Letter to Courier about the A9

Text below of my letter published in the Inverness Courier and Strathspey Herald last week

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sirs

The Highland press has seen much coverage in the last few weeks of the argument between Danny Alexander MP and the SNP over dualling the A9 and speed cameras.

I think its time we all stopped playing politics with the A9.

It’s a vital connector for the Highland economy.  But it also needs to be safe to drive on, for locals, for visitors and regular commuters between Inverness, Edinburgh & Glasgow.

I’m one of those commuters so I know first-hand how frustrating and dangerous a road it can be. 

You only need to look at the A90 that serves Aberdeen to see the benefits dualling the A9 will bring.  We need to deliver a dualled A9, as quickly as possible, without politics getting in the way of finding the money. 

I’m also a regular train user, just as frustrated by long journey times, “passing stops” and inconvenient timetables. The rail link south also needs investment to increase capacity and shorten journey times.  Would the option of more rail freight take some big lorries off the A9?

Meanwhile, inter-city and local buses are the forgotten services in all of this; expensive and not meeting the needs of rural and town communities alike.

A fresh approach is needed – Westminster, Holyrood and The Highland Council working together – to deliver an integrated transport system that really works for the Highlands.  An approach that combines big capital investments in the A9 and the rail links to Inverness, alongside imaginative ideas to improve local bus services.

Less playing politics, more getting it done.

Read more...

Mike Robb to tackle 'Tory cheerleader' Danny Alexander

MP Danny Alexander has been “a cheerleader for Tory policies” which have damaged the Highlands, says the man selected to oppose him in next year's General Election.

Highland businessman Mike Robb has been selected as the Scottish Labour Party candidate for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.  Mr Robb finished runner-up to Mr. Alexander at the 2010 election.

Mr Robb, whose wife Gwen is an NHS nurse, runs his own UK-wide IT consultancy with an office in Inverness. He has a degree in physics from Edinburgh University and he and Gwen, who live in Muir of Ord, have two adult sons.

After being unanimously selected again as candidate at a Labour Party meeting in Inverness, Mr Robb said:  "Being in second place last time puts us in the driving seat as the leading challenger to replace Danny Alexander, who has led the charge in driving up the cost of living, hitting families with a VAT hike and the Bedroom Tax while doing nothing about rocketing fuel and energy bills.

"If you feel let down by Mr Alexander, then I'm the alternative if you want him out of office.

"I've spoken to many people who voted for him -- but didn't realise he would be such a cheerleader for Tory policies that have been so damaging for young people, ordinary pensioners and the poorest in our community."

“We’ll be campaigning hard over the next 12 months to beat the LibDems, elect a Labour MP and give the Highlands its very own Portillo Moment.”

Mr Robb said that providing jobs for young people was his number one priority.  "It's tragic that so many youngsters are leaving school or college with no real employment prospects", he stressed.

"We also need a welfare system that's there when required -- helping people to make their lives work instead of stigmatising them.  Scrapping the Bedroom Tax will be a good start"

David Stewart, local Labour MP from 1997 to 2005, said he was delighted that Mike Robb has agreed to stand again. "He has enthused our membership as the fight begins to give the area a Labour voice again."

Read more...

LibDems leaders follow the Tory line again on Syria.

I wrote to all the Highland Media this week, calling Danny Alexander to account for his support for the Government motion which would have taken us down to road to a full scale war in Syria.  Events since have shown how wise the House of Commons was to reject the motion, with the real prospect now of a negotiated outcome.  Here is the text of my letter.

Dear Sirs

Danny Alexander’s decision to actively support the government motion on Syria as described in the media this week (Inverness Courier, 3^rd September 2013), shows the full extent of his political transformation since first being elected by the voters of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.

At the 2005 General Election, Mr Alexander owed much of his success in being elected to replace David Stewart, to a campaign based on the Liberal Democrat Party’s opposition to the war in Iraq.

Now Danny Alexander is “disappointed” that he - along with Clegg, Cameron and Osborne - could not persuade the House of Commons to start down the same road again in Syria. 

