|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 7, 2015 17:46:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 7, 2015 17:54:02 GMT
Quoted so I can like it again. I feel some maps coming on. Will also be interesting so see some comparisons between different areas as to where the tax comes from. London will help the overall figure for Labour held seats a bit but otherwise I expect the gap to be quite stark beween Labour and Tory held seats |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 7, 2015 18:02:00 GMT
The UKIP seats won't come out of it too well either ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 7, 2015 18:45:06 GMT
Quoted so I can like it again. I feel some maps coming on. Will also be interesting so see some comparisons between different areas as to where the tax comes from. London will help the overall figure for Labour held seats a bit but otherwise I expect the gap to be quite stark beween Labour and Tory held seats Maps would be brilliant, I'd be very interested to see what you can do. The deviations will be intriguing. I wonder if any Tory seats will have lower incomes than any non-London Labour seats. Just need time to read it through! |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Oct 7, 2015 18:53:53 GMT
Quoted so I can like it again. I feel some maps coming on. Will also be interesting so see some comparisons between different areas as to where the tax comes from. London will help the overall figure for Labour held seats a bit but otherwise I expect the gap to be quite stark beween Labour and Tory held seats Maps would be brilliant, I'd be very interested to see what you can do. The deviations will be intriguing. I wonder if any Tory seats will have lower incomes than any non-London Labour seats. Just need time to read it through! Sefton Central for labour has on average higher incomes than a fair number of tory-held seats in the north of england. It is, however, in merseyside and so should be treated as an outlier and exception to the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 7, 2015 19:22:55 GMT
One that surprises me as I go through the North West: Wythenshawe & Sale East has almost the same average employment income as Stretford & Urmston, Worsley & Eccles South, and Crewe & Nantwich, and is higher than Bury South. Which is astounding when you consider the deprivation in the Wythenshawe section of the seat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 19:36:27 GMT
It's remarkable how poor the correlation between income and voting habits is in london. Those who think the rich don't pay their share should examine the difference in tax paid by Cities of London and Westminster with Blanaeu Gwent. A multiple of about 40. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 7, 2015 19:38:42 GMT
Quoted so I can like it again. I feel some maps coming on. Will also be interesting so see some comparisons between different areas as to where the tax comes from. London will help the overall figure for Labour held seats a bit but otherwise I expect the gap to be quite stark beween Labour and Tory held seats Maps would be brilliant, I'd be very interested to see what you can do. The deviations will be intriguing. I wonder if any Tory seats will have lower incomes than any non-London Labour seats. Just need time to read it through! Quite a few, I suspect. The seat with the highest proportion of people on the minimum wage is Torridge and West Devon, so I'd be surprised if that's not on the list. Probably rather a lot of rural and particularly south-western seats, where there aren't big enough concentrations of wealth to outweigh generally low rural incomes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 19:43:21 GMT
Maps would be brilliant, I'd be very interested to see what you can do. The deviations will be intriguing. I wonder if any Tory seats will have lower incomes than any non-London Labour seats. Just need time to read it through! Quite a few, I suspect. The seat with the highest proportion of people on the minimum wage is Torridge and West Devon, so I'd be surprised if that's not on the list. Probably rather a lot of rural and particularly south-western seats, where there aren't big enough concentrations of wealth to outweigh generally low rural incomes. Cambridge is wealthier than most Tory seats I think never mind any. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435 
|
Post by iain on Oct 7, 2015 20:27:06 GMT
Surprised Chingford & Woodford Green is so deprived
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 7, 2015 20:40:07 GMT
Deprived? It isn't really, though its getting increasing Walthamstowified at the edges. Al lot depends on what figures you're looking at here. I've ranked the constituencies by median total income and on that measure Chingford comes in the top 100. Its bang on the London average and in the same ballpark as the somewhat similar areas of Carshalton and Uxbridge. The Hackney seats are in the same area but the median or mean figures would both conceal wile disparity between the very wealthy and quite poor. Of course this is based on employment or pension income and not benefits so excludes the (presumably) larger number in the Hackney seats who rely on that source of income
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Oct 7, 2015 21:42:08 GMT
Great stuff DW.. I will enjoy looking through that at my leisure (when I get enough leisure time so to do!)
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Oct 7, 2015 22:09:57 GMT
One that surprises me as I go through the North West: Wythenshawe & Sale East has almost the same average employment income as Stretford & Urmston, Worsley & Eccles South, and Crewe & Nantwich, and is higher than Bury South. Which is astounding when you consider the deprivation in the Wythenshawe section of the seat. Pete hit the nail on the head two posts ago: the statistics are based on employment income. There may not be all that many jobs in Wythenshawe/Sale East, but the ones which do exist are well paid. (Think Manchester Airport.) |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by myth11 on Oct 7, 2015 22:31:04 GMT
It nicely shows why quite a few cons are worried by the changes to "in work benefits" as it could really hurt the cons in key areas like Lincoln or in my party,s would like to win case Boston and Skegness .
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 7, 2015 22:40:05 GMT
Not that surprised-many constituencies outside London with high employment income are generally pretty close to London and have a lot of taxpayers who commute to London (notable examples: Hitchin & Harpenden, Herts, and Beaconsfield, Bucks.).
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 7, 2015 22:49:16 GMT
I've not checked but is this a new sort of data or the big survey thing they've done for ages?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Oct 8, 2015 9:59:47 GMT
One that surprises me as I go through the North West: Wythenshawe & Sale East has almost the same average employment income as Stretford & Urmston, Worsley & Eccles South, and Crewe & Nantwich, and is higher than Bury South. Which is astounding when you consider the deprivation in the Wythenshawe section of the seat. Pete hit the nail on the head two posts ago: the statistics are based on employment income. There may not be all that many jobs in Wythenshawe/Sale East, but the ones which do exist are well paid. (Think Manchester Airport.) Some on here don't think that airports create economic growth. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 9, 2015 8:15:10 GMT
It's remarkable how poor the correlation between income and voting habits is in london. Those who think the rich don't pay their share should examine the difference in tax paid by Cities of London and Westminster with Blanaeu Gwent. A multiple of about 40. I read somewhere last week that one house in Westminster generated more stamp duty last year than the whole of Liverpool. Whilst a one off and slightly absurd example, it does make it apparent that whole swathes of the country pay a disproportionately low amount of tax. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306
|
Post by maxque on Oct 9, 2015 8:34:40 GMT
It's remarkable how poor the correlation between income and voting habits is in london. Those who think the rich don't pay their share should examine the difference in tax paid by Cities of London and Westminster with Blanaeu Gwent. A multiple of about 40. I read somewhere last week that one house in Westminster generated more stamp duty last year than the whole of Liverpool. Whilst a one off and slightly absurd example, it does make it apparent that whole swathes of the country pay a disproportionately low amount of tax. Well, wealthy people live disproportionately in some areas. It's the only thing it's making apparent. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 9, 2015 10:14:16 GMT
I read somewhere last week that one house in Westminster generated more stamp duty last year than the whole of Liverpool. Whilst a one off and slightly absurd example, it does make it apparent that whole swathes of the country pay a disproportionately low amount of tax. Well, wealthy people live disproportionately in some areas. It's the only thing it's making apparent. Well, yes and no. It does make apparent that some places pay a disproportionate amount of (non business) taxes, because that's exactly what the data shows. That's the headline statistic regardless of the reason why, and it is true to say. It's a bit like saying 'Labour voters die younger.' This is true but ignores the reason why. |
|
