Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
I've seen this sort of poll before, and whilst this does indicate a certain level of racism there are acould of things to note:

1. 26% of Labour voters declined to answer.

2. 28% of Conservative voters declined to answer

3. 20% of Lib-Dems declined to answer.

4. Given the above there's a significant margin of error to the Con and Lab views, and this is probably confounded by the fact that Labour voters may feel group pressure to answer a certain way more so than Conservatives - especially when they know their party is getting hammered over the issue.

5. Whilst the averacious Jew is a nasty trope it's significantly less dangerous than the Rothschild Conspiracy, which is the more common form of Left-Wing antisemitism.
This isn't racism. Jews are not a race they are a religion - a matrilineal one which means in about 100 years the ethnicity of a Jew can change completely. Corbyn appears to be anti-Zionist since he is pro-Hamas who are also mainly ethnic Semites. Is criticising any facet of Israel somehow not allowed now? What about if the UK government had tackled the IRA the way Israel tackled uprisings? We blockade Ireland on the air, land and sea, we sent in tanks and troops and kill anything that looks like a threat and so on and so on. No, in fact the UK is still lambasted more for the acts they did which is nonsensical.

Viewing Jews as wanting to accrue money isn't always negative. Sikhs also as a cohort do so and like displaying wealth. Hell, I also like accruing money and am more focused than my siblings. I haven't had a day off work in over 4 years (I'm self employed). We are different, not right / wrong.

Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
On the council tax, Labour's new manifesto proposes a second homes tax as "an annual levy on second homes that are used as holiday homes equivalent to 200% of
the current council tax bill for the property[...]" Elsewhere, I've found older reports that Labour was considering the replacement of council tax with property tax. Existing British property taxes include Blair's stamp duty on purchases of land and property, capital gains tax on sales thereof, income tax on income from property, inheritance tax (on global assets!), and annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which I don't understand well enough to summarize (it may have something to do with those rich foreigners). So a straight property tax on the value of land and property seems to be unknown in Britain, which is interesting.

But in the manifesto there's nothing about property tax, and the only other reference to council taxes is "giving councils new powers to tax
properties empty for over a year," which may or may not be related to the aforementioned second homes tax.
("The council tax database indicates that as of October 2018 there are 251,654 properties classed as ‘second homes’ for council tax purposes in England[...]")

I don't know, then, what the current Labour stance on the council tax is, or why they haven't committed to increasing bands. I doubt it has to do with a perception of electoral suicide in light of, you know, the entire rest of the manifesto.

Part of the purpose of nationalization (which is never named as such in the manifesto) is part and parcel with the overall program of decentralization. I guess that means local councils exercising much more decision-making over new and old infrastructure in their jurisdiction.
Increasing council tax on holiday homes is a good start... Note it is not second homes required for work, since that might affect MPs!
Gordon Brown always preferred stealth taxes that would bite in the future to visible ones in the present. And rather like how treating alcohol and tobacco in the same way as all other drugs and rating them according to their danger just isn't going to happen due to the past, the UK really has a fetish with homes and owning them and even somewhat redistributive taxes on homes is suicide - not to mention the much more extreme tax on land utility (the basic difference being the former is a tax on what is there now, and the latter is a tax on the potential of the land - so it helps optimise land usage at the expense of sentiment).

I think Labour realises that people are happy to advocate for "rich bastards" to loose their companies and for the State to grab companies but when it is something literally closer to home like the value of their house then the loss of money is much more real.

Nationalisation often leads to centralisation, not localisation. After all, before the railways were nationalised they were integrated companies and run in geographic areas which made sense - compared to the current split of the trains, the lines and the stations which makes no sense. Surely if decentralisation was the purpose, letting local government have control of different taxes would be the way to go rather than central government annexing companies.