Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.

Q: Jim Murphy's mansion-tax boast is a cynical attempt to buy Scottish votes. We have now embarked on the longest general election campaign in the history of Britain . Even political obsessives quail at the thought . So I plead guilty to bringing a little genuine political debate into the process so early on in the process . The issue is the new Scottish Labour leader, Jim Murphy, and his vainglorious boast that he is going to use mansion tax money from London and the south-east to pay for 1,000 new nurses in Scotland . Let me stress that I support the mansion tax in principle . It is a redistributive tax , which is important , and taxes on assets are always worth considering . The complication is that it is, in effect, a tax on London, 80% of which will be paid by people in London and the south -east . And the distorted nature of London's housing market could mean a tax with wildly distorted effects . No one really knows how much it will raise . It seems likely that the people everyone agrees should pay it- the international super-wealthy - will use their expensive lawyers and accountants to evade it . But it will hit older Londoners, often public sector workers who bought houses in what were then unfashionable parts of London , as in my constituency, Hackney North and Stoke Newington . Now they are living in houses worth ? 1m and rising . They are often asset rich but cash poor . Having seen London house prices spiral in value , they are not reassured by the idea that the mansion tax kicks in only at? 2m . At the very least, a lot of work needs to be put in to reassure those voters, and to fashion a tax that will not hit those people unfairly . Fortunately the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, has an open mind on the subject . That is why it is surprising that Murphy has jumped in feet first, boasting about how he will spend money from a tax when there is no agreement on exactly how it will be levied . I am a unionist , and I understand that the Labour party has a big electoral challenge in Scotland . But I cannot believe that Scottish voters will be taken in by a crude attempt to buy their votes with money expropriated from London . If Murphy is really interested in redistributing wealth , why isn't he talking about council tax revaluation or levels of income tax in Scotland? Instead he seeks cheap applause by telling the Scots how he will extract money from England . Recently there has been a series of reports, including from the London Finance Commission and the Royal Society of Arts City Growth Commission, calling for the devolution of powers to our great cities . In particular ,  experts are saying that big cities should be allowed to keep their property taxes - I believe that this process should start with the mansion tax . Devolution cannot be for Scotland alone ; there should also be devolution of powers to the cities and regions . Murphy cannot bully the rest of the UK about a considered devolution of fiscal powers to all our cities with a pre-emptive strike on the mansion tax . It is too easy to conflate London with bankers and the international glitterati . But London is more unequal than any other part of Britain . Child poverty is a third higher in London than the rest of England as a whole . So, general election campaign or not, we need a proper debate on devolution of powers to our great cities . It is part of the battle against the poverty that still exists in the shadow of the glittering towers of the City of London . And some people need to be prepared to stand up for London in this important debate .

A: The issue is the new Scottish Labour leader, Jim Murphy, and his vainglorious boast that he is going to use mansion tax money from London and the south-east to pay for 1,000 new nurses in Scotland
****
Q: Why Washington should fear the silence of the anti-war movement. On this 73rd anniversary of the last declaration of war by the United States, as the Pentagon escalates its military actions in Iraq and Syria , the silence of the US peace movement carries an ominous warning for Washington, DC . The streets of major US cities are not filled with anti-war demonstrations , yet the apparent quiet does not signify consent . A look at history shows why . The US has been attacked on domestic territory twice in the past century . On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan bombed Pearl Harbour , killing 2,403 Americans and wounding 1,178 others . The next day, US Congress voted to declare war on Japan , thus committing to active hostilities in World War II . That declaration of war has since proved to be the last in the history of the US . The next and last mass scale violent attack by an outside aggressor on the domestic territory of the US occurred 13 years ago, on September 11, 2001, with the immediate death toll approaching 3,000 . Three days later, Congress adopted an Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against those held responsible for the September 11 attacks . In so doing, Congress delegated war-making powers to President George W Bush under the terms of the War Powers Act of 1973 . December 7 and September 11 are notable in part because in both cases horrendous violence against the people of the US was responded to with an act of Congress . Oppose or support US entry into either of those wars, question or affirm that those wars were lawful, there was no question in either case that Congress had signed off on them . Congressional approval . It mattered that Congress approve , because Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution accords primary war powers, including the power to commence and end war, to Congress alone . For a president of the US to make war without congressional approval was an unthinkable act that would have threatened the legitimacy of the federal government . With his war on the so-called Islamic State, US President Barack Obama has committed that unthinkable act , and Congress has let him . And yet ,  by all appearances, no one outside of a handful of members of Congress, legal scholars, and peace activists has spoken out in protest . Contrast this moment with that of the weeks and months following September 11 . On September 29, 2001, upwards of 25,000 people marched through Washington, DC, against the impending invasion of Afghanistan ; tens of thousands demonstrated elsewhere throughout the US . By April 20, 2002, the anti-war protest in Washington drew over 150,000 . By February 15, national protest turnout hit 2 million . Given this history, one cannot conclude that the size and volume of anti-war protests directly resulted from the relative popularity of a particular war . After all ,  the 2001-2003 protests erupted and swelled over a period in which polls showed continued strong support among the US public for Washington's war operations . And in fact, as in 2003-2008 public opinion turned against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the size and volume of anti-war movement went down . The simple and correct explanation for this history is that anti-war organisers made decisions in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to focus their energies on mobilising street protests , and that in the years 2004-2008, as anti-war sentiment was taken up by a majority of the American people, many anti-war organisers shifted much of their focus to electing anti-war candidates to office . What has changed since Obama assumed the presidency? In Washington, in terms of war and security, very little . Guantanamo remains in operation . The police state has expanded . Assassination and missile strikes have increased . Border militarisation and deportations have escalated . And US military operations have continued and spread further across the globe . Having lived and struggled through this history, why would anti-war organisers choose to respond to Washington's undeclared, unauthorised war against the so- called Islamic State by mobilising street protests? Why would they mobilise to elect anti-war candidates? The core of the peace movement remains active in many parts of the US . Every day I receive notices about civil disobedience at military bases, hunger strikes, local government resolutions calling for a shift in spending priorities away from the military, and much more . For this reason, the relative silence of anti-war organisers in the face of the war against the so-called Islamic State stands out as a warning to the Washington establishment; those who oppose their policies question whether Congress and the presidency can provide effective redress for the grievances of the American people . Washington should fear the silence of the US anti-war movement , for it is full of sound and fury and signifies everything .

