Lake District, Norfolk Broads and New Forest \’could be lost due to budget cuts\’

What, trees fall over, lakes dry up and land disappears without a generous dollop of taxpayers\’ money every week?

11 thoughts on “Amaaaazing!”

  1. You should be calling for the destruction of the Thames Barrage so Nature can work its wonders on central London.Trees do get cut down ; land does disappear in East Anglia and houses with it.

  2. My god, I actually agree with DBC on this one to the extent that if people want land enough, they’ll pay to protect it, or for that matter, reclaim land, just as the Dutch famously did all those centuries ago. Supply and demand, etc. The Thames Barrier is protecting a load of valuable real estate.

    Flood defence is actually one of those things we need governments for.

    The Norfolk Broads have their origins from the peat diggers of centuries ago; I have sailed on them and had a great time.

  3. Presumably without all those government planners & inspectors around people would start building inexpensive homes there. I think it would take a lot to cover the whole place there but I suppose if the cost of housing quatered a lot of us would want a 2nd home there or in the Highlands or somewhere.

    Aren’t we lucky to have a government willing to spend so much to keep the hoi polloi penned up.

  4. @5
    JP leaves himself open to a left-ie counter here because the simple way to protect valuable land is via a land value tax.Similarly you could pay for all kinds of improvements to infrastructure the same way.Even better you announce where the improvements are going to go ,impose LVT
    and wait for the land values to go up in the areas affected and pay for the infrastructure with the proceeds.
    Instead we get tax-payers in general to pay for public infrastructure,then, when the land values go up ,let the landowners keep the proceeds .Stoopid.

  5. It means “lost” in the NuLab sense that lowering taxes causes money to be “lost” from the economy.

    Tutto nello stato, etc etc.

  6. No, no, DBC, because it may not be apparent that building a flood defence has boosted land values. Or, if a government builds a flood defence, such as the Thames Barrier, it might not work; it may even go disastrously wrong. Who foots the bill then? Should landowners whose land has been wrecked pay for it (including those who did not agree with the need for one) or who wanted to take their chances on getting their feet wet?

    You could get a situation where a government says: “We are going to build X and charge landowners a LVT based on the rise in value caused by X”, but if there is a shortfall or a problem, then the difference has to paid for by other taxes, or borrowing, or both. And governments, as we know, are notorious for justifying big spending projects by claiming they are an “investment” of one kind or another. That is yet another reason for being wary of LVT when used to justify ever rising amounts of public spending. A good example is when idiots in power try and claim that building sports stadiums are an “investment”.

  7. I should add that I know there are more free market types such as Mark Wadsworth who tend to justify LVT on more “small government” grounds than is the case with some others such as DBC Reed. LVT advocates are a varied bunch, in my experience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *