with LIT, nothing.

Taking Angus Robertson's words from last month.

"The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an inquiry.

"This Cabinet cover up is typical of the Labour government’s attitude to freedom of information.

"....Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this war.

"The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers"

With a slight adjustment we can ask.

"The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for breaking this policy
pledged in 2007, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an
inquiry.

"This Cabinet cover up is typical of the SNP government’s attitude to freedom of information and the Scottish electorate.

"Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about
why we were led away from this policy that they still protected staunchly weeks
before.

"The claim that the recession makes it impossible to bring about a fairer tax for the less well off is a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost thousands of pounds needlessly to those less able to pay the unfair council tax."

Update: I see that Jeff has taken the contrary view which I find discouraging for a supporter of a party that only wants Open Government (to quote the Jim Hacker plan on this issue) on things that suit itself. It is not a case of either or. If you want to utilise FoI legislation for gaining info you have to also be prepared to tender information when requested.

I suspect that the Scotsman already know what happened in those cabinet meetings and are merely wanting to get the official minute before publication. A dangerous game for the Nats to play.

Kingston Trump Scotland

My friends and colleagues in my old stomping ground of Kingston have actually trumped the SNP. They have proposed a £1 per household reduction in council tax. Yes folks council tax can go down, as well as up or remaining frozen.

SNP Axe Pledge to Axe the Tax II From Tavish TV

Here is Jeremy Purvis's opinion on the SNP's decision to not follow though on their pledge to axe the council tax and replace it with local income tax.



You can read my views here.

SNP Axe Their Pledge to Axe the Tax

One of the things I agreed about in principle if not the means of execution of the SNP Government was their pledge to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax based on the ability to pay.

Just this morning some of the press were praising Salmond for bringing in some heavy hitters today he is reeling against the ropes. One of his key pledges to get elected lying in tatters.

John Swinney, the Finance Minister claimed it would be politically very difficult to introduce the tax in the current political and financial climate at a time when the recession will see year-on-year cuts in public spending. Blaming political difficulty is hardly by itself a valid reason to bring about a change that leads to fairness.

Then there is also the adjustments being made under the Barnett formula £1bn over the next two years, so Westminster takes the blame. But surely an independent Scotland wouldn't have a cash payout from Westminster so if the SNP are truly intent on Independence such trivialities should not be the reason that they can hide behind.

No the problem of why the SNP's proposals from why LIT failed is intransigence of their proposals. They wanted a fixed rate set centrally. One that did not take into account local needs. They also wanted to set a rate below what was recommended giving themselves an inbuilt shortfall before they even started to look for other scapegoats. Like the first budget that failed to pass last month they refused to budge.

LIT can work and it can be fair. It needs to meet the requirements of the councils that need to spend it. Sadly the SNP administration has been failing them on too many counts by limiting their money while increasing their responsibility.

The SNP pretty much lifted the Liberal Democrat policy on Local Income Tax I remember being handed a leaflet about it in 2005 and noticed only 2 or 3 words difference from the policy as described in our pre-manifesto document. But they have betrayed the people who voted for them believing that maybe they could offer a faier local tax.

This is after all Scotland the test bed of Maggie's Poll Tax. Therefore to let the people of Scotland down over local taxation is liable to be one sin that may not be overlooked too easily.

Two Labour Takes on LIT

The latest comments from Norman Quirk of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce on Local Income Tax have drawn two different responses from the Labour Blogosphere. His comments that it would be "the wrong tax at the wrong time" and further and more disturbingly that it would be a "tax on labour" I'll deal with in a bit but first the Labour responses.

First there is former Railways Minister Tom Harris, who churns out yet again the old Labour line that LIT is people paying more income tax. Sad but true that Labour have for the last 11 years thought that people only focus on income tax. How else could one describe the fact that they have raised the overall taxation on the individual by stealth taxes and simultaneously closed the percentage of income paid in taxation between the top 20% and the lowest 20% of the UK population. Indeed Tom seems to miss that it is replacing another tax and shows very poor maths when he says:

"if they manage to implement it, and push Scots’ income tax up to three per cent
more* than what everyone else in the country is paying"

LIT (although as I've said whether the SNP really want a true local LIT is in dispute) is a progressive tax. With prices rising fixed percentage taxes such as VAT which we pay on our food, our fuel on top of our fuel duty etc are regressive especially to those on lowest incomes. For each 5 pence increase in their bills almost another penny goes to the exchequer. The council tax is a fixed rate tax. In hard financial situations you still have to find a way to pay it no matter what change you may find in your situation, only in the worst case scenario may you get social security support to assist you in that. Indeed should you be unable to pay it due to tight financial times it can cost those least able to afford it more either through fines, bank charges for a failed Direct Debit etc. as a few people have mentioned to me in recent months.