Readers of your paper will recall the vote in Parliament in March 2003 - opposed by every single Lib Dem MP - which gave approval to go to war in Iraq.  Many of the arguments made then by Tony Blair as are being made again now by David Cameron and echoed by Danny Alexander.  The UK entered into a disastrous and bloody war from which we have only recently emerged.  To this day, there is no clear benefit to the people of the country we were supposed to be trying to help with hundreds of thousands of people killed and injured in the resulting civil war.

In 2010, when I stood against him as the Labour candidate, I was constantly attacked as representing the party which had taken the UK into an illegal war in the middle-east.  This despite my well known public opposition to the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, alongside my then MP, Gavin Strang.

The Government motion defeated at Westminster last week risked embroiling the UK in a complex middle-east conflict in support of an American-led action with no clear aims or out-comes and with dubious legal justification without clear United Nations backing.

How Danny Alexander can justify his support for the Government now, when he opposed just such a decision ten year ago and at both elections since is beyond me.   

Labour’s amendment recognised the atrocity of the use of chemical weapons but would have put in place a process which ensured backing for any action under international law.  The Government chose not to support this and press on with its case for immediate action.  Labour was right to vote against the Coalition motion when the amendment was rejected and I am proud of my party and its principled leader for doing so.

Read more...

LIbDem Sell-off of Royal Mail will damage Highland Communities

Come the 2015 elections, the Highlands will remember it was a LibDem minister who sold off the Royal Mail. 

The Highlands already suffer from poor quality broadband compared to many other parts of the country.  Despite the Coalition’s promises, the programme to deliver high speed broadband to rural communities – a programme reliant on a privatised BT – is well behind schedule.

Now the LibDems will put at threat a basic service that’s served us well for generations.

We are assured that a privatised Royal Mail will be obliged to honour the universal delivery obligation to deliver mail to any household in the UK.  There are no such guarantees about the timeliness and cost of such deliveries.  We have already seen how the privatised energy and train companies can raise tariffs and fares pretty much as they like, maximising profits instead of service standards.  

How long will it be before a privatised Royal Mail cuts the frequency or range of delivery in rural areas?  Pick up your mail from the “local” service point anyone?  And only on Tuesdays and Fridays, of course……..

Despite all the fine words about “freeing up management to seek sources of private capital to invest” this is a policy driven by right wing, free market, political ideology.  To make the sale attractive to its friends in the City, the Coalition has taken on the Royal Mail’s £200m pension debt, clearing the decks for big business to squeeze more cash out of an already profitable operation.  

Nationalise the debt, privatise the profit.

The Highland LibDem MPs had no mandate to support a wholesale privatisation of Royal Mail in their 2010 manifesto.  But it’s a LibDem minister, Vince Cable, who is driving through this legislation, with the enthusiastic support of Inverness MP Danny Alexander at the Treasury.

We can of course look forward to seeing CWU and other trade union members who stand up against this sell-off to protect their jobs and our mail services being lambasted by the media as “left wing luddites”.   They deserve pubic support and I, for one, will be proud to stand alongside them.

Read more...

Better Together Inverness Launch

I was proud to represent Labour at today's very well attended launch of the Better Together campaign in Inverness, speaking alongside Mary Scanlon MSP and Danny Alexander MP.  Here is the text of my speech.

Good afternoon.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of Better Together

You will probably be expecting a well-rehearsed list of scare stories about independence.

Fears about access to NHS specialists, giving up the Pound, Bank of England control, can we afford our pensions?

What happens when the oil runs out?

As even John Swinney is now asking in private.

Well I'm not going to do any of that.

I want to talk about my vision for Scotland and why I think we really will be Better Together.

I’d like to start by taking Nicola Sturgeon’s advice.

In her speech in December last year, the Deputy First Minister said this:

“I ask you, as you make up your minds over these next two years, to base your decision not on how Scottish or British you feel, but on what kind of country you want Scotland to be and how best you think that can be achieved.”

Well I believe the kind of country I want Scotland to be is best delivered by progressive politics based on fairness, equal opportunity and social justice.

A Scotland with its own distinct political and economic identity but part of a socially progressive United Kingdom which shares those values.

Because we should not confuse the arguments of nationalism with those for advancing social justice.

The great advances that were struggled for and secured by working people across the UK – the Welfare State, Trades Union Rights, Equal Pay, a National Minimum Wage - were secured by the votes of working people in Cardiff, Liverpool and Newcastle, just as surely as people in Dundee, Inverness or Glasgow.

