Randomly Selected Article or Link

ALTER (the Lib Dems' Land Value Tax and Economic Reform group) have spent the time over the holidays preparing arguments for the "Tax Commission II" which will focus, amongst other things on that bit of tax policy that was left hanging at Conference - the details of how to implement Land Value Tax.

One thing I noticed just before Christmas which didn't seem to be picked up anywhere else was some research from "Inside Housing" magazine, also reported in the Telegraph, that in some places up to 50% of new build housing is standing empty, bought up, often "off-plan", by speculators who just want to hold it and hope to make a turn on it selling it on after a year or two, but not even putting tenants into them because they don't want to have to carry out any remediation work before they sell and don't want any "vacant possession" issues to affect their choice of timing.

It particularly affects apartments, and so disproportionately also those trying to get onto the housing ladder.

The Lib Dems already have policy to shift the Uniform Business Rate to a Site Value Rating basis, and at conference as part of the tax paper it was agreed that this should also apply to vacant brownfield sites to encourage development.

Anyway, as one way of beginning a shift to LVT more generally as the main, or hopefully only, property based tax, we are suggesting that once land is in the SVR system it should stay there. So new homes would attract SVR even after purchase rather than Council Tax or anything else. This would provide a huge disincentive for people to "abuse" the new housing market in this way. At the moment, and even under Local Income Tax, most of these buyers would pay little or nothing while the properties lie empty, but if they attracted SVR from the moment they got planning permission, such buyers would have to factor in a tax bill when deciding to leave them empty.

Problem solved?

What is the world coming to? You know, I may have very grave concerns about our own democracy and the things our elected dictators are imposing on us, but it behoves us daily to thank whatever deity, sprite or inspiration we believe in, that we are not in Zimbabwe. The inhuman brutality of Mugabe is an affront to mankind. And this is a man who professes to be a Christian.

Leviticus is not my favourite tome, but Chap 23 verse 22 seems quite apt: "And when you reap the corn of your land, you shall not cut it to the very ground: neither shall you gather the ears that remain; but you shall leave them for the poor and for the strangers." There's no conditionality in there. It doesn't say "so long as they vote for me.

...no, good! An opportunity has arisen. Friend and Lib Dem colleague Richard Huzzey, councillor for Holywell ward, has had to step down owing to a fantastic work opportunity he couldn't turn down, so there will be a bye-election in the ward on 12th June. This is a ward which we won last Thursday and the bye-election is two days before the end of the university term so we can get it in with the same electorate.

I'm sure there will be others who want to throw their hat in the ring for it, and there are some fantastic candidates around who either missed out last Thursday or have been hoping for a seat like this to come up and any one of them would make a great councillor for the area. Anyway, it has been pointed out to me that it would be inappropriate, in the event of a contested candidacy, for me to set out my stall so publicly before the internal discussion has been had. And I concur. Whether I go for it or not remains to be seen, but I thought I'd just leave you with thath nice photograph of the nearly not a university fresher Jock from twenty three years ago!

So, should I throw my own selection of snazzy hats in the ring do you reckon? I know one of the other candidates not to get a seat last week previously represented Holywell and may want to go for it himself and others who may be far better suited to it than me may be tempted.  I am sure whoever wins the selection will make a very good candidate and a fine colleague for Nathan Pyle who won the ward on Thursday for us.

In other news, I heard this morning that my Labour opponent last week also complained to my bosses about me working the halls where I live and whether I was getting any special treatment. Maureen, if you (and the Tories) had actually given two hoots about the quarter of your electorate in halls you could have tried weeks ago to start glad-handing and door knocking and certainly delivering, and you would have found no resistance to your presence whatsoever. No point moaning on the day or day before that you've not delivered anything to such a big chunk of your ward!

There's this extraordinary debate going on (well actually the comments are closed) on ConservativeHome about a piece by a chappie called Tony Makara who is advocating a protectionist trade policy the likes of which has not been seen in the UK for a generation:

Anthony Makara: Britain imports too much

Over the last weeks I've read much about the subject of welfare reform. The arguments about incapacity benefit and workfare. However all these strategies for welfare reform fail to answer one fundamental question. How are we going to get people into work? I believe all the proposed plans for welfare reform will fail because they do not tell us how we are to create the one million plus jobs needed to end welfare dependency. This is because the British economy no longer produces the jobs that the unemployed need. Lets face it, a person is either in work or they are on benefit, it really is that simple, the answer to unemployment is to create jobs. [From ConservativeHome's Platform: Anthony Makara: Britain imports too much]

The outrage in the comments is interesting. We all know the Tories made a seismic shift in the mid-late seventies in embracing what they liked to call "free trade". Of course, without radical tariff eradication and resolute policing of monopoly and cartel, there is no truly free trade. But what is interesting is that this was the debate over which Winston Churchill first left the Tories at the turn of the twentieth century and joined the free trade Liberals.

You see, for forty years, free trade was a policy of the "left" (indeed much longer if we go back to the Radicals and the Corn Laws debates), a key plank of trying to increase the returns to labour and in reducing the cost of necessities to make the average working person better off, either through higher wages or through lower prices (they have the same effects). It was Philip Snowden, the Labour chancellor of the exchequer, who wrote in a foreword to a new edition of Henry George's book of the same name "Protection or Free Trade" that...

"Each new generation has in a large measure to re-learn the truths which its ancestors established by discussion and practical experience. Free Traders have been so confident in the fundamental soundness of their faith and in the security of the system, that they have neglected to keep the rising generation well grounded in the principles of the faith."

He was writing in response to the Tories' re-adoption of a protectionist stance in the face of the beginnings of the Great Depression.

I have no doubt that most Tories today believe in something called "free trade". I don't believe that most of them actually realise how far away we are from it and what steps will be necessary to get there. But I am sure myself that if we get there, we will all benefit. As Snowden also wrote, "Protection is the foster-mother of monopoly, and monopoly in all its forms...is the robbery of the community for the benefit of private interests" (you can see why Tories would like the idea!).

It is worth mentioning that the Lib Dems have a consultation paper out on the UK Response to Globalization. Go respond - we must resist any attempts at introducing protectionist policies.