No more porkies – here is the real fiscal deficit
Bubble — By Alan Trench on July 29, 2010 7:00 am
£6.3bn is quite a hole
PUBLICATION of the final report of the Holtham Commission has opened – or re-opened – debate about how devolved government in Wales is financed. The issue exciting a lot of politicians is the existence and size of a ‘funding gap’: the £300 million by which the commission found public services in Wales are ‘under-funded’ in comparison with England. For Plaid Cymru, in particular, this finding has been a big political win – it’s taken as proving a long-standing Plaid argument, and it’s now a convenient area of agreement with Labour as well. We can already see a ‘politics of underfunding’ emerging, with the funding gap being blamed for every area in which public services in Wales are seen as inadequate.
Blaming the funding gap for all Wales’s problems is rather beside the point, however. The gap is, in fact, pretty small. It’s about 2.1% of the Welsh Government’s overall spending. While it’s hard to argue that Wales is generously treated when it comes to the allocation of public resources, this doesn’t explain much of the problems in those services. Would public services in Wales be dramatically different if the gap were filled overnight? It’s highly unlikely. Filling the gap would not be a panacea for Welsh health services, schools, universities or roads. Doing so would remove a justifiable source of grievance, but problems in public services are much more to do with what government does and how it does it more than this particular gap.
And Plaid should be particularly cautious about how much emphasis they put on this funding gap. They could quite easily win this battle but lose the war. Given the scale of spending cuts that are looming in England, it would be quite easy to redress the relative imbalance in funding (which is what gives rise to the funding gap), while at the same time reducing the amount of Welsh Government’s block grant. Remember that most departments in Whitehall are looking at 25% cuts in their budgets, and even the effect of protecting spending on health and education in England is limited. Those account for about 75% of changes in the block grant; but cutting 25% of the remaining 25% would almost certainly eliminate it. Wales could find itself receiving the now-talismanic 115% of English spending on ‘comparable’ functions, without getting a single extra penny in public spending – indeed, conceivably by getting less. Arguments to increase the Welsh Government’s resources by talking about ‘fair funding’ would then have no weight at all. The UK Government has shown no eagerness to do this to date, but it may well do in the next few years.
The Holtham Commission’s report is more interesting than just the work on the ‘funding gap’. Among a feast of important points, two stand out. One is the size of Wales’s ‘fiscal deficit’. Holtham tells us that overall tax revenues in Wales are £17.1 billion (all these figures are for 2007-08). I’ve calculated that this means Wales’s fiscal deficit – the amount by which all identifiable public spending in Wales (not just devolved spending) exceeds revenues – is £6.3 billion. That’s a horrifying sum, and indicates the measure of how poorly Wales’s economy performs. It gets worse if we look at that as a proportion of national income: it’s 14.2% (using a GVA figure for 2007 from ONS data).
We get a better idea of what this means if we look at Scotland. The question of whether there is a Scottish ‘fiscal deficit’, and how large it is if there is one, is a complex and contentious one. Thanks to a Scottish Government publication called Government Expenditure and Revenues Scotland (GERS for short), we have some quite good data about it. The most recent edition is available here although, for the rest of this post, I’ve used data for 2007-8, as that’s what Holtham used. There is a problem because of the question of how one treats North Sea oil tax revenues. For Scotland, the GERS figures for 2007-08 give a fiscal deficit 9.8% when North Sea revenues were wholly left out of the picture, 9% of GDP when Scotland was allocated a per capita share of North Sea revenue, and 2.7% of GDP when allocated an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue. And one mustn’t forget that Scottish public spending is both higher than the UK average (about 118% of the average), and almost certainly significantly higher than could be justified on the basis of relative needs (which are probably around 105% of average).
So Wales has a significantly larger fiscal deficit than Scotland, even without being treated on the same basis as England, given its relative needs. And that means Wales’s fiscal deficit would be worse if its funding were on a relative-needs basis. But Scotland’s would be much smaller (and might even disappear – I haven’t yet tried to calculate that). Improving Wales’s economic performance to increase tax revenue generated in Wales and so tackle that deficit is vital, the more so because all the efforts to do this up to now have produced little if any improvement.
The other important thing we learn from Holtham is about how Wales should be funded, whether a block grant is the right way to do that. The Holtham Commission – a small group of expert professional economists – had little difficulty embracing for Wales one of the key points in the much more politically-oriented Scottish Calman Commission’s report: that devolution of public service functions, unaccompanied by financial responsibilities, means that there is a deficit of accountability, which can only be cured by ensuring that there is at least a measure of fiscal responsibility as well. (Calman’s members were drawn from the unionist political parties and wider civil society, advised at arm’s length by a panel of economists and other experts.) What is intriguing – and has impressed Scottish commentators – is the careful way the Holtham Commission appraised the issues, and looked at the technical aspects of how a limited measure of fiscal responsibility would work. When such a careful analysis supports the idea that this would work in practice for a poor part of the UK like Wales, as well as a relatively prosperous part like Scotland, it has to be taken very seriously.
Key to making this work are the changes the Holtham Commission propose to the block grant. First, it needs putting on a needs-related basis, and second the right mechanism needs to be used to calculate the reduction in the grant as a result of devolved tax powers. Holtham devotes a whole chapter to discussing different ways of doing this and their effects, while Calman skates over it in a single sentence. There are reasons to question this way of going about it – the amount of restoration work that the fabric of the inherited block grant needs to work reasonably well is huge, and will result in a system that is easier to put in place, but much more complex to operate. There are strong arguments for a wholesale reconstruction of how a block grant works and is calculated, so that it’s more fit for purpose. But the key point is that Holtham shows that this approach is workable, even for Wales, and even in times of public austerity.
None of this is to say that Wales should get less money from the public purse. But it is to say two things. First, it’s just unsustainable in the long term to expect public services to be paid for from revenues that others generate. This is a clarion call for Wales seriously to up its game in its economic performance. Even if a fiscal deficit can’t be eliminated, it can be reduced. Second, it’s in everyone’s interest for Wales to do so – for the UK Government as much as devolved politicians in Wales. And the fact this is a pressing problem suggests that the tools Wales has are themselves simply not up to the task. Broadly similar economic development policies (to attract large-scale inward investment) have been followed for many years. There’s a limit to what they can attract in the modern world, where there’s plenty of cheap labour around the globe and plenty of governments willing to offer a range of incentives to attract it. But the policy options open to the Assembly Government are limited by the powers it, and the National Assembly, have to use. Fiscal policy may well have a part to play in developing a different approach to delivering policy, and also in the policy itself.
