Randomly Selected Article or Link

Much discussion on the TV and in the press overnight about will-he won't-he George Osborne endorsing John Redwood's idea of abolishing inheritance tax. There has been a protracted discussion about this in Lib Dem circles over the last year or so as well.

The irony is though that many of those that want it abolished do so because it is usually the "family home" that pushes an estate into IHT liability. Ironic because of all the possible assets one might have accumulated in one's life, the value of one's property is the most likely to have been "unearned". Many proponents of abolition reckon that because they paid tax on the earnings they used to purchase their house, so any rise in the value of that property ought to be untaxed - that anything else is "double taxation".

The trouble is, you don't earn the rise in your property value. It happens because other people need what you have - a site in an increasingly popular location. A popularity most often created by expenditure on things like infrastructure that make that location better connected. It is monopoly profit.

Most of the other assets you might leave to your descendants - shares and so on - are productive assets that themselves help create wealth. Land values move wealth from those who don't own land, or own low value locations, to those who own better land, more popular sites, in a zero sum market.

So yes, abolish inheritance tax, but replace it with Land Value Tax, paid throughout the time you own that location, reflecting the value that others create at your location. Read about it: "Ricardo's Law: House Prices and the Great Tax Clawback Scam" (Fred Harrison)

Well, I was getting a bit worried. Royal Mail never seem to deliver to my door, and despite a great big notice to the contrary continue to deliver my mail to the adjoining student flat to which I have no access. So only last night, when the students next door decided presumably to have a bit of a clear out, did I get my leadership ballot paper, together with a final demand to have my flu jab on 15th November, two months of Prospect magazine, my Co-op dividend vouchers (too late I think now to have my divvie turned over to the Community Fund), and the calling notice for the Headington and Marston Lib Dem branch AGM on 28th November (so my apologies are too late, but rest assured as candidate for Headington Hill and Northway next year I'm not completely disinterested in the local branch!). Grrr!

So, along with a stern letter to the local Royal Mail delivery office my completed ballot paper will go out in today's post. I noticed incidentally, I'm sure it must have been discussed to death at the time, but while I was looking for an address for my delivery office, I noticed that there's new speed limits being introduced courtesy of Brussels on 1st January such that all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are restricted to 56 mhp. What's that all about then? Can anyone imagine how frustrating it's going to be trying to drive up a motorway when Norbert Dentressangle going 56mph is trying to pass Eddie Stobart going at 55mph? This measure will, I predict, cause more deaths than it might be aimed at preventing.

Still, no doubt this means that my ballot paper will be flown from Oxford to ERS in a private Post Office jet or something. Or just arrive three weeks on Saturday after going by road as the truck driver will have to take several days off at High Wycombe for exceeding his legal hours at the wheel.

And yes, I have voted for Chris. I'm a bit confused at this stage of the contest though - at the beginning many people were talking up Nick because of his presentation skills and energy, and yet each time there's another hustings or radio or TV debate it seems that more of the same people feel that Chris has done better on both counts. So I'm no longer clear who is voting for whom and why, frankly. But I continue to say that for me, "it's the economy", and Chris's background on that is key to me. Neither appear liberal enough for me, but that doesn't matter too much - I've got plans for changing that!

Personally, I think we'll rue the day we put presentation before the economy, if that's how it turns out next weekend.

ConservativeHome highlights a speech at the LSE in which (despite what I assume to be an error in the first sentence) Cameron today says that whilst they will want to increase environmental behaviour modifying taxes, they will want to use this to cut taxes elsewhere.

Of course they already know that the Lib Dems have specific and costed taxation proposals that use green taxes to cut four pence off the basic rate of income tax and take many low income earners out of income tax completely. We also have a long standing commitment to replace the Council Tax (though of course you know I don't agree personally with our replacement Local Income Tax) which deals nicely with what turns out to be the most hated tax in today's annual Tax Payers Alliance survey, again highlighted yesterday by ConservativeHome. And our "Green Mortgage" proposals will help households deal with their most worrying expense - their fuel bills.

