It's not a tax
It's neither a "spare room subsidy" nor a "bedroom tax", it's a benefit cut. It's not a subsidy because a subsidy is something paid to you in order to gain a benefit (real or perceived or, indeed, imaginary) for society and it's not a tax because a tax is something you pay to government to allow it to pay, in turn, for societal benefits. It's a cut to a welfare benefit, those tiny payments we collectively make to ensure that our society does not break down.
Calling it a tax lets the politicians off the hook. Those who are cutting benefits want to pretend they are cutting a subsidy, those who are opposing want to call it a tax. It's not a subsidy; there is no societal benefit in someone having spare bedrooms (nor is there likely to be much of a personal advantage, given the extra costs inherent in having extra rooms in your house) and there has never been an argument put forward for one. It's not a tax; there is no payment from the welfare recipient to government here and to suggest that there it is a tax is to suggest that the recipients have an income from which can be deducted a tax. "Bedroom tax" is a handy short-hand but hides the horror of the policy of cutting Housing Benefit. When did we collectively lose the ability to see and call it for what it is? It's a benefit cut and it's an attack on the most vulnerable members of our society. At the heart of this policy debate is a void where humanity should be.
The cutting
The principle behind welfare benefits, surely, is that we do not leave any member of society without the means to afford the basics of survival; shelter, warmth, food, clothing. The amounts paid do not add up to a living, merely survival and it cannot be easy even to survive on those amounts. Nowhere can I find any research done by the UK Government into how much it costs to survive in any of our communities nor what benefits might accrue to society from paying them or varying the payments up or down. I can find plenty that successive governments have said about the costs of welfare, nothing about the effects of investing these resources in people and communities.
The cuts to these benefits which have been implemented and those still
planned surely slice into the very heart of the principle behind them. Without any indication of the effects on people, both those receiving the welfare payments and those of us lucky enough to be in work, or on the communities in which we all live, the UK Government bill for welfare is to be cut. 10% is the target because that is the general target across UK Government departments. We are beginning to see some of the effects of some of these benefit cuts but there are still more to come - more cuts and more deleterious effects.
Housing Benefit cut
Why, though, has the opposition to these cuts focused so strongly on the cut to Housing Benefit and, to a great extent, ignored the other cuts? A jaundiced observer might suggest that it's because evictions are a striking visual for media coverage while the effects of other cuts are less obvious and harder to see, or that the heuristic "bedroom tax" makes for a good soundbite. It may be that the Westminster political game is more easily played where no flank is left open for the opposition to attack; no opportunity to be called profligate or the dreaded "tax and spend" label applied. The twisted logic of the search for a political soft spot in attack and the determination to armour every inch in defence leaves politics sclerotic and the people ignored. Principle has been abandoned in the heat of the scuffle in Westminster and democracy is the poorer for it. Budgets drive policy instead of policy driving budgets and the order is "we shall spend this, what can we do with it?" rather than "this is what we need to do, how much do we have to find?"
The history of this Housing Benefit cut shows this. It was introduced under the Labour Government of Tony Blair with pilot schemes starting in late 2003 and went national under the Labour Government of Gordon Brown for private sector tenants and is still called Local housing Allowance for tenants in the private sector. The Tory / Lib Dem Government of David Cameron and Nick Clegg extended its reach to the social rented sector and this has become the policy football. Interestingly, it was the Tory/Lib Dem Government which introduced the extra bedroom for a carer in the year before they extended it to social rented housing.
Along the way the justification has always been cutting expenditure on Housing Benefit, sometimes joined by a diversionary hint at fairness. An example of the latter is the decision of the Labour Government to limit the number of bedrooms that can be paid for to five, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, James Purnell saying that it was being limited because some people out of work were staying in houses they could not afford if they were in work. This, of course, missed the point that some Housing Benefit claimants are in work but cannot afford their rent. It also ignores the fact that limiting household bedrooms may lead to overcrowding.
Mitigation
While making the latest round of Housing Benefit cuts in this sequence, the current UK Government offered up resources to local authorities to make discretionary payments to support households adversely affected by these changes. This was a fraction of the money it was cutting from Housing Benefit provision, of course, and it transferred responsibility for sorting out the mess created from Whitehall to town hall. In Scotland COSLA and the Scottish Government came to an agreement to fund the shortfall from their own limited budgets, the Scottish Government providing half of the money from its scarce resources, Scotland's councils finding the rest from within theirs.
Some Scottish councils have updated their policies and pledged to ensure that they will do whatever they can to avoid evicting tenants who fall into arrears as a result of this Housing Benefit cut, others have still to commit.
Labour's Bill
Labour repeatedly called for the Scottish Government to support its Bill to mitigate the effects of this Housing Benefit cut. Neither the Bill nor a proposal for such a Bill existed for months after such calls started and, while the proposal has appeared (strangely, lodged nearly a fortnight after I pointed out that it didn't exist and quite clearly written in a hurry) there is still no Bill in spite of the proposed change being a simple one to write.
The proposal as written is an exercise in political posturing but I thought it worth taking a look at it in any case. The proposal is that the 2001 Housing Act be amended so that arrears resulting from the cut in Housing Benefit would be disregarded by the court for the purposes of eviction proceedings, with the tenant proving how much of the arrears was caused by the benefit cut.
That's a procedure that would take extra court time and create extra legal fees on both sides and would, as laid out in the proposal, leave landlords to pursue that debt as any other debt would be pursued. I find myself wondering how many Housing Benefit tenants have the wherewithal to pay off other debts, no matter how accrued, but I also know that most social landlords work hard to find solutions before even considering eviction and the route to court is not an easy path for them to take.
Housing associations in Scotland run very tight ships. They keep their rents low by keeping good control of their voids (empty houses) and doing all they can to make sure that tenants keep up with rental payments and by keeping management costs down, these are not businesses, they are not seeking to make profits. Of all of the professional housing officers I know and have known who work in housing associations I cannot think of one who goes willingly to evict a tenant and I cannot think of one who does not try to resolve tenancy issues at the earliest stage. To take that commitment and throw it back in their faces by insinuating that they would do otherwise is insulting and demeans those who have suggested it.
On top of that the additional costs to housing associations has to be considered. When a housing association faces additional costs by an eviction process being dragged out, knocking its voids out of control and increasing legal fees its costs go up and it will be forced to put rents up, affecting all of its tenants. Since most tenants of housing associations are at the lower end of the income scale, this would have a serious effect on other tenants who would see more of their wages going to cover housing costs.
This facile and disingenuous proposal is political
campaigning, not an attempt to find a solution. It is the armour of
saying "we tried to do something" and the seeking of a soft spot with
"they wouldn't join us in the thing we sought to do", it is a moral fraud by the bankrupt and a clear
example of what is so clearly wrong with the politics in Westminster and
we can do without it being imported.
Devolving Housing Benefit
The UK Government recently leaked a proposal to devolve control of Housing Benefit to Scotland if there was a No vote in the independence referendum. Leaving aside the fact that Scotland would take control of Housing Benefit after a yes vote anyway, the case for accepting this at face value is flawed. There is a general consensus in Scottish politics that this benefit cut is wrong - a consensus which is increasingly being mirrored in England - the SNP pledged some time ago to restore the payments after independence when Scotland has control of her own resources and Labour eventually came on board last week with Ed Miliband finally being forced into saying it. He should have said it much earlier but he was balancing the armouring against being called profligate with the possible political advantage (I bet Labour spends a fortune on polling before making a decision like that) and there appear to be suggestions that it may not be among the first priorities if Labour wins a UK General Election at some point in the future. Both parties are on the same side of the argument, though, so where's the problem with devolving it?
Let's assume that the money spent on Housing Benefit at the time of this change would also come to Scotland (and there is no guarantee of that). That would mean that the cuts were already made to the budget so any Scottish Government intending to reverse the cuts would have to find additional money from elsewhere in the Scottish budget. Given that the Scottish budget is not exactly flush with spare cash, what would it cut? Health, education, social work, justice, local government finance, pensioner bus passes, what should be cut to put extra money into Housing Benefit? Given that some of these areas will be under additional pressure as a result of the less mentioned benefit cuts and the collateral effects of benefit cuts, where is the money to come from? Unless Scotland takes control of finances and can adjust the whole raft of government spending and financing where do we find the resource.
It is an example of the UK Government armouring itself against the charge that it is imposing this cut on Scotland and seeking an opposition soft spot by offering control over the policy without control over the budget. It's a political bear trap with still no thought given to the issue of how to house those who cannot afford to house themselves.
A devolution issue
The Housing Benefit cut and the political manoeuvring around make up an example of just what is wrong with devolution. Policy control without revenue control is a power mirage. While changes can be made they are far less significant than they could be with the ability to vary the revenue and expenditure streams to adapt public spending to suit the policy intentions.
Without the flexibility to change the large areas of expenditure still controlled in London Scottish resources cannot be directed to best serve the people who live here. Similarly, without the flexibility to adjust where all the income streams are coming from the burden cannot be lifted from those who can't afford it.
I see Labour activists often calling for the SNP Scottish Government to mitigate the effects of this cut, saying that this was why the Scottish Parliament was reconvened. Much as I marvel at their lack of ambition for Holyrood, even with the limited power it has, and wonder why this is the one benefit cut that they want mitigated, I find myself wondering a few things -
Why should a Government just mitigate what is being done to the people who elected it rather than trying to change the circumstances that are causing the pain? Mitigation is only a reduction in severity - if your hand was burning on a cooker top would you just put ice on top to mitigate the pain or would you take your hand away?
If Holyrood had been here with these powers in the 1980s and had mitigated the effects of the then UK Government would we still have half of Ravenscraig? Would it have been able to afford to have mitigated that at all?
If the next UK Government target is cutting benefit payments to young single people, should we mitigate that as well?
Should the Scottish Government be mitigating the cuts to the armed services in Scotland by setting up a rival army?
How do we mitigate against the effects in Scotland of the UK Government's asylum and refugee policies?
How do we mitigate against the UK Government abandoning the ECHR?
The Scottish Government is already mitigating against the damaging economic policies of the UK Government but it can't do enough, it doesn't have the power nor the resources to do enough. Should Scotland just shrug our shoulders and say we tried?
How do we mitigate against the void at the centre of policy making where humanity should be and how do we mitigate against a damaged political system that poisons the well of democracy?
It's time to stop mitigating and start acting.
Monday, 30 September 2013
Friday, 13 September 2013
When shall we three meet again, in thunder, lightning or in rain?
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow
GARL has become a political Banquo, rising to haunt Labour's Macbeth. GARL, once Glasgow Labour's greatest friend now looks as if it will be the spectre to haunts that party into madness (OK, that's a wee bit dramatic, but give me a bit of licence). Yesterday JoLa tottered onto her pins in Parliament to spin an outrageous untruth that the Government had bought land for GARL and later sold it back to the chap who had originally owned it at an enormous loss which was, of course, a gain for the chap who had sold it and bought it back again and that there was something dodgy about it.
Well, JoLa was protected by the absolute privilege afforded MSPs during Parliamentary proceedings, which is lucky for her because the businessman involved, John McGlynn, was beelin that his honesty had been called into question and was ready for a battle. I know nothing much about the chap at all but he certainly looked angry when he was interviewed for the news broadcasts which made it all the more surprising to see the way that James Kelly represented Labour on Newsnicht. In the gallant JaKe rode to defend the honour of someone or something or besmirch the honour of someone else or something else (it wasn't quite clear, you see) and he flung caution to the wind, casting out aspersions (never aspirations) hither and thon, wantonly throwing his own career on the pyre that JoLa had built. He appeared at some points to suggest that the Scottish Government was credulous and Mr McGlynn had taken nefarious advantage of it.
Given that Newsnicht doesn't offer privilege to guard against an action for defamation, JaKe may be in a spot of bother and he can be fairly certain that his good mate JoLa won't be repeating her allegations outside of the protection of Parliament. Good luck there, JaKe, we salute you, brave and senseless soldier.
Glasgow Council
I'm told that there were claims similar to JoLa's made in the rarefied atmosphere of Glasgow Council where the heady intoxification of debate led Councillor Alastair Watson to make the same criticisms of the Government and, I suppose, thereby of Mr McGlynn. That surprised me because AlWa should have known better - he was on the board of the organisation that actually bought the land. Not really a bit-part player, either, he was Chair until he stood down for health reasons in 2010. Good to see he recovered quickly enough in 2010 to take a senior role and to stand for re-election in 2012 and take up a senior post as Executive Member for Sustainability and Transport, allowing Glasgow to benefit from his enormous experience on the board of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport.
SPT
The land at the centre of the hoo-ha was actually bought by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in 2008 when AlWa was Chair, so how did he not know about it? Well, let's be fair, there was a lot to do on the board of SPT in the spring of 2008 when the purchase was made. They had to prepare for the trip to Manchester to watch Ranger in the UEFA cup final, for example, and there was an awful lot of expenses claims to be made for all kinds of busy trips abroad.
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
It could all have been avoided, you know, if only Labour had asked someone in the know. AlWa's memory is obviously a bit suspect but they could surely have asked someone at SPT, some friendly face or other. JoLa could have asked, she could have asked Archie, Archie's on SPT on behalf of Glasgow Council, she could have asked him - Councillor Archie Graham, Depute Leader of the Council, Executive Member for the Commonwealth Games, SPT board member. He wasn't there at the time of the land purchase but he's there now and could ask. Why ask Archie? She's married to him - it would be easy.
Instead the day was foul but not fair, Labour's horses will be wild and eating each other. I'm sure JoLa will be looking forward to a time when the hurlyburly's done, when the battle's lost and won. She could just resign as leader of the opposition now and make it easier on herself.
GARL has become a political Banquo, rising to haunt Labour's Macbeth. GARL, once Glasgow Labour's greatest friend now looks as if it will be the spectre to haunts that party into madness (OK, that's a wee bit dramatic, but give me a bit of licence). Yesterday JoLa tottered onto her pins in Parliament to spin an outrageous untruth that the Government had bought land for GARL and later sold it back to the chap who had originally owned it at an enormous loss which was, of course, a gain for the chap who had sold it and bought it back again and that there was something dodgy about it.
