Randomly Selected Article or Link

Well done to Iain Dale on News 24 reviewing the Dead Tree Press tonight. He picked up on the ridiculous story of Andrew Phillips, the Lib Dem peer who wants to start taking things easy at 67 but has run foul of the house rules that say you can never really retire. You can take leave of absence but nobody's quite sure it seems whether that would reduce your party's presence or not and allow an extra place to be allocated next time there were a raft of party appointments.

These are of course the same rules that prevent people like Emma Nicholson from making an open decision about whether to stick with Europe or the Lords under the ban on holding a dual mandate - sitting in a national as well as a European legislatures.

Blair indeed promised to have this particular problem addressed for that very reason - so peers could resign to run for the European Parliament if they wanted to.

Whilst I completely agree with Iain on the necessity to elect the House of Lords, and as soon as possible, it's a bit ironic that the story that prompted it was Andrew Phillips, who takes a contrary line to party policy and would rather see the house remain pretty much wholly appointed as I understand it.

Technorati Tags: electoral reform, house of lords, politics

In an article intended to solicit opinions under the heading "Should the Government attempt to curb house prices?" The Telegraph yesterday posed some very pertinent questions about the potential effects of government tinkering with house prices. Amongst all the various responses online at least - that it's all down to immigration, freeing up planning to release more land (presumably except anywhere near where the author lives), hitting second homes, buy to lets and so on - not one mentions the real solution - Land Value Tax.

But the questions they ask need to be answered by Land Value Taxers, particularly "Single Taxers" such as myself - those who propose eliminating all other taxes as far as possible and collecting the entire value of economic land as the sole revenue source for government (or, as I would prefer, for distribution as a Citizen's Income following the elimination of the state!). For what we propose would indeed reduce house prices and so put at risk what many home-owners and property investors see as their rightful wealth.

We have to offer responses as to why first, it's not their rightful wealth, that they have done nothing to earn the uplift in values they have enjoyed, and second, that the wealth itself is a chimera and their "loss" can be compensated for.

Anyone with an eye on the property market knows the issues as set out:

First time buyers are being forced into record levels of debt to get on the proper ladder, new figures have shown, with houses now less affordable than ever.

According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the average house buyer needed to borrow 3.37 times their income in May - the highest figure recorded.

Rising interest rates, continuing house price increases and an average stamp duty bill of £1,458 are all combining to price first time buyers out of the market. They now account for just 35 per cent of all mortgages taken out by people buying a home.

But I want specifically to address the questions they ask:

Should the Government attempt to make homes more affordable or should the market be left to its own devices?

Land does not and cannot operate as a properly free market. Unless you can find a way of creating unlimited amounts of it, and all locations have equal access to all other locations, locations are effective monopolies.

Is it reasonable for young people to expect to be able to buy their own home? Do homeowners who have benefitted from the boom deserve their windfall?

Should the Government ease planning restrictions to increase supply of new homes? Should stamp duty thresholds be altered to give first time buyers an easier route into the market? Should there be restrictions on second homes or buy-to-let mortgages?

Or do young people simply have to make the best of a bad situation? Should they live at home longer, as young people do on the continent? Should we accept that it is no longer feasible for us to be a nation of homeowners? How would you feel if the Government took action which reduced the value of your home?

Property "guru" (well I say guru as I understand she participates in one of those DIY developer programs on a TV channel I don't receive, probably thankfully) Lucy Alexander reflects in the Times today on some of the potential effects of the Tory plans to try to take most family homes out of Inheritance Tax by lifting the threshold to £1m:

The property boom under Labour has created a generation of accidental property millionaires, many of whom are forced in later life to sell their homes to avoid imposing a punitive inheritance tax burden on their children.

Under the Tory proposals, the inheritance tax threshold would be raised from £300,000 to £1 million, knocking £280,000 (40 per cent of £700,000) off the tax bill for £1 million-plus homeowners. Will these now choose not to sell and instead, in time-honoured fashion, leave their homes to their children when they die?