Better together means social justice is not just an ideal for Scotland but is a statement of solidarity with communities & working people across the UK.

Because socialism doesn’t stop at a border.

We need to work together to create the UK society we want or we will be the poorer for it.

Lets take the example of benefits.

The SNP prefer to blame anyone …. everyone…. rather than use the powers they already have in case it undermines the case for independence

Let’s take the Bedroom Tax as an example.

This isn't the time to talk about its fairness or otherwise

… there will be plenty of time for that between now and 2015

But the SNP have publicly stated their opposition.

They have postured with commitments to no evictions, even though they must know how difficult that is for councils and housing associations to deliver.

The wring their hands, denying their ability to do anything about it until we have independence.

Whilst they have the power NOW to help councils deal with the worst effects if they chose to do so.

But it doesnt suit their case.

So Scots can suffer until we vote the right way.

Some things work better together.

Working people need a pension system that is secure and sustainable. That will ensure a basic standard of living when you retire that won’t depend on the vagaries of the markets.

The UK system won’t make anyone rich, but it will deliver and will stand the test of time.

It works because of the scale of a UK-wide fund paid into by millions of UK workers and backed up by a government which is not dependant on highly variable oil revenues to keep pensions at a decent level.

I think that’s worth keeping.

I run a small business. My company sells its services in Scotland, and all over rhe UK.

Times are tough at home and turbulent internationally.

Businesses want certainty and stability – that’s what the current constitutional settlement allows.

The rest of the UK is Scotland’s largest export market.

We don't need the uncertainty, instability, and barriers to businesses that separation risks creating.

In these tough and turbulent times, the size, stability and opportunity of the UK economy is a huge advantage for Scotland's businesses.

We should be using that strength to invest in jobs, houses and infrastructure to grow ourselves back into economic health.

I am a proud Scot. I am ambitious for Scotland's people and Scotland's possibilities.

My case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate country – it is that there's a better choice for our future.

A strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom gives us the best of both worlds: real decision making power here in Scotland, as well as a key role in a strong and secure UK.

Scotland can prosper as a social, economic and politically devolved country…..

.. making its own choices about what works for us…

…… but able to flex its economic power as part of a joined up UK which shares the same core values.

That’s why we are Better Together.

Thank you.

Read more...

AAA vs the BedroomTax

As night follows day, it was no surprise when Danny Alexander MP was all over the media yesterday responding to the loss of the UK’s AAA credit rating.  George Osborne doesn’t do bad news; that’s Danny’s job. 

The message seemed to be that (a) despite Osborne’s totemic addiction to the ratings this didn’t really matter and (b) we just need to keep cutting.

What sort of world are these Coalition leading lights living in?

Borrowing is going up, growth is stagnant.  So why do Alexander and Osborne think the medicine is working?  Maybe it makes sense in the circles Osborne, Clegg and Cameron move in.

Back in the real world, the Inverness Courier highlights who is really paying the price of the Coalition's mission to save our AAA rating in its shocking report on the levels of child poverty in the City. Working families on low incomes.

Part-time jobs with “flexible” hours and minimum wage rates are already the reality for many.  Over the next few months the reality of benefit cuts will start to hit home with caps and restrictions on working tax credits and housing benefits.  Monthly rather than weekly payments will drive poor families into the hands of the pay day loan sharks.  And the Bedroom Tax will reduce household incomes still further; for most families moving to a house with the “right” number of bedrooms will not be an option as they are not being built!

That’s what Danny Alexander should be on the TV and Radio explaining.

Or better still letting his two bosses take the flack themselves.

Read more...

Letter to the Courier...

Published in Inverness Courier, 3rd April 2012

Dear Sir

Coalition plans to break up national pay bargaining arrangements must surely mean that there will soon be pressure to cut public sector workers wages in the highland as in other areas deemed “lower cost than London”, however spuriously.

In his leaflets and speeches during the Westminster election campaign Danny Alexander promised to put the Highlands first. As the Labour candidate, I was accused of representing a party that had let the Highlands down with plans to put up VAT, raise student tuition fees and had “taken money from hard working families, pensioners and carers in the Highlands and given it to millionaires”.

In government, what is Mr Alexander’s actual record on standing up for the Highlands? Local military bases are under threat or closing, VAT is up and working tax credits down (both hitting low earners hardest) whilst mainland fuel costs continue to rise for most, despite all the promises about a rural fuel discount.

But this latest coalition plan to cut public sector wages - at the same time as cutting the 50p tax rate for the well off - goes too far. Does Mr Alexander have any principles left? Or is power at the heart of the government a price worth paying to inflict his coalition cuts on the Highlands?

And where are our local LibDem councillors on this? Will they speak out before the Highland Council elections in May to condemn what their MPs are doing in their name or will they just bow their heads and go along with them?

Yours sincerely

etc

Read more...

Good News for Highland Coastal Communities

Credit where credit is due.  Today's announcement from George Osborne and Danny Alexander that a new development fund will be available to coastal communities around the UK, derived from Crown Estate revenues, is good news for the Highlands.  As offshore wind and wave power develops, these communities will start to get some direct benefit.

From my political perspective, its frustrating that this welcome initiative has come from the Coalition and not as a result of Scottish Labour pushing the idea, as I argued in my blog last month. Ed Milliband and the shadow team are doing well at Westminster but we seem to be a policy & ideas free zone in Scotland at the moment.  The sooner we get over the May elections, stop arguing about internal organisation, contracts and rulebooks, the better.  We need to get back out there campaigning again.

Read more...

What Hutton actually says.....

Frances Maude, Danny Alexander and other Coalition ministers quote "former Labour Pension Secretary" Lord Hutton's report in every second sentence to justify the claim that public sector pensions are un-affordable.  Unfortunately, they have clearly never read what Hutton actually says.  Thanks to Mehdi Hassan in the New Statesman for this:

"One final point: can we, once and for all, nail the right-wing lie that public-sector pensions are "unaffordable"? The cost of public-sector pensions is set to fall in the coming decades. Don't believe me? The Hutton Report, commissioned by the coalition government and used by ministers as a justification for the "reforms" to pension contributions, states on page 22:
There have been significant reforms to the main public-service pension schemes over the last decade, including increased pension ages for new members and a change in the indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI indexation. Some of these changes have reduced projected benefit payments in the coming decades. For the interim report, the commission asked the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) to project future public-service pensions expenditure. It projected benefit payments to fall gradually to around 1.4 per cent of GDP in 2059-2060, after peaking at 1.9 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010-11.


But, as Jon Snow's interview with the Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, on Channel 4 News on Monday evening revealed, the government seems totally unaware of the contents of the report that it commissioned -- and that it now chooses to hide behind." 

Read more...

Pension Reforms

There’s a lot more right than wrong in John Hutton’s wide ranging report into how we need to adjust our assumptions and expectations about state-provided pensions. Difficult though some of his conclusions are in terms of indexing, contributions and retirement ages, we are all living longer and we need to work through the implications of that.

Treasury provided pensions in the UK exist to fund two main groups; a basic level of retirement income for all of us through the state pension in its various forms and occupational pensions for public sector workers, from bin men and classroom assistants to school heads and NHS chief execs.

The principle since the post war social contract has been that the state pension is funded from NI contributions accrued by the Treasury. In contrast, public sector occupational pensions are funded through a mix of individual contributions and employer (central or local government) contributions paid into conventional pensions funds in much the same way as private sector pensions. These latter arrangements vary widely between different working groups. School teachers’ contribution and pension rules are very different from low paid council workers. Local government workers have a completely separate (and fully funded) scheme; civil servants are part of the overall Treasury fund.

So making changes to the system is complex and needs careful negotiation to get a the right balance of fairness between new and long standing public employees on the one hand and the wider tax paying public on the other. Negotiations which have been under way between the DWP and unions representing the main public sector workers groups for some time. Despite what the tabloids rant on about, the unions have always been ready to negotiate a long term solution.

Enter Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, with his speech to the IPPC last Friday. In a 20 minute, rapidly delivered monologue, Mr Alexander did huge damage to the chance of a negotiated settlement. A settlement that was there to be negotiated and which would have opened up long term solutions to the pension problem created by the success of the NHS and other social reforms in delivering a longer-living society. The Chief Secretary laid out exactly what the coalition intended to do effectively predetermining the outcome and making the negotiation sessions still to come this week and next meaningless at best.  Now Hutton himself has warned that the coalitions approach risks driving many public sector workers out of the schemes altogether.

Why did he do it? He’s been closely involved in the negotiations, so I hope it wasn’t political naivety.

So was it deliberate? A tactic in an overall strategy to provoke the public sector unions into strikes and other protests that would allow the coalition to blame the unions for undermining the economic recovery, neatly getting him and Osborne off the hook for car-crashing growth? Only this week, ONS figures highlight the growing gap between government rhetoric on spending cuts and the actual level of government borrowing.

Working out a fair, long term solution for public sector pensions needs serious – and non party political –engagement between the government and the different public sector groups affected. Its too important to be rushed, or conducted by public posturing. Danny made a well reasoned case for change in this week’s Inverness Courier. Why do his actions in London seem driven by a very different agenda?

Read more...

Broken Pledges (No 1 in a series...)

Text of my letter to the Inverness Courier (which they so far have not published) asking Danny Alexander to explian why he has broken his own and his party's pledge on Student Fees

Dear Sir

With the party conference season behind us, its time to start looking at the reality of the new Government’s policies rather than listening to the sound-bites.

A promise not to raise Student Fees was a key commitment by the LibDems during the election campaign, back in May. Here in Inverness, Mr Alexander made much of that promise at the Student Hustings and challenged myself and other candidates on the issue. I made clear that I would not vote to support an increase in fees and signed the NUS Pledge. So did Danny Alexander, as reported in the Courier at the time.

What a difference six months in power makes. Now it looks like the LibDems are going to tear up their commitment and support open-ended rises in fees at universities and colleges in England to a level which will put a huge burden of debt on future graduates. How many bright school leavers from ordinary families will now think twice about going on to university, scared by the level of debt they will run up. Increasingly, will it only be kids from well off families that can afford it? What’s fair about that?

Despite the different arrangements here, Scotland is not immune from changes to university fees and funding in England. A two-thirds cut to the teaching grant paid by the Treasury to English universities, has a massive knock-on effect in Scotland, via the Barnett Formula, to the tune of as much as £400 million. It will put huge pressure on the system here, whilst higher fees will discourage Scots students from applying to English universities.

Many people who trusted the LibDems on Student Fees will want to hear from Mr Alexander how he can justify breaking such a key pledge. Perhaps the Courier could facilitate that debate?


Your Sincerely

Read more...

Why Language Matters

Language matters.  I don't agree with the way Harriet Harman talked about Danny Alexander at my party's conference this weekend.  Just as  I think Boris Johnston was wrong to bring Kosovo into the debate about the effect of the Coalition's housing policies on London.

Some language is just wrong in principle.  But often its wrong-headed because it distracts from the real issues.

In London, we should be talking about the the impact of an ideologically driven policy on thousands of families trying to  make a life for themselves in a vibrant, multi-cultural city.  The combined effect of Housing Benefit caps and cuts, combined with the development of a "social "housing sector based on near market level rents will drive the unemployed and those on low wages out of high-rent areas like central London.  We will see the same effects in any area where demand for rented housing keeps local rents high, as Housing Benefit is tied to local averages, not a single national figure.

And in the Highlands, the debate should be about the politics of the man who has designed a programme of savage cuts of a depth and speed he spoke out against during the election.  Who spoke out against the idea of raising VAT because of its impact on the poorest in our society - but who now presides over a rise to 20% from January.  Who made a lot of noise about local post offices closing, but who now sits side by side with his new political friends who have just voted to privatise the Royal Mail.

Language matters, but its what you do that counts.   

Read more...

With friends like this......

So, George Osborne is Danny Alexander's best new friend according to his extraordinary interview in today's Scotsman.

This is the same George Osborne who is planning to slash benefits for the most vulnerable in our society by at  least £4bn.  And that's on top of the massive cuts to other public service budgets to be announced next month plus the VAT rise in January which every ecomomic commentator agrees will hit the poorest hardest.

I challenged Danny about the VAT rise when he spoke at the recent Inverness Chamber of Commerce Lunch.  He agreed with me that the rise in VAT was a "political" rather than an economic decision.  Now in today's interview, the No 2 at the Treasury goes on the suggest that benefits cuts of even more than £4bn are being considered.  That seems to me to be all about an increasingly right wing political agenda and nothing about fairness.  Keeping your new friends happy?

