02 October 2006

How (not) to plan for an election

Are the Scottish Tories girding their loins for the May elections? Well not quite. The Herald reports:
"In a bid to boost the party's fortunes north of the border, Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Scottish Tories, will today unveil plans to halve the council tax bills of all pensioners in Scotland.
A Tory spokesman said the £200m tax cuts would be funded by taking Scottish Water out of state control.
Speaking on the fringes of the party's annual conference in Bournemouth, Ms Goldie will say: "I think everybody understands that our senior citizens have far less flexibility and manoeuvring room when it comes to dealing with hefty financial charges. "Many of them will have very limited financial options to cope with such challenges. I think someone has to stand up for them. That is why today I am announcing a policy to provide the necessary and overdue help.
"We will introduce a 50% council tax discount for all pensioner households in Scotland. This will be funded centrally and will be additional to any discounts that the pensioner household currently gets," she will add.
The Tories are hoping to boost their MSP numbers in the Scottish Parliament from 17 to at least 23 at next year's Holyrood elections."

Let us leave aside the poverty of ambition that considers increasing the number of seats from 17 to 23 as a worthwhile target. At first sight, here is a nice clear policy, calculated to increase the party's appeal to pensioners.

First problem: not all pensioners are poor; some are well off, rather more are comfortably off. If we assume that one-third of pensioners do not need a reduction in council tax, then perhaps one-third of the cost of the reduction (£66 million) is going to be wasted. Furthermore, the poorest pensioners already benefit from council tax rebates. Accordingly, an across the board reduction will actually benefit the poorest pensioners least, as they are already paying less than others. And, because there is a range of benefits dependent upon cumulative income, it is entirely possible that some of the poorer pensioners will benefit (slightly) from a reduction in their council tax but lose that gain because the housing benefit they receive will be reduced.

Secondly, while no-one would grudge a reduction in council tax to a 'deserving' pensioner, why should pensioners be singled out for this generosity? Are there no other social categories deserving similar treatment? Those unable to work because of disability, perhaps? Single mothers bringing up children?

Thirdly, if the Executive is to meet the cost of this reduction in council tax for pensioners, it will mean an increase in the grant payable by the Executive to local authorities, thus increasing the dependence of such authorities on central funds and, inevitably, reducing their independence from central government. And while it is easy to ringfence the extra grant paid out to local authorities for this benefit to pensioners, it tends to get lost in the ups and downs of the government grant in respect of the generality of local government expenditure. I'm not suggesting that the Executive gives with one hand and takes away with the other - but COSLA might say so.

Fourthly, it is suggested that the Tories are going to pay for this by privatising Scottish Water. (Again, let us leave aside the idea that there is no point in reducing council tax if this only means that water charges increase.) But privatising Scottish water will bring a one-off capital receipt (which I suspect would anyway revert to HM Treasury). How does this help to pay for a continuing year-on-year requirement to fund the reduction in council tax for pensioners? Furthermore, the privatisation would need to be preceded by consultation and legislation, taking at least 18 months, and then by the messy business of actually selling off the industry, at least another 18 months. So, with a bit of luck, the proceeds might just become available in 2010. Do pensioners need to wait until then before receiving their council tax reduction?

Have the Conservatives considered these questions? Who knows?

No comments: