Carlaw takes ‘Performance on the Podium’ plaudits at inaugural Leadership Hustings

All roads lead to the idyllic setting of Kessock Bridge in the Highland Capital of Inverness on Saturday for the inaugural Scottish Conservatives Leadership Hustings.

(Click to enlarge pic)

The four Leadership hopefuls of Jackson Carlaw, Ruth Davidson, Margaret Mitchell and Murdo Fraser were questioned by the 90 members in the Kessock Town Hall as they set out their stall for the first time in what is now the nitty-gritty business end of the Leadership race.

Following a great morning of debate during the Highland Conference and a terrific lunch laid on by the organisers, the Candidates drew lots under the watchful eye of Tory Hoose and Director of the Party in Scotland, Mark McInnes as to who would speak first.

The Hustings took a somewhat unusual format.  One was expecting a Question Time style debate however the format was that of a Q&A session with the Candidates on an individual basis, with each allowed 7 minutes to deliver their vision as Leader if elected followed by questions from the floor.

Tory Hoose were Live Blogging from the event and you can re-live the debate here:  http://www.toryhoose.com/2011/09/leadership-hustings-inverness-live-blog/

After the Candidates had endured their grilling, an exit poll of Scottish Conservative party members in attendance was conducted by Tory Hoose.

The poll asked 33 of the present 90 members at the hustings in Inverness who they would be supporting based solely on their ‘performance on
the podium’. Jackson Carlaw gained 57% of the votes with 19, with Ruth Davidson second on 9 votes and 27%.

The poll will be disappointing news for Murdo Fraser who picked up just 2 votes, behind Margaret Mitchell’s 3 votes, despite Mrs Mitchell only being in the contest for 72 hours.

So, a turn up perhaps for the books based on the exclusive Tory Hoose poll that closed on Friday, showing Murdo Fraser narrowly in the lead followed by Ruth.  With the introduction of Margaret Mitchell at the 11th hour, an exciting Leadership Race just became a little bit more interesting….

The Candidates can bask in their glory or lick their wounds over the next week or so before they go head to head again at the National Party Conference in Manchester on Monday 3rd October.  Tory Hoose will once again be there to cover all the action.

The winner will be announced on November 4th.

‘I DON’T AGREE WITH NICK’ – WE ARE THE PARTY OF SOCIAL MOBILITY

 

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg used his main set piece at the Lib Dem conference to major on the themes of social mobility and equal opportunities. When critics feared the Liberal identity would over time be tainted us Conservatives in the Coalition, I had no idea the process would be so quick.

However, as the wider public know, just because a Liberal says something it doesn’t mean it is true. Conservatives have always been on the side of advancement, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. A good barometer is the more forceful our arguments and indeed actions for social mobility are, the louder the howls from the Left become. Think back to the 1980′s.

Take the Right-to-Buy policy as a strong example: the single biggest and most successful transfer of wealth from the State to the masses, which took us from being in a position where dark corners of the country had home ownership levels on a par with the former USSR, to the position now where it is impossible to walk down a street in Scotland without there being an owner-occupier living within a mixed community. Far better than the ghettos of social housing versus pockets of privately-owned housing which existed before. Far more progressive, and far more socially mobile.

Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When we took many state-owned industries and utility companies, and put them up for purchase by the wider public, creating a true property-owning democracy in the process and making many ordinary people shareholders for the first time, I again ask the question of you – Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When one considers Grammar Schools – the deliverer of the best means of social mobility – what is the Lib Dem stance? No more – totally against. When parents wish to choose a decent school for their children so they can get a good start in life, irrespective of wealth, where are the Liberal Democrats? Nowhere to be seen.

Yes I agree, social mobility has ground to a halt during Labour’s term in office. The disparity between the income of the parents of people entering the professions now, compared to the average household, has increased. Increased beyond the disparity for people born in 1955 actually. This is a step backward, not forward.

Take our banks and finance houses as a prime example. We need the best talent possible at the helm of our major financial institutions – those with the technical expertise and numerical discipline to do a good job… not just he or she that can navigate the ‘Old Boys Network’ best. Not just because that is the fairer thing to do, but because it delivers the best outcome for the country at large.

In terms of policy, what does this mean we should do? Nick Clegg, to give him some credit, did make reference to unpaid internships, around which future prospects for many professionals are based. To a young man or woman looking to join a profession immediately after school, or after college / graduation, it just isn’t feasible to work for free. Living off Mum and Dad whilst working for free is though, and this is where social mobility hits a brick wall.

There are practical things we in the Conservatives could easily espouse to ensure it is potential and ability that determine success in life, not how successful one’s parents were. We can quite easily re-iterate the fundamental principles that made us successful in the past and assisted us in attracting support from all social backgrounds.

We did offer a useful policy at the May 2011 elections. We suggested introducing a graduate contribution, and setting aside tens of millions of pounds a year from that income to offer more bursaries to young people from financially-deprived environments so they could sustain themselves though University. After all, that is the main stumbling block for the poorer in society when considering Higher Education – it isn’t how to pay off the fees when one is earning a good wage – it is how to subsist themselves during studies.

Nevertheless, the opposition made a good job of tearing our policy apart, we never really espoused the virtues of what the additional revenue would let us achieve in terms of social mobility. The wider public thought because it was a Tory policy, there had to be a catch: in multiple polls, before the sample knew it was a Tory policy, the majority of the public supported it after all (figures quoted ranged from 63% to 67%). Yet when it came to the ballot box, they didn’t support us. Our message was lost in translation.

There are many professions one can enter now without a University education. Accountancy is a good example. The ACCA allows students entry after A-levels (or Highers). Between sitting the Association’s own exams, combined with work experience, one can become a Chartered Certified Accountant – without having to go to University. Because the end qualification is at a higher level than a bachelor’s degree, it is possible to obtain the degree easily afterward. The main barrier then is subsistence because trainees’ salaries are very low.

In that case, I propose in our next manifesto we should provide grants and bursaries to vocational trainees entering the professions in this manner – grants, bursaries and student loans on a par with those undergraduates at University would receive. If the end attainments are fundamentally the same, and we’re cutting out barriers for financially deprived young people – without a single ounce of dumbing down, as the professions regulate themselves in this regard – then where is the problem?

And where has Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the SNP proposed a practical policy such as this?

Billion Pound black hole in SNP plans

gavin_brown
Further analysis of the SNP draft budget has revealed a near billion pound mystery at the heart of John Swinney’s plans to boost capital spending.
 
In his speech to Parliament, the Finance Secretary claimed that “We have decided, over the period until 2014-15 to switch from resource expenditure to our capital programme a total of over three quarters of a Billion pounds.”
However, according to the Scottish Government’s own figures, capital expenditure actually decreases over that period when the draft Budget is compared to the indicative spending totals the Scottish Government published in early 2011.
In fact, projected capital expenditure doesn’t rise by over £750 million but actually falls by over £185 million over the period, giving a £935,000,000 black hole at the heart of the plans. This data is found by comparing the SNP’s own projections in January of this year with the plans unveiled on Wednesday.
Gavin Brown MSP Scottish Conservative finance spokesman says:
“Another day and more revelations which show the SNP draft budget is unravelling.
 
“First we saw a cash grab on business of £850,000,000 and now this new mystery over capital expenditure. Put together they raise serious questions about the economic credibility of the SNP.
 
“The SNP must answer the following questions urgently
  • Are they actually shifting over £750m into capital spending or is this just spin?
  • Where is the evidence in the budget to show the move of £750m into capital spend?
  • Why do their own figures suggest a £185m decrease in capital spend since their January figures?
  • If money is being shifted, which revenue budgets have been cut to achieve this?”
  
“We said on Wednesday that the SNP was playing a game of smoke and mirrors. Well the fog is lifting and the picture from the figures is very different from the SNP narrative we were fed on Wednesday.”
Data verified by Scottish Parliament research centre:
£m 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
DEL Capital
Illustrative Budget (Jan 2011)       2,606.6       2,536.0       2,299.0       2,380.0
Spending Review       2,606.7       2,471.4       2,238.4       2,319.6
Difference 0.1 -64.6 -60.6 -60.4

Helping Scotland’s businesses: SNP should first use the powers they’ve got

84313-tories-demand-paedophile-disclosure-law-200

Speaking after FMQs today, Annabel Goldie MSP, Scottish Conservative Leader, said:

 

“The First Minister likes to wax lyrical at every opportunity about the powers he doesn’t have – like Corporation Tax, which he wants devolved.

