Given that there were widespread predictions that George Osborne was about to give the go-ahead for the rate to be cut as early as next year, this was an unexpected announcement.

It was met by howling from the predictable quarters – the Institute of Directors wailed that Wilson was abandoning his responsibility for economic growth. They acknowledged that doing so would mean extra pressure on the block grant NI receives from Westminster, and noted that ‘there is expert evidence to suggest that the impact on our budget would be less than £250m.’

After the already-devastating cuts across the public sector here, a further two hundred and fifty million cut is not a small amount of money. A lot of people would lose their jobs. A lot of people wouldn’t get the care or the services they need. There are human beings behind the numbers that will suffer to pay for a tax cut for the business community. If you were going to risk a public expenditure cut of that magnitude, you’d want evidence that this policy would definitely work, right?

So, who then stepped up to the plate to denounce this is a ridiculous, risky proposal, with no evidence to back up that it could actually succeed in creating jobs, which could come at the high price of risking further damage to our hospitals, schools and other public services?

…Apparently nobody.

Because if you read the papers, it would appear that there is no debate about the proposed corporation tax cut at all here. The Northern Ireland Office commissioned a report earlier this year called ‘Rebalancing the Northern Ireland Economy,’ launched with every party leader in the NI Executive standing with a copy of the report, beaming.

The NI media has portrayed the corporation tax issue as being one of total consensus. Apparently everyone agrees that this is a great idea. The campaign ‘Grow NI’ is keen to present the image of a whole nation, every man woman and child, crying out to the British treasury to be allowed to reduce the tax.

Bizarrely, even those who I imagined would be against such an idea, such as the NI Council for Voluntary Action and the NI Independent Retail Trade Association, seem to be for it. (Incidentally, NICVA appeared to hold a ‘debate’ where there didn’t appear to be anybody arguing against CT reduction). Those Assembly parties who are desperate to assure us of their ‘progressive’  nature,  their democratic socialist nature, or their social democratic and labour nature, are all slavishly for a CT cut.

Yes, occasionally a voice of opposition will be given a quick soundbite, but this is treated more as an aside than as an opposing view with any credibility. The Greens are the only party in the Assembly to oppose the cut(apart from the hardline unionist TUV, who probably oppose it more because it’d harmonize us in some way with the Republic).

A local activist I know phoned into the Stephen Nolan Show on BBC Radio Ulster, exasperated at this apparent consensus. After being patronised by all involved and treated like a fool for a few minutes, he calmly, comprehensively demolished the case for lowering corporation tax in plain language. All the presenter could do was leave a deafening silence (which spoke volumes about his own ignorance on the subject) and then say “…next caller.”

This sums the whole thing up perfectly. Apparently we are totally incapable of having a debate about this. To say slashing corporation tax won’t work, or even is unlikely to work, seems like heresy. Instead we must constantly hear the same clichés about a CT reduction being a ‘game changer’ and a huge cut in the block grant that will slash public services even more being euphemistically referred to as ‘the need to rebalance the NI economy.’ Allegedly many MLAs are unsure about the merits of a CT cut – yet we must endure some of the exact same MLAs standing in the chamber pushing for it. Some, of course, are undoubtedly viewing this solely through the narrow lens of the border question, weighing up their various predictable standpoints on becoming closer to the Republic policy-wise.

This sorry saga has its roots in the obvious Conservative Party interest in deregulation (Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson said earlier this year, ‘I have spoken to many hundreds of business people over nearly four years.  Two issues have come up time and again; planning and corporation tax.’), but also in the misguided Irish obsession with low rates of corporation tax. Never mind the fact that the Republic’s ‘Celtic Tiger’ was a wasteful, gluttonous, short-lived and ultimately disastrous period in the Republic’s history; we seem keen to emulate it up here. And we’re not even doing it in the right way. Low corporation tax rates are seen as the catalyst for the 1995-2007 Celtic Tiger years, ignoring the fact that the Republic of Ireland has had low corporation tax rates since 1956.

And so, we have this obsession with ‘foreign direct investment’ as the ultimate magic bullet to save the NI economy. Ignore the fact that Northern Ireland, with a lower rate of corporation tax, could become a tax haven within the UK. Ignore the obvious contrasts between the interests of our economy and the interests of big business. Blindly let the corporations come in, set up ‘head offices,’ employ a tiny amount of staff, and then move on and continue the race to the bottom. Don’t start thinking. Don’t question it.

Given Wilson’s announcement, it’s unclear whether he used the Assembly floor to start quietly disposing of the idea (He has said in the past he is skeptical about it). It’s likely this issue will start to fade away due to the apparent delay in implementing the CT reduction. That gives us some time to be prepared to start a debate and educate people in case the idea re-surfaces. Salmond is worried – albeit perhaps not for the same reasons – but the rest of the UK should take notice of the fact a tax haven could be developing just over the Irish sea.

And if you haven’t read it already, do have a look at the excellent report on devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland by tax expert Richard Murphy – I’m near for carrying this around with me and bashing MLAs over the head with it.

Nowadays almost 50% of young people go to university, and it’s a scandal that they expect society as a whole to cover their costs. Because, it makes far less sense to fund education through general taxation now that it benefits far more of society than when it was reserved for a small elite.

Of course, those 6% weren’t really being subsidised, not most of them anyway, because they went on to earn higher wages and paid back the cost of their education through higher taxation. And since a well educated population is a benefit to society as a whole, because education is a public good, not just a private one, it’s right that those who have done well, even without going to university, pay back some of the costs through progressive taxation.