Well, JoLa was protected by the absolute privilege afforded MSPs during Parliamentary proceedings, which is lucky for her because the businessman involved, John McGlynn, was beelin that his honesty had been called into question and was ready for a battle. I know nothing much about the chap at all but he certainly looked angry when he was interviewed for the news broadcasts which made it all the more surprising to see the way that James Kelly represented Labour on Newsnicht. In the gallant JaKe rode to defend the honour of someone or something or besmirch the honour of someone else or something else (it wasn't quite clear, you see) and he flung caution to the wind, casting out aspersions (never aspirations) hither and thon, wantonly throwing his own career on the pyre that JoLa had built. He appeared at some points to suggest that the Scottish Government was credulous and Mr McGlynn had taken nefarious advantage of it.
Given that Newsnicht doesn't offer privilege to guard against an action for defamation, JaKe may be in a spot of bother and he can be fairly certain that his good mate JoLa won't be repeating her allegations outside of the protection of Parliament. Good luck there, JaKe, we salute you, brave and senseless soldier.
Glasgow Council
I'm told that there were claims similar to JoLa's made in the rarefied atmosphere of Glasgow Council where the heady intoxification of debate led Councillor Alastair Watson to make the same criticisms of the Government and, I suppose, thereby of Mr McGlynn. That surprised me because AlWa should have known better - he was on the board of the organisation that actually bought the land. Not really a bit-part player, either, he was Chair until he stood down for health reasons in 2010. Good to see he recovered quickly enough in 2010 to take a senior role and to stand for re-election in 2012 and take up a senior post as Executive Member for Sustainability and Transport, allowing Glasgow to benefit from his enormous experience on the board of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport.
SPT
The land at the centre of the hoo-ha was actually bought by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport in 2008 when AlWa was Chair, so how did he not know about it? Well, let's be fair, there was a lot to do on the board of SPT in the spring of 2008 when the purchase was made. They had to prepare for the trip to Manchester to watch Ranger in the UEFA cup final, for example, and there was an awful lot of expenses claims to be made for all kinds of busy trips abroad.
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
It could all have been avoided, you know, if only Labour had asked someone in the know. AlWa's memory is obviously a bit suspect but they could surely have asked someone at SPT, some friendly face or other. JoLa could have asked, she could have asked Archie, Archie's on SPT on behalf of Glasgow Council, she could have asked him - Councillor Archie Graham, Depute Leader of the Council, Executive Member for the Commonwealth Games, SPT board member. He wasn't there at the time of the land purchase but he's there now and could ask. Why ask Archie? She's married to him - it would be easy.
Instead the day was foul but not fair, Labour's horses will be wild and eating each other. I'm sure JoLa will be looking forward to a time when the hurlyburly's done, when the battle's lost and won. She could just resign as leader of the opposition now and make it easier on herself.
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Labour's lies and the liars without shame
The Bedroom Tax Lie
More than a week ago Labour boasted of its 'action' on the Bedroom Tax, Jackie Baillie repeated that she was bringing forward a Bill to end evictions for these arrears. We've seen what Labour's actual action on the bedroom tax is, and we know how confused Labour is over it, but let's leave that aside for the moment and remember JaBa's Bill, this legislation so fiercely touted.
Labour politicians have been seeking to put pressure on SNP politicians by demanding they support the Bill. Their Deputy Leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, even brandished a copy of the Bill during the STV with Nicola Sturgeon, demanding that the DFM sign the Bill there and then. AnSa, it would appear, let his spin-doctors' sense of the dramatic cloud his better judgement. There's a bit of a problem with this Bill, though.
It doesn't exist.
As of 19.20 on the 12th of September 2013 it does not appear in the list of current Bills on the Scottish Parliament website. Some may say "but it's a proposed Bill" but then I'd have to direct you to the list of proposals for Member's Bills which also, quite clearly, lacks any Bill of that description. No Bill exists nor does a proposal nor even a draft proposal. That is a cruel deception played by Labour, to pretend to care, to suggest there may be succour and hope for those currently being affected by the Bedroom Tax and those who will be affected by the Bedroom Tax in the future.
While JaBa and AnSa take their comfortable salaries and go home at night safe in the knowledge that the roofs over their heads are likely to stay there, they appear to find no compassion for those who are really facing the effects of this policy.
The Scottish Government is doing what it can to mitigate the effects of this UK Government policy and SNP councils the length and breadth of Scotland are doing what they can for the people affected and none of them are claiming it's a full solution. Labour's lies in this instance are cruel beyond belief.
The smear at FMQs
That indication of how low Labour politicians are prepared to stoop is, perhaps, the worst, but any idea we might have had that this was not going to be a tactic used by many Labour politicians was dashed today at First Minister's Questions in Holyrood. The transcription is in a pdf but will be up on the site in the normal way tomorrow.
Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland (except Falkirk, apparently), Johann Lamont, asked about a deal where land had been bought for the proposed Glasgow Airport Rail Link and later sold after GARL was cancelled. JoLa's contention was that there was something dodgy going on.
