Disagree
I am certainly not an advocate of the upper classes but as long as they exist to keep the likes of "Two Jags" from concreting over the lot of it, and untalented architects and urban planners who get themselves into a position of power revisiting their 60s planning and design roots, I am in favour of up holding the 'elite' view of things.

Your line of argument is too politically motivated to take an objective view of how our senses react to our environment. Perhaps your argument for housing density could have included that. Maybe you should ask why a large proportion of our urban dwellers would love a home in the country. It is not just about homes and housing it is about communities, and no amount of house building is going to put our social problems right. 60s style panaceas only create huge slum connubations, given our current profit orientated developers and planning guidance: pack them in and pile them high!

To prevent this happening I am in favour of the upper classes protectionist ways. For example, Chatsworth House. Why is it that so many people go there? The Devonshires have done a splendid job of sustaining that place and not burdening the taxpayer. Which is more than can be said for 10 Downing Street! People go to Chatsworth for a fantasy in the same way that that others go to Cartmel or Disney: to get away from the manmade jungles you are advocating.

Perhaps in an ideal world we would all have the same but isn't that muddying the dream, and what will happen when we are living in the same regulation shoe box!
B Mogford
22 January 2005

Comment
Perhaps housing would become affordable if mortgage lenders were restricted to one income on which to base the loan, were restricted as to the value of the loan in relation to the income, were required to base the loan on net and not gross income, and were prevented from extortionate interest rating?
There seems to be plenty of new housing, but pricing is such that it requires more than one income to support the mortgage, which can be a loan of up to four times gross income, thereby forcing women out of the home whether that's what they want to or not. On top of that the pundits keep on telling the unfortunate punter that buying to let is a great investment. Now there's a possible revolutionary way forward which would be far more beneficial to the young urban house-seeker than land reform.
Phoebe Smith
26 November 2004

Disagree
I thought the article dishonest and simplistic and by over-egging the argument self-defeating. Vast tracts of the Scottish Highlands are not where people wish to live - a very basic point ignored - which confirms the article as inflammatory rather than thoughtful.
Patrick Taylor
24 November 2004

Agree
I am heartily in favour of land value taxation and wish Dave Wetzel huge success in promoting the idea. People talk a lot about social injustice. This is the real thing!
Jeremy Best
9 November 2004

Agree
I feel this is such an important area and one of the great British failings.
Stewart Woodin
9 November 2004

Agree
I very much agree with the points raised, my understanding being land should be distributed amongst the majority of the population for true reflection of a country's state, especially a democratic one. The Zimbabwe situation, although sad, is in my opinion a reflection of what should happen. However, the method should be different, more strategic and equitable, with the aim being to benefit the majority. Being African myself, I have had a chance to view the South African, Namibian, and Zimbabwean land holding systems. However, in developing countries, I wonder if it would be better to maintain the status due to the need of for greater economic development, because every time redistribution of land is attempted, there is a massive economic regression. With the advancement of capitalism in western countries, I wonder if any land reform would make any significant change in terms of benefiting the minority?
Charity Mutumbwa
8 November 2004

Comment
Land reform is long overdue in the UK. It's time the landed gentry had their centuries of privilege shaken up a bit. However, it must be well thought out and balanced so that it helps the young and the poor to get their foot on the property ladder, while not causing widespread ecological and environmental damage, or the bottom to fall out of the property market. Another option is some lifestyle reform whereby fewer people live alone in big houses.
Khaled Diab
5 November 2004

Comment
We also need to launch an income reform campaign. Helen's face is reputed to have launched a thousand ships. Beyonce's floats on a large lake of perfume. Some may regard her as a child of destiny, but does she deserve $3 million for a day spent reclining on a sofa for Tommy Hilfiger's new scent? Sex and celebrity certainly do sell, but the price is getting too high. The time has come to put in place an endorsement ceiling and even a maximum wage.
Khaled Diab
5 November 2004

Agree
I strongly support your proposal for Labour to put Land Value Tax in the next election manifesto. It was my motion at an Oxfordshire County Council meeting which led to the recent pilot - "paper"- study in an area of the Vale of White Horse. We measured the effect of replacing the council tax with LVT, and replacing the Business Rate with LVT. We will send you the details once the final conclusions have been reached.
Brian Hodgson
Labour councillor for the Charlbury division since 1993
22 October 2004

Comment
No more debate, the moral argument is overwhelming, and the logic compelling.
Lets have action.
David Rowlinson
15 October 2004

