THE LAND VALUE TAX CAMPAIGN is a UK-based single-issue organisation.  They propose that the rental value of land should be collected and used as the principal source of public revenue, as a replacement for present taxes on wages, profits, goods and services.   

The organisation notes that ‘Land Value Taxation is a method of raising public revenue by means of an annual charge on the rental value of land.  Although described as a tax, it is not really a tax at all, but a payment for benefits received.  It would replace, not add to, existing taxes.’

They believe that the money raised would support is a ‘whole range of social and economic initiatives, including housing, transport and other infrastructural investments. It is an elementary fiscal measure that goes far towards correcting fundamental economic and social ills.’

You can read the original article – which appears to come from a US publication – here: https://www.landvaluetax.org/history/winston-churchill-said-it-all-better-then-we-can?fbclid=IwAR0YYUlC4Srd0-ZbgbeqnIyU-GHmaVxAZIXsyUiFbpCL2bfn6a7tnrDNMPU  It was put online sometime during David Cameron’s premiership.  It was originally titled Winston Churchill Said It All Better Than We Can 

It goes without saying that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party & the Land Value Tax Campaign.  We have reproduced this article in the hope of promoting positive debate.   

As usual, we welcome all feedback.  Please leave any observations in the comments section when this article appears on either the National Liberal Party’s Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty or on the National Liberals Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313 

Winston Churchill Said It All Better Than We Can 

Winston Churchill made this speech in 1909.  We can’t put the case better ourselves.  A century on, it remains clear, concise and to the point.  We would commend it to David Cameron and his team.

This article is based on a speech made by Winston Churchill in 1909. Our photo shows the statue of Churchill (1874 – 1965) which is located in Parliament Square, London.

LAND MONOPOLY is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies — it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.

Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public.

Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position — land, I say, differs from all other forms of property, and the immemorial customs of nearly every modern state have placed the tenure, transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from other classes of property.

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.

They talk of the increased profits of a doctor or lawyer from the growth of population in the town in which they live. They talk of the profits of a railway, from the growing wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They talk of the profits from a rise in stocks and even the profits derived from the sale of works of art.

But see how misleading and false all those analogies are. The windfalls from the sale of a picture — a Van Dyke or a Holbein — may be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody’s way. They do not lay a toll on anybody’s labor; they do not touch enterprise and production; they do not affect the creative processes on which the material well-being of millions depends.

If a rise in stocks confers profits on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected or indeed deserved, nevertheless that profit was not reaped by withholding from the community the land which it needs; on the contrary, it was reaped by supplying industry with the capital without which it could not be carried on.

If a railway makes greater profits it is usually because it carries more goods and more passengers.

If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better practice, it is because the doctor attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits.

At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for his fees.

Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing.

Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains — and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.

While the land is what is called “ripening” for the unearned in-crement of its owner, the merchant going to his office and the artisan going to his work must detour or pay a fare to avoid it. The people lose their chance of using the land, the city and state lose the taxes which would have accrued if the natural development had taken place, and all the while the land monopolist only has to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes many fold, without either effort or contribution on his part!

But let us follow this process a little further. The population of the city grows and grows, the congestion in the poorer quarters becomes acute, rents rise and thousands of families are crowded into tenements. At last the land becomes ripe for sale — that means that the price is too tempting to be resisted any longer. And then, and not until then, it is sold by the yard or by the inch at 10 times, or 20 times, or even 50 times its agricultural value.

The greater the population around the land, the greater the injury the public has sustained by its protracted denial. And, the more inconvenience caused to everybody; the more serious the loss in eco-nomic strength and activity — the larger will be the profit of the landlord when the sale is finally accomplished. In fact, you may say that the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. It is monopoly which is the keynote, and where monopoly prevails, the greater the injury to society the greater the reward to the monopolist. This evil process strikes at every form of industrial activity. The municipality, wishing for broader streets, better houses, more healthy, decent, scientifically planned towns, is made to pay more to get them in proportion as is has exerted itself to make past improve-ments. The more it has improved the town, the more it will have to pay for any land it may now wish to acquire for further improvements.

The manufacturer proposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price for his land that the purchase price hangs around the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than any foreign tariff in his export competition, and the land price strikes down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the worker.

No matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream for himself, and everywhere today the man or the public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior one, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to land value, and its owner is able to levy toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord’s pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public conven-ience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it be-comes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there.

Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public con-science, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!

And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that, in the parish of Southwark, about 350 pounds a year was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches. As a consequence of this charity, the competition for small houses and single-room tenements is so great that rents are considerably higher in the parish!

All goes back to the land, and the land owner is able to absorb to himself a share of almost every public and every private benefit, however important or however pitiful those benefits may be.

I hope you will understand that, when I speak of the land monopolist, I am dealing more with the process than with the individual land owner who, in most cases, is a worthy person utterly unconscious of the character of the methods by which he is enriched. I have no wish to hold any class up to public disapprobation. I do not think that the man who makes money by unearned increment in land is morally worse than anyone else who gathers his profit where he finds it in this hard world under the law and according to common usage. It is not the individual I attack; it is the system. It is not the man who is bad; it is the law which is bad. It is not the man who is blameworthy for doing what the law allows and what other men do; it is the State which would be blameworthy if it were not to endeavour to reform the law and correct the practice.

We do not want to punish the landlord.

We want to alter the law.

Kwasi Kwarteng (left) and Matt Hancock (right) were just two prominent Tories who were willing to consider taking a job furthering the interests of foreign company on top of their constituency duties. Hancock wanted £10,000 a day for consultancy work. Under the current system, they’re not doing anything illegal.
The NLP is looking for those who’re willing to promote the idea of serving a higher ideal & building a new breed of politician. Are you prepared to help us?

TOWARDS THE END of last month, several top ranking Tories were caught in a sting operation organised by the political campaign group Led By Donkeys – LBD.  

The sting was an ‘experiment’ designed to illustrate if, during a cost of living crisis, MPs would consider taking a job furthering the interests of foreign company on top of their constituency duties.  You can see the whole context here https://www.facebook.com/ledbydonkeys/videos/568516485252528  

Those who were interested in earning extra money included Sir Graham Brady (Chairman of the powerful Tory 1922 Committee), Stephen Hammond (formerParliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport), Kwasi Kwarteng (former Chancellor of the Exchequer), Matt Hancock (former Secretary of State for Health & Social Care) & Gavin Williamson (former Secretary of State for Education).  

It’s vitally important to note that none of these MPs are doing anything illegal.   

There doesn’t appear to be a limit on the number of jobs they do.  Nor is there any limit on what they can earn.  Therefore, under the current system, it’s perfectly acceptable for Matt Hancock to earn £10,000 a day for a consultancy role.  But, for those living on the breadline, its highly immoral.  

To be perfectly honest, we’re not particularly surprised that these MPs do as many jobs – and accumulate as much money as possible – as they can. After all, they’re all capitalists.  And, for us, capitalism is a cold, dog eat dog philosophy.  It’s a greedy, grasping & centralising philosophy.  It has absolutely no interest in those who’re less well off or who fall below the breadline.  

So what should be done about this situation?  

First of all, it should be noted that National Liberals have no problem whatsoever with people earning really good wages.  Indeed, we’re sure that every worker would love to be on £10,000 a day!  Nor are we opposed to people doing several jobs.  Unfortunately, many have to do this this just to stay above the breadline.  

There are several practical measures that could be introduced to stop the practice of MPs double-jobbing.   

Two measures immediately come to mind.  The first would obviously be to increase pay to such a point that they wouldn’t need several extra jobs.  However, this wouldn’t be too popular with the electorate.  Another idea would be to set a (very high) minimum limit on the amount of time they have to spend on constituency work & in parliament.  However, this would require very precise definitions.  

These changes may make some differences, but the National Liberal Party believes that we must go much further.  In fact, we feel that the root of the problem lies in the type of person who is attracted to political office.  

We believe that we need to attract the very best of our people to the cause of National Liberalism.  They need to have principles & be prepared for a long-term struggle.  They need to be motivated by love and not hate.  They shouldn’t be involved in politics for fame or fortune – and money definitely shouldn’t be their God.   

The problem of greedy politicians isn’t going to go away anytime soon.  Therefore, we’re more than likely be discussing this problem in more depth in the near future.   

In the meantime, we’ll keep on promoting National Liberalism, the idea of serving a higher ideal & building a new breed of politician.  Are you prepared to help us?

The National Liberal Party is well known for supporting local shops – and in this case, self-employed workers as well. Whilst supporting your local shops, we’d also urge consumers to Buy British & use cash wherever possible.

FROM DAY ONE, the National Liberal Party has always championed local shops.  We’ve spent years pointing out the advantages of having small – and usually family-run – shops on the doorstop.   

We’ve always acknowledged that times are hard and price considerations are obviously very important.  However, we feel that local shops are more than a convenient place to shop.  They’re actually an essential part of the glue that helps to maintain community spirit – a place to bump into friends, neighbours and relatives.  

The shopkeeper, as a self-employed businessman or woman, also plays a vital role in the local economy.  Indeed, these small shops collectively employ hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the length and breadth of Britain.  As such, they represent an important – but often overlooked – economic bloc.  

In addition to shopping locally, we’d also like to see consumers buying and supporting British products wherever possible.  

Again, the NLP has been running a Buy British campaign for several years now.  Here, we thought that it made perfect sense to protect and enhance our industries.  Our campaign is a positive one & advocates a policy of ‘National Preference’.  Here, the three key elements are self-sufficiency, sovereignty & sustainability.   

We mentioned that our Buy British policy is a positive one.  It’s also one of common sense.  The government’s shambolic response to Covid showed this.  Here we had to import PPE items – some of which weren’t fit for purpose and are presumably being stored awaiting a decision on what to do with them.   

These PPE items could & should’ve been wholly produced here.  That’s what we mean by buying British.  

As well as shopping locally & buying British, we also feel that it’s important that consumers be given a choice as to their method of payment.  

We’ve noticed that some businesses are now insisting on card payments only.  We’ve absolutely no objection if someone wants to live their life using plastic. What we’re saying is that there should be a choice.  

This is because many people simply prefer to deal in cash.   

For some, it’s just the way they’ve been brought up.  For others, it’s a way of managing their personal finances.  After all, when dealing in cash, you can’t spend what you haven’t got!  

There are practical reasons for keeping cash as well.  If the internet went down – or even if there was some form of electrical blackout – nobody would be able to make a card payment.  It would be impossible just to buy a few essential everyday items.  

With all of the above in mind, our message is both clear & simple:  Shop Local, Buy British & Use Cash!

Armada Way in Plymouth, Devon. Earlier this month the local Tory council destroyed much of the urban forest which formed a walkway from the sea to the city centre. Now only about a dozen trees are left standing. Why?

ON THE NIGHT of 14th March, Plymouth City Council in Devon spent five hours destroying an urban forest.   

Despite wide-scale local opposition, the area was cordoned off and both police & security guards were brought in.  The council then felled nearly 120 healthy mature trees.  These trees formed a walkway from the sea to the city centre along Armada Way.   

Thanks to the quick thinking of a local environmental group called STRAW (Save the Trees of Armada Way) a last-minute high court injunction was served which saved around a dozen trees.   

The fate of the remaining trees will be decided sometime in the future.  A judicial review is due to be held sometime in the summer.  

As everyone knows, environmental concerns are high on the political agenda.  So why did the Tory Council in Plymouth commit such an act of environmental destruction?  

According to the council, it is all part of a multi-million pound redevelopment of Armada Way.  Apparently the regeneration plan for the area includes new walk ways & cycle routes.  However, many people are wondering why these couldn’t have gone beside the existing trees?  

Redevelopment work had started some time ago but was halted last November.  This was because over 10,000 people had signed a petition calling for the planned tree-felling to be stopped.  

This led to the council conducting a ‘community engagement’ programme in February.  In early March they announced that they were finalising various reports including the results of the engagement programme.  

Local environmental campaigners from STRAW – https://www.facebook.com/strawplymouth – called the engagement programme an ‘insult’ to the people of Plymouth & claimed that the council was more interested in not missing out on nearly three million pounds worth of funding.  

STRAW also believes that the council has always aimed to destroy the trees: ‘At the start of the design stage no attempt was ever made to keep the trees.  Even designs from 2017, before they had even applied for funding, would have required all the trees to be removed.’  

It will be interesting to see how the judicial review goes later on this year.  Unfortunately, it won’t be able to bring back the destroyed trees – but it might compel the council to replant the 120 trees it felled.  

Even more interesting will be the local council elections in early May.  If public anger is still at a peak it could spell real political trouble for the Tories in Plymouth.