An LIT instead of course reflects you're ability to pay. Heck it can even been taken at the point of source therefore you'd budget around the net take home pay. Rather than face the possibility of paying your council tax or your fuel or food bill.

Take on the other hand the leader of Labour's group on Edinburgh Council, Ewan Aitkin who takes a more cautious view. He unlike Tom Harris seems to realise that this gift horse could turn into a Trojan horse very easily saying:

"Implementing the LIT is never the issue. Being seen to be fair and equitable is."

Aitken at least seems to realise that LIT would wash well the people if not the business leaders, and crucially says:

"it does make political sense because people feel, for good or for ill, unfairly
treated by the Council tax."

Of course he then go on to point out that the SNP plans figures for LIT do incur a shortfall, which is of course one reason why a centrally set rate does not account for local expenditure requirements, nor the ability of the residents of that local authority to burden the load.

So while one is blinded by one tax is headline grabbing the other at least is realising the fairness issue of taxation is important to the electorate. Possibly more so as we are buying more and more banks with our taxes. Of course if they (the voters) are not happy with the way the local authority finances, spends and runs things they can democratically have their say within 4 years. A more difficult task if, like me, the SNP do not represent your constituency in the first place to then unseat the Government.

*Seeing as it is only 3% on taxable income even the increase of a 3% LIT would not equate to 3% more income tax than someone else on equal income.

Please Don't U-Turn into a Cul-de-sac Swinney

After my initial joy at the news that the SNP are looking to localise their Local Income Tax (LIT)proposals I was a little shocked about some of the apparent revelations that have emerged.

John Swinney had said that he had raised the issue of LIT with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), it is the least one would expect 17 months into an administration that had this proposal as one of its linchpins. However, HMRC have apparently said they have not been involved in discussions. Yet the The Times had reported that the whole thing blew up at the weekend because of a leak of emails obtained by the BBC:

"E-mails obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that
some unpopular aspects of the proposal are under review. Correspondence sent from the Scottish Government to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs last month show that the SNP now wants etc.."

So if last month the Scottish Government wanted to review some things already sent to HMRC surely that means that consultation with them over the issue of LIT had to be underway.

Heaven forbid that the Sir Humphrey Appleby* equivalent at HMRC had been house trained after 11 years of Labour masters not to look at alternatives. Even it that alternative does come from a legislature overseeing a devolved part of the UK, after all devolution was a linchpin of New Labours sweep to power in 1997.

John Swinney has to be careful that this double talk, of misinformation coming from the HMRC is not allowed to cloud the agenda over LIT.

He also though has to not U-turn on his own U-turn having accepted that he has made one. When one Government official made a statement on Monday night saying:

"We favour HMRC as the most efficient way to collect a local income tax as it
already has experience of administering income tax. After introducing local
income tax at the same level in all local authority areas, in the medium term we
are considering options for local variability in a downward direction. HMRC
would still collect the tax in the most efficient manner - we are not proposing
to transfer collection to councils at any stage."

It makes it appear that the Nats have not moved away from we'll do it our way first, with a National Income Tax before giving way to council setting their own rate. This approach has already be vehemently rejected by the Lib Dems as not being a Local Income Tax. So if the statement on Sunday by Swinney was meant to appease Liberal Democrats the statement the next night when fending off the attacks needs either clarification or rejection.

* The current Permanent Secretary of HMRC is Dave Hartnett who was only appointed earlier this month.

Now That's What I Call Local

John Swinney the SNP Finance Minister has finally announced plans for a Local Income Tax, letting the local authorities set their rates rather than controlling it all from his Edinburgh office. After my ranting on Friday about the Nats not respecting local authorities, this is welcome news. Some are accusing Swinney of making a U-Turn but he is merely realising the problems he created for himself by lifting the core of the Lib Dem idea without many of the more thoroughly worked out difficulties and subtleties.

He is also considering sensible options to exempt students from paying LIT and to make sure it is paid on investment income as well. There has long been a dichotomy about those who are super rich and live off investments contributing regularly to the national taxation bracket. The super rich of course have their team of accountants ensuring they pay the least tax possible, tending towards zero.