 

“The fact is that, according to the Scottish Parliament’s own researchers fewer than 3% of all businesses in Scotland would benefit. And by the Government’s own admission their estimated 27,000 new jobs would take 20 years.

 

“The First Minister has got a tax power which he can use right now. In an SNP press release we are told that the small business bonus, delivered by Scottish Conservative votes in the last parliament, created 40,000 new jobs in just 4 years, at a fraction of the cost of the First Minister’s proposal for Corporation Tax.

 

“Yesterday’s budget was silent on extending more help to more businesses, large and small, to cut their business rates and create more jobs right now, with the powers we’ve got. Rather than bleat about what he doesn’t have, Alex Salmond should make the most of what he does have.”

Brown: SNP not matching rhetoric with economic reality

The SNP’s spending review demonstrates that they are not matching rhetoric with reality.

Gavin Brown MSP Scottish Conservative Economy Spokesperson, said:

“This is a smoke and mirrors budget from the SNP. As the UK Government pointed out, spending on frontline public services will be reduced by less than in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The SNP is double dealing – when they talk about money from Westminster they use real terms but when it’s their budget they talk about cash terms.

“More worrying is the amount of information the SNP has hidden with spin. Their own document calculates a £1bn reduction in real terms for local government. They have completely backtracked on their pledge of four years ago to increase teacher numbers. They are making cuts to enterprise, innovation, the third sector, Skills Development Scotland, higher and further education and housing and regeneration.

“John Swinney has piled huge pressure on himself and local authorities by refusing to identify where real savings can be made. Our fully costed spending plans at the recent election would have saved money through cutting absenteeism, reforming Scottish Water and ending free prescriptions for the wealthy, to name but a few.

“It is worth noting there will be an increase in cash terms to the Total Scottish Government Budget every year up to £35.2bn, which is the highest ever figure. We will judge the SNP by what is in their budget document, not their crafty spin. The SNP’s reality does not live up to their rhetoric and they are being found out.”

 

SNP failing young people on mental health target

_51716727_51716726

Mary Scanlon MSP, Scottish Conservative Health Spokesperson, had discovered that in 2011 the SNP Scottish Government was still not meeting a recommendation – set in 2005 – to have 60 psychiatric inpatient places for young people in Scotland.

Speaking on the issue Mary stated:

“Six years ago a working group recommended that there should be 60 psychiatric inpatient places across Scotland but in 2011, after an entire term of SNP government and at the start of their second session, there are only 42 places with a business case being developed for an additional six beds in Dundee to cover the North of Scotland.

“While the extra places for the North are welcome it raises serious questions about the SNP’s commitment to young people with mental health problems if they have ignored the recommendation of the Inpatient Working Group.  This group clearly felt in 2005 that the number of places needed in Scotland was 60 and am I sure they will be disappointed that six years on we are only two thirds of the way towards this target.

“Young people suffering with mental health problems need the right treatment at the right location and quite simply the SNP are not providing this.”

 

Grassroots look at Swinney’s Plan MacB Spending Review

Allan Smith

Allan Smith completed his Law Degree in 1998.  He then qualified as an Independent Financial Adviser and set up his own Life Insurance Brokerage in 2008 which is based in Fife.  Allan stood as the Scottish Conservative candidate in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election in his home constituency of Mid Fife & Glenrothes and finished third behind the now Presiding Officer Patricia Marwick, the first occasion a Scottish Conservative has done so since the Holyrood Parliament’s inception.

 

I did wonder whether Mr Swinney’s first budget with and SNP majority would turn out to be a watered down damp squib.

The same tired old nationalist rhetoric of Westminster bad, Holyrood good (so long as the SNP are in power) was prevalent throughout Swinney’s statement this afternoon though. (No surprises there!)

I have to admit that I expected many of the controversial promises made during the SNP’s minority government to have disappeared now that they knew they couldn’t rely on the opposition parties preventing the more attention grabbing, unworkable policies from making it through.

It would appear that to a degree I was wrong. Many of the more far reaching and indeed largely discredited ideas from the last budget are again there; in bold print this time round.