The land had been bought from a businessman, Mr John McGlynn for £840,000, according to JoLa, and sold back to him later for £50,000, giving him a £790,000 profit and she inferred that it had been a dirty deal. Here's a direct quote from her -
She later made sure that there was no mistaking her allegation -
By 5 o'clock Mr McGlynn was demanding an apology for the slur, Herald political journalist Tom Gordon had discovered a document showing that the land had been bought by Labour councillors on Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, and it had become clear that Labour had already been told this during the answer to the first question of General Questions last week. Here is an excerpt from last week's questioning -
So Labour's leader knew what the truth was - or should have, if she had taken the trouble to ask her Transport spokesman - and still made the allegation. JoLa was trying to score petty political points but, in doing so, she make serious allegations about the conduct of Scottish Government Ministers and the First Minister in particular when she knew that there was no substance to them whatsoever.
That is something that politicians might be expected to accept as being part of the job in the rough and tumble of politics - although it shouldn't be - but her equal implied attack on Mr McGlynn who was not in Parliament to defend himself had no such justification. It was shameful and shoddy.
JoLa, JaBa and AnSa have shown once again over the past week that they are not fit to hold public office. They may not be in Ministerial office, they may not have any power, but opposition is also laden with responsibility and those offices should also be held with honour. People who are not prepared to act with honour have no place in our democracy, they should all think on their recent actions.
JoLa as leader of the opposition, though, should shoulder more responsibility than most and, given that she has so spectacularly failed, she should resign. I don't expect her to do so, nor do I expect any of them to consider their behaviour; they have no shame.
More than a week ago Labour boasted of its 'action' on the Bedroom Tax, Jackie Baillie repeated that she was bringing forward a Bill to end evictions for these arrears. We've seen what Labour's actual action on the bedroom tax is, and we know how confused Labour is over it, but let's leave that aside for the moment and remember JaBa's Bill, this legislation so fiercely touted.
Labour politicians have been seeking to put pressure on SNP politicians by demanding they support the Bill. Their Deputy Leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, even brandished a copy of the Bill during the STV with Nicola Sturgeon, demanding that the DFM sign the Bill there and then. AnSa, it would appear, let his spin-doctors' sense of the dramatic cloud his better judgement. There's a bit of a problem with this Bill, though.
It doesn't exist.
As of 19.20 on the 12th of September 2013 it does not appear in the list of current Bills on the Scottish Parliament website. Some may say "but it's a proposed Bill" but then I'd have to direct you to the list of proposals for Member's Bills which also, quite clearly, lacks any Bill of that description. No Bill exists nor does a proposal nor even a draft proposal. That is a cruel deception played by Labour, to pretend to care, to suggest there may be succour and hope for those currently being affected by the Bedroom Tax and those who will be affected by the Bedroom Tax in the future.
While JaBa and AnSa take their comfortable salaries and go home at night safe in the knowledge that the roofs over their heads are likely to stay there, they appear to find no compassion for those who are really facing the effects of this policy.
The Scottish Government is doing what it can to mitigate the effects of this UK Government policy and SNP councils the length and breadth of Scotland are doing what they can for the people affected and none of them are claiming it's a full solution. Labour's lies in this instance are cruel beyond belief.
The smear at FMQs
That indication of how low Labour politicians are prepared to stoop is, perhaps, the worst, but any idea we might have had that this was not going to be a tactic used by many Labour politicians was dashed today at First Minister's Questions in Holyrood. The transcription is in a pdf but will be up on the site in the normal way tomorrow.
Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland (except Falkirk, apparently), Johann Lamont, asked about a deal where land had been bought for the proposed Glasgow Airport Rail Link and later sold after GARL was cancelled. JoLa's contention was that there was something dodgy going on.
The land had been bought from a businessman, Mr John McGlynn for £840,000, according to JoLa, and sold back to him later for £50,000, giving him a £790,000 profit and she inferred that it had been a dirty deal. Here's a direct quote from her -
The land was bought in 2008 for £840,000 from a businessman called John McGlynn, who was then a donor to the Scottish Conservative Party. Since then, of course, Mr McGlynn has been on something of a political journey; he now supports the yes campaign. Since then, he has been appointed to the Scottish Government national economic forum and he has bought back the land from the Scottish Government for £50,000 and made a profit of £790,000. Is there some connection here or has Mr McGlynn just benefited from the First Minister’s gross incompetence with public funds?
She later made sure that there was no mistaking her allegation -
the Scottish Government bought the land for £840,000; it was signed off by the Scottish ministers; and the Scottish Government then sold the land for £50,000and -
how does the First Minister justify buying a piece of land for £840,000 and then selling it back to the person he bought it from for just £50,000?and -
Can the First Minister explain to them either why the issue has nothing to do with him or how he managed to buy a piece of land with their money for £840,000 and sell it for just £50,000?