Labour of course are up in arms, they don't want fairness in local taxation. You only have to look at their moan in The Fifer a tabloid they have put out in Glenrothes for the by election. They take a household with four earners and complain about the fact that this family will have to pay more for local services. They ignore the fact that in the same street, paying only 25% less Council Tax is the single mum who works her guts out to cope with raising her family.

There is also the young couple who both earn but at a lower rate than the heads of the family in Labour's literature who pay exactly the same Council Tax as the four earners that Labour are moaning about. But of course that is taking a far higher proportion out of their salaries than the four people up the street. The family of four's tax bill is not going to double, as all four of them will have their tax threshold of course, but Labour who are starting to sees flaws in council tax are upset that others have found a fairer system before them and Andy Kerr will do anything to run it down.

The Truth, The Half Truth, The Spun Nationalist Part

I was out delivering in Cowley Street yesterday. No not the Westminster one, this one is in Buckhaven, Fife and part of the Glenrothes constituency. But yes Lib Dem friends it did have number 4 and they did get the Lib Dem message of Harry Wills posted through their letter box.

However, I just loved the timing of the SNP postcard and its message that was going out over the weekend.

What the SNP tell you:

We have frozen Council Tax.

What they failed to mention:

At the same time we are asking you local council to do more and more. Provide access to a full time nursery teacher for all nursery child. Provide free school meals to every child in primaries 1-3. We've also appointed Ebenezer Swinney in charge of Holyrood's budget and he's not going to give you sufficient additional funding to pay for all this if any.
What the SNP tell you:

We will axe the council tax altogether.

What they fail to mention:

They want to do away with a local councils ability to raise their own finances, replacing it with a National Income Tax. They want to centralise all power at the centre, in their case Holyrood, in ways that surpass anything birthday girl Baroness Thatcher or NuLabour would have dreamed of. They want more power for Scotland but they don't want your council to maintain the power's it has had to best serve you on the ground for key local services.

Considering that just before the weekend COSLA was meeting due to the majority of councils realising that the concordat they were suckered into is being stretched beyond all limits by additional spending powers being heaped upon them by the Scottish Government, the timing of these messages must backfire. People will be seeing just that the Nats are saying, know exactly just what it ends up doing and doesn't lead to a lot of trust in what they will end up promising over the coming weeks.

Meanwhile on the Labour side as I navigated the Forth, Clyde, Tay, Tweed and Don and surrounding streets I did see my first signs, a handful admittedly, of Labour support. But just how can Lindsay Roy be a new voice for Buckhaven or Fife? Surely he is only a different person declaring the same tired, old, increasingly redundant Labour message? It's like John McCain advocating change hardly a new voice, just a different one singing from the same stained hymn sheet.

Are Lloyds-TSB Labour's Policy Wonks?

Just what was new Nu-Labour Scottish MSPs leader Iain Gray implying when he said that a Scottish Local Income Tax would affect Scottish jobs with HBOS?

Surely the man who is leader of only 45 other people isn't implying that a bank should be setting policy in Scotland? Last time I checked the board of Lloyds-TSB were not members of the Scottish Parliament. Also last time I checked Sarah Gordon Brown wasn't chief executive of Lloyds-TSB-Halifax-Bank of Scotland. So just what is Gray up to? Is he using a crisis for political gain? Scaremongering on a new tack with the same old refrain but with a new menace lurking in his wake?

The warnings from the CBI that Scotland's stalled economy would fail to grow once the crunch is over and that a consensus (when 46% of the people are actually in favour of LIT) are running on empty Iain. We've all seen that the wealthy are really only in it to keep as much of their own wealth to themselves and bugger fairness to those on the lowest incomes, very much like Labour policy. Ordinary people are looking for progressive not regressive taxation at the moment as they are struggling to make ends met. That way the hard working on lower incomes can spent theirs on what they need to spend it on rather than having a bulky flat rate tax set for something which in not reflective of their ability to pay.

Of course Gray did hint that Council Tax may have runs its course during his leadership election but has nothing concrete to bring to the table to replace it. We'll wait and see just how many of the same people also attack those proposals if and when they appear. Strangely people will always complain about their taxes and then always find the faults in any replacement system rather than weighing up the pros versus cons.

Local Income Tax and the Scotsman

I'm surprised to be honest that the Scotsman can only find gripes from 25 people about LIT. As any Tax system that you'd want to introduce is far from perfect and what we must strive for is the best possible, fairest and most comprehensively inclusive system that we can. Some of the Nats Jeff and Richard Thompson have given some pretty clear rebuttal on most of the points so I'll not haver on to much. Some I don't agree with 100% and I may get around to some of them later, but by and large many of the gripes can be applied to more or less any change in the tax system, a few are specific to LIT but are things that can be ironed out if looked at properly.