Bless 'em. These poor APMs ("accidental property millionaires") are clearly now left in a dilemma few of the rest of us can actually comprehend. But the solution is all in the name...ACCIDENTAL property millionaires. Of course no doubt Ms Alexander, echoing Mlles Beeny and Allsopp, would say it is all down to the skill of the purchaser some years, perhaps decades, earlier that they had spotted an "up and coming neighbourhood" and bought into it when it was good value and have just sat back and enjoyed their "investment".

"Ricardo's Law:
House Prices and the
Great Tax Clawback Scam"
(Fred Harrison)

Well of course as property professionals they have to sell the dream, and Mandy Rice-Davies Applies; they would say that wouldn't they? But in reality it's absolute rubbish. When one spots an "up and coming neighbourhood", if one has been so assiduous in looking for a home, it's up and coming because other people want it, because there is public and private investment going into the local infrastructure and environment. It's yours and my tax money often enough that has been ploughed into an area and filters out like gold in a panning tray in the form of increased property values - as we shall perhaps one day see again when all the property around new Crossrail access points shoots up in value as a result of our billions of public investment.

Now I have said many times before I have no problem with the handing down of wealth from one generation to another. I do not share the notion of J S Mill that wealth ought to revert to the state upon death. If one has offspring, one works for them as much as for oneself. But what one passes on to them on one's death ought to be honestly and fairly gained. Not the result of hoarding what others need as a particular location gains in popularity and value because of the commercial and public economic activity that builds up around it.

If we taxed the land properly, the house buyer would perhaps be paying less than half what they have to today for their home, leaving them the opportunity to save their spare money in truly productive financial assets to leave to their heirs instead of the accumulation of other people's tax and economic activity and need for a place convenient for their work or their children's schooling or their college campus in the case of Oxford.

And how on earth are the non-Tory media and the other political parties letting the Tories get away with this scam of a tax cut for the tiny minority as if it's some beneficent gesture of redistribution? It's quite the opposite - the enclosure of the returns to public, commercial and community investment. Protectionism for the already privileged.

...or at least his party does, much more eloquently than any of the debates on the subject in either house of parliament:

In ConservativeHome's current poll of support amongst Tory members for their leader's choice of Shadow Cabinet Davis tops shadow cabinet league table again with Warsi at bottom.

Listed below are the rankings given by 1,274 Tory members for twenty-seven shadow cabinet ministers

1. David Davis: +79% | 88% satisfied, 9% dissatisfied
...
27. Sayeeda Warsi: -20% | 19% satisfied, 39% dissatisfied

Now, I am perfectly willing to concede the distinct possibility that she could have got +19% just for being anti-gay and -39% just for being of a race and gender that grassroots Tories do not consider as belonging to the governing classes, but it strikes me that this might come to be a case of "act in haste, repent at leisure". For in his haste to add a bit of colour to his shadow cabinet, Cameron neatly side-stepped the democratic process, as others have done certainly in the past just as egregiously, and made this woman a permanent member-for-life of the UK's legislature.

Actually, anyone who has seen her on television can see why Tory members would disapprove. She comes across as loud and boorish. If I were a Conservative member I'd probably cringe that she was representing my party on Question Time too. But that's not the point of this really. It's merely the fact that she is now there for life, or at least for as long as she deigns to grace the second chamber with her presence.

Indeed, it seems worse that this is someone who had attempted to get elected and had failed - she doesn't merely not have a mandate in common with all her fellow members of the second chamber, she went for one and the people, the core of our democracy in theory, didn't give her one. I've opined before that, as a rule, we should be even more wary of giving defeated ex-MPs a permanent consolation prize in the form of a peerage - let alone defeated candidates who have no prior experience of government. Those who step down voluntarily are somehow slightly less of a democratic outrage, but only just - as we shall see again when the former Deputy Prime Minister takes the ermine.

Still, it's done now. She has presumably had her letters patent and is now immovable, short of making anti-gay statements a thought crime which might land her in chokey and potentially disqualify her from sitting - though that would disqualify half the Tory benches in the Lords before her. Whether the grassroots Conservatives like it or not, she is likely to remain representing them for as long as she likes. Appointed peers are simply not the answer to the democratic deficit at the core of our legislature, and the sooner the Marquis of Minster Lovell finally gets round to finishing the job his government promised to do ten years ago the better.