Well I don't know about you all but I'm finding this thoroughly absorbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyfr
No its not accurate just because they assessed them the same. Quite simply because every constituency has different numbers of band D housing. If a constituency has majority band D housing, you can assume the average wage will be that of somebody living in band D housing and therefore the telegraph figure will be much more representative. For those with majorities not in band D then it is simply not representative. It will make those with majority in housing below D seem expensive, and the reverse, make constituencies with the majority of housing above band D appear very cheap.
|
Cyfr, it is most certainly accurate because the figures are based it on are accurate. Now, whilst you may feel that using simply one band gives a skewed final analysis that does not mean that the figures that they have reached are not accurate or open to interpretation.
Also, you can assume that there are other councils in the country with a similar make up of housing. Therefore, if we were to compare direct like with like with councils of a similar standing then the figures are acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyfr
No I haven't looked at every council in Britain. Although if you look at how expensive councils are on the basis of how much the resident has to pay not in relation to income, and hence not skewed by averages, Hyndburn certainly doesn't appear in the top 10 according to the LATEST telegraph article (that's this year not January 2007).
|
The relationship to income is irrelevant. It does not stop something from being more expensive or make it less expensive. If the cost of milk is 43p here and 22p elsewhere, it is irrelevant whether I can afford it or not as to how expensive it is. This would indicate to me that the latest figures from the Telegraph are not accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyfr
On the matter, since council tax has risen by only 45% less than half the rate the average council tax has increased, then the tax burden under the previous labour administration would have to have been HUGE.
|
You'll have to explain this bit again because I don't understand your point.