This ball is now in the UK Government’s court. There are strong reasons for devolving some tax powers to Wales – for the accountability reasons Holtham discusses at some length, and to tackle the fiscal deficit and economic performance that it skates over.
And that’s where this creates a big question for the UK Government. Its Programme for Government commits the coalition to ‘implementing Calman’ for Scotland (as well as a bizarre commitment for a review for Wales, similar to Calman, if Wales votes yes in a referendum on Part 4, which is beside the point, and also dependent on stabilisation of the public finances). But why not make that model at least available to Wales as well? That’s what the Holtham Commission suggests, and it’s a compelling argument.
These problems can’t just be left to carry on as if they don’t exist.
This article will also appear today on Alan Trench’s own blog Devolution Matters – which is worth following
Tags: cuts, Gerry Holtham, taxation
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
52 Comments
What an excellent article from someone with no axe to grind. As the writer points out it is fascinating how the Holtham report has attracted real interest and debate in Scotland but has produced virtually no debate in Wales. Instead we had politicians either ignoring the real issue of accountability or suggesting that it was too dangerous to even think of tax raising powers for fear of rejection by the electorate. The rush to get a referendum for political purposes by 2011 is in my opinion a mistake. For historic reasons the devolution settlement of 1999 leaves a great deal to be desired. The 2006 Act made matters worse because it was motivated not by good governance but the aim of kicking the Richard Report into the long grass. We then had the farce of the Jones-Parry circus which achieved virtually nothing.
We are in real danger of next year’s referendum further confusing matters. The opinion polls based on YouGov’s limited membership in Wales are really no guide whatsover to what will happen. The problem is not just whether or not there will be a yes vote to clear up the mess of the 2006 Act. There is also the issue of the turnout. How do you motivate people to turn out when – if the comments on another blog regarding focus groups being held by the Electoral Commission are true – they believe that what is on offer once it is explained to them is a waste of time and money? Of course for a nationalist the idea of lawmaking powers without interference from Westminster is a symbolic move forward. But for most voters who are not nationalist the issue is how will this improve their lives for the better. Turnout as well as the result will say a great deal about the attitude to devolution in Wales.
The whole devolution project is still hampered by the real failure in Wales to actually have any real debate as to what will eventually be the end product. For nationalists the end product is obviously independence. This is understandable and the fiscal deficit highlighted in the article is completely irrelevant to this belief. But what about the rest of us who might believe in devolution but do not want independence? There is isn’t a politician in Wales who is really articulating a vision for a Wales in a federal UK. No one is questioning the devolution project from a pro devolution stance. By any stretch of the imagination what has been achieved in practical terms since 1999 is a very mixed picture. Despite all the money from the UK government economically many people in Wales are no better off. Spending on health and education is worse than in England. The only really interesting policy change is the Foundation phase and that is of course assuming that it will hopefully lead to improvements in the life chances of young people in the future. To make matters worse there is a real danger of the cuts policies of the Westminister Coalition leading most Welsh politicians into the comfort zone of opposition. Instead of looking for new solutions it will be far easier to blame it all on the Westminster Parliament and make passionate speeches to the party faithful about the effect of the cuts on the lives of ordinary people. Sadly this approach, however, will not provide solutions to the very real questions posed by Alan Trench.
“There are strong reasons for devolving some tax powers to Wales – for the accountability reasons Holtham discusses at some length, and to tackle the fiscal deficit and economic performance that it skates over.”
“One is the size of Wales’s ‘fiscal deficit’. Holtham tells us that overall tax revenues in Wales are £17.1 billion (all these figures are for 2007-08). I’ve calculated that this means Wales’s fiscal deficit – the amount by which all identifiable public spending in Wales (not just devolved spending) exceeds revenues – is £6.3 billion”
If these figures are correct, then just to balance the books, taxes in Wales would have to be raised by 36.8%!
This would not be viable if businesses and individuals would be paying much less tax in England.
Thus the unwritten mesaage in Holtham is that Wales needs a brand new budget built up from from first principles. This would include the validity, nature and size of the layers of government needed in Wales for effective but economic and lean administration. It would also include the minimum revenue costs required to deliver only essential services as well as the required capital infrastructure costs that will enable Wales to compete on a world stage. It would also determine the time required to put the new infrastructure in place.
This lean budget would have to be of independent thinking that discounts current structures, legislation, agreements and administrations and as such may produce some surprising (to some) results.
Indeed this is an excercise that WAG should have underway without prompting from Holtham.
Interesting as ever Mr Trench.
One Question – is VAT ever counted in these calculations? See, imagine all the VAT paid in tescos or on the highstreet in Wales every year. I would imagine that VAT is paid through English HQ, meaning it is not counted as ‘Welsh tax paying’. Or am I wrong on that? What about corporation tax? I mean I bet ‘Tesco Wales’ pays a pretty hefty amount of tax? Are you saying that these companies would not trade in an independent Wales?
I find the ‘Welsh deficit’ debate interesting, because I sense a relish in many unionist voices that Wales does so badly. Does the fact that Wales does so poorly mean that those who have been in power for nigh on 100 years have failed the people of Wales? Surely those who relish that are merely writhing around in their own sh**?
To argue that Wales simply cannot or will not ever being able to fund themselves is nonsense. It could, it can and it would if we woke up as an independent nation tomorrow. Glyn Davies and Adam Higgitt have made this point.
The measurement is based on the policies of today and the last 100 years under a UK system. Of course Wales would have to change and dare I say it cut it’s cloth accordingly, but then as a country we pay into a UK system that as an independent nation we would not have to. None of this ‘top table at the UN’ horse crap.
Jeff ,
your comments are correct, but I would contend it is because the unionist parties in Wales are too frightened to push for Wales to have parity with Scotland, and promote the idea of a properly federal UK. Given your analysis, what say you of the devo dinosaur Labour MPs who said that this referendum was ‘handing the nationalists the keys to independence’? To me the lack of balls shown by Welsh Labour people, who do believe in further devolution, hides a wider truth about the lack of self confidence in their own party and beliefs.
