One of the most famous though pernicious political phrases is 'the U-Turn'. It is pernicious because it generalises where one shouldn't, ad famous because it happes so bloody often. Commonly the word 'U-turn' carries with it negative connotations. It doesn't have to but often should. A u-turn is an admission that you were wrong because of the inevitable and, in some cases correct, chorus of 'Well if you're wrog about this the what else are you wrog about?. Governments struggle to do this, yet they are made up of humans who make these mistakes. So here it is; a brief guide to the U-Turn.
1. A Promise U-Turn: Not a U-Turn in the strict sense but more often known as a 'broken promise'. Not a disaster so long as its managed well. Politicians break manifesto pledges and 'aspirations' all the time and there are many good reasons for this, the most oft cited being variations on 'changed circumstances'. Oppositions will attack you for these but it only is a huge problem if a) You break a totemic promise or b) The broken promises become so many that your untrustworthiness becomes a theme. a) Is currently a problem for the Lib Dems and b) became a problem for New Labour and seems to be becoming one for the coalition.
2.The Implementation U-Turn: Soon to be known as a 'Govian Not'. This will likely be on a small element of a wider policy. Take saving money from schools or the NHS, or implementing a new law. In the rush to save money/solve a social problem bad decisions will inevitably be made which hurt specific groups or whose wider implications create worse publicity or results than expected. The government will state that they have 'listened to concerns' and have reconsidered. More damaging to the individual minister involved who looks a bit of a fool having defended the policy then apologising than the government. A clever PM can even overrule a minister and gain kudos from this. Beware using these too often however as too many lave you looking indecisive, and involves you admitting you were wrong in the first place, however virtue is probably on the side of the turner here.
3.The Destruction Derby: In this amusing 1990s playstation game you gained points by winning races and smashing up cars. If you were losing by a long way it became more profitable to reverse your direction and smash up all the other cars, at the cost of your own. This is the worst type of U-Turn that can wreck a government. Gordon Brown had 2, the election that never was and the 10p tax band. John Major's government had Black Wednesday and the Poll Tax (shared with Thatcher). This occurs when a government's policy is such a failure that it is forced to destroy its own credibility by reversing a flagship policy already implemented as the alternative is even worse. For the current government this would be the reversal of their deficit reduction plan, or a breakdown in social cohesion on such a grand scale that it forced them to change tack (think huge crime increases, more in poverty, NHS struggling to cope.). Difficult but not impossible to recover from: if you can salvage enough points from wrecking the opposition you could still squeak in a la 1992.
Monday 27 December 2010
Tuesday 14 December 2010
Don't Think of A Sycophant.
I am currently reading the excellent 'Don't think of an elephant!' by George Lakoff, a brilliant book on how successful conservatives have been in America at 'framing' political debate. One of the books central messages, understandably stems from its title. This is the old thought experiment in which if you command someone to not think of an elephant, they without fail will. In relation to politics its central premise is that in America those with progressive values often lose the debate because they choose to fight it on the conservatives terms. It is obvious to see how this has ended up in America. Obama's attempts at a centre left presidency which conservatives ought to be able to accept if not agree with is hamstrung on every side by conservatives moving the goal posts further and further to the right, only for Democrats to follow and attempt to squeeze in the left hand corner.
For us in the UK it is a little more complex, on some issues progressives* have succeeded in 'framing' the debate since Thatcher's time. We live in a socially more tolerant country than before, many of the coalition's more right-wing policies have had to be described as a 'reform' or performed under the cover of deficit reduction. (many are cuts that save little but hurt some profoundly.) The likes of Norman Tebbitt sabre rattle from the right about pet issues, impotent because the debate has moved on. Yet in other areas the frame never changed. On welfare, tax, crime, the marketisation of services and regulation, right-wing ways of thinking hold sway. It would be easy to blame this on the Tory Press (and in some ways right). However the reasons for it lie in one of the central tenets of New Labour, its original sin if you will: triangulation.
The best example is perhaps tax. Lakoff uses the example of 'tax relief' in his book of a way in which progressives accept a right-wing way of thinking even when arguing against it as the word 'relief' implies that somehow tax is an affliction to be alleviated rather than the price to be paid for the upkeep of a civil society in which businesses and individuals can prosper. Why is it now that in our country that people on benefits are vilified routinely but tax avoiders lauded and asked to provide advice to government? Because New Labour accepted the terms of the debate that tax and government spending are both inherently bad in many cases. The two New Labour positions on the issue were 1.) To not waste any opportunity to 'go after' benefit cheats and constantly talk up initiatives to 'get the feckless off benefits'** and 2.) To be 'intensely relaxed' about the richest having tax arrangements that led to them paying very little in tax. For the public then it's not a huge step to see the Tory position of 1.) Regarding all those on benefits as fair game for raids and 2.) Actively encouraging tax avoidance or trying to cut rates of corporate tax to ones not worth avoiding as reasonable. Under New Labour 'reform' came to become a byword for increased marketisation of public services, now 'reform' is happening at breakneck speed, without the furore this would have created in the past, and crime became a childish debate between those who 'locked up' criminals and those 'soft' on crime.
Even the Lib Dems, for so long the only party to not accept these frames of debate (except in that now notorious tome The Orange Book) now do. Having in the past chosen to champion public spending as a real force for good, they now seem to see their main objective to be to somehow squeeze their own progressive ideals into the goal posts which the Tories have moved miles to the right. Marketise education? Fine so long as our pupil premium might mitigate its effects a little bit. Raise VAT? Cut services the poorest rely on? That's ok, some will pay a bit less income tax. These Lib Dems haven't necessarily lost their ideals but they now must try and achieve them within a Tory framework. They should learn from New Labour's failures that this leads to poverty of ambition and ultimately failure. Putting wheels on a tortoise doesn't make it a limousine.
Ed Milliband then did exactly the right thing in appealing to disaffected Lib Dems to help Labour. This is vital for both progressive Labour and Lib Dem supporters. Labour because it doesn't have the monopoly on wisdom and needs help in escaping its tired New Labour ways of thinking. Lib Dems because they are being drawn into the same trap, winning the odd victory, trying to do the right thing but failing because they are accepting premises that should be an anathema to them. Tim Farron's response to Ed Milliband's offer was telling. In its first line it rebuked Labour for sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and George Bush (2003 called, it wants its political insults back.) then went on to list Lib Dem 'achievements' in the coalition government, such as the pupil premium and income tax plan. Putting aside arguments over the merits of those policies (see here and here.) if he's throwing his lot in with the coalition because of the odd sop to progressive policies he's doing exactly what New Labour did by buying Conservative arguments on the nature of tax and public spending then trying to mitigate their effects. A Labour Party reaching out to Lib Dems and offering them the chance to shape progressive policy for the future offers them a choice: not to become the true heirs to New Labour's worst mistakes.
*Progressive is a clumsy term, for a general definition Lakoff p14. seems about the bst I've come across.
** The point here is not that there shouldn't be fewer people on benefits but how you portray them: victims needing help or wastrels needing a shove?
For us in the UK it is a little more complex, on some issues progressives* have succeeded in 'framing' the debate since Thatcher's time. We live in a socially more tolerant country than before, many of the coalition's more right-wing policies have had to be described as a 'reform' or performed under the cover of deficit reduction. (many are cuts that save little but hurt some profoundly.) The likes of Norman Tebbitt sabre rattle from the right about pet issues, impotent because the debate has moved on. Yet in other areas the frame never changed. On welfare, tax, crime, the marketisation of services and regulation, right-wing ways of thinking hold sway. It would be easy to blame this on the Tory Press (and in some ways right). However the reasons for it lie in one of the central tenets of New Labour, its original sin if you will: triangulation.
The best example is perhaps tax. Lakoff uses the example of 'tax relief' in his book of a way in which progressives accept a right-wing way of thinking even when arguing against it as the word 'relief' implies that somehow tax is an affliction to be alleviated rather than the price to be paid for the upkeep of a civil society in which businesses and individuals can prosper. Why is it now that in our country that people on benefits are vilified routinely but tax avoiders lauded and asked to provide advice to government? Because New Labour accepted the terms of the debate that tax and government spending are both inherently bad in many cases. The two New Labour positions on the issue were 1.) To not waste any opportunity to 'go after' benefit cheats and constantly talk up initiatives to 'get the feckless off benefits'** and 2.) To be 'intensely relaxed' about the richest having tax arrangements that led to them paying very little in tax. For the public then it's not a huge step to see the Tory position of 1.) Regarding all those on benefits as fair game for raids and 2.) Actively encouraging tax avoidance or trying to cut rates of corporate tax to ones not worth avoiding as reasonable. Under New Labour 'reform' came to become a byword for increased marketisation of public services, now 'reform' is happening at breakneck speed, without the furore this would have created in the past, and crime became a childish debate between those who 'locked up' criminals and those 'soft' on crime.
