The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[ChipChop]

In the end, the Brexit debacle in parliament wasn't all bad. A triumph for democracy was that many of the MP's who behaved disgracefully in trying to overturn the referendum against the wishes of their constituency, lost their seats at the next election. Hopefully that sent a powerful message.

Not sure the political class could care less about losing their seats. They always land on their respective feet and invariably financially much better off.

Must be getting rewarded for doing something for someone perhaps?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DSM10000]

So an MP can vote in line with a minority of his/her constituents, or according to his/her personal policies, or according to his/her party's policies, and it's all within the framework of democracy... unless he/she votes against Brexit, then they're 'traitors to democracy'? I fail to see the logic of allowing MPs a wide range of voting choices, but just not on Brexit.

I am sure we have already had this debate?

In terms of the EU referendum this was made possible by a Parliamentary vote as previously stated

The result of that referendum was based on an overall national majority of votes cast.

In a General Election votes are cast, counted and allocated according to constituency representation and party preference and the overall majority of constituencies decides the governing party.

This is not the case with a national referendum whereby an overall majority either decides the outcome of the referendum issue or instructs Parliament of the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

 

[markjay]

I am sure we have already had this debate?

We did, but then it was reignited by the comment made in #22,353.

In terms of the EU referendum this was made possible by a Parliamentary vote as previously stated

The result of that referendum was based on an overall national majority of votes cast.

In a General Election votes are cast, counted and allocated according to constituency representation and party preference and the overall majority of constituencies decides the governing party.

This is not the case with a national referendum whereby an overall majority either decides the outcome of the referendum issue or instructs Parliament of the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

The referendum was defined as 'non-binding', because there's is no other way to have one in a representative democracy. Simply put, having representative democracy alongside direct democracy is like having both the jury and the judge pass a verdict at the same time - whose ruling trumps over the other?

Which is why only a vote in Parliament has any legal status, while a referendum will always be non-binding - that's how our representative democracy works, always have done.

This is from Wikipedia, BTW, under Referendums in the United Kingdom:

"Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because Parliament is sovereign."

So in this context, referring to MPs who voted legally according to their own policies, or their party's policies, or their constituents' wishes, or their own conscious (all of which are not only perfectly permissable, but so expected) 'traitors to democracy' is, in my opinion, plain wrong and grossly unfair.

I am not a Remoaner, BTW, and I do accept that emotions ran very high on Brexit in either camp, but I do think that we should try and keep a cool head, and be fair and respectful towards our political opponents, whether we win or lose.

 

[markjay]

...many of the MP's who behaved disgracefully in trying to overturn the referendum against the wishes of their constituency, lost their seats at the next election...

And I have no issue with that.

MPs have the right to vote how they wish, and their constituents have the right to replace them if they feel they are not representing then as they should.

This is exactly how our forefathers designed our representative democracy, which has evolved over the centuries to where we are now.

So Parliament works as it should. It's not broken, and it does not need to fixed. And there's no need for name-calling MPs, either...

 

[Swotty]

We did, but then it was reignited by the comment made in #22,353.



The referendum was defined as 'non-binding', because there's is no other way to have one in a representative democracy. Simply put, having representative democracy alongside direct democracy is like having both the jury and the judge pass a verdict at the same time - whose ruling trumps over the other?

Which is why only a vote in Parliament has any legal status, while a referendum will always be non-binding - that's how our representative democracy works, always have done.

This is from Wikipedia, BTW, under Referendums in the United Kingdom:

"Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because Parliament is sovereign."

So in this context, referring to MPs who voted legally according to their own policies, or their party's policies, or their constituents' wishes, or their own conscious (all of which are not only perfectly permissable, but so expected) 'traitors to democracy' is, in my opinion, plain wrong and grossly unfair.

I am not a Remoaner, BTW, and I do accept that emotions ran very high on Brexit in either camp, but I do think that we should try and keep a cool head, and be fair and respectful towards our political opponents, whether we win or lose.

I'm sure the Taliban will be pleased to hear that!

 

[markjay]

I'm sure the Taliban will be pleased to hear that!

Didn't quite work this way for Libya's Qaddafi, either.... but as they say 'charity starts at home', so let's ensure that our own house is in order before checking what others are doing.

 

[Swotty]

Didn't quite work this way for Libya's Qaddafi, either.... but as they say 'charity starts at home', so let's ensure that our own house is in order before checking what others are doing.

Should we do that with climate change, too, do you think?

 

[markjay]

Should we do that with climate change, too, do you think?

Is there are reason why not?

 

[markjay]

It's the Daily Mail... so hopefully it's fake news... but here goes anyway:

Council tax should be replaced with annual payment, think-tank says

The Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research think tank said the move would lead to a fall in house prices of 3 per cent in London and other well-off places in the south.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This sounds to me like a think tank policy that wasn't thought-trough.

 

[ChipChop]

It's the Daily Mail... so hopefully it's fake news... but here goes anyway:

Council tax should be replaced with annual payment, think-tank says

The Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research think tank said the move would lead to a fall in house prices of 3 per cent in London and other well-off places in the south.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This sounds to me like a think tank policy that wasn't thought-trough.