The LibDems fairness agenda now seems nothing more than words on an election leaflet.  Actions speak louder than words indeed. 

If I was a LibDem I'd be choosing my friends a bit more carefully.

Judge us in five years time says Mr Alexander. 

We will.

Read more...

Rural Fuel Prices

The Highland LibDems - and Danny Alexander in particular - after all the noise they made about reducing rural fuel prices during the election, have a lot of explaining to do.

The Herald has predicted fuel prices in the Highlands could soar to 136p per litre from January as a result of the proposed hike in VAT to 20% on top of the already planned fuel duty increases.  See here.

VAT rises always hit the poorest hardest, so what exactly is "fair" about this, Danny?

Read more...

When Fairness Equals Savage Cuts

Every LibDem candidate across the country campaigned on “fairness” during the Election.

Every letter and leaflet promised that the LibDems were the only party who would restore economic and social fairness. Locally, Danny Alexander promised fair taxes, a fairer economy – with investment in the Highlands in green energy , broadband and affordable house building - and a fair fuel deal for rural motorists.

Labour’s warning about LibDem plans for savage cuts in public spending were dismissed as scare mongering.

Two months on and the LibDems need to answer some questions.

How is it fair to raise the income tax threshold, then take it all away again for low income families by raising VAT and slashing tax credits?

Why is it now fair for public sector workers to take the pain, instead of the bankers and financiers you lambasted in all your election literature?

What’s happened to all the promises of reducing rural fuel costs? The VAT increase next January will put rural fuel prices up not down and a pilot scheme to reduce rural fuel prices seems to have been kicked into the coalition long grass. See Peter Peacock’s latest comments here.

Why is Danny Alexander leading the charge to cut not just 25% but as much as 40% from government budgets? The Barnet Formulae will bring that home to Scotland next year. If times are already tough for Highland Council he is about to make it a whole load worse.

Labour would have had to make some tough decisions about public spending, but our approach was to get the balance right between reducing spending and raising income from economic growth as we came steadily out of recession. We would have reduced the deficit by 50% by 2014 without any of the ideologically driven pain now driven by the Tories and signed up to by the LibDems.

How is all this “Standing up for the Highlands”, Danny?

Read more...

A Bridge too far, Danny?

When I said to comrades in Inverness last week that the real test of the new Coalition would come when it faced its first crisis, I didn't expect it to be upon us quite so quickly.

David Law, I think, has done the right thing but the elevation of Danny Alexander to be the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury must be a concern.

I don't know Danny personally, but I got to know him a little during the election campaign.  I liked him as a person and he is obviously a capable politician, as his election result shows.  Party politics aside, he did a good job during what must have been hugely tense and complex negotiations with the Tories to agree how they would share power.  But I worry for him now.

Senior government responsibility is much like football management. Mostly, you need to put in the learning in the lower divisions in order to to be able to lead and deal with the pressure at the top.  We now have the two most senior politicians in charge of shaping the economic destiny of this country both under 40 and with next to no real business or ministerial experience.  Whilst I don't agree with their politics, David Law had years of experience in the City behind him and the Tories' Phillip Hammond a successful business career as well as shadowing the role for a long period.  Was Vince Cable even asked, or did he not want to go there?

I notice also that none of the senior and experienced LibDems in Scotland seem to have been considered as the new Scottish Secretary.  Or were they not interested?

I wonder whether the Tories are working to a very smart strategy which is to have a coalition partner in place, willing to make cuts in return for power and who can be an expendable target for the blame when the masses get difficult.

Read more...

LibDems Sellout on Nuclear Power

There were 5 Hustings during the election campaign in this constituency. At every single one Danny Alexander proudly promoted the LibDems opposition to new nuclear power stations and attacked me and the Labour Party for our stance (for the record I am "sceptical" about them, but won't rule them out).

A mere week after the election and the new Climate Change Secretary - Alexander's LibDem colleague Chris Huhne- has completely abandoned that pledge. See the Guardians report here.

Under the Coalition Agreement with the Tories the LibDems have agreed not to vote against plans for new nuclear power stations and will leave it to the market.

