Zohran Mamdani’s stunning victory in the New York mayoral race last week was more than a local upset. It symbolised a growing confidence among the democratic socialist left — in the United States, but also here in the UK. The rise of figures like Zach Polanski, newly elected leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, with his self-described ‘eco-populist’ views, and the new political venture of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, suggest that the populist left is not going away.
How should the Liberal Democrats respond — and where, in an increasingly polarised landscape, is our space?
The answer is clear: we must be the party that unapologetically stands for economic growth. Growth that is fair, sustainable and inclusive — but growth nonetheless. Because without growth, there is no route to improving living standards, funding high-quality public services, or addressing inequality. Without growth, liberalism has no solid foundation.
Growth is the antidote to populism
For too long, Britain has been trapped in a cycle of stagnation. Real wages have barely risen in more than fifteen years. Productivity growth has collapsed. Living standards have flatlined. It is little wonder that so many people are disillusioned and drawn to the counterfeit promises of populists — whether from the far left or the nationalist right.
If liberals fail to offer a credible path to prosperity, others will fill that void. That is why the Liberal Democrats must be the movement that argues confidently for growth — not as an afterthought to fairness, but as its precondition.
Fairness and growth are not opposites. They are mutually reinforcing. A society that provides opportunity, rewards effort, and removes barriers to participation is one that will grow. A growing economy, in turn, gives us the means to invest in fairness — in childcare, education, healthcare, and social mobility.
A liberal abundance agenda
In the United States, some thinkers have begun speaking of an ‘abundance agenda’ — the idea that societies can renew themselves by building more, investing more, and unblocking the forces of progress. As they note, America is stuck between a progressive movement that is too afraid of growth, and a conservative movement that is allergic to government intervention.
The same tension exists here. Labour knows that Britain needs growth, but its leadership remains timid — constrained by vested interests and trade union conservatism. The Conservatives (occasionally) talk about dynamism but have presided over years of anaemic productivity, high taxes on work, and collapsing investment.
Liberal Democrats should claim the abundance agenda as our own. We believe in both enterprise and effective government; both social justice and economic dynamism. We can be the party that unites optimism about markets with a belief in reforming the state so it actually works. That means removing the bureaucratic, outdated or self-defeating regulations that strangle innovation, while actively investing in the infrastructure, skills and institutions that enable growth.
Reforming tax to reward work
A genuinely liberal approach to growth would start with tax reform. And not the one that is predicted by Rachel Reeves in the upcoming Budget. Our tax system too often punishes work and productivity. We should be the party that makes work pay, not one that drives it away.
That means resisting blunt rises in income tax, employer National Insurance, and stamp duty — all of which discourage effort, job creation, and labour mobility. Instead, we can look to the principles set out in the Mirrlees Review for the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2010: a coherent, growth-promoting, and progressive system that taxes income and wealth fairly while minimising distortions.
Simplifying taxes, encouraging investment, and removing the disincentives that hold back entrepreneurs and workers should be central to our programme.
Europe: the single most powerful lever
Of course, no growth strategy for Britain can ignore the elephant in the room: Europe. Rejoining the Single Market and, in time, the Customs Union would be the most immediate and substantial boost to UK productivity and exports.
Only the Liberal Democrats can make this case credibly. We are the only major party that still believes in repairing our European partnership — not out of nostalgia, but out of economic realism. Britain cannot afford to stand apart from the world’s largest and most dynamic trading bloc.
A call to reclaim the liberal promise
The coming Budget may again see policies that discourage work, enterprise and ambition. As liberals, we cannot accept that. The promise of liberalism — opportunity, freedom, dignity — depends on a society that grows and builds.
The next political realignment will not be won by populists on either side, nor by technocrats offering managed decline. It will be won by those who can make Britain confident again — confident to invest, to innovate, and to grow.
The Liberal Democrats, more than any other party, are rooted in both economic realism and social justice. We understand that growth is not a slogan but a moral imperative — because it is the foundation on which opportunity rests.
That is why we must say it clearly: the Liberal Democrats are the party of growth — and we are the best positioned to deliver it.
* Theodore Roos was the Liberal Democrat candidate for Hackney South and Shoreditch at the 2024 General Election
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
expats
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
40 Comments
“growth” to be of value has to mean more stuff per person. Which requires more energy. So how will that be possible?
