This site has been surprisingly quiet on Plaid Cymru’s pledge to use the proceeds from scrapping the Trident nuclear missile system to fund an extra £20bn a year on providing a “living pension”.
This was met with derision across the political spectrum as being unrealistic and unaffordable in the current economic circumstances. And of course the other point that was made very forcefully was that Plaid would never be in a position to put such a policy into place so they could afford to indulge themselves with unattainable pledges.
This is the thrust of Matt Withers’ column in today’s Wales on Sunday. He points out that Plaid may as well pledge an annual personal visit for every pensioner from Daniel O’Donnell for all they’ll ever be tested on it: they’re not going to form the next government.
What is most bizarre about their pension promise is the way that the nationalists propose to pay for it, if it is costed at all. The expenditure on Trident is of course a one-off capital payment that once it has been spent cannot be spent again. How then can it be used to fund a recurring spending commitment that needs to be funded each year?
Furthermore, not only are Plaid promising to use this cash several times over on pensions they also want to spend it on other things too as this exchange from Wednesday’s Plenary session makes clear:
Andrew R.T. Davies: I am grateful to you for taking an intervention, Chris. The whole logic of your party is to seek an independent Wales. Today’s debate is about looking at how the NHS will be funded in the future and to elicit answers from the One Wales Government. You have not given one iota of information as to how your party would fund the NHS and safeguard key front-line services if we were in an independent Wales, so try to give some answers rather than empty rhetoric.
Chris Franks: I can put it in two words: scrap trident. That would be quite a contribution, or are the Conservatives content to carry on pouring money into weapons of mass destruction?
Either Plaid Cymru have found a money tree, in which case they should tell the Welsh Finance Minister, or they really do have problems with basic sums. Can we actually believe anything they tell us at all about the deliverability of their programme at a UK level? In fact when it comes to a UK General Election, what is the point of Plaid Cymru at all?
Related posts:
Also, not so long ago, Rhodri Glyn Thomas was calling for Trident to be scrapped. http://www.freedomcentral.org.uk/2009/09/the-rhodri-glyn-thomas-deterrent-how-to-avoid-mutually-assured-destruction.html
Like Chris Franks, but unlike their leader, he wanted it to be spent on devolved areas. He didn’t say health though like Franks did, so maybe he was going to spend it on a third project. Wouldn’t surprise me.
How on earth would an independent Wales scrap trident – which would then be an “English” military matter – to invest in anything, I don’t know.
The running costs of Trident would be put towards the costs of the pension increase. Add in the unclaimed pension credits etc and you are well on the way to funding the pension increase.
So what you’re saying is that that the Liberal Democrats think that giving older people a living pension is a bizarre aspiration to have, and that your party prefers spending billions on weapons of mass destruction rather than on using that money to help vulnerable older people.
No DAH, we would most probably scrap Trident too. What we are saying is that Plaid’s figues do not add up, that their plans are not affordable no matter how desirable but that there are other things that can be done to help pensioners. For example Welsh Liberal Democrats would combine our plans to uprate the basic state pension in line with earnings, with a national programme of home insulation, reducing fuel bills for the poorest pensioners. That has been costed.
Mark, what running costs are you talking about. You will still have submarines and armed forces. Admit it your figures do not add up even if you overlook the fact that you are trying to spend the same money twice on different things.
So you agree with Plaid that trident should be scrapped, and you agree that the lot of pensioners should be improved – you are just peeved that Plaid got publicity for suggesting these things first?
Peter was pointing out that the way they proposed to pay for it made no sense.
So the poor stay poor and the rich get richer, no wonder people like me sit at home, or better still vote BNP to waste a vote.
Robert
You keep commenting on articles here and saying that they are making you thinking of voting BNP. There is little else to them. I can tell you right now I think voting BNP isn’t any kind of protest vote. If you have lost faith in all politicians spoil your ballot paper. Don’t vote BNP – you can bet your bottom dollar they will see it as an endorsement of all their odious views.
If you are a genuine commenter please carry on contributing. It may be just coincidence but it has a whiff of the BNP pretending they are appealing to floating voters by planting comments. I really hope that isn’t the case – expanding your comments to those based on opinion and evidence as to why you have reached the views you have would mean that sneaking suspicion went away. It would also lead to a far better debate here.
Many Thanks
Ali
Everyone appears to be ignoring the fact that scrapping Trident is a one-off income stream, whereas increasing the pension involves a continual investment, so the scrap-trident-to-pay-for-pensions scheme is entirely unsustainable.
Knowing the difference between current and capital spend is really very, very basic accounting.
I don’t think that anyone is genuinely naive enough to think that scrapping Trident is some kind of panacea. Chris Franks was making a political point about the Tories wasting money that could be better spent elsewhere.
On-topic, the Plaid Cymru policy on pensions costs £20bn p.a. when fully implemented.
Lib Dem tax policy costs £16.5bn p.a.
I’m not for a minute suggesting that £3.5bn is loose change down the back of the sofa, but the difference between the two policies is 0.5% of current UK Govt expenditure.
Trident should be scrapped but much of the money would surely come from the same ‘money tree’ as the Lib Dems policy – closing tax loopholes on higher rate income tax pension relief and levelling up CGT with income tax etc.