By 5 o'clock Mr McGlynn was demanding an apology for the slur, Herald political journalist Tom Gordon had discovered a document showing that the land had been bought by Labour councillors on Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, and it had become clear that Labour had already been told this during the answer to the first question of General Questions last week. Here is an excerpt from last week's questioning -
Mark Griffin: ... the last plot of Glasgow airport rail link land was sold back to the original owner for £50,000, which, at almost £800,000 less than they were originally paid, highlights the folly of the Government’s scorched-earth policy on GARL. What cumulative loss was made by the Government in disposing of land that had been purchased for the GARL project?Keith Brown: First, I welcome Mark Griffin to his new position. I also congratulate him on his engagement over the summer.
Mark Griffin’s question has a fundamental flaw. The land that was purchased that he mentioned was initially purchased by Strathclyde partnership for transport, not by the Government, although the Government subsequently bought it from SPT. He might wish to address some questions to SPT about that.
So Labour's leader knew what the truth was - or should have, if she had taken the trouble to ask her Transport spokesman - and still made the allegation. JoLa was trying to score petty political points but, in doing so, she make serious allegations about the conduct of Scottish Government Ministers and the First Minister in particular when she knew that there was no substance to them whatsoever.
That is something that politicians might be expected to accept as being part of the job in the rough and tumble of politics - although it shouldn't be - but her equal implied attack on Mr McGlynn who was not in Parliament to defend himself had no such justification. It was shameful and shoddy.
JoLa, JaBa and AnSa have shown once again over the past week that they are not fit to hold public office. They may not be in Ministerial office, they may not have any power, but opposition is also laden with responsibility and those offices should also be held with honour. People who are not prepared to act with honour have no place in our democracy, they should all think on their recent actions.
JoLa as leader of the opposition, though, should shoulder more responsibility than most and, given that she has so spectacularly failed, she should resign. I don't expect her to do so, nor do I expect any of them to consider their behaviour; they have no shame.
Monday, 9 September 2013
Fantasy Polling
I was ignoring the Ashcroft 'poll' on the basis that it was so schonky that it might have been invented as a tale by CS Lewis during his morning ablutions but some eejits took the thing at face value and never bothered looking at it properly. Some of this may be due to a lack of staff in newsrooms these days, if we're to be charitable. Some people have already explained some of the problems with it, including Severin Carrell at the Grauniad, Gary Dunion at Bright Green and even John Curtice at What Scotland Thinks.
The published 'results' actually came from three different polls. Here are some things that are wrong with the large poll:
1. There is no indication of who did the poll, it may have been a call centre in the Turks and Caicos islands and some random people doing doorstep interviews. There's no indication that those conducting the polls have any idea what they're doing, whether they're members of the Polling Council, or what rigor they apply to any analysis they do. The results are presented in a similar style to Populus or ComRes but those companies would publish the results if they'd carried out the research.
2. The age demographics ('weighted' figures) in the large telephone are out, 18-24 years olds over-represented by 8.6%; those in the 25-34 bracket under-represented by 10.4%; in 35-44 under by 18.2%; in 45-54 over by 3.3%; in 55-64 over by 11.5%; and those who have passed the 65 year mark over-represented by 6.5%. Given that we see in poll after poll that there are differences in independence and party support in teh different age groups, this is important.
3. I had a quick look and can't find Scottish figures for socio-economic groups (feel free to look harder than me) but these are the 'weighted' figures given for them - AB; 2910: C1; 3100: C2; 2139: DE; 1677. Households are classified on the SEG of the chief income earner and include people retired from those professions and are; A- Higher managerial, administrative, professional e.g. Chief executive, senior civil servant, surgeon; B - Intermediate managerial, administrative, professional e.g. bank manager, teacher; C1- Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial e.g. shop floor supervisor, bank clerk, sales person; C2 - Skilled manual workers e.g. electrician, carpenter; D- Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers e.g. assembly line worker, refuse collector, messenger; E - Casual labourers, pensioners, unemployed e.g. pensioners without private pensions and anyone living on basic benefits.
The SEG ratio used by Yougov for Scotland in the DevoPlus poll recently used A, B, and C1 together and C2, D and E together for percentages of 47% in ABC1 and 53% in C2DE. The large Ashcroft poll used a split of 61.2% ABC1 and 38.8% C2DE.
Panelbase, in the SNP-commissioned poll, had AB at 20.7% while Ashcroft had that group at 29.6% - a whopping 9% bigger chunk of the population. Panelbase for C1 was 27.3% while Ashcroft was 31.5%; C2 Panelbase 15%, Ashcroft 21.8%; DE Panelbase 37%, Ashcroft 17.1%.
Ashcroft has massively overcounted the most affluent members of Scottish society and massively undercounted the least affluent. Given that we've seen a difference in independence and party support in the different SEGs, this is also important.
4. There are references to notes in the results (letters beside the numbers) but the notes are missing. Notes often give important information about the results and certainly put them in context - why would they be missing? Here's a possible explanation. As John Curtice noted, Ashcroft took two polls after the large one which showed independence in a better place than in the large one, but he used the figures from the earliest in this strange release. That looks likes an attempt to mislead or misdirect. Are the notes missing because they were at the end of the tables and the other questions and answers didn't suit the agenda?
