Alain de Botton has made a short film arguing that tax should be re-branded as charity. He feels that if people thought of where the money went they would see it more as charity than having money taken away from them.
De Botton admits that tax, if course, isn't charity. What he really wants is for HM Revenue & Customs to thank taxpayers when they send in their return. Presumably, this is how the philosopher and TV presenter does his tax. Most people in the UK have their tax deducted from their pay packets each week or month.
That doesn't mean HMRC couldn't send a note to all taxpayers explaining what their tax has been spent on. Whether a note thanking the taxpayer would make the recipient feel better is another question.
Monday, 30 January 2012
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Trust and thought leadership
Edelman and TLG have both recently published their trust and thought leadership reports.
As always, both reports are incisive and make for fascinating reading. The reports make the point that in order to win trust or build thought leadership, organisations must involve themselves in societal issues as opposed to simply doing business.
As always, both reports are incisive and make for fascinating reading. The reports make the point that in order to win trust or build thought leadership, organisations must involve themselves in societal issues as opposed to simply doing business.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Registering lobbyists
Last week, the government announced a consultation on establishing a statutory register for lobbyists.
The document defines what a lobbyists is and recommends that those involved who act as third parties for clients register.
The membership bodies behind UKPAC have been arguing for universality: anyone who engages with government in order to influence policy should register.
Meanwhile, libertarians who generally dislike regulation are calling for a stricter regime. It is important to note that the register will not regulate lobbying.
Anyone can respond to the consultation.
The key questions are:
Lobbying doesn't have a great reputation. This due to various scandals. Some of these have involved lobbyists while others have been down to the behaviour of politicians.
With all these things, the devil is in the detail. Is someone who meets a minister to explain what will happen if a certain policy is pursued lobbying or merely stating facts? After all, that person may not be trying to change government policy but simply wanting to alert policymakers to potential unintended consequences. Should a register be tackling that sort of behaviour or the activities that have brought the profession into disrepute? If it is the latter, can you ever regulate people determined to break the rules?
The document defines what a lobbyists is and recommends that those involved who act as third parties for clients register.
The membership bodies behind UKPAC have been arguing for universality: anyone who engages with government in order to influence policy should register.
Meanwhile, libertarians who generally dislike regulation are calling for a stricter regime. It is important to note that the register will not regulate lobbying.
Anyone can respond to the consultation.
The key questions are:
- Should only third party lobbyists have to register?
- How do you ensure a register works?
- If everyone engaged in public affairs has to register how do you ensure your definition takes into account all the people who see government ministers and civil servants?
Lobbying doesn't have a great reputation. This due to various scandals. Some of these have involved lobbyists while others have been down to the behaviour of politicians.
With all these things, the devil is in the detail. Is someone who meets a minister to explain what will happen if a certain policy is pursued lobbying or merely stating facts? After all, that person may not be trying to change government policy but simply wanting to alert policymakers to potential unintended consequences. Should a register be tackling that sort of behaviour or the activities that have brought the profession into disrepute? If it is the latter, can you ever regulate people determined to break the rules?
President Newt?
For a few days it looked as though Mitt Romney might have it in the bag. Then South Carolina backed Newt Gingrich.
This doesn't mean Romney won't end up with the nomination or for that matter that Gingrich will. The Republican primary voters of South Carolina were never going to be wildly keen on Romney. But he needs to carry that constituency to become the Republican contender. After having looked like a sure thing, he now only has won New Hampshire after a recount of the Iowa caucus.
Of course, all the challenges face a very big question: can they beat Obama?
This doesn't mean Romney won't end up with the nomination or for that matter that Gingrich will. The Republican primary voters of South Carolina were never going to be wildly keen on Romney. But he needs to carry that constituency to become the Republican contender. After having looked like a sure thing, he now only has won New Hampshire after a recount of the Iowa caucus.
Of course, all the challenges face a very big question: can they beat Obama?
Monday, 16 January 2012
A John Lewis Economy
This Sunday, the Guardian reported that Nick Clegg will argue for a 'John Lewis-style' economy in a speech to be given to the City of London Corporation and CentreForum.
It is reported that Clegg will say that this could happen if the government gave workers the right to request shares in the company they work for. The policy is a response to the complaints that boards are rewarding failure by giving bonuses to chief executives despite the share price of their company suffering.
But this isn't a new idea. John Stuart Mill argued that the best type of company is one owned by the people who run it.
No doubt some will agree with this while others will make the case for companies being managed executives and owned by others.
There is another debate to be had. Is it better for government to intervene and encourage such ownership by legislation or is it better for this form of ownership to emerge naturally?
Clegg will also make clear that liberals believe in a free market and capitalism. It is who owners the capital that is the issue.
It is reported that Clegg will say that this could happen if the government gave workers the right to request shares in the company they work for. The policy is a response to the complaints that boards are rewarding failure by giving bonuses to chief executives despite the share price of their company suffering.
But this isn't a new idea. John Stuart Mill argued that the best type of company is one owned by the people who run it.
No doubt some will agree with this while others will make the case for companies being managed executives and owned by others.
There is another debate to be had. Is it better for government to intervene and encourage such ownership by legislation or is it better for this form of ownership to emerge naturally?
Clegg will also make clear that liberals believe in a free market and capitalism. It is who owners the capital that is the issue.
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
A political campaign promoting love
I can't remember ever seeing an American Presidential contest, or any political contest for that matter, where one of the messages is love.
Whatever your view of Ron Paul this is a fascinating political advert.
Scottish independence and David Cameron
David Cameron has been taking the fight to Alex Salmond this week. It is a smart move in more ways than one. By starting the debate now Cameron is trying to force the vote early, choosing his metaphorical battleground.
Cameron also wants to make sure that there is a straight yes or no question. All of this has been observed by others.
There is another political advantage for Cameron. The policy appeals to Tory backbenchers and even the Liberal Democrats.
Cameron also wants to make sure that there is a straight yes or no question. All of this has been observed by others.
There is another political advantage for Cameron. The policy appeals to Tory backbenchers and even the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Miliband's narrative
Maurice Glasman has gone on record saying that Labour is adrift and has no narrative. The truth is that Ed Miliband has developed a narrative. He has spoken at length about the 'squeezed middle' and a more responsible capitalism.
Not everyone will agree about his view of there being two types of capitalism: producing and predator. That though isn't the point.
There are three problems for the leader of the Labour party. The first is that he isn't a natural communicator. Next there is the challenge of convincing voters that a party that has been rejected at the polling booths can be trusted again to make the right economic decisions.
Finally, there is the challenge of the narrative. Perhaps Ed's stories aren't resonating with the public. Perhaps they are confused by two different stories, one about responsible capitalism and the other about the problems people are currently facing.
Not everyone will agree about his view of there being two types of capitalism: producing and predator. That though isn't the point.
There are three problems for the leader of the Labour party. The first is that he isn't a natural communicator. Next there is the challenge of convincing voters that a party that has been rejected at the polling booths can be trusted again to make the right economic decisions.
Finally, there is the challenge of the narrative. Perhaps Ed's stories aren't resonating with the public. Perhaps they are confused by two different stories, one about responsible capitalism and the other about the problems people are currently facing.
Monday, 9 January 2012
'The Iron Lady"
The Iron Lady is an Oscar film. Aside the meticulous performance of Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher, each scene is constructed to elicit an emotional response. All art is contrived but great art can misdirect and hide what it is doing.
What makes the film work is Streep's performance. She has the voice, the mannerism and the physicality. She gives the role a humanity as we watch Lady Thatcher look back at her life. In some ways, the film makes its central characters ordinary. If it was set in North London and centred around a middle class family, this could be a Mike Leigh film. The story is more about memory, what makes a life, dealing with death and family relationships than an exploration of British politics. At times it feels major historical incidents are mere details to be got through as we rush to the next emotional punch: pity, sadness, amusement or outrage.
If you want to understand what motivated Margaret Roberts then watch The Long Walk to Finchley. If you want to understand why senior Tories turned against her when she was Prime Minister then watch Margaret. If you want to understand what happened during the Falkland conflict then watch The Falklands Play. Sadly, The Iron Lady is not a film for people interested in politics.
David Cameron has said that the film should have been delayed. For the Thatcher family it must feel very strange being portrayed on screen in this way. But whether we like it or not, public figures become public property. That means a writer or director can show them pretty much how they like. If the film was made a few years later it would still feel unsatisfactory despite its central performance.
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Stieg Larsson's trilogy
As the Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo opens I completed watching the Swedish version's of Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy.
In recent years, we have seen the emergence of Scandinavian noir. This includes Larsson's work as well as the stories of Kurt Wallander and others.
Noir originated in America. Inspired by the novels of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Jim Thompson and German Expressionism, film noir explored the underbelly of society. In noir life happens in the shadows, ethical decisions depend on the situation the characters are in and corruption runs deep.
Hammett is particularly interested in the way people with power can control lives, use their power for their own sake and unleash a violence that destroys lives.
Having not read Larsson I can't compare the quality of his writing with Hammett and the others. But seeing the films, it is obvious why Larsson's stories are classed as Scandinavian noir.
The central character of the books, Lisbeth Salander, has had her life ruined by a power structure she is unaware of. In the final part of the trilogy what is revealed is something dark and murderous. Putting aside the quality of the plot development and consistency of story, the films are worth watching for their entertainment value and what they tells us about Swedish society.
Of course, Larsson is writing fiction. That doesn't mean that stories don't tell us something about the society they come from.
Scandinavian countries always score highly on happiness indexes. How good any index is at assessing happiness is open to question. It is certainly a common view among many that Scandinavia has it more right than other places: a more prosperous, equal society that respects people.
Larsson's books tells us that corruption happens in Sweden too. Those who think Sweden, and the other Scandinavian countries, have it right believe this is due to an interventionist State. Larsson tells us that an unchecked State can destroy lives.
In recent years, we have seen the emergence of Scandinavian noir. This includes Larsson's work as well as the stories of Kurt Wallander and others.
Noir originated in America. Inspired by the novels of Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Jim Thompson and German Expressionism, film noir explored the underbelly of society. In noir life happens in the shadows, ethical decisions depend on the situation the characters are in and corruption runs deep.
Hammett is particularly interested in the way people with power can control lives, use their power for their own sake and unleash a violence that destroys lives.
Having not read Larsson I can't compare the quality of his writing with Hammett and the others. But seeing the films, it is obvious why Larsson's stories are classed as Scandinavian noir.
The central character of the books, Lisbeth Salander, has had her life ruined by a power structure she is unaware of. In the final part of the trilogy what is revealed is something dark and murderous. Putting aside the quality of the plot development and consistency of story, the films are worth watching for their entertainment value and what they tells us about Swedish society.
Of course, Larsson is writing fiction. That doesn't mean that stories don't tell us something about the society they come from.
Scandinavian countries always score highly on happiness indexes. How good any index is at assessing happiness is open to question. It is certainly a common view among many that Scandinavia has it more right than other places: a more prosperous, equal society that respects people.
Larsson's books tells us that corruption happens in Sweden too. Those who think Sweden, and the other Scandinavian countries, have it right believe this is due to an interventionist State. Larsson tells us that an unchecked State can destroy lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)