However, Jeff makes one claringly obvious Nat mistake by dismissing article 9 of European charter of local self-government too glibbly. Councils have the right to raise the large part of their own finances, therefore the Scottish plan for LIT is not all fine and dandy. The EU covers all manner of styles and divisions of Government Federal systems to countries like Luxembourg small enough to have all government controlled at one level. But each branch, level etc have their own responsibilities for the money they collect at whatever level but only two National and the local level are presumed to have direct responsibility in every nation.

The Nats are currently proposing a local authority tax raising power. They are centralising one of the fundamental powers of you local authorities. If even Sarah Palin can claim to have power of the budget of 7000 inhabitants of Wallisa surely you local councillors have the same right, whether they are Lib Dems, Tory, Labour, Nats or whomever. They have to spend to meet local requirements and Holyrood is not going to be able to know the minutiae of every plan, need or emergency that may arise when the rate needs to be set for the forthcoming year. And yeah if the council get it wrong you can vote them out, not everyone in Scotland can do the same for the Finance or Local Government minister at Holyrood.

Is This the Year for Fairer Tax? Not Me-ah Cathy Jamieson

Ok so Alex Samond has announced his plans for the next year. Including what the BBC seem to automatically assume is a replacement of Council Tax with a 3p flat rate Scottish National Income Tax.

Cathy Jamieson seems to think that by calling the bill the replace Council Tax an Abolition of Council Tax Bill somehow that created a fairer tax is something to be ashamed off, or at least the name Local Income Tax. Maybe she should check out the Abolition of Slavery Act (1807), Wages Attachment (Abolition) Act (1870) [relating to poor law loopholes], the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act (1965), Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) (1969) just as some examples and tell what were people scared of in any og those. Mind you please wake me upon when any of the Labour Holyrood group leadership contenders instead of disparaging the council tax come up with any substantial, and then i may pay attention if it is anywhere near as far a replacement both to payers and Local Authorities expenditure plans than a locally set LIT based on ability to pay.

Cathy also fails to see that a fairer local tax is the least we can do after the poorest in our country have become more heavily taxed than at any point in our nations taxation history. I think instead of arguing the old erroneous song of Labour that LIT makes us the highest taxed part of the UK they should wake up to reality. The fact is if Labour's aim really is to best serve the hard working poor that LIT is one hell of a assistance to them after Gordon's various pulls on their meagre wages.

While a National Scottish Income Tax distributed evenly may well have damaging effect of local services in some areas what harm can the generation old local taxation level setting for local expenditure cause harm. Smarter fairer taxes are something that Labour have failed to deliver from Westminster and it seems that their Scottish counterparts are none the wiser.

Local Income Tax May be Coming to a Council Near You

Well the SNP are talking of maneuvering on their position on Local Income Tax after objections from Westminster that setting the rate centrally may well be illegal. They are to open discussions with the Lib Dems about moving the policy forward with the local authorities in Scotland setting the rate for their area rather than Holyrood.

All three Lib Dem leadership candidates have stated correctly that replacing the Council Tax with a fairer tax based on ability to pay is still party policy. So a real question for them at the hustings tomorrow will be in light of the SNP looking to negotiate will they enter negotiations in order to get one of our key election pledges from last year through? If we are truly looking to ensure a liberal democratic Scotland we must not be afraid of working with a party with a similar policy to our own (especially if it looked like it was lifted lock, stock and barrel originally with a few key elements changed) and I would welcome any move to get this through.

One worrying sign of the SNPs willingness to move to get this through against and antagonistic Labour controlled Westminster is there still is some assertion to maintain a national rate for at least a couple of years.

"The source added that ministers might be prepared to accept a locally-set tax
after the national tax has been allowed to "bed in" for a few years.accept a
locally-set tax after the national tax has been allowed to "bed in" for a few
years."

Be done with that if Labour in London are objecting to that remove the obstacle. Also I notice that Colin Borland, from the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland, is making the most non-sensical argument against LIT as opposed to council tax:

"The big fear is over the cost of bureaucracy. It will be bad enough with one
rate for the entire country, but there could be 32 different rates.

"If you have a business in Glasgow you could have three employees, one from
Glasgow, one from Renfrewshire and one from East Renfrewshire. That's three
different sets of paperwork."