Let’s start with exploding one myth that the UK is heavily taxed. It isn’t. This myth has been fostered for years by the wealthy, who pretend they are doing this to help the low paid. It really is time we started telling people that tax isn’t a bad thing, it’s the instrument that creates a civilised society and provides vital services needed by the public at large. It isn’t helped by having a press largely in the control of and always supportive of the ultra rich. When I started work, income tax was 33p in the pound and the top rate was 98% on the highest incomes.
Secondly, this article fails completely to explain how income and wealth will be redistributed in the absence of progressive (income) taxation.; One of the reasons we have such an unequal society is precisely because direct, progressive taxation, has been greatly reduced in favour of indirect, regressive taxation on spending. The rich get richer and the poor suffer.
Our party has, regrettably, gone along with the high tax myth and dares not speak up in favour of progressive income tax.
Without major redistribution on income and wealth, we will never build a far society where none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
“Let’s start with exploding one myth that the UK is heavily taxed. It isn’t.”
According to this (* from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, last reviewed in March 2024) in 2021 UK tax revenue was 33.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) – That was slightly below the average for both the G7
(36.3%) and the OECD (34.1%). While UK taxes are higher than in most other English-speaking developed economies , they are considerably lower than in most other western European countries (average tax revenue amongst the EU14
was 39.9% of GDP.
Under current government plans, UK tax revenue is forecast to increase to 37.7% of GDP by 2027–28. This would take the UK above both the current OECD
and G7 averages. Of course, other governments may also increase their levels of taxation by then.
(*) https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/how-do-uk-tax-revenues-compare-internationally
There is so much I agree with in this article. We have to look forward without being fixed on the rear view mirror.
My caveat is how to square growth with the even more necessary need to maintain a stable environment in which human beings can flourish – especially a world where too many of those in power reject rational (aka liberal) analysis.
One may might be for economic policy to emphasize growth in capital – natural capital, social capital, intellectual capital as well as economic capital.
“Our party has, regrettably, gone along with the high tax myth and dares not speak up in favour of progressive income tax.”
I think this is a bit unfair.
Under the coalition, the tax free band was significantly raised up to £10k, and top rates of income tax increased.
Great article. Where growth has stagnated is in the public sector. Where the current govt has gone wrong imo is by eg giving above inflation pay rises without requiring productivity improvements. Instead, they have clobbered the private sector left, right and centre. Libdems need to be a bit more, dare I say it “orangey”.
@Jenny Barnes
Additional wealth using lower energy is only possible by replacing legacy technology with advanced lower energy technology. The so-called industries of the future. This was the subject of the recent Nobel Prize in Economics. So the right kind of investment is needed. However HMG says it believes that the “US AI tech stack” funded by inward investment is a key way forward. Their metric is Giga-Watts of installed data centre capacity. Profits will be sent offshore. It is hard to imagine a more wrong approach.
@Russell
“ Where growth has stagnated is in the public sector.”
You appear to misunderstand the nature and purpose of the public sector. The public sector does not create wealth – it largely uses resources created by the private sector that are realised via taxation to provide public services. By its nature, it is labour intensive – think nursing or social care – and there are fewer opportunities to replace frontline workers with technology than occur in the private sector. Therefore economic growth will come in the private sector, the fruits of which will be taxed, enabling more money to be spend by the public sector on services we all need…which is why economic growth is necessary
” Where growth has stagnated is in the public sector.”
I think what we are looking for is greater productivity, across all sectors of the economy.
@TristanWard. Unfair, not a bit of it. All income taxpayers benefited from the rise in the personal allowance (maybe not higher rate payers?). However, absolutely everyone, including those who don’t pay income tax were clobbered by a 2.5% rise in VAT, a highly regressive tax on goods and services. A small increase in the higher rate of tax benefitted only those on taxable incomes above £45k, i.e the wealthy.
I think my earlier comments were more than fair.
Thank you all for your comments
@Jenny Barnes @Tristan Ward : Growth is indeed more ‘stuff’ per person. But that can mean (and increasingly is) services. Or goods that are higher value but not necessarily with more inputs. So growth is entirely feasible without more damage to the environment. I strongly advise you to read Daniel Susskind’s ‘Growth’ book from last year, which elaborates on this point very well, to talk about ‘ideas’ as the key driver of growth in the future.
@Mick Taylor : I’m not making a judgement on the level of taxation here (that’s for another post). My main point here is around the type of taxation – away from distortionary taxes. Employer NIC increases last year were a terrible policy (devised solely to pretend to navigate around Labour’s manifesto commitments) that does not promote employment and growth. Taxes on wealth or land (e.g. property taxes, additional council tax rate bands) can go some way to create a more equal society without additional taxes on earned income.
@Mike Taylor
“ A small increase in the higher rate of tax benefitted only those on taxable incomes above £45k, i.e the wealthy.”
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here if, as the above quote suggests, you define ‘the wealthy’ as those with taxable incomes above £45k. Undoubtedly a single person with a taxable income greater than £45k has an above average income so is wealthier than many. However, what about a family with 2 parents and 3 children below school age where one parent has a taxable income of £46k and the other parent chooses not to work due to the cost of childcare and their preference to look after their own children…do you really think that is a wealthy family? We have to be careful about our messaging – taxing ‘the wealthy’ more should not include making life tougher for families like my example.
@Mick Taylor
Mick
Your comment was that “Our party …… dares not speak up in favour of progressive income tax.”
When we were in power large numbers of low earners were taken out of income tax. That’s delivering a more progressive income tax result.
Yes – higher earners did not benefit from the increase in personal allowances: earners over £100,000 had (and still have) the benefit taxed away, resulting in a marginal rate of 60% in some cases. So all income tax payers did not benefit from the allowances. One way of looking at this is that highest earners helped subsidize the increase in allowances. That’s progressive too. As the junior partners in a coalition facing significant spending constraints it’s an achievement. (*)
You are right about VAT being regressive of course. Personally I’d look to explore a shift away from VAT onto greenhouse gas production on a tax neutral basis, but you can be sure plenty would raise the cry that that is unfair to the poor as well.
(*) Before anyone cries “austerity” the coalition’s public spending was roughly that projected for 2010-15 by the previous Labour government, and more than promised by the Tories in their 2010 election manifesto.
“Additional wealth using lower energy is only possible by replacing legacy technology with advanced lower energy technology. ”
In other words “higher efficiency” technologies. Jevon’s paradox says that in this case the world will use more energy, not less. The classic example is what happened when thw Watt steam engine design (3% efficient) replaced Newcomen’s (0.5%)
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox ).
A coal fired electricity station, by comparison, is around 33% efficient, which is close to the physical limit – Carnot efficiency
I’ll keep it brief!
I agree with Theodore Roos.
Those who question the need for growth (for example by asking where the energy wil come from) fail to understand how free market economies work.
Great stuff Theodore. Liberal Reform are much much the group in the Party aligned with what you are saying : https://www.liberalreform.org.uk/
Jenny, I appreciate you raising Jevons’ Paradox, but it is more nuanced than you imply. What it does say is that ‘if demand is highly price elastic, this results in overall demand increasing, causing total resource consumption to rise”. However if demand isn’t highly elastic, Jevons’ Paradox doesn’t apply.
Great article. 100% agree. Moreover, we need a Lib Dem Growth Group to make this case. I’ll message you separately if you are interested.
Sorry Tristan. A progressive income tax takes more from higher earners and increasers as income reaches certain taxation thresholds. We had that throughout the 50’s and 60’s amd much of the 70’s from both Labour and Conservative governments. It was only with the arrival of Thatcher(ism) in 1979 that income taxes started to be drastically cut and indirect taxes became more widespread, often ‘secret’ and started seriously affecting the poor and helping the rich.
Our party, along with all the rest, started to believe the myth that it was better to raise taxes indirectly than actually redistribute income through the much fairer income tax system. The great widening of the gap between rich and poor stems from that decision. The constant cry that all tax is bad means that there is insufficient money to fund services adequately. As Vince said on LinkedIn recently. “If you want Scandidavian levels of welfare/services, then you need Scandinavian levels of taxation”
You only need growth if you refuse to make society more equal. It is possible to live well and have degrowth, if you move away from the everlasting cycle of demanding more. By redistributing wealth and income it is possible to live well and not wreck the planet by using up ever scarcer resources and exploiting poor people in the developing world.