The most controversial of the proposals announced to in my opinion seems to be the levy on alcohol and tobacco retailers announced this afternoon.

As far as I can determine this is simply a watered down version of the previous minority administration’s discredited “Tesco tax.”  Quite what the reasoning is behind this move, given the extremely difficult climate our retailer’s in Scotland are operating in remains a mystery.

Unsurprisingly, many of those representing the business community have been quick to criticise. The Scottish Retail Consortium has described the move as “illogical and discriminatory”

If the SNP see this move as a stepping stone towards the “Tesco Tax” in future budgets then they really do need to come clean. It ultimately amounted to a tax on jobs in the retail sector and its introduction would have a devastating effect on several town centre regeneration projects largely financed by the retail giants.

One of the key SNP manifesto pledges this year was a significant investment in affordable housing. Why then, in this budget, a mere 4 months since the SNP won an unprecedented majority in Holyrood has Swinney announced a 50% reduction in affordable housing investment?

The SNP have questions to answer here. Their manifesto clearly stated that there was a commitment to build 30,000 new socially-rented homes. What has happened during these 4 months?

Shelter Scotland this evening claimed this manifesto pledge was “doomed to failure” With a 50% cut in funding I tend to agree with them. It’s just a pity that the SNP were not honest with the Scottish electorate when making this “Flagship manifesto commitment”

Other commitments made by the Finance Minister include a five-year council tax freeze, no tuition fees and minimum income guarantees for Scottish students, free medical prescriptions, a social wage for low-paid workers in public services, maintenance of health board budgets in real terms, and increased numbers of frontline police and modern apprenticeships.

How these commitments are going to be paid for however is another question altogether.

The blanket free prescriptions policy was cynically designed to coincide with the last Holyrood elections. Is it affordable? Perhaps;  for now.

Is it a good use of public money?

Absolutely not.

It’s long been the view of the Scottish Conservatives that free prescriptions should be available to the most vulnerable.

Handing out free prescriptions to millionaires in times of economic crisis though, simply does not make sense. I’d go so far as to say it’s immoral.

The tuition fees debate will rumble on but I’ve yet to hear anyone from within the SNP explain with any clarity how this is going to be funded.

Their policy of charging English, Welsh and Northern Irish students who choose to study in Scotland fees, yet charging Scottish students nothing seems utterly bizarre and wrong.

Can you imagine what those within the SNP would say if it was announced in Westminster that university education in England would remain free for English students but Scottish students would pay course fees?

I dread to think what the reaction would be!

Swinney also confirmed that the Scottish Government was likely to impose increased pension contributions on local authority employees in line with those for civil servants.

Reactions to the Finance Minister’s budget have so far focused on how he is going to afford his spending promises, with many opponents both sceptical over the scale of efficiency savings he envisages and about his expectation that local authorities can be persuaded to use their borrowing powers to bring forward the capital projects and thereby boost economic growth.

I fear there is more to come from this SNP government in the shape of the un-tried, untested and unworkable alcohol minimum pricing legislation and other more controversial SNP policies rejected by the opposition parties in the last parliament.

It’s really about time that the SNP stopped playing the blame game here though and appreciate that they and they alone will be held to account for the decisions they make in the Scottish parliament.

As Scotland Office Minister David Mundell said this afternoon.

“Scottish ministers have known for a year exactly how much money they have to spend. Being in government means you need to get on with making the tough decisions and it gets pretty boring if you just keep trying to blame everyone else.”

My point exactly.

Scottish Government Budget Published

Finance Secretary John Swinney release the Scottish Government Budget today. The full budget is available here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/358356/0121130.pdf

John Swinney spent a great deal of time telling us how it would all be different under an independent Scotland. Some early highlights:

- £750m transferred from revenue to capital to cover commitments on the new forth crossing, children's hospital, school building programme and road construction.

- Funding for a new prison in Aberdeenshire and the V&A museum in Dundee.

- £200m to be spent on renewable energy

- 18% efficiency cuts from the Scottish Government centre

- More asset sales from public sector organisations

- Another year long pay freeze for public sector workers

- Scottish Government "Living Wage" to be set at £7.20 per hour

- Protection of health budgets

- Continued council tax freeze with protection for police numbers, teacher places and social care and early years change funds.