Even the Lib Dems, for so long the only party to not accept these frames of debate (except in that now notorious tome The Orange Book) now do. Having in the past chosen to champion public spending as a real force for good, they now seem to see their main objective to be to somehow squeeze their own progressive ideals into the goal posts which the Tories have moved miles to the right. Marketise education? Fine so long as our pupil premium might mitigate its effects a little bit. Raise VAT? Cut services the poorest rely on? That's ok, some will pay a bit less income tax. These Lib Dems haven't necessarily lost their ideals but they now must try and achieve them within a Tory framework. They should learn from New Labour's failures that this leads to poverty of ambition and ultimately failure. Putting wheels on a tortoise doesn't make it a limousine.
Ed Milliband then did exactly the right thing in appealing to disaffected Lib Dems to help Labour. This is vital for both progressive Labour and Lib Dem supporters. Labour because it doesn't have the monopoly on wisdom and needs help in escaping its tired New Labour ways of thinking. Lib Dems because they are being drawn into the same trap, winning the odd victory, trying to do the right thing but failing because they are accepting premises that should be an anathema to them. Tim Farron's response to Ed Milliband's offer was telling. In its first line it rebuked Labour for sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and George Bush (2003 called, it wants its political insults back.) then went on to list Lib Dem 'achievements' in the coalition government, such as the pupil premium and income tax plan. Putting aside arguments over the merits of those policies (see here and here.) if he's throwing his lot in with the coalition because of the odd sop to progressive policies he's doing exactly what New Labour did by buying Conservative arguments on the nature of tax and public spending then trying to mitigate their effects. A Labour Party reaching out to Lib Dems and offering them the chance to shape progressive policy for the future offers them a choice: not to become the true heirs to New Labour's worst mistakes.
*Progressive is a clumsy term, for a general definition Lakoff p14. seems about the bst I've come across.
** The point here is not that there shouldn't be fewer people on benefits but how you portray them: victims needing help or wastrels needing a shove?
Friday 10 December 2010
Misfits and Apprentii
I love the Apprentice, where else could you find such choice one liners as 'I'm not a one trick pony, I'm a whole field of ponies.' (Intelectual featherweight Stuart Baggs 'the brand.') and 'Everything I touch turns to sold.' (Baggs again)? Faintly ridiculous people who manage to get on in life with pure pigheaded drive and inflated ego will always make good television, purely for arse over tittery alone. Another viewing pleasure is Channel 4's excellent MisFits, the superhero ASBO drama based around 5 minor miscreants given superpowers by a passing storm. It is difficult to say which of these two shows should be considered less outlandish, but it is certainly the MisFits who have more fun.
The two sets of people couldn't be more different, thrusting business types who will do anything to 'get on' and those left behind, ASBO or no where they in the words of one J. Cocker 'Dance and drink and screw, because there's nothing else to do.' Those who are left behind by dreams of avarice and have an imposed ceiling as to what they can achieve and the quality of life that they can lead and those who may, if they can convince enough German people that goulash crisps are 'traditionally German' earn money beyond most of our dreams. The tuition fees debate has been a loud one but the voice that hasn't been heard as often as the one chanting epithets at Nick Clegg is one taking a real stand against the marketisation of our society. University graduates are to be encouraged by their huge fees to become a thrusting army of young Apprentii, marketing their skills to the highest bidder and 'getting on', making money with no real regard for what makes a good society for all. Every graduate competing with other ones to get full value for their fees with the rewards for becoming a banker or a marketing director far outweighing those of becoming a social worker or a teaching professional. No middle ground of being a well-educated graduate with a decent job who works hard but doesn't have a need to strive to earn more and more money for and from the Lord Sugarlumps and Sir Phillip 'tax efficient' Greens of this world. Fewer services in the future have the same effect, with no local library, free childcare or cheap leisure facilities life for those in the lower middle becomes worse, meaning in order to live a life in good conditions you continually need to be more like an Apprentii, not do a job you wanted to do but get into sales, eventually you may become a director and be able to squirrel away money yourself. Those who miss the boat or who don't want to catch it had better get used to a lower standard of living because the Apprentii and their masters earned their money and don't want it taxed, that would be 'anti-aspiration'.
With the marketisation of everything we are becoming a society of Misfits and Apprentii. In its most extreme example it is the contrast between those who if they are working are on a wage that barely pays for the cost of living compared to the denizens of big business. Things will get worse for the poorest but a new ceiling on quality of life is now being imposed on those who earn more but live with the same worries of watching their standard of living disappear. Cameron says that to tax the richest more is 'anti-aspiration', however by not asking the richest in our society to pay he is shutting off the aspirations of many to get on in life without wild dreams of avarice but to live a comfortable life in a good society. Forcing students to pay £40,000 in fees throughout their life is anti the aspirations of the majority to do a decent worthwhile job and not have to worry about the continuing erosion of services on which they may rely, or a huge debt burden which they will never pay off. As provision is shrunk, services disappear and the next generation are forced to pay for the mistakes of the last one, the chances for graduates and non graduates alike to merely 'get on' by doing a job whose worth isn't completely measured by the weight of its paycheck will become fewer and fewer, many more of us will be Misfits in our own society, trapped by a ceiling of increased outgoings and fewer services. It's a shame none of us will have superpowers though, nor fields of ponies.
Friday 3 December 2010
Fuck FIFA (Gently)
Whilst I sympathise with all the siren calls to withdraw from FIFA after the loss of the world cup it does leave one with a moral conundrum. As one of those who has called on us to withdraw from FIFA or at least stick a hand up and say 'please Sepp can we stop the pillaging of relatively poor countries?' before any sort of bidding how does one associate with those who wholeheartedly 'backed the bid' and were prepared to do anything to get it because it's football and we love football?
It's not a difficult conundrum but one every real football fan comes across every day. Say you're a Villa or a Sunderland fan, how do you reconcile your love and undying support for your team with the fact that it is effectively a corporate entity? (I'm Wednesdayite so these dillemmas are but a dream.) Answer it's a mortgage of the soul one makes every day. You do it for love. The answer lies in the fact tht these teams can, as can Wednesday get close to 20,000 watching them play in the paintstripper premier. This is the point, we almost don't support a team, we support a culture. Kinks fans still go and see Ray Davies, for Sunderland memories of Bob Stokoe are confined to Football Focus, but we are all still inescapebly in love.
This is our strength, we can call out FIFA on their corruption tomorrow because there will still be 3,000 to see Chester FC, close to 10,000 to see Bradford and 40,000 for a Sheffield derby even if it was played in the dogshit shield. My point is that our game will survive whatever and that our FA should build bridges, work hard and make friends, undermine FIFA wherever possible sort out corruption and be for the good of the fans because we will support football, have its best interests in our heart World Cup or no, we've got nothing to lose. I'm not sure Qatar or Russia can say that. I back the bid to rid the game of corruption.
It's not a difficult conundrum but one every real football fan comes across every day. Say you're a Villa or a Sunderland fan, how do you reconcile your love and undying support for your team with the fact that it is effectively a corporate entity? (I'm Wednesdayite so these dillemmas are but a dream.) Answer it's a mortgage of the soul one makes every day. You do it for love. The answer lies in the fact tht these teams can, as can Wednesday get close to 20,000 watching them play in the paintstripper premier. This is the point, we almost don't support a team, we support a culture. Kinks fans still go and see Ray Davies, for Sunderland memories of Bob Stokoe are confined to Football Focus, but we are all still inescapebly in love.
This is our strength, we can call out FIFA on their corruption tomorrow because there will still be 3,000 to see Chester FC, close to 10,000 to see Bradford and 40,000 for a Sheffield derby even if it was played in the dogshit shield. My point is that our game will survive whatever and that our FA should build bridges, work hard and make friends, undermine FIFA wherever possible sort out corruption and be for the good of the fans because we will support football, have its best interests in our heart World Cup or no, we've got nothing to lose. I'm not sure Qatar or Russia can say that. I back the bid to rid the game of corruption.
Monday 15 November 2010
Kick The Bums Out!... Err Well Try.
Tomorrow everyone's favourite punchline (Try it with 'What pisses off Heather Mills?) Nick Clegg unveils the last bit of his constiutional reform type thingy. A magnificently bizarre piece of legislation that tries to make the House of Lords bigger before it gets smaller, redraws constituency boundaries while neglecting 3.5m potential voters and prepares us for the Lib Dems ungallant loss in the forthcoming AV referendum. There is though one last cherry on this massive reform cake. The proposal to allow us to throw an MP out if he has committed serious wrongdoing and 10% of his constituents wish it so.