“Our tax system too often punishes work and productivity” There are plenty of areas where it deters people from doing useful things or encourages them to do unhelpful things but on terms of overall willingness to work, it is a fairly minor deterrant compared to the benefits system. People deciding whether to take a job are first facing a 55% taper rate on Universal Credit plus a number of cliff edge limits on minor benefits. If the job doesn’t work out, they face having to reapply and lose some benefit permanently.
“Our party…….. started to believe the myth that it was better to raise taxes indirectly than actually redistribute income through the much fairer income tax system”
That fact however is that in the coalition the Lib Dems secured a small shift towards a more progressive income tax.
I’m not so sure the belief in a high and redistributive income tax was as overwhelming in the Lib Dems and Liberal parties as all that. See for example this debate in 1978(*) when the party supported Tory amendments to reduce income tax (especially John Pardoe’s contributions; and Jo Grimond was known for his criticism of high rates as well.
Gladstone’s advocacy of “leaving money to fructify in the pockets of the people” is well known. As is the Orange Book.
(*)https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1978/may/10/charge-of-income-tax-for-1978-79#:~:text=%E2%80%94%20it%20was%20put%20on%20at,or%20even%2030%20per%20cent.
I thinkn it would be better to plan how to increase everyone’s well being in a low, no or even declining growth economy, which we seem to be living in since around 2008. Not building wasteful infrastructure ( Lower Thames crossing, Heathrow runway 3 eg) and properly maintaining what we have (potholes) Given that the birth rate is now well below replacement, a declining population might even be better off in GDP per capita. Electification of the railways would be good – move freight on rail with renewable electricity rather than on road with diesel . Tax on aviation fuel for internal flights (probably excluding Belfast) to support a modal shift to rail – maybe an agreement with the EU for something similar. France don’t allow internal flights where the train can do it in less tha t 2 hours. Income tax should be equalised on all forms of income (CGT, inheritance) and made more progressive. One problem is that what little growth there has been recently has been taken by the very rich. I don’t think a “wealth tax” is workable. Many have tried it and failed to get significant returns.
” Before anyone cries “austerity” the coalition’s public spending……”
Any spending cuts and/or tax rises which are made for the purposes of reducing the govt deficit can be classed as austerity. If a government does either its revenue will be adversely affected and so the deficit will unlikely to be significantly changed. It could even make it slightly worse.
This is not to say that governments can spend what they like and tax as little as everyone else would like. If the government overdoes it we will have high inflation and so the valid reason for a fiscal squeeze is to prevent that.
If a reduction in inflation is currently part of Rachel Reeves’ motivations this is what she should be saying openly.
“Many have tried {a wealth tax} and failed to get significant returns.”
Perhaps they weren’t trying hard enough?
Theodore Roos,
Your prescription for economic growth will not work. Removing regulations will not get the economy growing on its own. It has been tried by both Labour and Conservative governments. The idea that taxing income is effecting growth is proven to be untrue. If it worked we would have economic growth years ago after the 2008 recession with low income tax rates compared to the 1980’s. Where is the economic growth following the cut in employee national insurance? Previous governments have proven that reducing corporation tax does create economic growth.
The government needs to manage the economy. When interest rates are high stopping businesses from investing the government should borrow to invest. When unemployment increases the government should accept a larger deficit until these unemployed resources are employed again.
So the first step for us to be the party of growth is to change our fiscal rules to, the government will balance the day to day budget over the economic cycle, and the government will borrow to invest.
Tristan Ward,
The last thing this party needs is to return to the income tax policies of Gladstone. I think I read somewhere that for the 1874 general election he promised to abolish income tax.
Mick Taylor,
If we had a more progressive tax system this should lead to a reduction in inequality and this should lead to more economic growth. There seems to be a consensus that societies which are unequal have less economic growth than more equal societies.
“If we had a more progressive tax system this should lead to a reduction in inequality….”
This is the theory. In practice the wealthy have means and ability to effectively side step the taxation system.
Warren Buffet famously owned up to paying a lower percentage of his income in tax than his secretary.