Comment
Just skimming your article, I notice that you don't mention land ownership figures for the US or Australia. Might be interesting for comparison.
John Mangan
11 October 2004

Comment
Discounting the few undeniably extremely wealthy aristocratic families such as the Westminsters and Northumberlands that own vast tracts of rural and urban land, many smaller landowners struggle to make ends meet in their attempts to maintain their rapidly diminishing estates. Ferdinand Mount is correct in asserting that a Land Value Tax would be counterproductive as it would only serve to reinforce the stereotype of the reactionary landowner, turning to ever more desperate measures to remain solvent and solidifying his views against the current socio political trends of the nation further. This would benefit no one.
Far better to acknowledge the desire of many landowners to release capital from their land and allow them to sell off small portions for development. The principal fear that this would lead to ruinous destruction of the countryside need not be borne out provided that planning authorities maintain a responsible role in determining
1: What areas of land are allowed to be developed and
2: The nature of such development, i.e housing is in keeping with local structures in size, location, style and affordability.
Given the current pressure on the housing market in Britain, we cannot continue to hold reactionary, outdated views towards the supposed unchangability of the countryside. With careful and considered development, the constructions of the next few years could be the jewels in the National Trust's Crown in two centuries or so.
Fred Bosanquet
11 October 2004

Comment
Now that the "campaign" has been running for a almost month surly it's time to develop a focus. Your initial Leader (20 September) rightly concluded "a mixture of tax incentives and withdrawal of subsidy could do the job". As subsequent letters pointed out Jason Cowley's original article completly missed the planning system, and its failure to release land for housing, as the primary concern of the government at the moment. A tranfer of ownership is irrelevant.
Rather than persuing the aristocracy or returning to the plotlands of Essex, advocated by Ferinand Mount (11th October), it would be better to focus on the Government's ongoing consideration of the Barker Review and the proposed planning charge. The campaign should argue for a proper evaluation of development charges against site or land value taxation in the context of the history of such charges, other things such as infrastructure being sought as planning gain and likely distortions to behaviour of diffferent taxes.
Mike Cuddy
10 October 2004

Comment
As a United Nations NGO representative for the London-based International Union for Land Value Taxation I am greatly encouraged to read that you have launched the campaign to focus on land rights and land access via land value taxation. The policy approach of land based taxes and land value recapture is recommended by the UN Habitat Action Agenda endorsed by consensus of all UN member states in 1996. It is time to implement this policy worldwide and impressive to hear that the New Statesman is in the vanguard!
Alanna Hartzok
1 October 2004

Disagree
When will the left learn! This is a seriously flawed 18th century ideological stance. Some people invest in treasury gilts, others shares, others fine art, some (oh the shock of it) land. Do I despair that one person owns 10,000 acres? No why should I, it is their choice as to how they use their own money. However, if you look at it in a historical context ownership of land has been one of the worst investments over time, which might be a reason for our current plight of low investment in the economy, as people sell up and invest in hobby estates that drain otherwise useful capital. Let Madonna and others buy land. At least they have a vision of how it is best maintained, the moment we let the state decide we will be on the brink of disaster both environmentally and intellectually.
William Lack
30 September 2004

Comment
Attempting to link land ownership by the 'rich' to high (and thus unaffordable) house prices displays a remarkable lack of experience and knowledge of life. The real issue is this: Mr Wilby and Mr Cowley are attempting to incite a class war on this issue because, I assume, they have failed to aquire enough land or property for their life purposes. That must be the first issue they should address, and we should all applaud their honesty when they do so. Then they might look inside themselves for the issues that are driving them to begin this debate - envy? Is that all they really stand for when the fig leaf is stripped away?
Calvert
29 September 2004

Agree
It is positively disgusting that we live in a country that demands extortionate council taxes from people unable to pay, then subsidises the land of the rich in order to prevent it being productive.
Andrew Whitchurch
25 September 2004

Agree
It is debatable whether the landed gentry and farmers are the best guardians of the country's land. Surely we the people should have more say on how the land is utilised. Land reform needs to encourage greater diversity in land use. Small acreages must be made available for purposes other than modern farming which has only seen the coalescence of land into the hands of a few. Subsidies have exacerbated this to the point where it is impossible to buy small (<20 acres) parcels of land anywhere in UK. Planning laws are too restrictive and need to be reviewed. I personally feel that many farms are a blot on the landscape - ugly silos and huge corrugated buildings.
Rosemary Brown
24 September 2004