Here's where the NUS are added to the cake mixture, just before this metaphor fails to rise in fact. Spurred on by Nick Clegg's remarkable decision to redefine the word 'pledge' to mean 'We might do it in the only situation which is never going to happen.' and a love of sentances containing the words 'hoist' and 'petard' they are going to try and get 10% of Nick Clegg's constituents to sign a petition to recall him and hold a by-election*. It's a great idea. Those with a genuine grievance against Nicholas William Peter Clegg (i.e. those constiuents who voted for him believing him to be for the things he said he was for on May 6th) will be able to hold him democratically accountable. The rest of us can sleep a little bit sounder knowing that the word 'pledge' isn't just good for cleaning up dust off mantelpieces and/or indulge in the most poetic bit of justice possible unless Carol-Ann Duffy is planning to take a golf club to Piers Morgan's face. Or will we? In short, no.
The long version of this answer could however still be interesting. The wording of the proposal makes clear that it is for cases of 'serious wrong-doing'. Like setting fire to a fellow MPs duck house or pissing in the Chief Whip's moat then. I am of course being flippant, but the point is it's not for making politicians promises. Anyway I'm sure Nick, honest politician that he is, can point to 'looking at the books', 'the nature of a coalition' or 'Dave said he'd lock me in his new IKEA cupboard' as a perfectly legitimate reason for his change of opinion. The most important point however will lie in the detail of the proposal. Will it a) Allow constituents to collect the 10% of signatures then refer the MP to some form of tribunal (more democratic) or b) Mean that MPs have to get caught doing something naughty by a parliamentary body before the signatures mean anything in law. If a.) then then this could cause massive problems for Clegg. The Deputy-PM would have to answer questions in some sort of tribunal with the constituents being able to make a representation about why they think he should be recalled. No doubt Clegg would win but having your broken promises splashed all over the papers for days doesn't help people's trust in you. Seondly on this point Clegg is the worst at looking convincing ever. He has an obvious facial tick when struggling to justify himself and can barely conceal his anger when someone has the temerity to question his integrity or fallibility. Tony Blair he ain't.
Still in all likelihood this isn't going to happen. I doubt very much that the proposal will be worded as a) as its an obvious beartrap, not just for Nick Clegg but for his fellow politicos. Went on a rally to 'Save our Hospital'? Government shutting it? We'll see your Rt. Honourable arse at a tribunal then pal. All very embarrassing. No chances are it'll be b.) so it won't change much. You'll have to be incredibly stupid as an MP to trigger it I'm sure. However even if Clegg is never questioned it will still be incredibly politically damaging and embarrassing to him. Got your 10%? Ok, well next ask him 'what he's afraid of? Too much democracy? I thought this was the new politics of accountability? We're only trying to make you accountable Nick. Why won't you let us?' (Cue TV interview, pained expression, the phrase 'I understand frustrations but what people have to understand...' Never good. Next step, 'well your reforms mean nothing then Nick.' 'What was that about the 1832 reform act?' (Cue pained expression 'This is real meaningful reform...'). All pretty embarrassing. Lastly how will fellow Lib Dem MPs react to knowing that at least 10% of people in their leaders' constituency don't just want him out, but want him out now. I know what I'd think. I'd want to bake another cake, this one's just been burnt.
*The NUS are also trying to recall Stephen Williams and Don Foster, but they're not nearly as tragically comic.
Here's where the NUS are added to the cake mixture, just before this metaphor fails to rise in fact. Spurred on by Nick Clegg's remarkable decision to redefine the word 'pledge' to mean 'We might do it in the only situation which is never going to happen.' and a love of sentances containing the words 'hoist' and 'petard' they are going to try and get 10% of Nick Clegg's constituents to sign a petition to recall him and hold a by-election*. It's a great idea. Those with a genuine grievance against Nicholas William Peter Clegg (i.e. those constiuents who voted for him believing him to be for the things he said he was for on May 6th) will be able to hold him democratically accountable. The rest of us can sleep a little bit sounder knowing that the word 'pledge' isn't just good for cleaning up dust off mantelpieces and/or indulge in the most poetic bit of justice possible unless Carol-Ann Duffy is planning to take a golf club to Piers Morgan's face. Or will we? In short, no.
The long version of this answer could however still be interesting. The wording of the proposal makes clear that it is for cases of 'serious wrong-doing'. Like setting fire to a fellow MPs duck house or pissing in the Chief Whip's moat then. I am of course being flippant, but the point is it's not for making politicians promises. Anyway I'm sure Nick, honest politician that he is, can point to 'looking at the books', 'the nature of a coalition' or 'Dave said he'd lock me in his new IKEA cupboard' as a perfectly legitimate reason for his change of opinion. The most important point however will lie in the detail of the proposal. Will it a) Allow constituents to collect the 10% of signatures then refer the MP to some form of tribunal (more democratic) or b) Mean that MPs have to get caught doing something naughty by a parliamentary body before the signatures mean anything in law. If a.) then then this could cause massive problems for Clegg. The Deputy-PM would have to answer questions in some sort of tribunal with the constituents being able to make a representation about why they think he should be recalled. No doubt Clegg would win but having your broken promises splashed all over the papers for days doesn't help people's trust in you. Seondly on this point Clegg is the worst at looking convincing ever. He has an obvious facial tick when struggling to justify himself and can barely conceal his anger when someone has the temerity to question his integrity or fallibility. Tony Blair he ain't.
Still in all likelihood this isn't going to happen. I doubt very much that the proposal will be worded as a) as its an obvious beartrap, not just for Nick Clegg but for his fellow politicos. Went on a rally to 'Save our Hospital'? Government shutting it? We'll see your Rt. Honourable arse at a tribunal then pal. All very embarrassing. No chances are it'll be b.) so it won't change much. You'll have to be incredibly stupid as an MP to trigger it I'm sure. However even if Clegg is never questioned it will still be incredibly politically damaging and embarrassing to him. Got your 10%? Ok, well next ask him 'what he's afraid of? Too much democracy? I thought this was the new politics of accountability? We're only trying to make you accountable Nick. Why won't you let us?' (Cue TV interview, pained expression, the phrase 'I understand frustrations but what people have to understand...' Never good. Next step, 'well your reforms mean nothing then Nick.' 'What was that about the 1832 reform act?' (Cue pained expression 'This is real meaningful reform...'). All pretty embarrassing. Lastly how will fellow Lib Dem MPs react to knowing that at least 10% of people in their leaders' constituency don't just want him out, but want him out now. I know what I'd think. I'd want to bake another cake, this one's just been burnt.
*The NUS are also trying to recall Stephen Williams and Don Foster, but they're not nearly as tragically comic.
Saturday 13 November 2010
My Week: What Recent Developments Tell Us About The Coalition
The sound and the fury this week has surrounded has surrounded student protests against tuition fees and Nick Clegg's struggle to justify the unjustifiable. Firstly I find it strange the way that the 'riots' have been covered and discussed. It seems that protestors can only either be peaceful marchers or violent anarchist thugs. No mention what-so-ever of the importance of direct action in protesting. The reason for this is we know that merely marching doesn't work. This was shown by the juxtaposition between the exchanges in the commons between Clegg and others and what was going on outside. Nick Clegg as all politicians do claimed privelige access to facts while respectfully disagreeing. However his disagreement with those outside is imposing fees of up to £45,000 on future students. By his own definition he won't think again if all people do is march and say 'I don't agree with Nick.' This isn't to condone lobbing fire extinguishers at coppers, but occupation, disruption and disobedience is vitalto showing government how angry we are and that people will not stand for Nick Clegg and David Cameron's constant disagreement with themselves
Documents obtained by the Guardian show that the Lib Dems were prepared to ditch their pledge in the only likely scenarios which would see them in government. This being the case, why sign a pledge saying that you will oppose ANY increase in fees, by ANY government. Not intelligent, unless you have a real disregard for the poor saps pushing this pledge and other swiftly ditched policies and opinions. Other developments this week make this painfully obvious.
These are the repealing of animal welfare standards and the putting of fast food companies in charge of aspects of health policy. Not huge issues compared to £80bn in cuts and massive changes to higher education, but this is the point. There can be no defence of these proposals as important for cutting the deficit, they are purely ideological policies of the most extreme type of Conservative thinking. So why are they happening? The government claims that it is moderate and the Lib Dems are its moderating influence. So why are extreme policies being introduced here? Because they can be. They show that the Conservatives are doing precisely what they want with Lib Dem collusion and I rather think we should see the coalition's larger policies in this same ideological context instead of buying the line that these are difficult decisions taken for our benefit. If a government thinks cutting chickens beaks off is 'In the national interest' then its claim to think that harsh benefit cuts and trebling tuition fees to be carries no wait what-so-ever. Time for direct action to stop a government from doing what the hell it wants against popular will.