One way of dodging income tax, for the wealthy, is the buy, borrow, and die strategy. This doesn’t mean that we should just accept the status quo, but some radical rethinking about tax is going to be required. Simply making the tax system slightly more progressive won’t do it.
https://www.dcfpi.org/all/how-wealthy-households-use-a-buy-borrow-die-strategy-to-avoid-taxes-on-their-growing-fortunes/
@Michael BG “There seems to be a consensus that societies which are unequal have less economic growth than more equal societies”. This is not a simple cause and effect, of course, but I note what Martin Wolf, chief economist of the Financial Times and who has studied economics and politics for decades said recently on a You Tube recording. Among the elements needed for economic growth at the moment he listed devolving power and resources (he said we have “massive overcentralisation”), encouraging immigration and raising taxes for the better off like himself (“we are a low tax country”).
I agree generally with Mick Taylor that we need a more progressive tax system, but that covers all types of taxes, not just income tax. I am disappointed that our leader and deputy are not making it clear that we are not a high tax country but more should be paid by the very wealthy and more on unearned income.
@Michael BG
“The last thing this party needs is to return to the income tax policies of Gladstone…….for the 1874 general election he promised to abolish income tax.”
Nobody is suggesting income tax is abolished. What I am saying is that the assertion that the party has always advocated very high income tax rates is untrue. Seeing the likes of Steel, Penhaligon, Grimond, and Thorpe in the same lobbies as Thatcher, Tebbit, Lawson and Howe voting for a Tory amendment to cut top rates rather makes the point.
Perhaps of more interest on the question of growth is how to drive productivity gains. One suggestion we are pushing at the moment is tax breaks for innovators(*) as being led by Chris Coghlan and based on research form the LSE and London Business School.
(*) https://www.london.edu/news/innovators-could-get-tax-breaks-to-boost-uk-productivity
E
conomists Paolo Surico and Joseba Martinez
r our discussion with Daisy Cooper MP, Treasury Spokesperson, Chris Coghlan MP, member of the Treasury Committee, and Paolo Surico, Professor of Economics at London Business School and Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy Research, based at LSE.
The UK charity foundation Population Matters argues that a realistic sustainable population for the UK would be about 20 million, to give everyone a decent standard of living and work life balance. This is in contrast to the estimated 70 million plus at the end of this decade.
My recollection is that David Penhaligon wanted to shift the burden of income tax onto the shoulders of those who could most afford it …….. not exactly Gladstonian economics.
@David Raw
“My recollection is that David Penhaligon wanted to shift the burden of income tax onto the shoulders of those who could most afford it …….. not exactly Gladstonian economics.”
His voting record seems to show otherwise – at least when it came to voting with the Tories on income tax in 1978. when the top rate was 83% on earned income, (over £23,500) and a surcharge of an additional 15% on income from “investments”.
And rightly so.
Nigel Jones,
I think we have a policy of taxing wealth at the same rates as income. I am not aware of any of our wealth taxation policies having higher rates the more wealth someone has, but they do have an amount that is not taxed. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Tristan Ward,
When discussing taxation you should not use Gladstone as an example of party thinking.
Mick Taylor has stated that the party has gone along with the general trends in taxation and this includes advocating reductions in income tax rates. He didn’t say that the Party always supported the actual progressive income tax rates.
The Coalition Government reduced the highest income tax rate from 50% to 45% from April 2013. Many party members thought this was wrong and some think the rate should be restored.
Do you know how David Penhaligon voted on the Conservative income tax changes after 1979?
“The Coalition Government reduced the highest income tax rate from 50% to 45% from April 2013” The highest rate was reduced to 60% (plus 2% NI). Oddly the ‘Top’ rate is not the highest rate.
Important and welcome article Theodore thank you. I especially appreciate the emphasis on Liberal policies explicitly concerned with productivity. Tristan also makes an excellent point about growth in capital – ‘natural capital, social capital, intellectual capital as well as economic capital’.
@ Michael BG
“When discussing taxation you should not use Gladstone as an example of party thinking.”
