主播大秀

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Scottish Parliament election

Election 07 graphic

鈥楥an you hear me yet?鈥

  • Brian Taylor
  • 11 Apr 07, 03:02 PM

It probably didn鈥檛 help that the sound system failed to function properly at the start of the Liberal Democrat manifesto launch.

Nicol Stephen discovered that it鈥檚 rather hard to look like a polished, prepared statesperson when you have to interrupt your opening remarks to tug at the microphone on your lapel.

Even the Gettysburg Address might have fallen a little flat had Lincoln been obliged to open by inquiring: 鈥淐an you hear me at the back?鈥

To be fair (that鈥檚 two days in a row, a new record), Mr Stephen rallied. Just in time to face a positive torrent of questions on his party鈥檚 plan to replace the council tax with a Local Income Tax.

Pretty much the same questions as he had earlier fielded during a rather deftly conducted interview on 鈥淕ood Morning Scotland鈥. (Come on, I used to present the programme: I鈥檓 allowed a cross-genre 主播大秀 plug.)

What鈥檚 going on here? Why do the wicked media focus on one thing? Why don鈥檛 we ask about all the goodies in the manifesto? Because, dear reader, we know the difference between a news conference and a party election broadcast.

At the time, it seemed torrid. A huddle of hacks clustered around Tavish Scott afterwards to clarify a few points. (To be fair 鈥 twice in one blog! 鈥 such huddles are common at political events.)

Looking back over the tape, though, it seems rather less dramatic than it did at the time.

I think what鈥檚 happening is that, perhaps for the first time, the Local Income Tax is being subjected to serious scrutiny. People, voters, are totting up what it might cost them.

Nicol Stephen says that seventy per cent of Scots would pay less under LIT than under the Council Tax. Pensioners in particular would gain - because they generally don鈥檛 have much income.

To be clear, the present banded tax on property would be scrapped and, instead, you鈥檇 pay a local tax to your council on your earned income, at both the standard and upper rates.

Unlike the SNP, LibDems would allow councils to vary the rate within limits: they say the average would be 3.625%. The cash would be collected by HM Revenue and Customs.

The snags? This would mean that people in Scotland pay more on earned income than elsewhere in the UK. Critics say that would be a disincentive to investment and employment.

Nicol Stephen鈥檚 answer? Remember that the council tax is scrapped. This is a replacement tax, not an additional burden. He argues it is fairer.

Snag two. It鈥檚 only earned income. NOT income from savings or shares or capital gains.

Is that fair? Might not the rich man in a castle, living on share dividends, escape any contribution to local services?

The answer? Experts advise it would be too complex to extend the new local tax beyond earned income. Again, say the LibDems, no tax is perfect 鈥 but this one is fairer than the council tax which takes no direct account of ability to pay.

To be fair (a hat-trick!), Labour faced very tough questioning yesterday on its proposals for new upper and lower council tax bands - plus cutting water rates for the over 65s.

The lack of immediate detail only whetted the appetite of the wicked media. (See above)

With the SNP due to launch tomorrow - favouring a fixed 3p local income tax - this is developing into the early 鈥渂ig issue鈥 of the campaign.

Comments   Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 09:44 PM on 11 Apr 2007,
  • Mark Sutherland-Fisher wrote:

Nicol Who? was a perfect advert for his party launching his manifesto. He was speaking and no-one was listening. He was torn to shreds this morning on Radio Scotland trying to explain how his local income tax would work but at least he knew what his policy was. Some of his party want the power line from Beauly to Denny, others dont. His Inverness candidate doesn't know!! Does it really matter? So far the LibDems have at least 2 or 3 versions of each policy depending on which part of Scotland the audience is located. For Nicol Who? to try and blame Labour for the policies his party has voted through for 8 years is at best disingenuous and at worst frankly dishonest. Who's listening to him, almost certainly not the electorate, they turned off before he realised his microphone wasn't working.

