The shadow chancellor is using the same arguments as the SNP on corporation tax. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ed Balls’ corporate tax announcement is a pain for Scottish Labour

The shadow chancellor's recent praise of competitive rates of corporation tax makes life harder for the Scottish Labour party, which opposes the SNP's plan to reduce the corporate tax rate in Scotland.

The SNP’s plan to reduce the corporate tax rate in Scotland to 3 per cent below the UK rate has been subject to a lot of criticism – and with good reason. It’s a terrible plan. Just ask the Canadians. Between 2007 and 2012, Mark Harper’s Conservative government cut Canada’s federal rate of corporation tax from 21 per cent to 15 per cent in the hope companies would hire more staff, invest in research and purchase new equipment, thus boosting their profits and growing the economy. Instead, businesses hoarded the savings and hiked executive pay. Frustrated by such brazen corporate greed, the then governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, took the unusual step of telling Canadian firms to free-up the billions of dollars’ worth of “dead money” they were sitting on: spend it productively or return it to investors, Carney said, but don’t just let it rot in the bank.

Up until now, Scottish Labour has aggressively pursued the SNP over its corporate tax policy. It has argued that Alex Salmond’s obsession with slashing the tax proves an independent Scotland would not be the Nordic-style social democracy envisioned by many Yes campaigners. By contrast, it would be a low-wage, light-touch tax-haven run for the benefit of predatory multinationals. But that attack line (hopelessly overcooked, as ever, by Scottish Labour’s press team) was abruptly undermined this week when Ed Balls began singing the praises of low corporate taxes. During a speech at the LSE yesterday, Balls said: “The last Labour government left Britain with the most competitive rate of corporation tax in the G7 and we are committed to maintaining that position.”

To be clear, Balls is not talking about lowering UK corporation tax from its current rate of 21 per cent. Indeed, Labour remains committed to reversing the 1 per cent reduction planned by George Osborne over the coming 12 months. But the logic of Balls’ argument – that Britain can attract investment by undercutting other major economies with “competitively” low business levies – is indistinguishable from that used by the First Minister to justify his party’s position on corporation tax. Just substitute “Scotland” for “Britain” and “London” for “the G7”. (Incidentally, Labour’s UK-wide case for lower corporate taxes is every bit as weak as the Nationalists’ Scottish case: according to the TUC’s Duncan Weldon, British companies have built up a staggering £600bn corporate surplus over recent years.)

Balls’ announcement highlights one of the key problems for Scottish Labour as it attempts to bring its central belt and west coast heartlands back on side before September. For all the party’s talk of Scotland’s “progressive” future within the UK, it can’t disguise the fact that Balls and Miliband are almost as hawkish on the deficit, welfare reform and immigration as the Tories. It is no good Johann Lamont deploying the same-old exaggerated rhetoric against the SNP (“Look beyond the saltire. Look beyond the plaid … We are the crusading force in Scottish politics”) when the next UK Labour government intends to match the Coalition’s spending cuts pound for pound in 2015/16. Likewise, Gordon Brown can’t really expect people to take his warnings about SNP economic policy seriously when, as Chancellor, he presided over a debt-and-finance-fuelled boom that ended in Britain’s worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

In some respects, the obstacles Johann Lamont faces in trying to craft a progressive case for the Union mirror those of Ed Miliband as he heads into the next election. Both leaders have to explain what centre-left radicalism looks like in the context of tight budgetary constraints. Both have to cope with opponents who are more adept at communicating their core messages. Both are also, unfortunately, hogtied by the past. Just as the wider British electorate still seems to hold the Blair and Brown administrations responsible for the state of Britain’s economy, so the Scottish electorate looks back on eight underwhelming years of Labour rule at Holyrood and thinks ‘We can do better’.

Of course, the key difference between Lamont and Miliband is that Miliband actually runs his party. Lamont, on the other hand, has to work with the policy programme she is given. It is difficult to overstate how awkward this is for Scottish Labour. The SNP’s corporate tax plan was a gift. As the Canadian experience shows, cutting corporate taxes makes little economic sense – unless your goal is to boost company profits without generating additional revenues for the state. Nor does it make any real political sense. Scottish business remains overwhelmingly hostile to independence, while representatives of the broader Yes campaign have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the policy and resent having to answer for it at public meetings. Yet, from now on, whenever Scottish Labour attempts to raise these points, all the SNP has to do is refer them back to Balls’ speech. It’s a familiar argument, but one that bears repeating: the only viable future for the Labour party in Scotland is more autonomy. For as long as it remains anchored to Westminster, the SNP will have the advantage. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

In focusing on the famous few, we risk doing a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse

There is a danger that we make it harder, not easier, for victims to come forward in future. 

Back in the 1970s when relations between journalists and police were somewhat different to today a simple ritual would be carried out around the country at various times throughout the week.

Reporters, eager for information for their regional newspaper, would take a trip to the local station and there would be met by a desk sergeant who would helpfully skim through details in the crime Incident Book.

Among the entries about petty thefts, burglaries and road accidents there would occasionally be a reference to an allegation of incest. And at this point the sergeant and journalist might well screw-up their faces, shake their heads and swiftly move on to the next log. The subject was basically taboo, seen as something ‘a bit mucky,’ not what was wanted in a family newspaper.

And that’s really the way things stayed until 1986 when ChildLine was set up by Dame Esther Rantzen in the wake of a BBC programme about child abuse. For the first time children felt able to speak out about being sexually assaulted by the very adults whose role in life was to protect them.

And for the first time the picture became clear about what incest really meant in many cases. It wasn’t simply a low level crime to be swept under the carpet in case it scratched people’s sensitivities. It frequently involved children being abused by members of their close family, repeatedly, over many years.

Slowly but surely as the years rolled on the NSPCC continued to press the message about the prevalence of child sexual abuse, while encouraging victims to come forward. During this time the corrosive effects of this most insidious crime have been painfully detailed by many of those whose lives have been derailed by it. And of course the details of the hundreds of opportunistic sexual assaults committed by Jimmy Savile have been indelibly branded onto the nation’s consciousness.

It’s been a long road - particularly for those who were raped or otherwise abused as children and are now well into their later years - to bring society around to accepting that this is not to be treated as a dark secret that we really don’t want to expose to daylight. Many of those who called our helpline during the early days of the Savile investigation had never told anyone about the traumatic events of their childhoods despite the fact they had reached retirement age.

So, having buried the taboo, we seem to be in danger of giving it the kiss of life with the way some cases of alleged abuse are now being perceived.

It’s quite right that all claims of sexual assault should be investigated, tested and, where there is a case, pursued through the judicial system. No one is above the law, whether a ‘celebrity’ or a lord.

But we seem to have lost a sense of perspective when it comes to these crimes with vast resources being allocated to a handful of cases while many thousands of reported incidents are virtually on hold.

The police should never have to apologise for investigating crimes and following leads. However, if allegations are false or cannot be substantiated they should say so. This would be a strength not a weakness.

It is, of course, difficult that in many of the high-profile cases of recent times the identities of those under investigation have not been officially released by the police but have come to light through other means. Yet we have to deal with the world as it is not as we wish it would be and once names are common knowledge the results of the investigations centring on them should be made public.

When it emerges that someone in the public eye is being investigated for non-recent child abuse it obviously stirs the interest of the media whose appetite can be insatiable. This puts pressure on the police who don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing offenders to slip through their hands.  And so there is a danger, as has been seen in recent cases, that officers lack confidence in declaring there is a lack of evidence or the allegations are not true. 

The disproportionate weight of media attention given to say, Sir Edward Heath, as opposed to the Bradford grooming gang sentenced this week, shows there is a danger the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. This threatens the painstaking work invested in ensuring the public and our institutions recognise child abuse as a very real danger. 

Whilst high profile cases have helped the cause there is now a real risk that the all-encompassing focus on them does both victims of abuse and those advocating on their behalf a fundamental disservice.

As the public watches high -profile cases collapsing amidst a media fanfare genuine convictions made across the country week in week out go virtually unannounced. If this trend continues they may start to believe that child sexual abuse isn’t the prolific problem we know it to be.

So, while detectives peer into the mists of time, searching for long lost clues, we have to face the unpalatable possibility that offences being committed today will in turn only be investigated fully in years or decades' time because there is not the manpower to deal with them right now.

So, now the Goddard Inquiry is in full swing, taking evidence about allegations of child sex crimes involving ‘well known people’ as well as institutional abuse, how do we ensure we don’t fail today’s victims?

If they start to think their stories are going to be diminished by the continuing furore over how some senior public figures have been treated by the police they will stay silent. Therefore we have to continue to encourage them to come forward, to give them the confidence of knowing they will be listened to.

If we don’t we will find ourselves back in those incestuous days where people conspired to say and do nothing to prevent child abuse.

Peter Wanless is Chief Executive of the NSPCC.