A: the silence of the US peace movement carries an ominous warning for Washington, DC
****
Q: More immigration and population growth? London can take it. Listen to the doomsayers, the scaremongers and the Farage brigade, and you would be forgiven for thinking that London is full . Our capital, just like our country, they say, can't cope with any more people . Everything from traffic jams to NHS waiting times is blamed on immigrants . The only answer, they tell us, is to pull up the drawbridge and close our borders, turning our back on the globalised world that this country did so much to create . How, then, do they explain the fact that, according to forecasts, only today will London's population surpass that of 1939 - topping 8.6 million for the first time? It is a stark rebuttal of the frequently peddled myth that says London must stop growing . Instead of the huge influx of immigrants that headlines wrongly report, in reality the capital's population has only gradually been creeping back to the level of 75 years ago, before the blitz destroyed many parts of the city . Today, though, shows more than just the falsity of the immigration scare stories - it highlights the huge success of London as a city . Our capital continues to attract people from all over the country and all over the globe because of the opportunities it offers : to find work, set down roots, enjoy a world-class cultural scene and be accepted regardless of who you are and where you come from . That success should be a cause of great celebration, not something to curse and try to curtail . But no one should deny the pressures that come with a growing population - pressures that are particularly acute in the capital . London is in the midst of the deepest housing crisis in decades , as average house prices soar to 14 times the average salary and rents rise uncontrollably . The city's transport system is struggling to cope with demand, with commuters crammed into conditions in which it would be illegal to transport livestock, and fares rising year on year . The opportunities to get a decent job, buy a house, and enjoy all the city has to offer are becoming fewer . The reality is becoming detached from the dream . These problems arise not because of growing demand alone but because of the failure of political leaders to respond to it . Londoners have a right to expect more from their mayor than the 17,000 new homes that were built in the capital last year - less than a third of the 63,000 a year that are needed to solve the city's housing crisis . That Boris Johnson has missed his own affordable housing targets in every year of his mayoralty is an abject failure of political leadership . The government's unwillingness to commit to vital transport infrastructure, such as Crossrail 2 and new Thames bridges, is scarcely better . History shows us what can be achieved when politicians take population growth seriously and rise to the challenges it creates . In the midst of the second world war, even as bombs fell and the city burned, a plan was devised to respond to London's growth . The Abercrombie plan, officially called the Greater London plan, laid out an ambitious vision for a new postwar London: decent housing replacing slums, efficient transport, full employment, new parks and open spaces . It was a radical and comprehensive document that provided the detail for rebuilding London after the devastation of the war . New towns including Stevenage and Crawley were built in the south-east ; modern transport infrastructure, including the north and south circular roads, was planned to cope with the increasing number of cars . The requirements of a successful London were drawn up and implemented . A growing population and new pressures on services mean we need a new, equally ambitious plan today . Empty words about more homes and better jobs will not cut it ; they are no substitute for a serious and detailed proposal for building at least 63,000 homes a year and rebalancing the city's economy to create jobs and opportunities for Londoners while continuing to invest in the industries of tomorrow . The city's creaking transport system must be upgraded, with Crossrail 2 and other new infrastructure built . This must happen without the continuous and excessive raising of fares , which burns holes in Londoners' pockets . Keeping London affordable for ordinary people must be central to the plan, and improving the quality of life of Londoners a core theme . Given that London successfully adapted to growing demands in the middle of a world war, we can be optimistic about our chances of doing the same today . We should not let those with a political agenda use London's growing population to support their anti-immigration rhetoric , and we should challenge those who want to label London's global attraction a flaw rather than a strength . That our capital is back at its peak population is a sign of its success as a great global city . People from all corners of the globe still take great risks, at great expense, to become Londoners and to benefit from the city's opportunities . But this isn't a time for complacency . Whoever the next mayor is, they must focus their gaze on solving the problems that stem from growing demand on London's infrastructure . As population continues towards 10 million , we need a new plan to take London forward together according to the qualities of the city at its best : inclusive, diverse, ambitious, forward-looking and offering a wealth of opportunities to all who live here .

A:
It is a stark rebuttal of the frequently peddled myth that says London must stop growing We should not let those with a political agenda use London's growing population to support their anti-immigration rhetoric
****