David Melding had a go to his credit, Carwyn Jones kind of did prior to becoming a Minister. You could even argue that a properly federal UK, with Wales having significant autonomy, might be a suitable end game for some in Plaid. I think that unionist politicians are missing a trick to a certain degree. My experience that Senedd based Labour is privately pretty comfortable with having the same powers as Scotland possesses now.
In the US, Sales Tax (which I would admit is not quite the same as VAT) is collected locally (at city level) while VAT goes straight to the UK Treasury? Correct?
In the USA, Income Tax, Social Security Tax, Corporate Income Tax are Federal.
At State level or even City level, there is on option to have an extra local income tax.
Also at State level there is a Sales tax and there may also be an additional Sales Tax at City Level. However not all states impose a sales tax at State level and may leave it for City level. Many states impose property taxes. This is the simple version, in reality it is more complex.
However, one state may not set taxes at a level that would pose unfair competition with another state.
Excellent article. I’ve become so tired of hearing mindless calls touting Barnett/’fair funding’ as the answer to Wales’ problems. I was embarrassed that such calls featured so prominently within the Welsh political narrative over the UK election period. Who wants to be the friend who never remembers their wallet?
Your analysis of UK spending review impacts on the Welsh block grant, answers many questions I’d been asking of late: “Wales could find itself receiving the now-talismanic 115% of English spending on ‘comparable’ functions, without getting a single extra penny in public spending – indeed, conceivably by getting less”. We’d better all get ready for the CSR, with calculator and strong drink in hands.
It’s hard to gauge how accurate your estimate of Wales’ deficit would be in practical terms – as reflected in questions posed on VAT and other taxation (you may also consider water rights/energy generation etc) – but Wales clearly must chart a radical course into economic growth, if it is to thrive as devolution continues.
And to that end, constantly arguing for a fairer slice of a pretty progressive cake will do little to present Wales as a confident and capable nation, even less to instill that belief. I’d like to see a Wales that focuses on needing less money from England, not on getting more.
A few quick responses to the comments above. Yes, the figures for tax revenues attributable to Wales include VAT, corporation tax (which raises quite a number of methodological problems), and all other taxes. In the post on Devolution Matters where I calculated the size of the fiscal deficit, I also took into account revenues from council tax and non-domestic rate. The £17.1 billion figure includes all of those.
VAT is collected centrally, and there would be a serious legal problem with decentralising it. EU law requires that the same rate (or rates, if you have lower rates for books or energy, as UK does) applies throughout a member state’s territory. You can’t have, say, 17.5 per cent VAT in Wales but 20 per cent in England. It would be possible to assign part or all of the revenues generated by VAT in a particular part of the UK, but that creates what economists interested in these matters call ‘asymmetric risk’. If you did that in Wales, you’d expose the Welsh Exchequer to the risk of a reduction in its revenue (if sales went down so less VAT was collected), without Wales having the power to control the rate and so try to change the amount collected by altering the rate of tax. That’s widely regarded as a bad idea, and although both the Holtham and Calman Commissions looked at the idea it was clearly so unattractive both dropped it.
I think Financier has misunderstood both my argument, and the Holtham Commission’s. Neither of us are saying that a fiscal deficit means public spending must shrink in Wales. The options for funding devolved government aren’t simply funding by a block grant or reliance solely on own tax revenues. (In any case, the fiscal deficit relates to all public spending, whether by UK Government, Assembly Government or local authorities.) Equalisation mechanisms, to help compensate poorer states or regions, are commonplace in federal systems, whether ones strongly committed to equality in public services like Australia and Germany, or ones that accept a degree of inequality but seek to ensure that services are at least comparable, like Switzerland. (The US is the only federal system I know that wholly lacks such a system, which explains the huge divergence in public services between rich states like New York or Wisconsin, and poor ones like Louisiana or Mississippi.) But a fiscal deficit on the Welsh scale can’t be ignored, wished away, or left intact without serious consequences. The best way to address it would be to improve Wales’s economy, which would both reduce some key areas of spending (certainly social security, probably health), and increase tax revenues.
I would have thought that energy water driven would produce the largest amount of capital TVA style possibly?
A quick question, Alan.
Does the corporation tax figure include only companies registered in Wales (like Tinopolis), or companies registered elsewhere but who trade in Wales (Tesco, Arriva etc)?
Just using the figures from companies registered in Wales does give a misleading picture as plenty of companies registered in Wales also trade in other places and a great deal of business in Wales is conducted by companies registered elsewhere (with their corporation tax paid outside Wales).
I appreciate that calculating that would be a nightmare (maybe impossible and certainly very difficult to use in any funding formula) but it would give a more accurate picture of the size of Wales fiscal defecit.
Very interesting article – thanks
Following on from the observations on Calman/Holtham, and the debate or otherwise in Scotland and Wales, here’s a good piece:
http://politics.caledonianmercury.com/2010/07/21/the-true-cost-of-calman/
For those that are interested, it’s also worth following the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility:
http://cffr.co.uk/
I might ask if one of them would like to write at some point.
I think Rob asked the question I wanted answering far better.
While I do not doubt Mr Trench’s answer, I find it hard to believe the ‘deficit’ is as large if you factored in all the different examples Rob put forward.
I would like to ask, in your calculations do you include Wales’ share in defence and paying off the UK’s national debt…and other UK spend and not just what is spent in Wales?
For example, does it include paying towards trident and things like ID cards which probably would not happen if Wales had a say?
I would imagine also that the deficit that Wales has looks large, but only when out of context. How does it compare to the UK as a whole?
Add this to the problem of calcualting tax and corporation tax revenue in Wales……….
Basically, of what I’ve seen in the past…….Wales raises more tax than you can account for. Wales would have a smaller spend of defence and other UK matters if we had control over our own affairs. Also, Wales’ deficit is large, but does not look quite so bad if you look at the UK and other countries.
I dont think that the situation is as bad as its seems……..but still, it simply isnt good enough.
It begs the question…….who put us in this mess in the first place? With all the natural resorce we have/had in Wales…we should never be in this situation. We powered an empire but not ourselves. What can we in Wales do about it because nodoby in London/Cons are going to do us a favour……….
Spending figures are for ‘identifiable’ spending. This doesn’t include defence spending, which is regarded for statistical purposes as for the benefit of the UK as a whole. It also excludes spending on the Foreign Office and for overseas development, for the same reason. For various reasons (including security ones), it’s pretty much impossible to get figures that show the allocation of defence spending in territorial terms. But given the bases in Wales (St Athan’s, obviously, but also RAF Valley), that might well increase the fiscal deficit if you could work out how to take account of that spending.
