The Campaign holds to the concept of Land Value Taxation as proposed by Henry George in Progress and Poverty. This is not out of quasi-religious reverence for the words of a great prophet. It is simply that deviation from that concept will lead to failure. At one time, most LVT supporters were familiar with the underlying theory. This seems to be less the case now. Material has been, and continues to be published, based on a poorly understood grasp of what LVT involves and what its implications are. The main effect is to make it more difficult to campaign effectively, especially since opponents operate by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt. It does not help, either, to claim support from prominent individuals who also do not grasp the idea. When anyone says, for example, that they are in favour of LVT “as part of a package of taxes”, one can be certain they their understanding is shaky, that they are not reliable supporters, and that in office, they would allow through legislation that was so flawed as to set back the cause for LVT by decades. This was the effect of both the pre-World War 1 legislation and the 1931 Finance Act provision for LVT. Campaigning for LVT requires that those involved in this work are fully conversant with the theory. Classes such as this on-line course are available, there are these evening classes, which offer plenty of opportunity for discussion, and the Henry George Foundation's has a programme of meetings and courses in London. All of us involved in this work will find these activities useful as an opportunity to meet, talk, and keep our ideas fresh.

Without new ideas, the Conservatives are doomed, says John Kampfner in the Daily Telegraph today. At the heart of the problem, he says, is that the centre-Left is running out of ideas. The policy wonks' cupboard is bare. The underlying problem is that economic theory stopped developing in the 1880s, when it had developed to the point that the privileges of powerful vested interests would have come under increasing scrutiny - economists such as Thorold Rogers, Professor of Economics at Oxford University and a Member of Parliament, and of course Henry George, had to be sidelined. This was done by throwing up a smokescreen of bogus theory which still holds sway. The result is that economic theory degenerated to the point that medicine was before scientists understood things like bacteria, viruses, vitamins, etc. In the absence of adequate explanatory theory, think tanks are unable to provide the politicians with the conceptual tools to enable them to understand what is happening and deal with the problems. The result is that the some troubles recur every couple of decades. And the powerful vested interests in the status quo remain. Read the article here

The Halifax Building Society reports that "house prices" were falling at the fastest rate since it started its monthly survey in 1983. This has been widely reported, for example in this Daily Telegraph article.  Elsewhere, comparisons are now being made with the collapse in the 1930s. Of course, what is falling is what had been bubbling up until 2007 - land prices. But nobody seems to have noticed. Save

The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee has decided to leave the interest rate at 5%, unchanged for the past five months. Is this the right figure? Some say it is too high and will make the forthcoming recession worse. Others say it is too high and will aggravate inflation. Both views are correct. The fall in the pound on foreign exchanges is itself inflationary as it makes imports cost more. Whatever the MPC does will be wrong, and so, like terrified animals caught in the middle of the road in the headlamps of an oncoming car, they do nothing. The present situation is one that should never have arisen.

Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party has long advocated a Local Income Tax instead of the Council Tax and has now announced that it will be included in the next legislative programme. The belief is that it is based on "ability to pay". That notion is a delusion (see below). It has been widely condemned, for example in this article which appeared in The Scotsman in September 2007 and shows how it would have a particularly adverse effect on the Scottish economy. The reasons why it would be especially bad for Scotland are so blatantly obvious that one wonders why the Scottish Nationalists are so determined to push it through. It wll be interesting to see how it fares on its way through parliament? If it reaches the statutue book, how will it work? The Campaign has always opposed Local Income Tax and has had to set out the arguments against it over and over again. Although the Liberal Democrats have been clamouring for LIT for the past twenty years, the Scottish Nationalists are the first party to have a change to put it into effect. What the Scottish Nationalists are going to do is to take advantage of their ability to vary income tax by 3p in the pound, so is not a local income tax at all, but a national surcharge that will be distributed to local authorities by the central body. In other words it leaves the Scottish local authorities wth no revenue raising powers of their own, which will make them unaccountable to their electorate and in due course will turn them into agencies of central government.

With luck, the Scottish debate might ensure that the proposal is buried once and for all. For a summary of what is wrong with Local Income Tax...