Ashcroft isn't a political party, it's not as if some of the questions he asks are for campaign planning and need to be kept confidential to avoid giving opponents an advantage. Unless, of course, being a Tory chap, he's giving that party some advantages in terms of polling information, in which case, I hope the donation is declared. Perhaps Better Together is getting the advantage of the secret questions - although that particular organisation has promised not to take donations from abroad and I understand that the noble lord is a tax exile. In any case, we don't know what the notes were and so we don't know whether they would have changed our impression of the results.
The other polls
I thought about doing the same for the other polls but, to be honest, I don't see the point. I did do the SEGs for them, though, and they're below. Large is the Ashcroft abomination examined above, VI is the Holyrood voting intention and FUP is the Follow-Up-Poll - the other two Ashcroft 'polls' re-released today to provide a headline on the cheap. The Panelbase and YouGov polls are there for comparison - you'll note how close these two are on SEG.
The published 'results' actually came from three different polls. Here are some things that are wrong with the large poll:
1. There is no indication of who did the poll, it may have been a call centre in the Turks and Caicos islands and some random people doing doorstep interviews. There's no indication that those conducting the polls have any idea what they're doing, whether they're members of the Polling Council, or what rigor they apply to any analysis they do. The results are presented in a similar style to Populus or ComRes but those companies would publish the results if they'd carried out the research.
2. The age demographics ('weighted' figures) in the large telephone are out, 18-24 years olds over-represented by 8.6%; those in the 25-34 bracket under-represented by 10.4%; in 35-44 under by 18.2%; in 45-54 over by 3.3%; in 55-64 over by 11.5%; and those who have passed the 65 year mark over-represented by 6.5%. Given that we see in poll after poll that there are differences in independence and party support in teh different age groups, this is important.
3. I had a quick look and can't find Scottish figures for socio-economic groups (feel free to look harder than me) but these are the 'weighted' figures given for them - AB; 2910: C1; 3100: C2; 2139: DE; 1677. Households are classified on the SEG of the chief income earner and include people retired from those professions and are; A- Higher managerial, administrative, professional e.g. Chief executive, senior civil servant, surgeon; B - Intermediate managerial, administrative, professional e.g. bank manager, teacher; C1- Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial e.g. shop floor supervisor, bank clerk, sales person; C2 - Skilled manual workers e.g. electrician, carpenter; D- Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers e.g. assembly line worker, refuse collector, messenger; E - Casual labourers, pensioners, unemployed e.g. pensioners without private pensions and anyone living on basic benefits.
The SEG ratio used by Yougov for Scotland in the DevoPlus poll recently used A, B, and C1 together and C2, D and E together for percentages of 47% in ABC1 and 53% in C2DE. The large Ashcroft poll used a split of 61.2% ABC1 and 38.8% C2DE.
Panelbase, in the SNP-commissioned poll, had AB at 20.7% while Ashcroft had that group at 29.6% - a whopping 9% bigger chunk of the population. Panelbase for C1 was 27.3% while Ashcroft was 31.5%; C2 Panelbase 15%, Ashcroft 21.8%; DE Panelbase 37%, Ashcroft 17.1%.
Ashcroft has massively overcounted the most affluent members of Scottish society and massively undercounted the least affluent. Given that we've seen a difference in independence and party support in the different SEGs, this is also important.
4. There are references to notes in the results (letters beside the numbers) but the notes are missing. Notes often give important information about the results and certainly put them in context - why would they be missing? Here's a possible explanation. As John Curtice noted, Ashcroft took two polls after the large one which showed independence in a better place than in the large one, but he used the figures from the earliest in this strange release. That looks likes an attempt to mislead or misdirect. Are the notes missing because they were at the end of the tables and the other questions and answers didn't suit the agenda?
Ashcroft isn't a political party, it's not as if some of the questions he asks are for campaign planning and need to be kept confidential to avoid giving opponents an advantage. Unless, of course, being a Tory chap, he's giving that party some advantages in terms of polling information, in which case, I hope the donation is declared. Perhaps Better Together is getting the advantage of the secret questions - although that particular organisation has promised not to take donations from abroad and I understand that the noble lord is a tax exile. In any case, we don't know what the notes were and so we don't know whether they would have changed our impression of the results.
The other polls
I thought about doing the same for the other polls but, to be honest, I don't see the point. I did do the SEGs for them, though, and they're below. Large is the Ashcroft abomination examined above, VI is the Holyrood voting intention and FUP is the Follow-Up-Poll - the other two Ashcroft 'polls' re-released today to provide a headline on the cheap. The Panelbase and YouGov polls are there for comparison - you'll note how close these two are on SEG.
|
Ashcroft polls
|
Panelbase
|
|||
|
FUP
|
VI
|
Large
|
SNP
|
|
|
AB
|
32.3
|
28.3
|
29.6
|
20.7
|
|
C1
|
30.3
|
33.2
|
31.5
|
27.3
|
|
C2
|
20.1
|
12.6
|
21.8
|
15.0
|
|
DE
|
17.3
|
25.9
|
17.1
|
37.0
|
|
Ashcroft polls
|
YouGov
|
|||
|
FUP
|
VI
|
Large
|
DevoPlus
|
|
|
ABC1
|
62.6
|
61.5
|
61.2
|
47.0
|
|
C2DE
|
37.4
|
38.5
|
38.8
|
53
|
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Poll - 39.7% Yes, 41.4% No, 18.9% DK
There was a poll…
A rare poll, a rattling poll…
A poll down indyref-ee-oh
So, see that TNS-BMRB
poll that gave such surprising results?