Why on earth not? Gladstone was probably Britain’s greatest peace time prime minister and he was one of ours. His thinking is consistent with how Liberal and Liberal Democrat MPs vote in parliament and act when in power; and is also consistent with the idea that Liberals and Liberal Democrats oppose excessively high levels of [income] tax, even on the very wealthy.
Peter Davies,
‘Oddly the ‘Top’ rate is not the highest rate.’
🙂
However, at the same time the decrease in the top rate of income tax was announced, it was announced that the High Income Child Benefit Charge would be introduced. So at that time 50% was the highest and top rate of income tax.
Tristan Ward,
Gladstone is not an example of current Liberal Democrat thinking. I don’t believe that the Liberal Democrat Party in its general election manifestos has ever advocated reducing the total tax take or abolishing income tax. Please provide evidence that I am wrong.
I note you haven’t answered by question about how David Penhaligon voted on the Conservative income tax changes after 1979?
@ Michael BG.
I attach the Liberal General Election manifesto 1979. It proposes a cut in income tax to a basic rate of 20% and top rate of 50%. That will be the manifesto David Penhaligan and others (including I suspect some posters here) campaigned on against the background of Labour’s top rates of 83% (98% on investment income).
I Hinksey the party should have the following Gladstonian principles in mind:
1. Balance budgets.
2. Don’t borrow so much that the need to pay interest and repay capital tail starts to wages the economic dog
3 don’t over tax – money should be left to fructify in the pockets of the people. Remember that excessive tax us politically damaging.
4. Chose priorities for spending on an ethical basis (I suspect this is why Gordon Brown admired Gladstone) My own priorities for 2025 would be (i) defence given the need for independence from the US and the threat from Russia (ii) ecological stability (which must include is an essential part of delivering social justice (iii) learning (ie knowledge, research, education). Nothing is more Liberal, and if we are to get out of the mess humanity is currently in, our best chance is to use our brains rather than our instincts.
And suggesting that the Lib Dems (or anyone ekse should( in the 21st century blindly follow the general elecition manifesto of their predecessors put forward more than 150 years earlier is self-evidently silly.
http://www.libdems.co.uk/manifestos/1979/1979-liberal-manifesto.shtml
@ Tristan Ward. 1979 Conservative Budget division lists, Chancellor Geoffrey Howe).
If Mr Ward takes a look at online Hansard and the division lists for Geoffrey Howe’s first Budget after Thatcher had come to power in 1979, he will discover that the Liberal MPs, (including David Penhaligon) voted with the Labour Party against that budget.
If Tristan Ward believes Gordon Brown was some sort of Gladstonian Liberal then he ought to take a good hard look at Mr Brown’s PhD thesis dealing with political change in Scotland early in the last century. It’s available online and can be downloaded from the Edinburgh University thesis research site.
Money was not fructifying in the pockets of many people in W.E. Gladstone’s day, Tristan.
Tristan Ward,
The Liberal manifesto of 1979 doesn’t state they want to reduce the tax take. It states,
‘We also need a major switch from taxes on income to taxes on wealth and expenditure and propose:
Income Tax starting at 20 per cent with a top rate of 50 per cent.
…
A gifts and legacies tax paid by the recipient in place of Capital Transfer Tax.
A wealth tax on very large capital accumulations in place of the Investment Income ’
This manifesto also called for the introduction of ‘a sustained prices and incomes policy based on wide consultation and enforceable at law’. We don’t support this policy now. We shouldn’t appeal to previous policies of the Liberal Party when discussing what our current policies should be.
Gladstone was not a social liberal and many people see our Party as social liberal. We believe that the government should get involved in the running the economy, and that the government should be involved in reducing inequality and poverty.
The government doesn’t pay off the national debt in monetary terms. It should reduce the ratio of national debt to GDP by increasing economic growth. As the private sector is not borrowing to invest the government needs to. Also the government should accept that when unemployment increases so does the deficit. Not accepting this is economic illiterate. If you have been reading LDV for some time you should be familiar with Joe Bourke and his talk of the economic automatic stabilisers.
I agree with you 100% Theo. I think Lib Dems should embrace the Abundance Agenda and make it our own. We should liberate landowners to build houses, build green infrastructure, build trains. etc. The book Abundance by Ezra Klein is well worth a read as is the excellent podcast http://www.abundancepod.com