  • 2.
  • At 11:32 AM on 12 Apr 2007,
  • Harry Shanks wrote:

Nicol Stephen ought to change his name to Walter Mitty if he seriously thinks, as he says, that he is wanted by the electorate as First Minister. There is a very real possibility of course that should the SNP emerge as the largest party but without an overall majority, that the Unionist parties will comspire to prevent Alex Salmond becoming First Minister. In those circumstances I have no doubt that Nicol Stephen would sell his granny down the river to land the top job as Labour's puppet. After all, it's a Lib Dem tradition to do so!

Strange thing but this election seems quite dull at the moment. I say strange because if the polls are right then we are only a sniff away from having the SNP in power and driving to Independance. Our political life is then likely to be dominated by the SNP picking fights with Westminster to create momentum for an independence referendum.

Yet I dont sense any real "buzz" about this election yet.

  • 4.
  • At 12:55 PM on 12 Apr 2007,
  • roy bertram wrote:

does the personal tax replacement for the council tax mean that if two people in one house are both working they would both pay the tax, whereas a next door neighbou in identical property with only one taxable earner would pay less. This is not a fairer tax at all.
What the politicians can't see is that the poll tax which applied to everyone (with rebates for thos on low income) was the fairest system, as everyone was liable. So a house with 6 in it paid more as they would probably use the services more.

  • 5.
  • At 01:58 PM on 12 Apr 2007,
  • Harry Shanks wrote:

Roy Bertram - where are you coming from? At the present time 2 working people in one house already pay more Income Tax than their hypothetical next door neighbour with only 1 wage-earner. Nobody says that this is unfair so why should it suddenly become unfair if Income Tax is increased to offset a scrapped Council Tax? As for the poll tax being fair - please explain what was the fairness in a Lord in his Castle paying the same amount of Poll Tax as a widow in a tenement?

  • 6.
  • At 02:04 PM on 12 Apr 2007,
  • Keith wrote:

Roy #2 - a local income tax would base payment on income earned, and would have absolutely no bearing on the property in which you live. So, in the example you give, each individual would pay the tax - regardless of how many were in the house, or what its value is. In my own case, I live in the same local authority as my parents, both of whom are retired, and our houses currently fall into the same council house band. In this case, my wife & I would (jointly) end up paying more than my parents, because we both work and therefore have a greater income than my parents.

OK, so in that example I could be the "loser." But I'd rather have this than the current system based on property, which in most cases these days bears absolutely no relation to the individual's earnings.

  • 7.
  • At 12:41 PM on 13 Apr 2007,
  • Peter, Fife wrote:

I note of the three main areas of election promises, education health and police there is a clear difference between the parties on health:

Where there is commonality it is in the aim to reducing waiting times; there are variations on how this should be achieved and who should manage and set the new targets.

Labour鈥檚 Executive ex smokers continue their obsession with smoking cessation; nobody more committed than a convert, this programme whilst commendable fails in presentation, there are successes with this programme but much of the failures are down to weak Politically Correct publicity.

The Conservatives seem to be the only ones who have committed to dealing with that dangerous monster, NHS 24; this system has put patient鈥檚 lives at risk driven by the aim to reduce the workload of the limited numbers of on call doctors with their standard declaration 鈥渋t鈥檚 just the flu, make an appointment with your doctor on Monday.鈥

The Liberal Democrats health policies seem designed to appeal whilst not upsetting anyone; 'middle of the road.'

The SNP deal with an area of policy which concerns most users of the NHS, that of centralisation; local hospitals reduced to glorified health centres to locate services into the seats of power of unitary authorities.
Or so it would seem, the statement reads: 鈥溾n hospitals, the SNP plans to bring in a "presumption against" centralising key services鈥︹

  • 8.
  • At 11:09 PM on 02 May 2007,
  • R Payne wrote:

Im currently living at home with my 2 parents. I have a part time job, am i included in the overall household income even though i dont own it?? How much would i have to pay??

Post a comment

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Required
Required (not displayed)
 
    

The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

主播大秀.co.uk