Documents obtained by the Guardian show that the Lib Dems were prepared to ditch their pledge in the only likely scenarios which would see them in government. This being the case, why sign a pledge saying that you will oppose ANY increase in fees, by ANY government. Not intelligent, unless you have a real disregard for the poor saps pushing this pledge and other swiftly ditched policies and opinions. Other developments this week make this painfully obvious.
These are the repealing of animal welfare standards and the putting of fast food companies in charge of aspects of health policy. Not huge issues compared to £80bn in cuts and massive changes to higher education, but this is the point. There can be no defence of these proposals as important for cutting the deficit, they are purely ideological policies of the most extreme type of Conservative thinking. So why are they happening? The government claims that it is moderate and the Lib Dems are its moderating influence. So why are extreme policies being introduced here? Because they can be. They show that the Conservatives are doing precisely what they want with Lib Dem collusion and I rather think we should see the coalition's larger policies in this same ideological context instead of buying the line that these are difficult decisions taken for our benefit. If a government thinks cutting chickens beaks off is 'In the national interest' then its claim to think that harsh benefit cuts and trebling tuition fees to be carries no wait what-so-ever. Time for direct action to stop a government from doing what the hell it wants against popular will.
Sunday 31 October 2010
Tax Avoidance And Evasion: The Biggest Issue Facing Us Today
There are several slogans currently being pushed by the coalition government. These range from the spurious 'There is no alternative' (there always is, it's just that you think the alternative is not as good, others may not agree.) to the faintly patronising 'We're all in this together' and its corollary 'Together in the national interest.' . The main point of these slogans and the arguments they try and put across is fairly obvious. These are that unpopular decisions asking citizens to give up state help, services and tax have to be made and are on the whole fair, responsible and the right thing to do. Juxtaposed to this is the deficit figure, the national debt and the spectres of Greek style crises as well as images of benefit scrounging layabouts who are spending our money on mansions in Kensington. There is however another figure we could juxtapose with the cuts: that of avoided and evaded tax contributions.
There is an important distinction between avoidance and evasion, one that sometimes lost amidst the rhetoric, even amongst experts on the issue such as Danny Alexander Chief Secretary to the Treasury who gave a speech promising to clam down on both at the Lib Dem conference despite his own run in on his own Capital Gains Tax arrangements. Evasion the government shouldn't need to discover any great moral purpose to crack down on, it's illegal as well as immoral. Estimates by Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK put this cost to the UK as high as £70 bn a year. Others dispute this figure but what is not under question by definition is that the UK is legally entitled to this money. Obviously it would not be possible to recoup every penny both due to the sophistication of the crime and the sheer scale of it but just as we believe that the police should investigate every murder no matter how difficult and whatever the crime rate, our government has a moral duty to go after those who perpertrate this crime. Especially given the 'There is no alternative' and 'Together in the national interest' rhetoric. Recouping 1/10th of this sum, which is legally ours as taxpayers would remove the need for the most painful cuts to the poorest. Or if the government was differently inclined, a whacking great tax cut or £7bn more of the deficit. Your political hue decides the alternative. I would also say that pursuing this money would be very much in the national interest.
It is this first point that most angers the protesters I joined in shutting a Vodafone store last week. It is a well covered story but in short George Osborne went over to India to promote Vodafone in India (a country with whom they are also in dispute over taxes) days after writing off a tax bill which HMRC was in dispute with Vodafone over for an estimated £6bn, with Vodafone agreeing to pay roughly £1bn. A senior HMRC official described this as 'a spectacular cave in.' and Vodafone was also reported to have set aside at least £2.5bn to settle the claim. The UK government was legally entitled to this money, or thought it was, so why did it not try to recoup it? Especially at a time when 'there is no alternative.' £200m extra gained would have stopped cuts to the Disability Mobility Allowance which will leave disabled people in care homes stranded. £80m extra a loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, a business aiming to lead the UK's industrial recovery. One can dispute whether the amount gained would have been the full £6bn but every pound not gained is an extra cut that has to be made according to the coalition's own highly dubious position that the alternative would be bankruptcy.
Imagine my shock then to discover that the UK government and George Osborne in particular has now signed a deal with Switzerland, the Tom Hagen to the tax evaders Vito Corleone, to enable it to maintain secrecy for UK nationals' assets that sit in Swiss banks allowing the Swiss to effectively operate as an encouraged tax haven which the government are effectively promoting. UK nationals hold $61.5bn in undeclared assets in these banks, assets which in many cases will be the proceeds of tax evasion. Due to the anonymity of the individuals who own these assets they will go untaxed. Even though in many cases they legally should be. Effectively then the government is promoting criminality. Compare this with the lack of encoragement for benefit claimants to claim what they are legally entitled to. This could be linked to the appointment as a trade minister of Stephen Green, a former boss of the Swiss division of HSBC. Nice to know some of us are in this together, even if it excludes the majority of us.
Tax avoidance is a more difficult issue. It is legal but morally dubious, especially at a time of government imposed austerity. Tax avoidance mostly stems from the fact that the rich can sidestep the tax system in a way that an ordinary person, charged PAYE can't. In the case of Phillip Hammond he had what most of us would take as salary paid as a dividend so avoiding paying a higher rate of income tax. Perfectly legal but given the governments rhetoric morally dubious. All kinds of tax avoidance schemes exist, from Tesco's dubious holding companies to Topshop head honcho Phillip Green transferring ownership of his company to his wife before it paid one of the biggest dividends in corporate history. Our revulsion at this type of behaviour should be political. How can Nick Clegg, David Cameron and George Osborne be said to be promoting fairness and a 'progressive' system when it is one that legally allows the richest opportunities that are denied to the poorest? Nick Clegg was vehement in his defence of the Comprehensive Spending Review as being 'progressive and fair' even when the IFS said the opposite, apparently as we should put it into perspective: cuts in benefits would get people in work, despite the laying off of 490,000 public sector workers, and other such unproven though theoretically possible claims. However perhaps we should put the cuts into a greater perspective. We live in a society which affords great priveliges to the richest and in times of hardship attacks the poorest. Forcing a JSA claimant to pay 10% of his rent from his £65.70 a week dole if after a year he is still out of work while a multi millionaire can legally pay under 20% tax is not a fair and progressive response to a budgetary crisis. It is a gargantuan moral failure of our politicians not to tackle this issue. If society continues like this then then the next time a budgetary crisis occurs it will again be the poor that pay.
These two issues are I think two of the biggest facing us today. How can our self styled 'fair and progressive' government claim that these cuts are fair when it isn't even prepared to enforce its own tax code and is promoting criminality on a huge scale? This issue is non-negotiable. Every tax cheat needs to be chased fully and until there is an attempt to do this any cut can be decried as 'avoidable' 'unfair' on the grounds that it puts criminals above law abiding members of society, even before we get to the fact that these criminals can well afford to pay for their crimes, and those who are paying for them can't. Secondly if we want to build a fairer society we need a debate about tax avoidance and its costs and be asking why we afford these priveliges to the super rich like royals of old, free to decide how much of their taxable income is spent on the good of their fellow citizens and how much on yachting and diamond encrusted cocktails while the rest of us, from those at the bottom to the upper-middle class are left without much of a stake in wealth creation in our society. Unless tax avoidance is made much more difficult then we will never be all in this together, no matter how much the coalition wish it to be the case. Unless tax evasion is tackled fully the government do not even have a case to say so and are lying or more naive than a believer in Simon Cowell's love of music when they use any talk of 'fairness' 'togetherness' or any justification of their actions other than their own idological antipathy to the most vulnerable.
There is an important distinction between avoidance and evasion, one that sometimes lost amidst the rhetoric, even amongst experts on the issue such as Danny Alexander Chief Secretary to the Treasury who gave a speech promising to clam down on both at the Lib Dem conference despite his own run in on his own Capital Gains Tax arrangements. Evasion the government shouldn't need to discover any great moral purpose to crack down on, it's illegal as well as immoral. Estimates by Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK put this cost to the UK as high as £70 bn a year. Others dispute this figure but what is not under question by definition is that the UK is legally entitled to this money. Obviously it would not be possible to recoup every penny both due to the sophistication of the crime and the sheer scale of it but just as we believe that the police should investigate every murder no matter how difficult and whatever the crime rate, our government has a moral duty to go after those who perpertrate this crime. Especially given the 'There is no alternative' and 'Together in the national interest' rhetoric. Recouping 1/10th of this sum, which is legally ours as taxpayers would remove the need for the most painful cuts to the poorest. Or if the government was differently inclined, a whacking great tax cut or £7bn more of the deficit. Your political hue decides the alternative. I would also say that pursuing this money would be very much in the national interest.
