Dear Matthew Elliott,
I feel a lot of admiration and sympathy for the work you do at the Taxpayers Alliance. When you see evidence of inequality and unfair taxation, you try to bring it into the media spotlight. I was wondering whether you think there is any chance of changing the approach of the government with regard to the Barnett formula, seeing as yet again English people are being heavily discriminated against as reported by the Daily Telegraph.
How any government can let one portion of the population subsidise another portion to the tune of £1,500 a year per head is beyond me. As I understand it, the funding formula works on the basis of how impoverished an area is. Scotland has got serious problems, especially in its cities, with drug use and unemployment so the formula rewards them extremely generously - and the same applies to Wales. Furthermore, the South of England also generously subsidises the North of England because of poverty measures as well. As I understand it, 75% of business taxes on companies in the South also get sent up to the North of the country. My question to you Matthew is how can you stop this?
Are the Conservatives the answer? The only way that I can see this ending would be a Conservative government deciding that taxes must be raised locally. Each local council could set its own rate of local income tax and collect and spend the proceeds, thereby cutting out central government from the loop (for at least part of their tax funding, anyway). This would mean that there would be no cross-subsidisation from one area to the next, bringing the problems of the Barnett formula to an end. I thought Scottish devolution was the stepping stone to financial autonomy, but it is clear that this has not happened - and Labour are unlikely to do anything to jeopardise their Scottish votes because without them, they’d lose an election in England.
So, do you think local income tax would help? Is full Scottish independence likely, or will Labour cling on to Scotland for as long as possible?
Yours respectfully,
A.Tory
13 responses so far ↓
redandwhitestripes // October 22, 2007 at 9:19 am
I read the article quickly so I may have misinterpreted it, but my understanding is that the parliaments of Wales and Scotland i.e. the parliaments who fought for devolution, have no chosen to show bias to their citizens by spending the tax money of a Kingdom they do not wish to belong to on their own citizens! How does that work??!!! This better get raised on PMQs next week!
tally // October 22, 2007 at 12:22 pm
By including your fellow country men in the North of England as spongers you have fallen in line with New Labours anti English agenda to carve England into regions. In a post 2004 North East regional assembly referendum survey, many people in the North East of England said they did not like the idea of England been broken up.
This scum New Labour Government sanctioned the Yes campaigners for a regional assembly to use an anti southern English rhetoric.
This was was forcefully fought off in the Press by NO campaigners, members of the English Democrats and Campaign English Parliament, many who are northern English. The tories were no help at all.
tally // October 22, 2007 at 12:53 pm
just to add to that in the Mail today former Scottish Labour minister Sam Galbraith said that when Scotland
gets 20 per cent more money per head for public services, Mr Salmond’s
comments “make us look like stupid, whingeing scots”.
He added: “You can understand why the English complain about it.
“One of the things we have to remember is if you go to poorer parts of
England - the North East, the North West and some parts of London - the
expenditure per head is atrocious in comparison with Scotland.”
Letters From A Tory // October 22, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I would certainly like to see the Conservatives get stuck into this issue, as I agree that they have been pretty quiet on it so far.
And I didn’t describe anyone as ’spongers’, because it’s obviously not the fault of the people who receive the money. It’s all down to a broken system that needs to be fixed, if not scrapped altogether. Each local area raising and spending their own taxes is one alternative, but at the very least it’s time for some radical changes (hopefully by the Conservative Party, but Labour will probably steal our ideas afterwards).
tally // October 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm
All the Tories need to do is pick up England’s flag. some one will eventually.
Peter // October 22, 2007 at 4:33 pm
A. Tory
A word to the wise - don’t believe everything you read in the Daily Telegraph. (It’s not entirely unbiased in these matters)
Peter
Letters From A Tory // October 22, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Fair point, but it’s certainly not the first time I’ve read and heard about these figures in the mainstream media, and it probably won’t be the last.
Matthew Elliott // October 22, 2007 at 7:13 pm
A Tory,
I enjoyed reading your post on the Barnett Formula. The allocation of spending goes back to the 1970s when the then Labour Government were keen to stave off pressure for independence in Scotland. They did so by drawing up the Barnett Formula, which gave Scotland more money than they “deserved” - a discrepancy which has continued until this day, but which is now made worse by the West Lothian question, devolution etc. I have no problem with the Scottish Executive spending money on free school meals, prescriptions, university tuition etc, but it is unfair to English taxpayers if they are doing so using the £1,500 of additional funding they receive each year due to the out-dated Barnett Formula (which even Joe Barnett thinks should be scrapped).
Best regards,
Matthew Elliott
Chief Executive
The TaxPayers’ Alliance
Letters From A Tory // October 22, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Many thanks for your comments, Matthew. I also have no problems with what Scotland spends their money on, so long as the money is theirs to spend - which I don’t think it is. I really think the Conservatives need to step up and confront this issue because for all the talk of taxes, immigration, crime etc the concerns over voting and funding with regard to the Scottish parliament and MPs can evoke a lot of anger.
Bob Piper // October 23, 2007 at 9:28 am
I think your suggestion is an absolute gem and should immediately be incorporated in to the Conservative Party manifesto. It should immediately lead to a Conservative victory in the London mayoral election…. but also guarantee rock solid that the country never again votes in a Conservative government. What a fair trade that is!
By the way… it is Joel Barnett, Mr Elliott.
Letters From A Tory // October 23, 2007 at 9:33 am
Thank you Bob for your almost child-like enthusiasm at the remotest possibility of a Conservative demise. Personally, I think you underestimate the importance of devolution and the West Lothian question in the minds of the electorate, but that’s just my take on it.
And besides, raising and spending taxes on a local level could benefit the poorer regions of the country, because they could start ‘competing’ with more expensive areas by offering lower rates of taxation that could attract a lot of businesses of all sizes - so the Conservatives might end up even stronger after introducing such a policy.
Scilla Cullen // October 23, 2007 at 10:22 am
The Barnett formula, although devised over 30 years ago to take into account the then perceived need to bring poorer areas of the UK up to a common standard, was based on the proportions of the population and remains so. When UK government spend in one area is increased then the proportionate amount goes to each area. We now see that for the £1,500 per head greater spend in Scotland, assessed as a levy of £281 per head on every one in England,(more in Northern Ireland and less in Wales although more than for England) the devolved administrations can afford to spend much more on their citizens, whether it be free prescriptions, school meals etc. we have been informed that this largesse is possible by savings in other areas, we have yet to discover what those are! Moreover the Barnett formula works only in one direction, the claw back of money from the English health service in our PMs (MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath)last act as chancellor was not follwed by an equivalent claw back from the devolved administrations. In addition the treasury (headed by an MP for Edinburgh) meetings for decisions about funding are attended by representatives for the devolved administrations - Who speaks for England?
Scilla Cullen
Chairman ofthe Campaign for an English Parliament
http://www.thecep.org.uk
Letters From A Tory // October 23, 2007 at 11:53 am
Thanks for the info, Scilla. I couldn’t agree more. This has all happened very quickly and quietly, and in a somewhat biased fashion. All I want is a level playing field - Scottish MPs vote on Scottish matters, English MPs vote on English matters, Welsh MPs vote on Welsh matters, and the money is divided up on a fair and rational basis. Am I being too idealistic?!
Leave a Comment