- Closer integration of social care and health budgets

 

Let’s ‘Call Time’ On Minimum Unit Pricing

Scotland has a problem with the bottle… whether that is addiction, indirect harm through a friend or family member being addicted, or just not being able to afford any. Industry sales figures suggest that Scotland has the eighth highest alcohol consumption in the world. Some blame our miserable weather, some say we just like to enjoy ourselves (and cannot do that without a drink) – there is always an excuse for a cheeky pint or glass of wine.

There are questions of first principles around dealing with minimum unit pricing: what is the Government’s role in dealing with high levels of alcohol consumption? Is it to do nothing? Is it only to protect the innocent from harm? Or is it to, in effect, save people from themselves?

The SNP’s stance is, essentially, to save people from themselves. Well, sorry, the majority of drinkers who cause no harm to others do not need to be re-educated in this way. I know the risks already – and I certainly don’t want to live in a country where the State forces me to be fit and healthy. Those nations which went to great lengths to boss and order it’s people around to guarantee sporting success, for example, are totalitarian or former totalitarian nations, such as the GDR (East Germany), China, the USSR and North Korea.

That takes me nicely on to minimum unit pricing for alcohol. It is the social consequences of alcohol that the State must redress, not the health consequences for the individual. In short, the drinker consents to the harm done to the individual, but the child within their womb, or the family having to deal with drink-induced violence and abuse, have no say in the consent.

To my surprise, the SNP narrative on minimum unit pricing is that Scotland as a whole drinks too much alcohol, therefore a blanket price increase is a must to tackle our consumption levels. This is where I take issue. The concern is not directly for the social impact of alcohol consumption – it is merely the high level of consumption that they want to tackle. And their tactic is to kick people where it hurts – in their pockets.

The SNP say it will only be the cheapest of the cheap of drinks that will be affected. But hold on a minute here… think ahead to Christmas. How many supermarkets promote ‘3 cases of beer/lager/cider for £20’ around the festive period?
Now, here is an example – for 3 cases of a typical beer with a good brand name, the cost using many supermarket deals is £20. Using the SNP’s minimum unit pricing calculation, this could rocket to £34.43. People slam the supermarkets for selling alcohol so cheaply, but actually, I think they are amongst the most responsible retailers for alcohol. Most operate ‘Challenge 25’ policies to ensure they do not sell alcohol to minors, versus smaller ‘off sales’ retailers who can be rather more casual about selling alcohol to underage people.

This is where much of the anti-social behaviour that troubles our neighbourhoods is derived from. This is what should be tackled. This is what causes people grief, not the fact I may shave a year off my life because I like a drink or two. This is the natural realm of the State – whereas forcing healthy living routines down people’s necks is the natural realm of totalitarian dictatorships, such as China.

During the previous election campaign, the issue of minimum unit pricing came up at several hustings, and I gave the same answer each time: target the problem drinks, such as those laced with caffeine (apparently some tonic wines have a higher caffeine content than energy drinks sold for the specific purpose of giving a caffeine boost). It is the behavioural problems arising from alcohol that has to be tackled first and foremost, not the lifestyle choices of the masses. In terms of policy, this means a new category of alcoholic beverages for duty purposes, and hike up that level of duty. Then the Treasury, not supermarkets, will receive the extra proceeds.

Whether our own Dear Leader, Mr Salmond, would like to introduce compulsory exercise regimes in Scotland is a different matter. Yes, a hysterical claim to make at this stage… but the worrying thing is both the SNP and China have the same motivation towards public health: ‘if the people do not take the most extreme care for their own health, then the State must intervene.’

Scottish Conservatives must focus on dealing primarily with the social impact of alcohol, not health concerns for the individual with the social impact being secondary to that.

The SNP have their first principals wrong, so it naturally follows their policies in this field are flawed.

SNP must involve Audit Scotland in efficiency savings analysis

Gavin Brown MSP, Scottish Conservative Economy Spokesperson, said:

 

“Whilst in opposition the SNP railed against efficiency target performances because  they were having to take the word of Ministers. Now they practice exactly what they used to preach against.

“Audit Scotland have previously said they are unable to verify these reported savings. It is time the SNP got Audit Scotland involved in the process, so we can all have confidence in the veracity of the government’s figures.”