It is this first point that most angers the protesters I joined in shutting a Vodafone store last week. It is a well covered story but in short George Osborne went over to India to promote Vodafone in India (a country with whom they are also in dispute over taxes) days after writing off a tax bill which HMRC was in dispute with Vodafone over for an estimated £6bn, with Vodafone agreeing to pay roughly £1bn. A senior HMRC official described this as 'a spectacular cave in.' and Vodafone was also reported to have set aside at least £2.5bn to settle the claim. The UK government was legally entitled to this money, or thought it was, so why did it not try to recoup it? Especially at a time when 'there is no alternative.' £200m extra gained would have stopped cuts to the Disability Mobility Allowance which will leave disabled people in care homes stranded. £80m extra a loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, a business aiming to lead the UK's industrial recovery. One can dispute whether the amount gained would have been the full £6bn but every pound not gained is an extra cut that has to be made according to the coalition's own highly dubious position that the alternative would be bankruptcy.
Imagine my shock then to discover that the UK government and George Osborne in particular has now signed a deal with Switzerland, the Tom Hagen to the tax evaders Vito Corleone, to enable it to maintain secrecy for UK nationals' assets that sit in Swiss banks allowing the Swiss to effectively operate as an encouraged tax haven which the government are effectively promoting. UK nationals hold $61.5bn in undeclared assets in these banks, assets which in many cases will be the proceeds of tax evasion. Due to the anonymity of the individuals who own these assets they will go untaxed. Even though in many cases they legally should be. Effectively then the government is promoting criminality. Compare this with the lack of encoragement for benefit claimants to claim what they are legally entitled to. This could be linked to the appointment as a trade minister of Stephen Green, a former boss of the Swiss division of HSBC. Nice to know some of us are in this together, even if it excludes the majority of us.
Tax avoidance is a more difficult issue. It is legal but morally dubious, especially at a time of government imposed austerity. Tax avoidance mostly stems from the fact that the rich can sidestep the tax system in a way that an ordinary person, charged PAYE can't. In the case of Phillip Hammond he had what most of us would take as salary paid as a dividend so avoiding paying a higher rate of income tax. Perfectly legal but given the governments rhetoric morally dubious. All kinds of tax avoidance schemes exist, from Tesco's dubious holding companies to Topshop head honcho Phillip Green transferring ownership of his company to his wife before it paid one of the biggest dividends in corporate history. Our revulsion at this type of behaviour should be political. How can Nick Clegg, David Cameron and George Osborne be said to be promoting fairness and a 'progressive' system when it is one that legally allows the richest opportunities that are denied to the poorest? Nick Clegg was vehement in his defence of the Comprehensive Spending Review as being 'progressive and fair' even when the IFS said the opposite, apparently as we should put it into perspective: cuts in benefits would get people in work, despite the laying off of 490,000 public sector workers, and other such unproven though theoretically possible claims. However perhaps we should put the cuts into a greater perspective. We live in a society which affords great priveliges to the richest and in times of hardship attacks the poorest. Forcing a JSA claimant to pay 10% of his rent from his £65.70 a week dole if after a year he is still out of work while a multi millionaire can legally pay under 20% tax is not a fair and progressive response to a budgetary crisis. It is a gargantuan moral failure of our politicians not to tackle this issue. If society continues like this then then the next time a budgetary crisis occurs it will again be the poor that pay.
These two issues are I think two of the biggest facing us today. How can our self styled 'fair and progressive' government claim that these cuts are fair when it isn't even prepared to enforce its own tax code and is promoting criminality on a huge scale? This issue is non-negotiable. Every tax cheat needs to be chased fully and until there is an attempt to do this any cut can be decried as 'avoidable' 'unfair' on the grounds that it puts criminals above law abiding members of society, even before we get to the fact that these criminals can well afford to pay for their crimes, and those who are paying for them can't. Secondly if we want to build a fairer society we need a debate about tax avoidance and its costs and be asking why we afford these priveliges to the super rich like royals of old, free to decide how much of their taxable income is spent on the good of their fellow citizens and how much on yachting and diamond encrusted cocktails while the rest of us, from those at the bottom to the upper-middle class are left without much of a stake in wealth creation in our society. Unless tax avoidance is made much more difficult then we will never be all in this together, no matter how much the coalition wish it to be the case. Unless tax evasion is tackled fully the government do not even have a case to say so and are lying or more naive than a believer in Simon Cowell's love of music when they use any talk of 'fairness' 'togetherness' or any justification of their actions other than their own idological antipathy to the most vulnerable.
Tuesday 28 September 2010
Go Ed!
With the election of Ed, rather than David Miliband the Labour Party has obviously taken a risk. This risk has many Tories either professing themselves to be laughing over their Notting Hill gastro-pub lunches or bizarrely flinging vitriol about ‘Red Ed’ or ‘Brown Ed’ or whatever smear it is they think it is particularly opportune to use at that moment in time. This may seem strange, how can Ed Milliband be an unreconstructed Brownite and a Leftist usurper ? After all the Labour left and Gordon Brown’s version are about as close together as the ideologies of Vince Cable and George Osbor… oh hang on. Seriously though the cheers and the jeers do represent the two sides of the Ed Milliband gamble. Those cheers come about because Ed is not David, he doesn’t pose the obvious problems that David would pose the Tories. However the jeers come about because of the opportunity. In the eyes of the public, if not politicos, Ed is a blank canvas. Similar to Cameron he can be associated with past failures, in fact they are very similar in that respect, both had a hand in a failed manifesto that lost the election before the next they will fight, both could be tangentially associated with past policies (ERM, Golden Rules etc) but neither are fatally tied to them. This is why the right jeer, they want to paint him as an inevitable failure, a union man and an indecisive dullard. One should in this respect remember Labour’s taunts at Cameron: toff, lightweight, unable to take the right of his party with him, etc. That went well.
So Ed represents a risk but also a great opportunity: a chance for new policy, new thinking and in the shameless words of Cameron and Clegg a new way of doing politics. In this respect Ed Milliband should copy some (but not all) of David Cameron’s manoeuvres. By this I don’t mean triangulate in ‘the heir to Blair’ mode Cameron, tough political times call for tougher politics. One must have a look at Cameron’s end destination: 25-40% cuts, free schools, a half privatised NHS. Cameron reached this point by dodging needless battles, identifying the government’s weak spot and convincing people he is on their side while not fighting needless battles where and when the coalition is strong, even when you think you may have a case, the political weather is likely to change and this is when to strike. When Cameron and co. did strike, boy did they strike, here is where public opinion may be won for measures of the left: where Cameron and co. have failed.
Which policies would do this? Ones that capture the divisions and contradictions in the coalition (both Tory-Tory and LD-Tory) as well as setting out a quite different direction where the coalition can be characterised as wrong. In order to do this he should
1. Agree with the coalition (in general) on Civil Liberties. With the proviso that, as Labour did it will come up against the compromises of power in this area. The continuation of ASBOs and reductions in police should be seen as dividing lines.
2. Support a similar, though distinct version of IDS welfare reform. The biggest disincentive to getting off benefits is not that benefits are astronomically high but the fact that taking low paid work means that one loses all of one’s benefits rather than it being incrementally reduced as one works more. Labour should praise IDS for realising this and back him and the Lib Dem’s consciences against Osborne and Cameron’s urge to plunder this budget.
3. Back the Lib Dems in their opposition to Free Schools program making the argument that it is a centralisation of power rather than representing localism, and that it is a waste of money that could be better spent improving schools for all, without resiling completely from the original idea of academies which was to direct much needed funds and expertise into failing schools.
4. Flesh out his statement that Alistair Darling’s deficit reduction plan is a ‘starting point’ keep the bulk of the plan but introduce a policy of an ‘escape hatch’ if growth struggles and state that more would be done to raise money from tax rises rather than spending cuts. A Tobin tax should be strongly considered as well as Andy Burnham’s proposal for a LVT replacing council tax, focus on this in the second half of the parliament.
5. Shame the coalition on their green record. Not only is this an important issue and source of division amongst the coalition, it exposes the completely shameless difference between their PR and their policy. Promote green industries as the centre of the campaign to cut the country’s energy use, the people’s bills and create new skilled manufacturing jobs. The aborted ‘Green New Deal’ perhaps?
6. Don’t jump the gun on trident. State that it should be a part of the Defence Review.
7. Don’t get caught ought on immigration: one of the oldest wars of attrition in politics. Let it be seen in the context of the government’s failings rather than as a moral crusade, an immigration cap rather than points system will likely provide ample examples of unfairness while giving the coalition a chance to fail on its own terms.
8. Get tough on the NHS: supposedly protected but facing real cuts and a top down reorganisation when the NHS is a great achievement of New Labour. A bad case of coalition hyperactivity could well result in a trump card for Labour.
9. Get some goodies ready for 2015. Labour will think that George Osborne will not manage to reduce the deficit entirely by 2015. If this is the case Labour will have a ready made argument that they need to promote growth. If he does manage it, the argument will be about how much destruction has been wrought on the country by the cuts and how to improve slashed public services and improve the lives of those hurt by the cuts. Either way this can’t just be done by spending promises, but by targeted tax cuts to the poor and middle class, such as lowering VAT
10. Keep calm and bide your time!
Saturday 4 September 2010
Coulson & Tory Defences of him.
I don't have a clue about what went on in the Andy Coulson case. He may be an innocent know-nothing who miraculously rose to edit one of the nation's newspapers and subsequently be talented enough to be appointed as the main press advisor to the PM whilst not knowing the reprehensible tactics that his reporters were using in his newsroom. Inquiries into the matter so far (from the police, the PCC, and parliament) haven't proved this, nor have they proved the opposite, that Coulson was and is the unscrupulous ogre many people imagine him to be. (He has some form on this with an £800,000 bullying claim accepted against him.) Quite rightly people like Iain Dale point out that he hasn't been formally charged with any wrongdoing, a perfectly legitimate defence, one which until the NY Times article on this sorry business came out was perfectly acceptable. One might call it the 'You hate him anyway defence' which in the absence of proof or significant suggestion of wrongdoing invites the unbiased observer to view the accuser's bias towards the accused. It works well with Coulson. People on the left have every reason not to like him, he works for a Tory PM, he worked for Rupert Murdoch, specifically the NOTW and doesn't seem a pleasant chap. Added to this is the accusation of mischief making by those with nothing personal against Coulson and you have potent reasons for questioning the motives of those calling for his head.
The reason the NY Times Article challenges this point is that it isn't about Coulson. Coulson may be the focal point, and the claims against him are damning if true, but central to the point is the idea that the original investigations were either lied to or were given inadequate evidence. In the case of the CPS there is a prosecutor who claims not to have been given the correct evidence from the Met, a very serious allegation. The PCC are exposed as the supine press apologists that they are and the article accused Coulson of lying to a parliamentary inquiry that already accused him and the News International of 'obfuscation'. Add to this the fact that a huge number of people had their phones hacked, many with no connection to the work of the 'lone bad apple' who has been imprisoned, the massive payouts to those who looked like getting their day in court and accusations of excessive closeness between the news organisation and the police, as well as those who may not have been told by police that a crime was committed against them having their day in court if this is the case there is a need for an inquiry. The daft ad hominem attacks of Alan Duncan and Iain Dale merely express worry about the political cost such an inquiry would incur. Since when was it the role of a member of a government to trash the testimony of a prospective witness to a possible crime committed by a News Organisation? Really it shouldn't be a political issue. It should be a case of finding out whether initial investigations were told the truth, whether it was hidden or whether they were lied to. This is what the NY times alleges, with witnesses to back this up. The veracity of what these witnesses say should be determined by a judge, not a member of HM Government with a vested interest in them being untrue. Really an inquiry into this matter should be a no-brainer, it should be non-political. Tory attacks, their ad-hominem nature and deliberate ignoring of the real issue show that their closeness not just to Coulson but Murdoch mean that it isn't.
The reason the NY Times Article challenges this point is that it isn't about Coulson. Coulson may be the focal point, and the claims against him are damning if true, but central to the point is the idea that the original investigations were either lied to or were given inadequate evidence. In the case of the CPS there is a prosecutor who claims not to have been given the correct evidence from the Met, a very serious allegation. The PCC are exposed as the supine press apologists that they are and the article accused Coulson of lying to a parliamentary inquiry that already accused him and the News International of 'obfuscation'. Add to this the fact that a huge number of people had their phones hacked, many with no connection to the work of the 'lone bad apple' who has been imprisoned, the massive payouts to those who looked like getting their day in court and accusations of excessive closeness between the news organisation and the police, as well as those who may not have been told by police that a crime was committed against them having their day in court if this is the case there is a need for an inquiry. The daft ad hominem attacks of Alan Duncan and Iain Dale merely express worry about the political cost such an inquiry would incur. Since when was it the role of a member of a government to trash the testimony of a prospective witness to a possible crime committed by a News Organisation? Really it shouldn't be a political issue. It should be a case of finding out whether initial investigations were told the truth, whether it was hidden or whether they were lied to. This is what the NY times alleges, with witnesses to back this up. The veracity of what these witnesses say should be determined by a judge, not a member of HM Government with a vested interest in them being untrue. Really an inquiry into this matter should be a no-brainer, it should be non-political. Tory attacks, their ad-hominem nature and deliberate ignoring of the real issue show that their closeness not just to Coulson but Murdoch mean that it isn't.
Wednesday 21 July 2010
Oh Nick... A Foolish Cunt Art Thou.
The Iraq war is an emotive, and important issue. However after Nick Clegg's ludicrous performance at the despatch box today it took on a bizarre hue. He took the time, amidst answering important questions on government policy to declare it illegal. Two things spring to mind, firstly the speciousness of the legallity argument when used in certain contexts and secondly whatthis wasn't government what the fuck? On the first point after declaring the war illegay, most people's next step is to quote the number of civillian dead and to highlight individal cases of suffering. These have little to do with legality and more to do with morality. My own instinct is that the war may well be legal but was quite immoral. Resolution 1441 was interpretable as it was thrashed out between leaders who fundamentally disagreed with each other, to me it was a typical UN fudge in that it allowed both sides to interpret it and make their case. Whether the war was immoral is another question for which politicians quite rightly have to answer for. Secondly what the fuck? PMQs is a forum for asking questions on government policy, not for the expressing of ill informed personal views. Nick Clegg was there to put the case for the government's policy. Unless I'm very much mistaken this wasn't government policy, nor did it have anything to do with Jack Straw's question. In fact by using it to escape from a corner in which he was trapped over lies made by the coalition (the Sheff forgemasters money is a loan, of what is a tiny amount of money, which would be paid back, so 'no money left doesn't cut it as a defence.) he belittled what is a very important issue, it goes to show that Clegg is a mere opportunist prepared to use the most serious issues for political football and trivialities. Tony Blair may be a war criminal, people may have cases to answer, and above all many have perhaps suffered unneccessary. To Nick though they didn't die in vsin, they got him out of a sticky one on PMQs.
Wednesday 14 July 2010
David Cameron's bizarre (but expected) use of language.
It's nothing new to hear politicians use bizarre language, they often seem to inhabhit a realm stalked by dizzying words and expressions such as 'empowerment' and 'choice agendas', not to mention the most terrifying of all: 'reform'. However I was struck by two David Cameron uses of language by their utter concealment of truth a nd how a marketing man may twist language to suit his ends. Firstly their was a seemingly innocuous aside after being asked about the shielding of charities from a VAT rise
'I will certainly have those conversations with the Treasury, and we will want to do everything we can to help what used to be called, rather condescendingly, the third sector but I believe is the first sector: the excellent charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises that do so much for our country…so often these first sector organisations have the right answers to the social problems in our country.'
Aside from the clunkiness of his turn of phrase it is astonishing how utterly vacuous his point is and misleading its implications are. Firstly the term 'third sector' is not condescending in any way. The turn of phrase simply reflects the fact that the bulk of GDP is spent and earned in the private or public sector. Would Mr Cameron wish otherwise? Of course not as charities are reliant on private and government contributions to make ends meet, they could never be 'the first sector' in any meaningful sense. So how is it the 'first' sector? Because it is the most important to our welfare? Because it 'so often has the right answers...' ?Well even if these were true, the 'first sector' would still be reliant on government or private money to operate. Of course the other two points are nonsense too. Most great advancements or changes have come about either through private endeavour (Cars, advances in computing) or government (NHS, Welfare, universal schooling.) with volunteers sometimes playing an important role in stepping in when there is both state and market failure to provide a service (often where there is no renumeration on offer for private investors, and either for historical, current reasons or because it's seen as frivolous, the state doesn't want to get involved.) The lable 'the third sector' in fact is far from condescending, it places an importance on charity work that places it alongside the public and private sector as a provider of services: one that is certainly greater than the percentage of GDP it takes up. Mr Cameron here is calling an apple an orange, then saying that the apple is a better orange because it's an apple. Only a PR man could do this.
