freethought
Member
I just don't think young people have had as clear a choice in decades, but I'm not particularly hopeful.
They used to vote, once upon a time.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
I just don't think young people have had as clear a choice in decades, but I'm not particularly hopeful.
They used to vote, once upon a time.
Chocolate & Vanilla
Fuck Strawberry
Well, comrade. We'll all become dirty commies and civilisation will collapse.
Serious answer: much more investment in public services. Higher tax on higher earners and corporations. More money for minimum wage earners.
Long term though? Who knows. Country is pretty fucked economically whoever get in I think but I'd rather take the blind hope that comes with a Labour government then 5 more years of what we have now compounded by a crippling of trade and security when May walks away from the EU with no deal
Isn't the voting age 18? Most students will finish their exams end of May.
Problem #114 with Labour's improvement in polls being due to vote share: they are clumped together in seats which already vote Labour.
Of the ten seats with the highest proportions of 18 to 24 yr olds, nine are already held by Labour, the other is Leeds NW (Lib Dem)
Of the fifty seats with the highest proportions of 18 to 24 yr olds, 33 are held by Labour; 9 by the Tories; 2 LDs; 5 SNP; 1 Green; 1 Plaid
Of the ten seats with the highest proportions of 18 to 24 yr olds, nine are already held by Labour, the other is Leeds NW (Lib Dem)
Of the fifty seats with the highest proportions of 18 to 24 yr olds, 33 are held by Labour; 9 by the Tories; 2 LDs; 5 SNP; 1 Green; 1 Plaid
Yeah, but if the popular vote is close, the Conservatives lose their mandate to do whatever the hell they want.
Linkstrikesback
Member
They presumably mean university exams, not schools.
As for when those exams finish, it varies a bit by university. Sheffield won't quite have finished exams by that point.
Westminster voting intention
CON: 45% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+1)
LD: 8% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 3% (+1)
(via @ICMResearch / 26-29 May)
Chgs w/ 26May
Nobody in the UK cares about the popular vote. Minor parties have been getting gangbanged by FPTP for decades and nobody has cared in the slightest.
CON: 45% (-1)
LAB: 33% (+1)
LD: 8% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-)
GRN: 3% (+1)
(via @ICMResearch / 26-29 May)
Chgs w/ 26May
Nobody in the UK cares about the popular vote. Minor parties have been getting gangbanged by FPTP for decades and nobody has cared in the slightest.
but do they? IT will be quickly forgotten if they had a large majority in terms of seats.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Theonik
Member
Not entirely true. Conservatives fearing UKIP's voteshare lead them to real policy change in their manifesto that meant we got Brexit.
Oh wow, just looked that up. Those are some late exams.
Depends on the university, quite a few don't finish till after the vote.
QuicheFontaine
Member
The majority in the HoC is the mandate.
Plus they have carte blanche in Brexit negotiations already.
Sadly, clear choice between psychopathic dumbass and not psychopathic dumbass doesn't mean anything - as the US can attest to.
Daffy Duck
Member
Can't say I like the sound of the land tax proposal by Labour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/29/tax-homes-treble-labour-plans-land-value-tax/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/29/tax-homes-treble-labour-plans-land-value-tax/
Spuck-uk
Banned
It's long overdue
Welcome to Scotland in the year 2014.
What gives it away isn't that it's something they shouldn't report, it's the level of coverage that's the issue.
It was obvious that BBC News had found their story of the day before the interview was even over. They'd posted multiple updates on the website, and quickly put up a video of the gaff section of the interview. And then we have the BBC reporter asking questions about it during the Labour Race and Faith event.
Classy stuff.
I'm off to read the SNP manifesto. I've had my postal vote poised for a while, and I'm pretty happy with the local candidate, but I thought I better hang on until the manifesto before I voted in case they slipped something in there about drowning the first-born of their enemies, or whatever.
Haven't really thought about it a great deal, but seems far more progressive than what we have right now.
freeofgreed
Member
This is interesting. It's like the exact opposite of American Jews who tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Any explanation on why this is?
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Forgive my ignorance here, but what's the current setup in comparison...?
EDIT: That article doesn't really have much actual info in it. It's all speculation.
QuicheFontaine
Member
That sounds awful. I doubt I could even sell of my gardens so I'd be lumbered with the extra tax.
If there are no details, where do these numbers come from?
I also don't believe the "average" family has £2,600/year to spare, so the whole thing seems dubious.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Same place the Conservatives costed manifesto numbers are kept, nowhere
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's a really bad understanding of how a land tax works (probably on purpose). The status quo is that council tax is placed according to the value of the entire property - including the value of the garden. The land value tax doesn't change that.
I don't know what general support from the Jewish community has been like for parties over the last few decades, but Momentum, the campaign group that pushed Corbyn to the position he's in is regularly accused of harbouring anti-semitic ideology in the guise of anti-zionism.