The French system of taxe fonciere combined with taxe d'habitation seems to be a fair one, though if implemented in the UK owners of high rentable value residential property would be paying a lot more than £5000 per year on a £1 million property.

 

[m80]

It's Labour, apparently.
They have to say something now and again so they aren't forgotten.

 

[DSM10000]

It's Labour, apparently.
They have to say something now and again so they aren't forgotten.

Who they?

 

[GeeJayW]

Presumably house market values will be determined in a totally fair and objective manner…

 

[Deleted member 159894]

Presumably house market values will be determined in a totally fair and objective manner…

That would be a problem With using a % of the house value.

Have they factored in the cost to value every property in the UK?

Maybe they would have been better banding properties using data already to hand, they could call it a tax and set it locally by local authorities, if only I could come up with a snappy name for it.

Does anyone remember when Steve Wright used to be funny?

 

[Bellow]

It's the Daily Mail... so hopefully it's fake news... but here goes anyway:

Council tax should be replaced with annual payment, think-tank says

The Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research think tank said the move would lead to a fall in house prices of 3 per cent in London and other well-off places in the south.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This sounds to me like a think tank policy that wasn't thought-trough.

The current system needs revising.
Looking at the bands based on 2003 prices there are 9 closely clustered bands with the assumption that those in the higher value properties are more able to pay a larger share and/or the levy being proportional to the property value (as is VAT). So far, so progressive. Then from a property value (almost 20 years out of date) of £424,000 to infinity the levy is the same. The alphabet runs all the way to Z. It doesn't stop at I.

 

[markjay]

The current system needs revising.
Looking at the bands based on 2003 prices there are 9 closely clustered bands with the assumption that those in the higher value properties are more able to pay a larger share and/or the levy being proportional to the property value (as is VAT). So far, so progressive. Then from a property value (almost 20 years out of date) of £424,000 to infinity the levy is the same. The alphabet runs all the way to Z. It doesn't stop at I.

The issue is that wages tend to rise at a steady pace, while the housing market (in some places) is subject to boom-and-bust cycles.

If the estimate is done when house prices are at their peak, or even just on the rise, some people will be forced out of their homes where they've been living for (say) 20 or 30 years. These homes will be quickly bought by wealthy people who can afford the higher tax. So this Labour(?) initiatve risks achieving what it essentially the wet dream of any die-hard capitalist.....

 

[Bellow]

The issue is that wages tend to rise at a steady pace, while the housing market (in some places) is subject to boom-and-bust cycles.

If the estimate is done when house prices are at their peak, or even just on the rise, some people will be forced out of their homes where they've been living for (say) 20 or 30 years. These homes will be quickly bought by wealthy people who can afford the higher tax. So this Labour(?) initiatve risks achieving what it essentially the wet dream of any die-hard capitalist.....

That's as maybe but the accumulation of wealth is there nonetheless and had it been accumulated through work it would have been taxed. There will be one thousand and more criticisms made of that statement depending on view points and I'm not going to get dragged into argument as it is the lesser point compared to the banding stopping at I.
That anyone pays the same for a property worth (tens. hundreds of) £millions as someone in a $420,000 property does not square with purpose(s) of the first 9 bands. And, with tax hikes coming down the pipe to pay for Covid, any system seen as unjust by the poorest in society while they are asked to contribute ever more of their low income is a dangerous system to have in place. Very high value assets are costly to maintain eg, gold in vaults (insurance etc). Very high value housing should be on a par - not pegged at that payable on a £420,000 house.

 

[markjay]

That's as maybe but the accumulation of wealth is there nonetheless and had it been accumulated through work it would have been taxed. There will be one thousand and more criticisms made of that statement depending on view points and I'm not going to get dragged into argument as it is the lesser point compared to the banding stopping at I.
That anyone pays the same for a property worth (tens. hundreds of) £millions as someone in a $420,000 property does not square with purpose(s) of the first 9 bands. And, with tax hikes coming down the pipe to pay for Covid, any system seen as unjust by the poorest in society while they are asked to contribute ever more of their low income is a dangerous system to have in place. Very high value assets are costly to maintain eg, gold in vaults (insurance etc). Very high value housing should be on a par - not pegged at that payable on a £420,000 house.

The key issue is that if your property goes up in price - as often happens in London - you become 'asset-rich and penny-poor' and this will simply push poor people out of their family homes to pave the way for rich people who want to move in. It's fine as long as it's clear what it is that we are doing here - making the poor collateral damage in our haste to 'tax the rich' at any cost.

 

[markjay]

On a more general note, taxing non-liquid appreciating assets will always be a problem, because the asset can appreciate to a point where a cashless owner can no longer afford to pay the tax and will have to liquidate the asset. In this brave new world only the veey rich will have appreciating assets; everyone else will be taxed out of them.

 

[Benzowner]

The current system needs revising.
Looking at the bands based on 2003 prices there are 9 closely clustered bands with the assumption that those in the higher value properties are more able to pay a larger share and/or the levy being proportional to the property value (as is VAT). So far, so progressive. Then from a property value (almost 20 years out of date) of £424,000 to infinity the levy is the same. The alphabet runs all the way to Z. It doesn't stop at I.

Maggie tried to revise the system back in the 90's and look where it got her. I do agree that the system need revision, but it will take a brave man or woman to put forward a suggestion.