Re: Tory Reform Group is pushing LVT
--- 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.