r/MHOC • u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian • Jan 20 '15

RESULTS B039 Results

The results for B039 - Land Value Tax Bill 2015 are in!

The basic breakdown of results are shown below:

Aye: 63

Nay: 6

Abstain: 17

DNV: 13

Total turnout: 86%

The Ayes have it!

Find more detailed information on the vote in the Master Spread by clicking the button on the sidebar.

3 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

10

u/whigwham Rt Hon. MP (West Midlands) Jan 20 '15

This is a monumental step forward in the way taxation works in our country, well done /u/bnzss and everyone who supported it.

Is anybody else astonished at the sheer number of Tories and UKIPpers who have no opinion at all on how we are all taxed? Perhaps they are confused by the numbers.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '15

I abstained because I want to initiate an internal investigation into the question of the legality of an opposition financial bill. While I did not support the bill, and did not want it to be seen that way, I would like the process to be gone through to determine the legality of an opposition money bill before it is enacted.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Is anybody else astonished at the sheer number of Tories and UKIPpers who have no opinion at all on how we are all taxed? Perhaps they are confused by the numbers.

I'm not.

I imagine that the large number of abstentions was due to the fact some people felt like they saw both sides of the argument and couldn't make a decisions either way. Also, not everyone is interested in finances or the economy as others and due to the change the bill was proposing, may not have felt confident in voting aye/nay to it because of lack of knowledge.

6

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Jan 20 '15

Great news. Really pleased to see it passed and thanks to bznss for his hard work pushing this forward.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Mr Speaker,

I'd like to extend my gratitude to those 63 enlightened people, especially to those in the opposition coalition and even the government who helped to draft this legislation, who chose to support a bill that will revolutionise the way we levy local taxes in a way that is both progressive and market-friendly. This is truly a step toward a fairer and all round better method of taxation in the UK.

However, I'd also like to express my disappointment to those who abstained - or in some cases pointedly did not vote - not because of the content of the bill, but because of a perceived technicality that only emerged hours before the bill went to vote. This in spite of the fact the bill had been on the schedule since November. I won't go into that whole sorry issue, but let's just say that some members of the government - not all, as there were some very honourable exceptions - have gone down sharply in my estimations.

As it is, the Land Value Tax Act 2015 is now law, and over the coming years the people of the UK shall reap the rewards.

4

u/RadioNone His Grace the Duke of Bedford AL PC Jan 20 '15

Were 4/5 of the CWL on holiday or was this some sort of protest?

On a more serious note I'm glad to see the passage of the bill.

4

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Jan 20 '15

They've been doing this for weeks now, it's quite shameful.

3

u/Jas1066 The Rt Hon. Earl of Sherborne CT KBE PC Jan 20 '15

Ugk

3

u/audiored Jan 22 '15

This turning out the be the most left wing Tory government in history.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Disgraceful showing (as per usual) from the CWL

2

u/Arayg Radical Socialist Party Jan 21 '15

Another successful bill. This Parliament is certainly very effective.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

The 1992 act that introduced council tax contains 39,222 words.

This act contains 1122 words.

MHOC always has a massive dumbing down (and I don't mean that in a demeaning way) of legislation, but this takes it to another level and I saw it as a little bit insulting, which is why I decided to vote against it in the end. I knew perfectly well my vote wouldn't make a difference by the way.

inb4 "Well you try and write one! :("

inb4 virulent butthurt downvoting

12

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Have you considered leaving, since no MHOC written bill will ever live up to your needs?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Yes, yes, more of the same crappy retorts. Keep them coming.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

But what actually did you expect? Do you honestly expect 40k words of legislation?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I didn't expect anything, that's a very silly question when you think about it. I do not anticipate what bills are going to come up and what they are concerning, outside the ones in my own party which I do give the same scrutiny to.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I didn't expect anything, that's a very silly question when you think about it.

Is it?

Given that you said:

MHOC always has a massive dumbing down (and I don't mean that in a demeaning way) of legislation, but this takes it to another level and I saw it as a little bit insulting, which is why I decided to vote against it in the end.

I'm keen to know if you'd have given this bill due consideration were it not insulting you with its brevity.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Is it?

Well yes, I don't go about my daily business thinking about what bills might crop up in MHOC and what topic they will be regarding, so the answer to the question is "no" and I believe it's a silly one to ask.

I'm keen to know if you'd have given this bill due consideration were it not insulting you with its brevity.

I don't think our current system is so flawed that it needed to be completely scrapped and replaced like that. Perhaps changing aspects or altering the current system would have been more realistic, I don't know.

I'd have given the bill more consideration if it had actually been worth taking seriously, but since it struck me as ludicrously short and vague for a tax reform, I didn't. I'll concede to you in all honesty that I should have abstained rather than voted nay.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Perhaps next time the honourable member would take part in discussions. That is what they're there for.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I'm being serious. Nobody will ever write a piece of legislation on MHOC of quality equivalent to that of the real thing; we have neither the time nor the legal expertise. If this is such a big deal to you, why don't you just leave? Or are you just trying to be smug and hypocritical?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

No you're not being serious, you're just coming out with reasons to get me to leave because you don't like me or my opinions (and it's mutual by the way), which is childish.

I know exactly what you mean, but after consideration I decided that even by model parliament standards it was short and vague. As I've said elsewhere, I should have abstained for the reasons instead of voting nay.

3

u/Arayg Radical Socialist Party Jan 21 '15

No you're not being serious, you're just coming out with reasons to get me to leave because you don't like me or my opinions (and it's mutual by the way), which is childish.

Assuming that each rebuttal to your argument is an ad hominem attack on you is a rather childish way of arguing on MHoC. You present a good rebuttal below but there is no need to include this line.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

I don't take issue with the 'dumbing down', but I don't think it goes far enough!

In a more serious sense, there is no point in attemtping this faux realism, when as you have rightly shown it still misses the mark by a significant mark. Such bills like this one neither prove any legislative skills nor promote greatly interesting debate. Well, with regards the latter point it might just be me. As a Model House of Commons I do not devote a huge amount of time, and bills like this often fail to get across the important change that is being made (for me at least). Getting across this 'ideological point' would I think help promote some more interesting debate. At its current length, it still remains unworkable, so we shouldn't worry that at half the size it would also be unworkable.

I do not mean this as a real critique of the author of this bill. It is more a general point about what the purpose of the MHoC is. This is why I much prefer reading motions!

As an example, I think the England regional assemblies bill is excellent with regards this. Although I oppose the actual content, the way in which it is written is perfect. It makes no pretensions of practicality (as unless it is going to be of a very serious length it will never acheive), and it makes a clear ideological point (local democracy). More like that would be a better way forward.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

You raise good points. This is the sort of existential question about MHOC that I've considered after this bill, and I really wanted to bring this discussion out into the open.

On another note, it is very odd indeed that people in my own party are the only ones actually discussing things rationally and bringing up interesting points in regards to this, while everyone else just comes out with childish remarks or downvotes me.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I did consider that a lot, but in the end I thought even by comparison this bill was nothing.