John,**** ** ** As I recall, Thatcher intended to go after two blocs that needed reform. One was the trade unions, the other the land-owning elite.**** ** **Message 1 of 7 , Feb 8View Source
As I recall, Thatcher intended to go after two blocs that needed reform. One was the trade unions, the other the land-owning elite.
Well, she got to the unions, diminishing their power, but failed with regard to the land-owning class. I think she gave up. Whether that is so or not, the question in the Tory Party is what is the extent of their power today.
A lot of Tories must be free market types, not particularly close to the land-owning group. These should offer opportunities for us. However, we should direct their attention to the inability of the free market to operate well when an important factor of production is not controlled by the market price mechanism.
Necessary to price mechanism control is that when demand increases, raising prices, producers rush supplies to the market, which reaction brings down prices as demand is met. So prices hunt around an equilibrium which indicates a position where supply and demand balance.
In the case of land (or perhaps we should get used to using “locations” – note the Scottish Liberals use) rising prices not only fails to bring more locations to market, they may actually persuade landholders to stay away from the market as they wait for further rises.
Collecting Rent throws locations back into a price controlled market and, incidentally, makes full economic control of the market possible.
This argument could get to the free market Tories (not that I’m suggesting it will be easy, but it offers an avenue).
As I’ve said before, pushing our “better” tax is a pretty bloodless task and places us in the same group as other tax reformers – a path that can cause a voter’s eyes to glaze over. Apparently, Fred is coming to a similar conclusion.
An old adage of advertising is that one doesn’t sell the steak, one sells the ‘sizzle’. Collecting Rent leads to plenty of sizzles. We should start selling them.
The Alumni Group
Henry George School
Of Los Angeles
Tujunga CA 91042
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Dave Wetzel wrote:
>So there is glimmer of hope in that Party then. The Philip Blond ResRepublica organisation as far as I known is not a Tory Party outfit, although Blonds claims to a "Red Tory", whatever that is. Or is that so? They lean towards reclaiming economic rents.
> John says: "Nick Boles was the first Tory
> that I know of to be pro LVT"
> nb David Curry was Conservative MP (1987-2010)
> when he wrote this for the
> UK's Local Government Chronicle:
> *DAVID CURRY - TURNING FIELDS INTO TAXES*
> 1 February, 2006
> *Here we go again! Some ideas keep turning
> up like winter sore throats.
> This one has been round the course four time...*
... Harry, Thatcher did go for unions - the police turned away from a picket line in the early 1970s which in Tory eyes humiliated Tory PM Heath. TheMessage 2 of 7 , Feb 8View Source
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard wrote:
Thatcher did go for unions - the police turned away from a picket line in the early 1970s which in Tory eyes humiliated Tory PM Heath. The population never saw it that way. Also, her and Reagan, spurred on by the "Chicago Boys" wanted to drive down labour costs and getting rid of unions was one way. Off-shoring manufacturing was another. They were highly successful.
I was born in Liverpool one of the world's biggest ports. The place when I was a kid was fantastic - full of ships and men working rail trains, trucks, cranes the lot - with 7 miles of docks. A sight never to be seen again in most parts of the world. By 1880 Liverpool was generating more tax revenue than Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds and Sheffield together even though collectively they had thee times the population.
Imports of raw materials were slashed as manufacturing went to China and export of finished goods was also slashed. Mainly imports of finished goods, which the Tories and Thatcher insisted the container terminals were "inland", traditionally the work of the ports, and the ports just crane containers off ships onto trucks and trains. A triple wammy blow to the city. All deliberate. The rapid decline of Liverpool is big topic in itself - Thatcher hated the place thinking it was full of Communist types, when facts proved it was not. The London media went full ahead on castigating the city, which it has never got over even today. Last week the HIgh Speed Rail route was announced. Liverpool, the 4th largest economic region in the UK is left off and Manchester, an ex mill town 30 miles away, has full High Speed Rail even with a 7.5 mile tunnel bored to it new city centre station. The Tories hate Liverpool. Look at Geoffrey Howe's paper "Managing the decline of Liverpool". A deliberate policy to
Then a depression comes along, which Thatcher & Reagan had a lot to do with. Both Thatcher and Reagan created great misery in their warped idea of what free-market is.
Going for landowners? Mmmm I think not. She saw the privileged class strata of a few private schools and Oxbridge were inept (jobs for the boys) and wanted a meritocracy. She failed, although she did employ many men from comp schools and non-Oxbridge unis. She never went for the core, never once attempting to dismantle the strata. The Tory Party was too ingrained in privilege. The strata were well ingrained in the military, judiciary, high education, the church, monarchy, etc, and still are. Just look at the current cabinet. They are remote from society - they are implementing a "bedroom tax" - as daft as the window tax.
> A lot of Tories must be free market types,
> not particularly close to the
> land-owning group.
Then why are they in the party? They mean a rigged or monopolized free-market. They have an obsession of driving down Labour skewing the free-market. Michael Hudson stated that the UKs decline was that they drove down labour costs over 100 years.
> In the case of land (or perhaps we
> should get used to using "locations"
Spot on. I also like the Alter term lo-tax.
> Collecting Rent throws locations back into
> a price controlled market and,
> incidentally, makes full economic control
> of the market possible.
> This argument could get to the free market
> Tories (not that I'm suggesting
> it will be easy, but it offers an avenue).
Many of these free-market Tories are really LibDems. They go to the Tories because they see the LibDems will never be in power - except in coalitions.
> As I've said before, pushing our "better"
> tax is a pretty bloodless task
> and places us in the same group as other
> tax reformers a path that can
> cause a voter's eyes to glaze over.
> Apparently, Fred is coming to a similar
Fred concluded that a long time ago. Talking to people they see the angle of "commonly created wealth used to pay for common services eliminate their taxes". That they can grasp. Talk up the positives. Talking LVT and blank faces appear.