There were lots of comments about how it wasn’t weighted to the 2011
election results given that the question was asked. One chap, a certain
Professor John Curtice, said:
“Still, here perhaps we should enter another small word of
caution. Unlike either YouGov or Panelbase, TNS do not weight their results so
that their respondents’ reports of how they voted at the last election (the
2010 UK election in the case of YouGov, the 2011 Holyrood contest in
Panelbase’s case) more or less match the actual outcome of that election.
However TNS did actually ask their sample how they voted in 2011 – and found
that rather fewer said they voted SNP than indicated they backed Labour. Such a
divergence from what actually happened in 2011 is bound to raise questions
about whether TNS’s sample adequately reflects the nation’s political balance.”
So I thought I’d do a wee calculation to weight it the way
that Panelbase weights it and the result is Yes 39.7%, No 41.4%, Don’t Know
18.9%.
Before anyone feels the blue touch-paper burning their bum,
this isn’t the way to weight a poll properly; it’s just a calculation for my
own amusement. Also, there are some parts
of the calculation that I’d criticise if anyone else did this calculation (feel
free to tell someone). Here’s how I did
the calculation with instructions for you to follow if you’re exceedingly bored
–
1. Open
the tables for the poll - http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/assets-uploaded/documents/som-data-tables-august-2013_1378220251.pdf
2. Go
to Table 1 on Page 3
3. Copy
the weighted numbers against the parties in the end box (Vote in 2011) – ignore
“Can’t remember” and “Did not vote” because those who can’t remember probably
didn’t vote and people who didn’t vote in 2011 are least likely to vote in 2014
and the two categories together add up to 42% against the 2011 turnout of 50%
(if I remember rightly). That, and it made
the calculation all watery (I don’t have the raw data, just the tables).
4. Note
that there is no vote percentage there for Green, SSP, Solidarity or any party
not in the big three plus the Lib Dems – they must all be included in “Other”.
5. Calculate
what percentage those numbers translate to in terms of party share (SNP comes
out at 36.5%, for example).
6. Compare
that to the actual 2011 result to get a ratio.
7. Use
the ration to change the numbers to what they would be had it been weighted to the
2011 result.
8. Bob
is no longer your Auntie but is now showing the contest neck and neck – hoopla!
9. There
are plenty caveats but you can work them out for yourself.
Here’s a wee table (just copied from my spreadsheet) -
|
|
poll
|
%
|
Yes
|
No
|
DK
|
2011 const
|
Yes
|
No
|
DK
|
|
SNP
|
215
|
36.50
|
119
|
42
|
54
|
45.39
|
148
|
52
|
67
|
|
Lab
|
231
|
39.22
|
32
|
149
|
49
|
31.69
|
26
|
120
|
40
|
|
Con
|
58
|
9.85
|
3
|
48
|
7
|
13.91
|
11
|
68
|
10
|
|
LD
|
68
|
11.54
|
8
|
48
|
13
|
7.93
|
82
|
33
|
9
|
|
Oth
|
17
|
2.89
|
2
|
11
|
4
|
1.5
|
1
|
6
|
2
|
|
|
589
|
|
|
|
|
|
268
|
279
|
128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.71026974
|
41.37094892
|
18.91878134
|
If you want even more fun, use the unweighted figures and
you get even closer – 40.1% Yes, 41.1% No, 18.8% Don’t Know. Here’s the table:
|
|
poll
|
%
|
Yes
|
No
|
DK
|
2011 const
|
Yes
|
No
|
DK
|
|
SNP
|
230
|
39.05
|
119
|
42
|
54
|
45.39
|
138
|
49
|
63
|
|
Lab
|
249
|
42.28
|
32
|
149
|
49
|
31.69
|
24
|
112
|
37
|
|
Con
|
63
|
10.70
|
3
|
48
|
7
|
13.91
|
10
|
62
|
9
|
|
LD
|
69
|
11.71
|
8
|
48
|
13
|
7.93
|
81
|
32
|
9
|
|
Oth
|
18
|
3.06
|
2
|
11
|
4
|
1.5
|
1
|
5
|
2
|
|
|
629
|
|
|
|
|
|
254
|
261
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.07452711
|
41.11113968
|
18.81433321
|
Next week I’m making a submarine out of a sponge and a bar
of soap.