Holtham’s corporation tax figures are an estimated share of CT revenues arising from Wales. They don’t just relate to companies whose registered offices are in Wales – this isn’t a ‘name-plate’ exercise. Flawed as they may be (subject of a piece I’ll be putting out next week), these figures reflect Wales’s contribution to UK CT revenues as a whole.
This situation is as bad as it seems. The fact that it’s been impossible for years to know how bad it is doesn’t alter that fact.
Maybe we should get Eurfyl to have a look at these figures too…I’m no economist, but I would like another take on it. Not that I dont trust what you say….but for such a big subject, surely there should be more debate…….
I hope that you are wrong if I’m honest….not to be disrespectful……but I still have to ask the 2 most imporatant questions….
1) How did we get in this mess in the first place – I dont think that Welsh people are naturally useless and given our resources…
2) How the hell do we get out of it…………….
The root of this debate goes back to Tony Blair’s faulty and ill-thought-through devolution process. He waved the green flag and started two trains, one slow (Wales) and one faster (Scotland) without timetables and many required structures to reach still undefined destinations. Furthermore the last government repeatedly ignored (and almost refused to recognise their existence) key factors like the West Lothian Question.
This confused state of affairs has led to resentment, expectations of a myriad of destinations and hardening of viewpoints. If the ultimate destinations had been set out clearly at the start of this process, then there may have been more co-operative thinking in the best ways to achieve the designated result.
AT, I have not misunderstood either your argument nor the Holtham Commission. As you say, “A fiscal deficit on the Welsh scale can’t be ignored, wished away, or left intact without serious consequences. The best way to address it would be to improve Wales’s economy, which would both reduce some key areas of spending (certainly social security, probably health), and increase tax revenues.
Currently, the private sector has suffered and is continuing to severely from the recession – however caused. To date the public sector has only just noticed its impact. However, this impact may be so severe and have fundamental consequences that a change of thinking and ethos is required on how the public sector operates.
Over recent years, if the public sector budget is in deficit the reaction has often been either cut front line services or put up taxes (rarely did it reduce administrative staff). The tax-payer is broke – as well as the UKplc – and essential front line services must be maintained.
Normally, private sector organisations put on a little fat in the good years and undergo a slimming programme in lean years. However, the public sector has put on weight to the point of obesity over the last 10 years but its efficiency has declined. – it has suffered severe middle-aged spread.. Thus to get its waistline in a trim state, a gastric band may be required.
Mention has been made of conforming to current legislation. It is true that constantly changing legislation is not good for any society, but at the same time legislation that does not keep up with current economic and social changes has to be reviewed and changed and should not be a barrier to progress.
Cegog – you ask how did we get to the present economic state of affairs. The simple answer is by overpaying ourselves and neglecting required skills so that we are no longer competitive on a global scene.
We also have tended to focus on desires rather than needs to sustain ourselves and so focussed on internal matters rather then the rapidly changing world scene.
You also ask for a remedy – I am afraid that there is not quick answer. We have an economy that is non-selfsustaining and a workforce that is either mostly wrongly employed or does not have the skills required for global competition in the 21st Century. It could take a decade to turn things around unless drastic action is taken.
Liam Fitzpatrick may have provided one of the clues as he pleads in his following article “Perhaps there’s a lesson there for all of us in these troubled times: let’s listen to the real stakeholders.” Is he saying that the ethos in the public sector should revert to its former days of being just a service provider that focusses on its employers’needs (the electorate) rather than being more a self -serving body that dictates to the electorate what it can have?
As my Logic Master used to say – answers on a one side of a sheet of A5 please.
Mr Trench has written an excellent, thought provoking and er… trenchant (gulp am I the first idiot to say that?) article analysing Holtham on Barnett giving an obvious answer to Cegog’s question of “…how the hell do we get out of it”, presumeably ‘it’ being the economic predicament we face in Wales. Mr Trench’s answer is to ‘increase the ‘economic activity’ in Wales. Well, yes, we know this – it’s been obvious for decades. Most attempts to stimulate economic activity by successive administrations have failed – it’s kicking a dead pit pony.
The blame, if blame is the right word, doesn’t necessarily lie with WAG incompetencies, the colonialist UK government or anybody in particular it lies, if anything, with the demographics – the types of people we are or we have living in Wales are not conducive to being an economic powerhouse. This is unlikely to change in generations. As a people, we have been saddled with a huge credit card debt which we can’t get out of without resorting to warfare. The question is do we give up or try to figure out a way through it without causing massive damage to our ‘way of life’ . We have always been bankrupt in money but, thankfully, not in other things that also matter.
I have always maintained, here, in our blog and most recently in an article for the IWA, that we must get a grip of the money that already flows through public sector institutions and local government in the form of wages. This payroll should be passed through specially constituted US-style credit unions. This gives the needed capitalisation which will lead to better locality based business finance. A kind of ‘New Deal’ for Wales. We don’t have to re-invent the wheel.
What is also interesting is the debate that is now taking place in Scotland after the publication last week of the Independent Budget Review Group report. One part of the debate puts the £300 million highlighted by Holtham into context. The Scottish Executive is now talking about restructuring Scottish Water which is still in public ownership. One of the favoured options is to follow the Welsh Water route. If this happens it will save the Scottish government £140 million a year and see the possible release of another £1 billion which could be spent on infrastruture projects to help Scotland pull through the recession.
The Independent Budget Review Group report is worth reading because many of the comments could also apply to Wales. As the political editor of the Glasgow Herald comments it spells the end of the unsustainable ‘Scottish model’.
At least in Scotland the debate as to future spending priorities has started. In Wales, on the other hand, we are entering the long summer break where political debate virtually ceases because AMs decided to follow the school holiday pattern established by Victorians to allow children to help with the harvest. You can criticise the policies but you have to admire the way in which the Westminster Coalition has hit the ground running. What did Churchill once say about ‘Action this day’? It sometimes seems that in Wales the summer means not political action but meaningless photo opportunities. The debate about priorites should be starting now. Most English local authorities are not waiting for the announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review in the autumn and are already setting out the potential cuts scenarios for the politicians. In Wales, on the other hand, it seems that some politicians are more interested in the resignation of a minor TV executive from a channel nobody watches.