So Cameron, what are you and Osborne going to cook up to beat that? And when? You can't go on just blathering and blustering indefinitely with vague and vacuous platitudes to your CH readership. You're certainly not ready for government if you can't even tell us what you're going to do on taxes.

Speaking at the LSE David Cameron has crushed any idea that the balance of green tax measures under a Conservative government will be cuts to encourage good environmental behaviour rather than tax rises to discourage 'brown behaviours':

"By using green taxes as extra stealth taxes, Gordon Brown has given them a bad name.  I’m determined that the Conservative approach will be different. With my Government, any new green taxes will be replacement taxes, not new stealth taxes.

In a few days, our Quality of Life Policy Group will publish its report. It will contain many recommendations on tackling climate change, at home and abroad, including recommendations on green taxes.  As with all the reports in our Policy Review, we will study its proposals carefully.

But let me be clear.  We will raise green taxes, and use the proceeds to reduce taxes elsewhere.That is the right direction for the environment and it’s the right direction for our economy. It is the best way to deliver the green growth that must be our aim."

More and more recently I hear or read people saying that Tony Blair's ten years in power has generated in them a deep distrust and even loathing of politics and politicians. Through sleaze, spin, wars, a vast growth in the reach and size of the state - most of which appears to many to have gone straight into the pockets of corporate bosses and shareholders, he has produced a far more powerful advertisement for the possible benefits of a minimal state than many who have tried to explain it academically through their writings.

Even now, in his political retirement, with his vulgar rush to pick up lucrative jobs where he could use his rent-seeking influence to further the very fat-cat industries he pledged to attack in 1997, he still generates much loathing. Forget the Lisbon Treaty or EU Constitution, I'm ready to campaign for an "out" vote in an "in or out" referendum should Tony Blair get anywhere close to becoming the first permanent EU president.

And from behind the portcullis I don't believe that the current crop of party leaders are rising to the real challenge of Blair's legacy. In fact, ostrich like, I feel they view it as merely a series of mistakes that can be put right by more government, just of a different political hue, when in reality the message of Blair's premiership is clear:

Government is moribund, inherently corrupt, a necessary evil for a particular point of human development. A point that has been passed and government can do no more except fight for its own existence as if it has a right to exist regardless of and separate from the desires and needs of the people it seeks to govern. This infantilizing of the people (indeed we even call it the "nanny state" in tacit recognition of that infantilization) needs to be brought to an end.

I was at some training last week on dealing with "Difficult, Disturbing and Dangerous Behaviour". In an aside about the nature of psychopathy the trainer, himself a clinical psychiatrist, suggested that perhaps politicians are in fact psychopaths. It got me looking up the definition of a psychopath. Judge for yourself how many of these criteria Tony Blair meets:

Personally, I make it at least half of them.

Okay, so it's time to give a little plug to my other little venture - "The 1909 Group".

At Harrogate conference in Spring, several of us put our heads together and wondered how we might bring "left" and "right" in the Lib Dems together. In ALTER, our Land Value Tax and Economic Reform campaign group, we just knew we had the answers, or at least the seeds of the answers, to providing both the likes of the Beveridge Group with funds for their high spending ambitions and the "Orange Bookers" with the means to encourage lively and profitable free markets.

The answer was given us nearly a hundred years ago by Lloyd George drawing on a long history of liberal economics. Economics that we have by and large forgotten, subsumed in the argument for an against capital pursued for the last century by Conservative and Labour alternately.

The Free Trade, anti-monopoly, anti-protectionism but pro-individual economic success ethos that pervaded the political scene for the best part of half a century straddling 1900 was the elusive "Third Way", derailed by warfare, national and class-based for most of the succeeding century. And we reckon that if we can rekindle that spirit, we can give the Lib Dems a distinctive, radical liberal "narrative" to use the current buzzword that both respects opportunity and hard work and protects the vulnerable and the public services people have become accustomed to.

So, check out our site - part group blog, part campaigning site - we're hoping to have an inaurgural meeting in Oxford over the weekend of 9th-10th June during the Green Lib Dems conference and possibly a more visible launch at Brighton if we are organized in time.