Disagree
Many aristocrats and other landowners would be only too pleased to sell land for house building as it would then make it much more valuable than agricultural land. I think your campaign has rather missed the point. It is the planning system that (rightly) stops them.
Michael Spencer Smith
24 September 2004

Comment
You suggest that if land was wrested from its aristocratic owners, then everyone could build houses all over it and live happily ever after. But before this could happen, national and local government would have to rip up all of their democratically agreed planning policies and grant permission for new housing estates to sprawl over the green fields and woods of England. Which would be madness.
The "brownfields first" policy of this government is one of its greatest environmental achievements, because it has helped to slow suburban sprawl and boost urban regeneration. If we encourage low-density development to spread over the countryside, we pay a heavy price in road traffic, air pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions and consumption of natural resources. We also carry on destroying our countryside, which, whoever owns it, is much loved, visited and walked in. It is much better if development, including the new homes we need, is focused on the large areas of derelict land that remain within towns and cities. Built there, they can contribute to regeneration, be well served by public transport, make use of existing infrastructure and put people close to the jobs and services they need.
Shaun Spiers, Chief executive, Campaign to Protect Rural England
22 September 2004

Agree

Congratulations! It was about time someone had the courage to raise the issue of land ownership in Britain and challenged our obnoxious feudal legacy. However, the solutions proposed in your cover story and leader ("Hands off our land!", 20 September) would still perpetuate the idea of land as a commodity and would not prevent a new concentration of ownership in the hands of the wealthy. Land, as the North American indigenous peoples well understood, is not something you can (or should be able to) own: it is given to each generation in stewardship for future generations. If land were seen as a common good, which could be leased on a lifetime basis, renewable by agreement for successor generations, then it could be stewarded in a responsible manner by the community. The fact that only the buildings on it would have "value" would avoid the problems of land-price inflation and speculation. John Green
22 September 2004

Comment
Your analysis - much of which is spot on - ignores one important element: the "deadweight" effect of the changes on the two-thirds of families that own their homes.
Inevitably, house prices would fall under your regime. But how welcome would this be to nearly 20 million property owners, many of whom are relying (perhaps foolishly) on the capital value of their houses to help finance their retirement?
Harvey R Cole
22 September 2004

Comment
Jason Cowley ("Property scandal", 20 September) refers to the Land Act 1925. In fact, there was a series of six acts that year and he is referring to the Land Registration Act. It did address some, but not all, of the problems that arose when land, urban and rural, was owned as a commodity to rent out. Owner-occupation was virtually non-existent. Today's problems cannot be blamed on the 1925 parliament but on its successors over the past 50 years. Maybe we need more devolution. The Scottish Parliament has taken steps towards solving the different problems north of the border after years of neglect and self-serving by the British parliament.
Dave Powell, Senior lecturer in law, University of Teesside
22 September 2004

Agree
This might be an idea, whose time has come. Certainly, few could argue that the present position is fair or just. I back the campaign and hope it makes a difference.
Duncan Light
21 September 2004

Disagree
Before rushing to advocate land reform, please see the case of Israel where most of the land has been nationalised and is controlled by the Israel Lands Authority. This has led to very high building costs on whatever private land is left, as well as to all sorts of fiddles in the allocation of state lands to those well-connected. In other words, nationalisation - while a good idea in itself - must be accompanied by proper safeguards.
David Zohar
16 September 2004

Agree
I agree wholeheartedly that housing should be made sufficiently affordable to be used as habitation and not primarily as an investment commodity. Housing needs to be made affordable again.
Alan Thompson
16 September 2004

Disagree
I'm too poor to buy a property of my own and have to be happy with renting, and while I agree that the present situation is not fair, the thought of my country being turned into a giant housing estate is horrific. So I do not share your view. Let the richies keep their land if it's the only way to preserve its beauty. The fact is that I can't afford to buy a house in this country, but I wouldn't want one if it were to be built where a forest now stands.
Sue Thomason
16 September 2004

---

ADD YOUR VOICE

To lend your support to this campaign or join the debate please use the form below or email: vote@newstatesman.co.uk.

To view a list of the campaign supporters click here.

Respond now! Type of response Comment In agreement In disagreement Subject Message Your name E-mail address

All comments are read and considered for online publication, they should be as short as possible and should give an accurate e-mail address. We reserve the right to cut or edit comments.