New politics or or just power at any price?

Read more...

After the Election

First and foremost, I’d like to thank the 10,407 voters in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey who trusted me – a first time candidate in the area - and the Labour Party with their vote. Its clear there is a very strong base of support in this constituency for Labour’s values and ambitions on which we can build for the future.

At least Labour voters knew what they were voting for.

I wonder how many LibDem voters are now questioning how their support for Danny Alexander has led directly to the return of a Tory Government and a coming programme of savage cuts which will devastate jobs and services in the Highlands. The Tories were a distant 4th in this constituency as they were across Scotland, but they are now about to dominate our lives, with the help of Mr Alexander and his LibDem colleagues.

Mr Alexander is now a leading light in a government whose coalition agreement spells out immediate and accelerated cuts to public spending, cuts to the Child Trust Fund and Child Tax Credits.

Mr Alexander also made much during his campaign of his party’s opposition to new nuclear power stations and the renewal of Trident. He attacked me on the hustings for my party’s position on these issues. Now he sits at the cabinet table with a party fiercely committed to both.

And in the Coalition Agreement published today there is no mention whatsoever of the Rural Fuel Duty Reduction which was such a key plank of Mr Alexander’s campaign.

In his last leaflet before Polling Day Mr Alexander claimed he “puts the Highlands first”.

We shall see how that claim stands up as he leads the Tory programme of savage cuts in Scotland.

Read more...

Voodoonomics!

Fed up with yet another LibDem party political broadcast masquerading as Danny Alexander's regular "Our Man in Westminster" column in the Courier, I've sent in this letter to the editor. We'll see tomorrow if they print it!

Dear Sir

Having allowed Danny Alexander MP to use his “Our Man in Westminster” column in last Tuesday’s Courier (9 March) to put his case for Liberal Democrat tax policy, I hope you will give me the opportunity to respond through your letters column.

As always, the LibDems come up with ideas which sound great but fall apart when you look at the details. They are the ideas of a party which does not have to worry about the serious business of government and how it impacts on the lives of ordinary people.

Mr Alexander describes the LibDem’s “fair” tax proposals. The highlight of this is raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. Whilst this does indeed give back £700 a year to many people on low incomes, he makes no mention of Labour’s Working Tax Credits (WTC), which already does more than this for low income families. The LibDem’s have said they want to limit WTC because it helps families earning as much as £50,000. Shame that their new income tax threshold will benefit families earning up to £100,000!

The LibDems estimate that raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 will cost £16.5bn. They claim this can be paid for – at the same time as making “savage cuts” to public spending – through higher taxes on the well off. When you read their proposals in detail, however, it’s clear that this is made up of a ragbag mix of tax avoidance savings, new taxes on air travel and cutting various capital gains tax reliefs. Putting to one side the impact of the capital gains tax changes on our pension funds, this seems to depend an awful lot on closing the same tax loopholes which every government has struggled with. These feel like SNP promises in the making to me.

In the detail of LibDem policy, £400m is to be raised from a new “green” tax on UK domestic flights.

Now I am all for encouraging people to use trains and other forms of public transport but perhaps Mr Alexander would like to explain how this new tax will affect the price of flights from hard-pressed Inverness airport to the Islands, Edinburgh and the south-east?

Labour will continue to develop a tax regime which is fair to individuals and businesses and which uses tax credits and other reliefs to support those that really need it most.

In closing, I see that pillar of the Thatcher establishment, Norman Tebbit, has praised the LibDem tax proposals (www.libdemvoice.org on 13 Jan 2010). That says everything about which side of the political divide the LibDems now stand on, and who they may be likely to support in a hung parliament.

Yours etc.

Read more...

After the Conferences, a Question

After all the high political rhetoric of the party conference season, its back to the real work of local politics. Yesterday we delivered a new leaflet into Dalneigh and today we will be doing the same in Kingussie.

After all the conference speeches, I have just one question for Danny Alexander and Jim Ferguson. Both of your party leaders have promised to make big cuts in public spending if they get into power ("savage cuts" in the case of Nick Clegg and the LibDems). But, if its the bankers, financiers and some of the other top earners in this country who created this crisis, why is it now public sector workers who are being asked to pay for it?

Read more...