I don't disagree, BUT...

ALTER has also changed its position on LIT in any case. Because of the intransigence of party campaign managers who insist that "we can't change our minds" on LIT, we have I think accepted that LIT could go ahead, so long as there is also a move toward LVT as a national tax - replacing one or more other taxes (my favourites would be Stamp Duty, IHT and Capital Gains to start with to prove the point then elements of national income tax later) so that we are not left with no property based tax at all.  And to be fair, more of LVT's beneficial effects would be felt if it were a national tax - because that would create natural, land value based tax competition across the country.

Personally, I think our policy should be, as in America, that local government can choose whatever system they feel most appropriate for local tax raising, including local sales taxes, local payroll taxes and whatever other innovations local authorities might come up with depending on thei local economies.

However, my real interest in Nick's position is that it was reported that he had said something about LVT helping to produce more affordable housing. And, to my knowledge, that is possibly one of the first times a senior figure in the party has agreed LVT has a greater role than merely as a tax raising system. Where it fits in his tax policy - at what "level" of government it might be levied to have the most beneficial effects on affordable housing policy in other words - is almost irrelevant to that.

But I've not heard the claim repeated (despite the crucial importance of affordable housing) so it will not be playing any part in my decision as to who to vote for!