Lord Browne, who’s review was released today, however, disagrees.

He recommends that the costs of higher education be borne by students directly, with fees of up to £12,000. That would make our education the most expensive anywhere in the world. Even with the cap of around £3000 a year England already has some of the highest fees for public universities. Once we increase that we’ll overtake Norway (£3313/yr) the US (£3752/yr for public universities) and Iceland (£4072/yr). Only private US universities will cost more, and not much more at £13877/yr. The average across all sectors in the US is around £7000 and even private universities in Japan (£4379/yr) and South Korea (£5379/yr) will be cheaper than public universities here. Sweden, Finland, Denmark and others all still charge no fees at all and the OECD average is just £1427 per year.

Coupled with the government’s cuts to higher education funding it seems clear to me that we are heading a system of de-facto privatised institutions. Browne in fact recommends a more diverse system of higher education institutions. Cutting public funding just as fee increase are proposed seems designed to reduce opposition from those already in the sector, and it’s certainly tempting when faced with the prospect of huge cuts and job losses to not make too much fuss and take this extra source of funds. So it’s good to see UCU maintain their opposition to fee increases and propose other methods to fund education.

UCU’s preferred funding method would see fees scrapped and replaced with a Business Education Tax (BET), essentially an increase in corporation tax. Noting that combined local and national corporation tax rates in Japan are nearly 40% and 39% in the US, whilst the tax is actually being cut from it current level of 28% in the UK, there is clearly room to raise far more revenue than universities need from those businesses that benefit from well trained graduates.

Browne rejects a business tax on the grounds that businesses already pay for the benefit of highly skilled graduates “through higher wages”. If only we could use the same argument for the contribution from students.

This particular one caught my attention:

@carolinelucas @jasonkitcat How wld you pay 4 ur policies on scrapping VAT + NI:£130bn, green jobs £44bn + transport £10bn?so £184bn.No rush

so I replied:

@charlottev dunno bout @carolinelucas @jasonkitcat, I’d pay for them by not trashing the economy with job cuts. #publicspendingpaysforitself

Her response:

@AdamRamsay Thanks Adam. Erm, public spending costs money and that is why I am trying to establish where it is coming from.

So I outlined the three reasons that public spending pays for itself – it is generally investments rather than diminishing value capital costs (unless it’s roads), the multiplier effect, and the fact that it’s cheaper to borrow and spend than to allow the economy to be trashed by recession:

@CharlotteV – a pretty simplistic understanding of economics. Public spending is recuperated each time its re-spent. #gpconf #keynes

@CharlotteV – a pretty simplistic understanding of economics: public spending tends to mean investments that save cash later #gpconf #keynes

@CharlotteV – a pretty simplistic understanding: public spending multiplies good bits of the economy = more cash to spend. #gpconf #keynes

Anyway, we went too and fro, with me arguing that Tory job cuts would be more expensive as they would send us into an economic nosedive, and her arguing that:

@AdamRamsay We simply do not have any more money to spend. BTW, they tried that in the 1930s – it didn’t work = Depression.

which I thought was an amusing understanding of, erm, time & chronology.

and

@AdamRamsay And doubling the annual amount to borrow – credit markets would laugh.

which is amusing given that Mervyn King has now said that Britain’s credit rating is not at risk.

But then she said something I hadn’t heard before. When I said they were going to cut jobs, she said Tories would generate an environment for more jobs. I asked how, she said:

@AdamRamsay Low interest rates, lower corporation tax, cutting red tape, increasing skills availability – good for job creation?

I was astounded. I know Tories are always wanting to cut taxes for big business, but is this really their policy when they are claiming the deficit is the biggest problem we face? Will they really cut taxes for RBS while university courses are being closed?

So, on questioning, she clarified:

@AdamRamsay Conservative policy is there will be corporation tax cuts, partic small co rate to 20%. Corp tax is disincentive to employment

So, that seems to be our answer. The Tories think there is no money. They simply have to cut universities (in whom every person employed multiplies up to an extra 2.5 jobs, according to a study by Edinburgh Uni last year) so that they can give a tax break to their mates at RBS (in whom every person employed only multiplies up to 1.5 extra jobs, according to the same study) and Tesco.

Flabbergasted, two of my Bright Green Scotland colleagues joined in:

garydunion @CharlotteV Where’s the money coming from for your tax cut? You told @AdamRamsay that “there simply isn’t any money.”

and

loota @CharlotteV @adamramsay Surely the money that funds your corporation tax cut could be used for Universities,or other public services instead

And she replied:

CharlotteV @garydunion Funded by simplication of tax reliefs and capital allowances. Leaving more money in a co will mean they employ more people.

Now, there is possibly a tiny extent to which simplification saves bureaucracy, and so a little money, but, a) again, if the Tories can save some money, are they really going to spend it on tax breaks for banks and supermarkets at the same time as they are enacting savage cuts to the vital public services our economy needs? b) If you are going to genuinely raise serious money by ‘simplification of tax reliefs’, surely this means some people getting less relief? In other words, the proposal is to introduce higher taxes for some people who currently get tax relief, and to cut public services so that they can cut taxes for big companies.

I may have got the wrong end of the stick with this. But are the Tories genuinely proposing tax cuts for big business at the same time as swinging cuts in public services? Why haven’t I heard that before?