Well for starters there are currently 8 council tax bands per Authority so that is 256 rates across the entire country. Also as far as employees wage packets are concerned I've had all sorts of additional extras taken out (sports association membership, union fees etc) of my pay, or overtime added on at an individual level through the years, different month on month. Most employees will only have to set up the LIT payments at the start of the tax year when the new rates are announced and only adjust should the employee stay employed but move council area. Hardly the most strenuous additional amount of over time for any employer in a small business or payroll officer in a larger concern. Sounds like just an excuse for the sake of keeping up making excuses as the tide shifts and not very well thought through.

Of course there are concerns that Vince Cable may make LIT a policy of the past at federal level for the Lib Dems. However, our MSPs and MPs are all currently elected seeking to implement LIT and if a change cmae to implement it our MSPs should jump at it and get rid of the unfair Council Tax system we have at present.

So locally set rates for a Local Income Tax may well be coming to a local authority near you (apologies to Welsh and English readers of this blog) soon. I for one hope discussion is entered into and both parties can get this sorted out and passed into law.

Two Immovable Objects Affect Fairness in Taxes

Look I know a week is a long time in politics but wasn't it just about 48 hours ago that the Nats were still saying they promised to axe the Council Tax? Indeed it is still on their party's website. Only for this morning's Scotland on Sunday to declare that they are to ditch Local Income Tax (LIT) one of their key election pledges of only last May.

It brings us to have to look at who is to blame for the failure of bringing in a fairer local tax system, which was to have been based on the ability to pay it. My conclusion is that both Labour and the SNP are too busy playing politics with each other to actual achieve something for the benefit of people who will gain most.

Now I have had elected Labour representatives agree with me in confidence that the Council Tax is far from fair, of course when talking to me they also add the caveat that they fell LIT is far from perfect as well. However, they also fail to provide anything that is radical and fair as an alternative and are happy to tinker around with the Council Tax. Labour in Westminster have backed up this by threatening to withhold the £400m grant payable to local authorities to offset bills for the lowest paid families, if the council tax was replaced with the LIT. Now surely that £400 million is needed to help provide the services that Scots need or else Westminster would not be offering it in the first place. Even with LIT to help lift the poorest out of paying that grant would still be required. So Labour are holding the Nats plans over a barrel.

However, the SNP may only have themselves to blame. As has been mentioned here before the Nats scheme was to set the level of LIT centrally at Holyrood, removing the tax level setting power from the local authorities who have to spend it. This caused the Labour administration at Westminster to make the threat to withdraw the grant as mentioned above. Now I'm in favour of LIT as over the lifetime of a local income tax payer it will spread the burden of their lifetime payments to when they can afford to pay it, and the majority of people will be better off under it. However, the Nats when they saw a good policy originating from the Liberal Democrats had to tinker with it to make it seem like their own, hence the setting of one level across Scotland set centrally.

Their refusal to budge on this is as much to blame for Scots looking to retain an unfair Tax as Labour refusing to budge on a different local tax system in another part of the UK, ignoring Northern Ireland. As said elsewhere in SoS by Kenny Farquharson Salmond is happy being in "government and opposition at the same time" however in so doing so and refusing to budge in his opposition to Westminster having any sway to get things through in Government is he costing Scotland a chance to change. More and more of his policies are coming up against a brick wall being concurrently built by the Nats on one side and Labour on the other. Maybe the magic of the juggling act of being opposition whilst being First Minister is starting to fade and the public's eyes are starting to open to the slight of hand for what it is a cheat, a scam, a slight of hand and mouth.

Labour Barking Up Wrong Tree of LIT

Oh boy those guys at Labour never seem to learn as regards local income tax. They are now branding it unfair to adult workers who stay at home with their parents. Heaven forbid those of us who have spent most of our adult lives paying Poll Tax (based on the ability to breathe) and Council Tax (based on the ability to buy or rent property). Especially the later where the living alone discount is 25% therefore I've been paying considerable more than the couple of wage earners living in the flat next door.

Local Income Tax is based on the ability to pay. Therefore through lives cycle there will be times at present when you could get away with paying a local tax that you will pay it, ie when you are earning money and living in a household full of adults. Then there will also be times when you benefit, at times when you may find yourself out of work, or when you retire, when the current burden of council tax is too much to bear.