Second of all there was his characterisation of the Labour front bench as 'deficit deniers'. This is a more pernicious rebranding. Firstly of course because it is directed at his opponents. Secondly because it was a pre prepared line trotted out in response to a question about protecting research grants (?!?!) and lastly because of the term itself. Its ludicrousness is most easily seen if compared with the term 'climate change deniers'. People who deny firstly that man made climate change exists, and secondly assert that anything done to combat it is a dreadful (in some cases a tyrranical plot) waste of money. Do the Labour front bench deny that the deficit exists? Nope, they agree broadly on the figures, although they believe that their policies would leave a slightly smaller structural deficit due to increased growth. Do they assert that we should do nothing about the deficit? Nope. They want it cut, but think that a better way to do this is to cut slowly but surely in order to both save pain and avoid a double dip recession which would derail any plans for cutting the deficit anyone might have. So deniers Dave? Really? You could fairly plausibly say we need to go faster in cutting public expenditure but that? One has a feeling that Mr Cameron, were it not for his connections to Tory central office, would be the type of person who thinks he can call a yoghurt 'natural' because it has been dyed the right colour and has a couple of dried fruit bits in. Activia doesn't occur naturally, growing in a lightly swaying hedgerow, nor are Labour 'deficit deniers', nor I would venture is Mr Cameron a man who would even regard the truth as acceptable when a concealed falsehood helps him to market himself and his worse than advertised product.
'I will certainly have those conversations with the Treasury, and we will want to do everything we can to help what used to be called, rather condescendingly, the third sector but I believe is the first sector: the excellent charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises that do so much for our country…so often these first sector organisations have the right answers to the social problems in our country.'
Aside from the clunkiness of his turn of phrase it is astonishing how utterly vacuous his point is and misleading its implications are. Firstly the term 'third sector' is not condescending in any way. The turn of phrase simply reflects the fact that the bulk of GDP is spent and earned in the private or public sector. Would Mr Cameron wish otherwise? Of course not as charities are reliant on private and government contributions to make ends meet, they could never be 'the first sector' in any meaningful sense. So how is it the 'first' sector? Because it is the most important to our welfare? Because it 'so often has the right answers...' ?Well even if these were true, the 'first sector' would still be reliant on government or private money to operate. Of course the other two points are nonsense too. Most great advancements or changes have come about either through private endeavour (Cars, advances in computing) or government (NHS, Welfare, universal schooling.) with volunteers sometimes playing an important role in stepping in when there is both state and market failure to provide a service (often where there is no renumeration on offer for private investors, and either for historical, current reasons or because it's seen as frivolous, the state doesn't want to get involved.) The lable 'the third sector' in fact is far from condescending, it places an importance on charity work that places it alongside the public and private sector as a provider of services: one that is certainly greater than the percentage of GDP it takes up. Mr Cameron here is calling an apple an orange, then saying that the apple is a better orange because it's an apple. Only a PR man could do this.
Second of all there was his characterisation of the Labour front bench as 'deficit deniers'. This is a more pernicious rebranding. Firstly of course because it is directed at his opponents. Secondly because it was a pre prepared line trotted out in response to a question about protecting research grants (?!?!) and lastly because of the term itself. Its ludicrousness is most easily seen if compared with the term 'climate change deniers'. People who deny firstly that man made climate change exists, and secondly assert that anything done to combat it is a dreadful (in some cases a tyrranical plot) waste of money. Do the Labour front bench deny that the deficit exists? Nope, they agree broadly on the figures, although they believe that their policies would leave a slightly smaller structural deficit due to increased growth. Do they assert that we should do nothing about the deficit? Nope. They want it cut, but think that a better way to do this is to cut slowly but surely in order to both save pain and avoid a double dip recession which would derail any plans for cutting the deficit anyone might have. So deniers Dave? Really? You could fairly plausibly say we need to go faster in cutting public expenditure but that? One has a feeling that Mr Cameron, were it not for his connections to Tory central office, would be the type of person who thinks he can call a yoghurt 'natural' because it has been dyed the right colour and has a couple of dried fruit bits in. Activia doesn't occur naturally, growing in a lightly swaying hedgerow, nor are Labour 'deficit deniers', nor I would venture is Mr Cameron a man who would even regard the truth as acceptable when a concealed falsehood helps him to market himself and his worse than advertised product.
Monday 21 June 2010
The unbearable shiteness of being... a world cup advert
It is not original to point out the ridicule that one can engender by basing a marketing strategy around the world cup. In fact Private Eye has pointed out the curse of tying oneself to major sporting events such as these for years. Michael Owen's knee knack and Brazil's spectacular failure to live up to 'Joga Bonito' being two of the last competition's finest. This year though has perhaps been the toughest competition in years. Here are a few of the best, or worst marketing failures of 2010.
Carlsberg, If Carlsberg gave team talks...: Aside from the fact that if Carlsberg gave teamtalks they'd be in Danish (or rather they would be silent bubbles of carbon dioxide given that Carlsberg is a beer and as such incapable of speech.) this ad manages to be cringe worthy and in poor taste at the same time. First of all there is the dubious ethics of invoking the dead Sir Bobby Robson and a ghostly Bobby Moore in order to sell beer, a strategy one can only hope they repeat when Thatcher dies, sparking an 'if Carlsberg made destroyers of Britain's manufacturing base...' tagline. Secondly a teamtalk given by a collecion of British champions in minority sports... and Ian Botham. Is not one likely to tactically outwit a slug, let alone the likes of Marcelo Biesla and his contemporaries. Although it is rather apt considering 'our boys' have played like drunken sailors so far.
Anything associated with FIFA: Millions are spent by various companies in the run up to WCs in order to become 'the official FIFA World Cup (tm)' tampon or spreadable cheese or toilet cleaner. How many people buy their domestic products on the basis of Sepp Blatter's advice is dubious in the first place, but this wheeze has been arguably made a little toxic by FIFA's hijacking of South African law for corporate purposes. Meaning that those caught selling anything other than McDonalds', Gillette, Budweiser or other FIFA endorsed products in certain designated areas faces jail or a fine. Not good PR when the victims of this policy so far have been impoverished Africans and 30 Dutch women in miniskirts.
Nike, Write the Future: Nike adverts are always the lavish setpiece ads of any World Cup, beautifully put together, containing all the stars and often containing what passes for wit amongst sportswear manufacturers. However the ad urging it's participants to 'Write the Future' through their brilliant play (in Nike boots of course) has been one magnificent curses in sporting history, even by Nike standards. (Their 98 campaign centred around a Brazil team which descended into farce around Nike's golden boy Ronaldo and 2006's Joga Bonito Brazil were anything but.) The fortunes of those featured is as follows:
Ronaldinho: Not selected for tournament
Wayne Rooney: Currently playing like his useless ginger bearded alter ego from the advert in an abject England side.
Franck Ribery: Threatening to go on strike in a French side in turmoil.
Fabio Cannavaro: Last seen blaming anyone but himself for Italy's dismal draw with New Zeland.
Cristiano Ronaldo: Fared okay by others standards but has looked average, petulant and far from the movie material the ad would like us to believe.
Didier Drogba: Playing in a Cote D'Ivoire side going out of the tournament with a broken arm.
Roger Federer: Almost lost to a player ranked outside the world's top50 at wimbledon 2010.
ITV: This is a special mention, first for their HD England goal gaffe, which may have stressed jazzed up telly execs a little blue in the face, second for their pundit Robbie Earle being involved in aformentioned mini skirted women scandal, third for their sponsor Hyundai's advert being a parody of their commentary teams inadequacies and lastly for the inexplicable horror (my eyes! My ears! My sense of human progress!) that is James Corden.
Mars: Forgetting a huge reason for football fans' love of the 1990 England World Cup song World in Motion is that it represents a more innocent time when footballers didn't flog chocolate bars Mars have enlisted the now ludicrously overweight John Barnes to reprise his rap for a chocolate bar. I think they may have paid him in them.
Special mentions: Kitkat's 'fingers crossed' campaign, released when England fans are far more likely to be using their fingers to signal different things to their team, the Adidas Jabulani, Betting companies for encouraging morons to give us the kind of tips that make you realise that this gambling lark is a tax on the stupid who think they know about football.
Treble (Carlsbergs) all round!
