The moral, ethical argument: whether there was a formal Creation or not, whether there was a Divine Creator or not, it is indisputable that the Earth was not made by Man. From this it follows that

These by email from someone called Richard Davis, of a company called Praetorian Properties, so not exactly a disinterested party. One would have thought that a property professional would have a better grasp of the implication of LVT, but seemingly not in this case. I tried to reply but the email was returned.

There was another article in the Guardian in support of LVT yesterday. This produced a torrent of the usual fatuous objections, which are well worth reading. Such is the void in understanding that it is clear that we have decades of work to do. Sometimes I wonder if it is worth bothering. If the British want to live in a country where the wealth divide is getting ever greater, to the point that serious social and political unrest is only just over the horizon, why should anyone try to stop this from happening?

Most of us in the LVT movement personally stand to lose if this policy was introduced. I don't know any poor "Georgists". We seem pretty good at understanding our own message and avoiding the worst effects of the present system of land tenure.

Read the article and comments here

"Making housing affordable" is a new contribution on housing policy produced by Policy Exchange (PE), which describes itself as "an independent, non-partisan educational charity, working with academics and policy makers from across the political spectrum, and particularly interested in free market and localist solutions to public policy questions."

Every single one of the assumptions on which the PE proposals are made can be shredded. Housing is affordable. The cost of bricks and mortar is no more than the price of building materials and the builders' wages. It is price of the housing land that is pushing up the price.

Yesterday's Guardian carried an article promoting LVT, written by prospective Labour leader Andy Burnham. It completely failed to anticipate the barrage of flak that was going to be thrown up. The responses should be a warning to all of us campaigning for LVT. We need to present the case better, which means that we all needs to understand it and be able to defend it against the kind of absurd criticisms that came up in yesterday's Comment is Free. His piece was almost torn to shreds by the objectors.

Much of the opposition comes from people who have completely failed to grasp the implications. There are also real objections to be addressed, which must be openly discussed whenever the policy is mentioned.

Yesterday's trailing of LVT, therefore, threw up all the pitfalls an LVT advocate can slip into. The objections raised were