For those of you interested in following up Jeff’s suggestion, here is a link to the report he mentions:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/07/29082838/19
“In Wales, on the other hand, we are entering the long summer break where political debate virtually ceases………It sometimes seems that in Wales the summer means not political action but meaningless photo opportunities. The debate about priorites should be starting now. ”
Jeff Jones: Well said.
I note that the Welsh Assembly will take about 9 weeks summer holiday, whilst Westminster will take just over 6 weeks. Do not the AMs recognise the urgency of the economic situation or are they treating the electorate with more contempt than usual?
In fact for 2010, the Assembly will sit for 33 weeks out of 52. If we allow for the 5.6 weeks of statutory holiday, then the AMs will be “employed” for about 75% of the year. Perhaps a move for a pay cut of 25% may bring them back to the senses – and a quicker return to Cardiff Bay. Or do we badly need a total clear out and a whole new set of AMs with the right priorities in 2011?
Jeff, it must take a lot of energy to spend so much time putting Wales down so often.
Cegog. Unlike some people I live in the real world. I’ve just walked passed a factory site which used to employ 2000 people. It is now a pile of rubble and health hazard full of asbestos. A monument to the failure of regeneration in so many parts of the valleys. The comment ‘putting Wales down’ is a classic response of nationalists I’m sorry to say. There needs to be a real debate regarding the key decisions required over the next few years. At the moment that debate isn’t taking place even though large scale cuts in the public sector are coming in the next four years. My argument is that it should be taking place.
My point and I think that many would agree with me is that the political extablishment in Wales seems more concerned with peripheral matters than the issues which worry ordinary people. Ask yourself where Plaid and other have been when it comes to miners’ compensation. In Scotland all miners were entitled to compensation if they worked in the industry after 1949. In Wales you had to be working in the industry after June 1954. My late father who worked in the mines fro 1934 to 1954 did not receive a penny even though the consultant had to make a home visit because my father could not complete the test. You might find it strange that someone could work underground and receive not one penny. My father left the pits in January 1954 after being put on permanant nights for proving that the under manager had lied at a tribunal. Like Scottish miners he worked for the National Coal Board but somehow Welsh miners have been treated differently. I suppose if he had been a middle class Welsh speaking professional working for a tin pot TV channel we would have had demands from Plaid for an inquiry.
It’s about time that some nationalists woke up and smelt the coffee in the region of the UK with the lowest GVA after a period when the UK government has thrown money at Wales. Start asking yoursleves why when you had such an unpopular Labour government Plaid did so badly on May 6th. It’s easy to insult people because it requires very little thought. Start producing realistic costed policies which ordinary voters believe are relevant to their lives and then those who really matter namely the voters might start listening to you.
Cegog,
Sorry to say, but you’ve fallen into the trap of responding to one of Jeff’s sideswipes he traditionally likes to add at the end of a coherent and well-argued point.
The idea that you’re either concentrating on S4C or on the economy, and incapable of doing both, is of course, a red herring. As well as being very knowledgeable about many things that drive South Wales, Jeff’s contribution to this site over the past few days shows that he is also well informed about the Australian elections and, as we see above, on Scottish tax-and-spend matters.
To the best of my knowledge, the only two politicians to have commented at some length on S4C is WalesHome Sixth Columnist Alun Davies AM, and my boss, Bethan Jenkins AM. I can’t speak for Alun, but Bethan, like Jeff, is capable of dealing with more than one issue at any one time. That is why, in Jeff’s area alone, she is working on issues related to Ford Bridgend and how it sources locally, Gardner Aerospace’s threatened closure in Maesteg, Porthcawl regeneration, road links into the Llynfi Valley, rail electrification (which has been almost certainly kicked into the long grass now) and Llangynwyd rail station – which Jeff will know.
I’m not going to comment on S4C because that forum is provided for elsewhere on this site. But, as you can see, Plaid AMs are prepared to drill down to the coal face of economic development in Wales in order to attempt to improve it.
“The comment ‘putting Wales down’ is a classic response of nationalists I’m sorry to say.”
And that’s a classic riposte surely?
Like I said, the failure of the Welsh economy is not the fault of nationalism, nor indeed proof that independence could never work. It is evidence that the economic policies of the Unionist parties (who have had control of the major economic levers for nigh on a century) have failed Wales.
The ‘look at our economy, we could never be independent’ argument is based wholly on Wales’ continued underperformance. Think about that for a moment. The core argument put forward by the unionist parties regarding the constitutional status of Wales is based on Wales’ always being bottom of the league, relishing our continued plight. It is masochistic!
To take that further. Say for instance the ConDems oversee a massive improvement in Wales’ economy performance – does the argument regarding Wales being ‘too poor’ go away? Will Labour either end that line of argument, or praise the brilliance of the ConDems? Or do they merely then argue that only the British system can deliver (which then makes the last 100 years ‘evidence’ a pretty big elephant in the room surely?)
All Jeff is doing is highlighting his own party’s failure. We should shower him with praise in that endeavour
I respect Jeff Jones’s contributions to this website, and I appreciate Cegog’s comment was provocative to say the least.
However..
“I suppose if he had been a middle class Welsh speaking professional working for a tin pot TV channel we would have had demands from Plaid for an inquiry.”
..is a bit silly.
OK, peeps. I think we’ve seen through the Plaid-Labour dust-up now. Shall we move on to the matters raised in the original piece. For my money, I think Alan’s contribution is one of the finest we’ve ever run, and deserves serious consideration. Let’s show we can do better than descend into the tribalism.
Quite right Duncan. Alan Trench raises issues which really need to be discussed. My argument is that this isn’t happening and that a referendum that moves from part 3 to part 4 of an awful Act of Parliament isn’t the answer.
Duncan,
Fully agree. Economically Wales is in a mess and and it needs all-party and non-party co-operation to try and find the best solutions and agree spending priorities. It would have to be assumed that the current economic and political status quo re Westminster is maintained.
However, this would mean an honest appraisal of the current situation and a willingness to put tribalism behind and build to the future – how can this objective be achieved?
“A referendum that moves from part 3 to part 4 of an awful Act of Parliament isn’t the answer.”
I think one of the unfortunate consequence of this act is that it has encouraged people in Wales down one route, into thinking that more legislation must be the answer. One of the most exciting discussions I’ve been involved in recently was begun by a close colleague, who has suggested that finding solutions to our problems may be achieved just as effectively through controlling the funding in careful and innovative ways rather than blindly calling for more powers.
I’m aware that this sounds like heresy, but we have to decide what is urgent, what is pragmatic, and what is a luxury. Laws cost money – are there other ways to achieve the same ends? I don’t think we’ve fully had that debate.
Sorry Duncan, I know this is off topic a bit I would like to use my right of reply to Jeff.
Jeff seems to be under the illusion that anybody who believes that Wales is more than just a ‘region’ is a middle class Welsh speaker who lives in the Cardiff/Caernarfon bubble. What a pile of toss. Just because he has walked past an empty factory (who hasn’t in Wales) and his dad was a miner, it doesn’t give him the monopoly over ‘representing’ the views. My entire family lost their jobs when the local steelworks closed down. Not because it was unprofitable, but because of the savage government policies of the 80s and 90s. It wrecked my village and my family has not been the same ever since. Many never returned to work and this has led to the usual state of economic deprivation of drug taking etc. My grandfather also died of emphysema after being a coalminer. I watched him cough and choke his own lungs until he died.
Yes, I’ve seen the results of an industrial Wales Jeff, like so many others. But unlike you, I look who is to blame. Wales gave so much in natural resources, blood, sweat and tears towards making Britain great. While London build its fine buildings and financial institutions off the work of our forefathers, when Wales become economically unviable for them, we got tossed aside with nothing to see for the years of supporting Britain.
What does Jeff want? For Wales to be under direct control of Westminster? These are the people who got us in this mess to begin with. The post by Alan Trench highlighted this. Wales, with so much resource and talent, should not be languishing at the bottom of so many league tables. I posed a question to Alan, asking who is to blame for Wales performing so badly. Since the economic decline in Wales was well underway before the beginning of the Welsh Assembly or even the Welsh Office……..the finger can only point in one direction.
He forgets that without the support for devolution in 1997 in the working class areas of Wales, we would not have an Assembly today. The reason why people supported it is because we wanted a voice to stand up for ourselves after seeing how vulnerable we were in the Thatcher era. Westminster won’t look after us. This is the main reason for more powers for the National Assembly. It’s time to look after ourselves because no bugger else will! This is the most imported topic we can be debating, especially with the return of the Tories in power!
“My argument is that this isn’t happening and that a referendum that moves from part 3 to part 4 of an awful Act of Parliament isn’t the answer.”
With due respect, Jeff, the Welsh referendum isn’t pretending to be the answer to the fiscal issues raised by the Holtham Commission. The referendum is a separate issue based on legislative powers not economics, though your own party leader is now arguing “vote ‘Yes’ and Wales gets more money”.
The One Wales agreement was signed before the economic crisis, at a time when the Welsh economy was growing and indeed the Welsh private sector was outstripping the Welsh public sector in growth. It is a constitutional change.
With regards to Duncan’s “heresy” I don’t understand what the argument is – that we decide not to hold the referendum because the economy is bad? It is about improving democracy. In our kind of society democracy has to march on no matter what shape the finances are in.
I don’t at all accept the argument (not that Duncan is necessarily making it but Jeff Jones consistently does) that “we should stop talking about the constitution/devolution/the Welsh language/culture and focus instead on the bread and butter issues”, it is a fabrication. As if suddenly the Welsh economy would improve if we decided not to hold a referendum or to stop simultaneous translation or something!
I think this is important to the issues raised originally in the piece, as party political considerations are the main reason why the funding issue has not yet been addressed.
“With regards to Duncan’s “heresy” I don’t understand what the argument is – that we decide not to hold the referendum because the economy is bad?”
Not at all. I want the referendum to go ahead and I want Wales to vote yes. It is the best way of improving the Assembly’s efficiency as a law-making body.
My point was that we all should become mindful of seeing legislation as the magic solution to all our problems. How many times have you heard people react to a local issue – GP opening hours, bus timetables, after schools clubs and so on – with the answer: “Well, if we had greater powers…”?
Yes, of course, to greater powers. But having them doesn’t always mean using them is the right answer. And bringing that back to where Alan left off, I am hugely supportive of Holtham’s proposals on tax raising, not least because it encourages fiscal responsibility and great scrutiny. And my point is that sometimes certain problems don’t need legislation. All that it requires is provisos attached to funding.
At the moment, we don’t have a Yes or a No, and won’t have until next year. But, with the CSR looming, we do have big issues with funding to contend with. So, in that respect, democracy can make its march, but it isn’t moving at the same speed as public sector cuts.
Cegog
“Wales, with so much resource and talent, should not be languishing at the bottom of so many league tables.”
I agree that Wales should not be so far down so many league tables. Thus I would be grateful if you would define the resource and talent that is available to correct such matters and so enable Wales to rise up in the rankings in those league tables.
Duncan’s comments are exactly right. The only change that will occur if there is a ‘yes’ vote next year will be to the speed of legislation as the Electoral Commission (as other blogs indicate) are quite rightly explaining to their focus groups. The change is I agree symbolic but it still doesn’t give Wales the same powers as Scotland. It will also not make any difference to the real issue which the Beveridge report in Scotland highlights and that is the huge reduction in the resources available to the devolved administrations in the next four years. Devolution per se will not protect public services and it was a nonsense argument when it was made in the 1980s. What devolution does mean is that in the areas where it has control the Assembly not the UK government will decide where the cuts will take place. Refusing, for example, to follow the UK government’s decision to raise the free bus pass age in line with the female retirement age will mean less money for other services in the transport budget. As a French politician once said: “To govern is to choose.”
Although the issue of S4C is covered by another post, the reaction of Alun Ffred and others to the proposed cuts in the channel’s budget really sums up the dilemma facing nationalists politicians when it comes to the real issues facing political institutions in an Age of Austerity. They seem to be arguing that the UK’s government’s DCMS should exclude the channel from the department’s potential 25% cut in its budget. I would have expected nationalists politicians to argue that this was now an opportunity for control of S4C to pass to the Assembly. I would also expect such a request to be looked at in a favourable light by Whitehall civil servants because it is such a logical move. It’s also in line with the classic tactic in a cuts environment of handing decisions down to devolved institutions. Of course, the problem then is that any funding issues become the responsibilty of the Assembly. Politically I suppose it is much easier to blame Jeremy Hunt and argue that the UK government is not interested in the Welsh language or culture than to take responsibility for something that logically only the Assembly should be interested in and help to finance.
“I would have expected nationalists politicians to argue that this was now an opportunity for control of S4C to pass to the Assembly.”