Thing is, as per Crab, the 2015 numbers were 67% CON, 18% LAB. A significant drop but it's not like the Jewish community weren't already in the Tory corner.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's had only limited effect. Labour got 18% of the Jewish vote under Miliband (himself the first Jewish leader of a major party since Disraeli). Corbyn is polling at 13%. As far back as I can trace the polling, Jews have been overwhelmingly Conservative.
Theonik
Member
It is part of why the Tories decided to run for the 'Corbyn in anti-Semitic' smear.
Spuck-uk
Banned
Israel, basically. Even among Jewish people who aren't huge fans of the state.
Both your main parties in the US will never, EVER say anything negative about Israel regardless of what the state does.
I mean it's actually not so much speculation as outright FUD from the Conservative Party's media wing. In any case, the current setup is council tax which is of course pretty close to being a flat tax. In terms of the pure numbers, the Conservatives seem to have pulled them out of thin air and Telegraph are publishing them. Why is this legal? They have taken Labour's manifesto pledge to look into the idea of LVT, and intentionally misconstrued it by coming up with their own costings for it? Amazing that a party with literally no manifesto costings is now inventing fake costings for their opponent.
"Here's what Labour's main political opponent had to say regarding their currently vague economic policy"
TomWaitsForNoMan
Banned
Michael Howard?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
D'oh! I quite forgot.
Daffy Duck
Member
I wouldn't even be able to afford it, so god knows what happens then, taken to court? Lol.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Eh? What does it change then? I thought this was basically recalculating your council tax with an extra surcharge based on the land area (which Labour's city centre flat dwelling voters wouldn't have to worry about of course...)
freethought
Member
I don't think prior religious affiliation counts once you're undead.
Like how Jon Snow got to leave the Watch.
TomWaitsForNoMan
Banned
Everyone forgot about him tbf
I know you didn't mean it as such, but I've always been uncomfortable with jokes that compare Jewish people to bloodsucking monsters, even pieces of rotting shit like Howard
Theonik
Member
The way your council tax is calculated as a whole. The current system is based on bands that are mostly derived from bad value estimates from the 90s which can be either too low and too high due to how rushed the whole job was.
Instead you might be taxed on the proportion of land you occupy. (which the old system was meant to be pricing in anyway)
E: Crab has explained it a lot better. But I think it should be said that there are some unknowns wrt to how it will be balanced and how the land will be priced. In that sense it is as bad and arbitrary as Council Tax was.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
In a property, there are two sources of the bits of value. There's the land the property is built on ('unimproved land') and then all of the stuff on top - the house, the plumbing, the additional bits of garden like the nice trees and flowers, everything that goes above and beyond just the base square metres ('improvements'). Council tax is levied on the total value of the property. The land value tax is based solely on the unimproved value of the property.
Imagine we have two properties, one in Herefordshire and one in London. They're both worth £250,000. Now, space isn't very valuable in Herefordshire. It's pretty rural. So most of that £250,000 is probably because the 'improvements' - the house built on that land - is pretty nice. In London, other way round. The space is most of that value, and the house is going to be soso. If the aim was to make the same amount of revenue, when switching from CT to LT, you'd expect to see the tax on the Herefordshire property go down, and the tax on the London one go up.
The single most significant contributor to the value of 'unimproved' land is not the area of the land, it's the location. If you could add an extra 50sqm to your property, or magically move your property to London, moving it to London will increase the property by way more. Having a garden will make almost no difference to your tax rates by comparison.
What an LVT does is tax 'locations'. You can expect your tax rise if you live in the South, and fall if you live in the North, as very rough guide.
There are two keys impacts. Firstly, you can't just sit on land, as property speculators do. An empty patch costs exactly the same amount in tax as the patch with a house on it. So either you use land, or you lose it - it creates a significant incentive to 'develop' lands. Secondly, it's a giant rebalance to the economy. It massively incentives decentralising economic production. It's also one of the most 'efficient' taxes. I don't think there's an economist alive who will criticise the LVT, it's the closest you can possibly get to harmony between everyone from RBC theorists and monetarists to neoKeynesians and even Marxists.
EDIT: I mean, here's a city economist writing for CapX praising it: https://capx.co/land-value-tax-is-a-great-idea-but-itll-never-happen/
QuicheFontaine
Member
I can see the argument that council tax is itself unfair, but I don't really get how this is any fairer...
Daffy Duck
Member
No mind-blowing revelations to be found in the SNP manifesto. Though it isn't exactly riveting reading so I may have glazed over some interesting points towards the end.(middle)
There was this though, which somewhat tickled me:
Is Scotland the dino and England the boy?
Theonik
Member
Basically it creates an incentive for land development and should lead to the building of more affordable housing.
Among other potential implications. I should say I personally hate both systems.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Thanks for the info Crab. One more question though, if this is replacing CT does that money go to the council or to central govt? There was a bit in that article with McDonnell saying "it'll give us the money we need" or something.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked