See, I just don't understand this line. We offer the prospect of a low tax economy, in which most equalization is achieved by market forces rather than the big state, the only long term solution to housing affordability, less intrusiveness than will be required to maintain incomes and transaction as tax bases in a globalized world, a tax that is controllable by the payer (the very definition of a liberal tax as I read somewhere recently - Nick Clegg perhaps?), a better way of financing public infrastructure that pays for itself out of the windfall gains such projects create in local land markets (and automatically compensating people in lower taxes if they are adversely affected by such projects).

Actually I hear the TC is not so skeptical - that LVT has had majority of support for most of the time it's been meeting (not for replacing LIT but usually as a national tax) - just that the campaigns team and the local government teams are dead against any form of property tax because of the mixed messages it will send about the LIT campaign.

I rather suspect that for Tony as well as myself, LVT is a bigger issue than party. If we do not grasp it now I shall probably be off as soon as I can find a different more receptive political home.

I say it's the political suicide of a mediocre third party that dares not step too far out of the two party consensus line if we don't look seriously at it.