Alun Ffred Jones made exactly that call, either today or in the past few days.
“What devolution does mean is that in the areas where it has control the Assembly not the UK government will decide where the cuts will take place. Of course, the problem then is that any funding issues become the responsibilty of the Assembly.”
That is not really true or fair, because the Assembly (or rather the Welsh Government) does not control its own resources. The UK Government, on the other hands, does.
“As a French politician once said: “To govern is to choose”.”
Yes but it is a poisonous notion of choice that the devolved government can “choose where the cuts fall” as you suggest, mimicking the UK Government, but cannot also mimic the UK Government by raising any additional revenues. It is not a fair choice at all – responsibility is a good thing, but the responsibility for the Assembly and Welsh Government’s finances (and therefore the responsibility for cutting the block grant) lies with the UK Government at Westminster.
Financier,
I would have thought you could have seen Wales’ natural resources with your eyes.
Just one example was even discussed on Country File yesterday. Because of the lack of water in Cumbria, the water line is being extended from Liverpool to Manchester. Wales will be supplying these two big cities with water as a result.
Just one example of many.
There is no reason for Wales’ poor performance apart from decades, if not centuries, of mis-management from London. They obviously can’t manage Wales properly, so its about time we managed ourselves.
“Yes, of course, to greater powers. But having them doesn’t always mean using them is the right answer.”
But the overidding point Dunc is the ability to make those calls ourselves. It is up to the people to decide what is the ‘right’ answer via the ballot box.
I believe that Assembly politics and ideas is still stuck in the fixed budget world of today. Having tax raising powers would inject accountability but also innovation in policy and ideas.
Appreciate what you’re saying, Marcus, and agree. My argument is that legislation isn’t the only solution to our problems. In the absence (or perhaps even in the presence) of sufficient devolved powers, which may take years to achieve or receive, we don’t only have to sit on our hands muttering about the possibilities and doing nothing.
I’ve seen a marvellous example recently of a syndicalist approach that rewards performance to everyone’s mutual benefit. I can’t say too much at the moment, but the business operates in an area where there has been much debate over what could be achieved through greater powers. But having the power to legislate in this area has in absolutely no way hindered it from doing what it wants to, because of the way it has been created to run, and the way it controls the money that passes through it.
Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of tut, tut, well, well, we might be able to fix it, provided we have the right tools. Of course I support greater powers. In the meantime, let’s get used to exercising the vision and innovation that would really make them worthwhile.
Illtyd makes an interesting point as to who will actually be blamed for the cuts. For the Coalition in Cardiff it is obviously the fault of the Westminster government. Plaid supporters will add to this criticism the argument that the last Labour government got Wales into the present situation. Whether or not voters swallow this argument only time will tell. The 36% of Welsh voters who according to the latest opinion poll are going to vote either Tory or Liberal Democrat will definitely not support the first part of the argument regarding responsibilty. How undecided voters will react is also not certain. The country often held up as an exemplar for reducing a public sector deficit is Canada in the 1990s. The policy was intiated by the Liberal Federal government but many of the cuts were implemented by the provincial governments which were often controlled by the Conservatives. As a result responsibility was blurred and the blame often fell not on the government in Ottawa but on the devolved provincial administration.
In Wales when it comes to the game of spin it will be interesting to see what happens. In the area of health, for example, WAG has already stated that it does not intend to ringfence expenditure despite the fact that the Westminster Coalition has already stated that health will be protected in England. In other words money which comes to Wales under the Barnett formula because of health expenditure in England will not be spent on health if there is no ring fencing. In education WAG has promised to increase spending by 1% above the spend in England after 2011. But you can only achieve this aim if you ring fence education spend and stop local government making any cuts in one of its biggest expenditure items. I’m also sure that many local authorities who are not happy with the priorities of WAG will blame the Assembly for any future poor local government settlements. In an area such as Ynys Mon it will be interesting to see how voters react in 2011 after a poor local government settlement and major cuts by the council. This will definitely be the case in the three cities where the council is controlled by Liberal Democrats, Independents and Tories in coalition. In the largest authority Cardiff the blame will probably be aimed at the Labour element of the Coalition in the Bay. The blame game wouldn’t change the economic climate but it will definitely mean that unlike in the 1980s the voters will not get one clear message as to who is responsible for the cutbacks. The next few years is the first real test of the political ability of AMs and the ability as Duncan has hinted of their advisers to think outside the box. How they both perform will have a profound effect on how ordinary people perceive devolution.
On broadcasting it seems that IWJ is making a speech today in Ebbw Vale arguing that control of all broadcasting including the BBC should be devolved to the Assembly. The underlying assumption is also it seems that this will be paid for through increases in Barnett and presumably a slice of the licence fee. I can’t somehow see this happening in the present climate. But you have to be careful sometimes in making speeches for fear of getting what you wished for. If I were a civil servant in the DCMS then IWJ’s speech would be the green light for advising the minister to hand over S4C to the Assembly with the present level of subsidy and let WAG make the decisions about any future cuts to the channel’s subsidy.
“My argument is that legislation isn’t the only solution to our problems. In the absence (or perhaps even in the presence) of sufficient devolved powers, which may take years to achieve or receive, we don’t only have to sit on our hands muttering about the possibilities and doing nothing.”
Totally agree. I believe all parties, but more so almost with Plaid, need to be fully focused on what we can do, while arguing the parallel case for what we cannot do currently.
“Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of tut, tut, well, well, we might be able to fix it, provided we have the right tools.”
True. But the game of party politics gets in the way to this. As Jeff highlights, the blame game is in full swing. It is why Nick Bourne and Peter Black blame IWJ for the Welsh economy, in the full knowledge it is there party with their hands on the economic levers.
The problem I find is that it is almost hari kiri for Plaid to enter the economic debate without the underlying problem of Wales lacking the tools to do the job. All of us will have different ideas on how to improve the Welsh economy (the syndicalist/mutual model is something I have been working on actually), but we must surely all be agreed that it will take all the policy and economic levers to truly do that?
Now you could argue that Labour can take a fair amount of blame, because they were in Government on both sides of the M4 for a decade, making cooperation and shared agendas far easier. But what price today? While I do not argue that the ConDems and One Wales will seek to undermine each other per se, given each will have different priorities, different vested interested and good old fashion ideological differences – I don’t sense a fully rounded, cooperative approach to the Welsh economy emanating.