But of course Labour have failed to see just how unfair Council Tax has been to so many people and now that the SNP and Liberal Democrats are trying to get local taxation based on individuals ability to pay they are taking umbridge. The party of the ordinary people has long since lost that tag, they are cut off from reality and are merely putting the frighteners up people instead of looking at the wider picture.

Even accountants KPMG seem to have missed an important piece of the LIT plans of a cap on the maximum Local Income Tax bill. Labour are accusing LIT which will create savings to people on low or medium incomes who are being hit by the hike of fuel prices, food prices, various stealth tax rises introduced over the last 11 years. They are clearly forgetting that those on the lowest incomes are now pay a considerably higher proportion of their earnings in tax and the bear necessities of life now than when Blair breezed into Downing Street. They are only siding with the Tories to protect their nouveau riche supporters base and not the average family.

Has Bristow Muldoon Really Thought Through His Council Tax Rebate?

Last month Bristow Muldoon MSP for Livingston announced that he was challenging the Liberal Democrats tax policy. Something, which I said at the time, was due to a lack of understanding that we were aiming for fairness in taxation and not higher taxation. I asked the question then just what has Labour done to lighten the tax burden for the average citizen.

Now Bristow is starting to offer piecemeal insights into his thinking starting with a reduction in council tax for pensioners. He admits that his proposals, unlike the Liberal Democrat tax proposals, have not been costed. However, he is in a bit of the quandary by saying:

The Scottish Labour Party believes the council tax is the best method of local taxation but recognises it could be improved.

How can something be the best system for doing anything if it needs improving? If it is the best system surely there should be no problems.

He acknowledges how unfair Council Tax to pensioners:

For many pensioners, there can be a high proportion of their income paid in council tax.

Of course there is Bristow that is what the Liberal Democrats, SNP and SSP have been telling you for some time now, glad you are catching up. The reason for this Bristow is that the council tax system is based on the value of the property that the pensioners live in and no relation necessarily to the income that they have. Most pensioners who are owner-occupiers will have bought their current house many years’ back in their working lives when they could afford the mortgage etc. They probably spent a lot less on the house than it is worth now especially if the 25 or 30 year mortgage is paid off. They are nowhere near earning proportionately the same to their house value now as when they first bought it. How do we know this because house prices have been inflation busting and pensions have not been anywhere near keeping up with salaries or inflation.

So Bristow and his 25% rebate is offering the appearance of being a knight in shining amour but is really not doing all that much. This would still result in a high proportion of their income paid in council tax especially if compared to an MSP living in Murieston.

He also says that this rebate will not be paid for my other council taxpayers but will be covered by the Executive. Now Bristow is saying the 1.5 million Scottish pensioners should on average be saving £300 on average. So somewhere Bristow is expecting the Executive to find £550 million. So the people of Scotland are going to have to pay for this somewhere.

So all this means that can only mean that the exempt students and non-paying children will have to take this cut from their budgets. Is that really what Bristow was saying?

It's About Fairness Not Higher Taxes Bristow

Bristow Muldoon MSP is to start leafletting homes in Livingston with lies about the effects on local people of replacing the council tax.

He is citing figures in the leaflet which do not add Council Tax unto Income Tax figures for the current situation. Therefore scewing the results which will erronerously show an increase in income tax as one of Labour's many stealth taxes, which would be replaced by a local income tax, has not been taken into consideration.

Maybe Mr Muldoon would care to enlighten the electorate what the changes in the average tax budget for all taxes income, council, fuel, VAT etc have been under Labour to the average household instead of grabbing unto one headline tax while ignoring the rest. The Lib Dem's Tax policy is to bring about fairer taxes to the average and less well off members of our society something that Labour have been failing to do in the 9 years they have controlled Westminster.

I look forward to seeing a copy of this leaflet and will let you know just how average Mr Muldoon is going to say an average household is. His colleague in Westminster Jim Divine, used an example of a couple in the top 30% of earners during last year's by-election.

Tory Case of Foot in Mouth 2

Annabel Goldie might have glared at her TV on Friday night if she had seen her Westminster leader on Jonathan Ross. Not only did he continue to show his indecision of Iraq but he admitted that Margaret Thatcher made it hard for the Scots but that she got it right:

"It meant very difficult decisions. Especially for north, Wales and Scotland, there were difficult times - but we in the Conservative Party believe they were the right decisions."

Just the sort of comment to go down well with the elephant like memory of the Scots, who still remember that it was Michael Howard who experimented with the Poll Tax north of the border. Ten months out from an election in Scotland it may not have been the wisest time to make such a confession.