The fact remains that the piecemeal powers we have give us the worst of both worlds – a stick for political enemies to beat us around the head with and blame, the lack of far reaching powers to radically alter our economic performance.
Marcus,
Absolutely spot on. Don’t disagree with a single word you’ve written.
Like you (I suspect), I am becoming very heartily bored of the merry-go-round blame game that seems to be in play at the moment. A real case of fiddling while Rome burns. You are right when you say that the current devolution settlement has presented us with all kinds of tripwires, while the criss-cross coalitions have perhaps blurred our collective vision as to where those tripwires are. But all I want to do is get out there and do something. The time for talking is over.
That is why I’m such a big fan of the ERP. I accept that there are things in it to argue over, but it at least provides a blueprint, and I would far rather discuss how aspects of it are developed (and I think the DFM has made it pretty clear that the document is there to be developed) rather than look over our shoulders and argue the toss over who is to blame. I suspect you feel the same.
I have done a lot of looking over the shoulder and it becomes a question of how far you want to go back, because you can end up back at Cyfarthfa in the 18th Century. Which rather begs the question – what’s the point of blame? Let’s focus our energies forward.
Going forward, as you pointed out earlier, we need to focus on getting native businesses using innovative (I would call it ‘social/mutual’) models to improve our economy. This almost runs outside of the political sphere and debate. Now my politics is firmly of the belief of state intervention to help with our economy, but given that is limited under devolution, we need to just get on with highlighting and support businesses to flourish.
Agreed. We also need to look at supporting indigenous businesses so that they are able to grow from SMEs into larger businesses. Too many companies in Wales are sold at the five-to-seven year point.
Duncan, I agree. The trouble is…the main two ways of helping businesses is either help business in a miroeconomic way (helping businesses run everyday) or through macroeconomic policies(taxes, interest rates).
The ERP is in danger of falling between two stalls as the Assembly does not have macroeconomic power to change the economy here, and it is moving away from microeconomic solutions.
What we need is macroeconomic powers either to be set at a European level to ensure a level playing field through Europe, or for it to be devolved to the Assembly. Either way, it would be much better for the economy in Wales if macroeconomic policies weren’t set based on the needs of London.
“It would be much better for the economy in Wales if macroeconomic policies weren’t set based on the needs of London.”
Agreed, Cegog. However, I do think that there is this middle ground, controlling the flow of funding in a meaningful way so that it finds a happy compromise between the needs of business and the needs of government. This is an important factor.
I don’t think it betrays a confidence to say I have been in correspondence this morning with the wife of a Linamar worker. While my next point could well be: “It’s all very well for us to sit around pontificating…” you might be surprised to hear that her major concern (after how her family will pay the bills) was what the Welsh Government is prepared to do to stop overseas blue chip businesses dancing in and out of Wales according to the terms of the grant they receive.
I can only take my funding argument so far here. Other things need to happen. As well as building indigenous cornerstone businesses, FDI will only continue to come to Wales and remain in Wales if there are attractions other than bags of cash. The ERP places a lot of emphasis on skills building.
This is probably one of the most important points that could be made following the post. I asked a few questions to Alan, which he kindly answered…apart from one.
I asked what was the situation of Wales’ deficit compared with other countries. I thought that since Alan was highlighting the dire situation in Wales. It would be an idea to see how other countries stood.
Alan didn’t answer the question to I just looked at the situation of the UK.
According to the ONS: “In the calendar year 2009 the UK recorded a general government deficit of £159.2 billion, which was equivalent to 11.4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).”
UK £159.2BN deficit
Wales £6.3BN deficit
Wales’ population 5% of the UKs
Wales share of the UK’s deficit 3.95%
The point is this, Wales’ situation is dire, but the UK as a whole is a shed load worse. The UK is bankrupt. Lets get off this sinking ship.
“The trouble is…the main two ways of helping businesses is either help business in a miroeconomic way (helping businesses run everyday) or through macroeconomic policies(taxes, interest rates).”
Indeed Cegog. Which was the point I was making about further powers.
Duncan makes an excellent point, the fact is that the ‘extra powers’ argument is a strategic and long term one. Focusing on what we can do today is as vital.
Diolch, pawb. We have an accord
And, of course, with the ERP, I believe we have the means to make it happen.
Duncan,
“FDI will only continue to come to Wales and remain in Wales if there are attractions other than bags of cash. The ERP places a lot of emphasis on skills building.”
You are so right.
Wales has to enter the 21st century and accept that it has to provide an environment that is attractive to both non-Welsh investment and to entrepreneurs. It also has to accept that it is in competition globally.
One of the least used skills in marketing by many orgamisations, is not just asking if you provide what you think the client needs but also have you sat in the client’s seat and looked at what is on offer from that viewpoint, in terms of his expectations. This requires a great deal of honesty in this often brutal self-appraisal – a quality not often found in political circles. We have to do this exercise for Wales.
For example a new business will want employees. Yet the UK education standards of school-leavers, let alone those of Wales, are rapidly descending the international league table. We have record numbers of illiterates and innumerates leaving school – something that very rarely happened 60-70 years ago.
Every employer is prepared to train new employees in the special skills required by that business, but he expects those new employees to have high standard skill sets in the skills that are internationally recognised should be acquired at school. Increasingly that will require one or more foreign languages outside of English and Welsh. The employer also expects a keenness to work and learn – again a diminishing skill. To improve these standards of education does not cost money – only political will.
Also it has to be recognised that this new business based in Wales will most likely have most of its clients outside of Wales, which will require a high quailty of communications – both electronic and physical. This does cost money to make the necessary improvements.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the analysis required. Then the problem comes of limited finance available and where it should be allocated. But the job has to be done if we are to be honest with ourselves and to provide for present and future generations.
But does Wales have the ability to abandon partisan politics and form a coalition from the best of all the talents that will only look forward and plan for the future. On current evidence I suspect not.
FT has an interesting story of a poll conducted for Demos by YouGov on a number of questions concerning the state. One of the main findings from a poll of 45,000 was that Labour lost the election because it failed to spell out where the cuts would come. Many people just didn’t believe Labour’s message because they were sceptical about the role of the state and believed that state spending had reached or even breached acceptable limits. The full poll will be out in September and should provide a great deal of food for thought for those on the centre left.
Jeff,
Do you mean the You Gov polling here?
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/08/where-is-britains-centre-ground/