Carlsberg, If Carlsberg gave team talks...: Aside from the fact that if Carlsberg gave teamtalks they'd be in Danish (or rather they would be silent bubbles of carbon dioxide given that Carlsberg is a beer and as such incapable of speech.) this ad manages to be cringe worthy and in poor taste at the same time. First of all there is the dubious ethics of invoking the dead Sir Bobby Robson and a ghostly Bobby Moore in order to sell beer, a strategy one can only hope they repeat when Thatcher dies, sparking an 'if Carlsberg made destroyers of Britain's manufacturing base...' tagline. Secondly a teamtalk given by a collecion of British champions in minority sports... and Ian Botham. Is not one likely to tactically outwit a slug, let alone the likes of Marcelo Biesla and his contemporaries. Although it is rather apt considering 'our boys' have played like drunken sailors so far.
Anything associated with FIFA: Millions are spent by various companies in the run up to WCs in order to become 'the official FIFA World Cup (tm)' tampon or spreadable cheese or toilet cleaner. How many people buy their domestic products on the basis of Sepp Blatter's advice is dubious in the first place, but this wheeze has been arguably made a little toxic by FIFA's hijacking of South African law for corporate purposes. Meaning that those caught selling anything other than McDonalds', Gillette, Budweiser or other FIFA endorsed products in certain designated areas faces jail or a fine. Not good PR when the victims of this policy so far have been impoverished Africans and 30 Dutch women in miniskirts.
Nike, Write the Future: Nike adverts are always the lavish setpiece ads of any World Cup, beautifully put together, containing all the stars and often containing what passes for wit amongst sportswear manufacturers. However the ad urging it's participants to 'Write the Future' through their brilliant play (in Nike boots of course) has been one magnificent curses in sporting history, even by Nike standards. (Their 98 campaign centred around a Brazil team which descended into farce around Nike's golden boy Ronaldo and 2006's Joga Bonito Brazil were anything but.) The fortunes of those featured is as follows:
Ronaldinho: Not selected for tournament
Wayne Rooney: Currently playing like his useless ginger bearded alter ego from the advert in an abject England side.
Franck Ribery: Threatening to go on strike in a French side in turmoil.
Fabio Cannavaro: Last seen blaming anyone but himself for Italy's dismal draw with New Zeland.
Cristiano Ronaldo: Fared okay by others standards but has looked average, petulant and far from the movie material the ad would like us to believe.
Didier Drogba: Playing in a Cote D'Ivoire side going out of the tournament with a broken arm.
Roger Federer: Almost lost to a player ranked outside the world's top50 at wimbledon 2010.
ITV: This is a special mention, first for their HD England goal gaffe, which may have stressed jazzed up telly execs a little blue in the face, second for their pundit Robbie Earle being involved in aformentioned mini skirted women scandal, third for their sponsor Hyundai's advert being a parody of their commentary teams inadequacies and lastly for the inexplicable horror (my eyes! My ears! My sense of human progress!) that is James Corden.
Mars: Forgetting a huge reason for football fans' love of the 1990 England World Cup song World in Motion is that it represents a more innocent time when footballers didn't flog chocolate bars Mars have enlisted the now ludicrously overweight John Barnes to reprise his rap for a chocolate bar. I think they may have paid him in them.
Special mentions: Kitkat's 'fingers crossed' campaign, released when England fans are far more likely to be using their fingers to signal different things to their team, the Adidas Jabulani, Betting companies for encouraging morons to give us the kind of tips that make you realise that this gambling lark is a tax on the stupid who think they know about football.
Treble (Carlsbergs) all round!
Tuesday 2 March 2010
What To Make of The Weak Pound
A weak pound is alarming isn't it? After all Gordon Brown said 'A weak Pound is a sign of a weak economy'. Well that much is true, but misses the point. The reason a weak pound is a sign of a weak economy is because it is necessary to engender a recovery in that economy, especially when that economy's major trading partners are in a poor position too. To quote Mr Brown again 'This is a global recession' - also very true, and this is at the centre of why we need a weak pound. It is essential that we have an export driven recovery, and at that one that is based on goods and genuine services rather than financial tomfoolery. Our major trading partners (the EU, the US) are also struggling dreadfully in the current economic climate, therefore in order to stimulate demand that actually contributes to improving the balance of payments and the current account we need a competitive currency that will make it cheap to trade in British goods. Obviously we do not want the pound to go through the floor, due to the costs this will incurr upon our national debt, but this is to be paid off in the long term and if a weak pound helps encourage investment and expansion in industry the short term losses will easily be wiped out by longer term gains. My guess on the current movement of the pound is that it is simple currency specullation - traders know that it needs to fall to a certain, artificially low level in order to help us reorganise labour in our country, thus traders sell at what was a 'high' and will buy again once they feel it has reached the level that we need. To quote a certain Lance Corporal "Don't Panic".
Monday 8 February 2010
The Seven Ages Of Advertising
Men
1. Be one of those special moments that can only be caught on an HD ready camera, after which one is fed sieved HydrochienMange, all one needs to grow up to be Minister for Ships. Finally take a massive shit, and demand implausibly soft toilet paper and/or demand an air freshner that smells of 'summer breezes'.
2. Become the most precocious little shite in school by discovering that modern philosopher's stone the Shredded Wheat/Cornflake/Shreddie, after dissecting JS Mill's 'On Liberty' due to eating a 'whole grain' decide to roll around in mud in a plain white T-shirt. Finally run around like a border line nut case after a car with flashing lights that flips over, before outwitting your parents in an especially 'amusing' way.
3. Wake up with spots, imagining them to be a particularly virulent strain of small pox which can only be cured by gaining a centre parting and vigorous rubbing with pseudo-medically named gloop. Whinge at your mum about your football socks being dirty, then have your first orgasm over the fact that by the miracles of a particular soap they are clean. Towards the end of this troubled time you may find an urge to start a band with a group of strangers in tribute to a mobile phone tarriff. Chew gum rolling down a hill throughout.
4. Develop a hairstyle that magically morphs into the one that makes you look like the biggest cock at any one particular time, pick up failed underwear models using only your thousand yard stare and a can of Lynx. Play sunday league football with repressed homosexuals before hitting the pub and only drinking beverages of a primary colour, if not a big drinker drink diet drinks while eating doritos and dominos pizza.
5. Get a car, a silver car, a sleek car oooh what a car, drive across unspoilt uninhabited roads while talking away from a camera like Richard Hammond with a stroke. Drink unpalettable Spanish Lager (it's still primary coloured!) if good looking and succesful. Get a nag of a girlfriend who won't let you pursue an inane activity such as hug your tyres or sleep with a prostitute made of tyres. If you are a failure as a human being marry an older woman and buy BT internet. If you can't even manage that, become a teacher.
6. Serve as the comic foil for your oh so multi-tasking wife while not so much as shifting your arse off the sofa to think about mortgages, before she runs off with a younger drinker of Spanish Lager, impress her and treat her to a ready made box of tacos. Finally develop a cockney accent, bet on football, talk about vans and spray a fence a revolting shade of brown.
7. Now it's too late to make ay serious money, insure your life! That or cash in on the mortgage you never paid off. Develop an irrational hatred of lawns that aren't radioactive green in colour. Feed slightly cheap toffee to unsuspecting grandchildren before going on a cruise, marrying Judith Chalmers and dying.
Women to follow...
1. Be one of those special moments that can only be caught on an HD ready camera, after which one is fed sieved HydrochienMange, all one needs to grow up to be Minister for Ships. Finally take a massive shit, and demand implausibly soft toilet paper and/or demand an air freshner that smells of 'summer breezes'.
2. Become the most precocious little shite in school by discovering that modern philosopher's stone the Shredded Wheat/Cornflake/Shreddie, after dissecting JS Mill's 'On Liberty' due to eating a 'whole grain' decide to roll around in mud in a plain white T-shirt. Finally run around like a border line nut case after a car with flashing lights that flips over, before outwitting your parents in an especially 'amusing' way.
3. Wake up with spots, imagining them to be a particularly virulent strain of small pox which can only be cured by gaining a centre parting and vigorous rubbing with pseudo-medically named gloop. Whinge at your mum about your football socks being dirty, then have your first orgasm over the fact that by the miracles of a particular soap they are clean. Towards the end of this troubled time you may find an urge to start a band with a group of strangers in tribute to a mobile phone tarriff. Chew gum rolling down a hill throughout.
4. Develop a hairstyle that magically morphs into the one that makes you look like the biggest cock at any one particular time, pick up failed underwear models using only your thousand yard stare and a can of Lynx. Play sunday league football with repressed homosexuals before hitting the pub and only drinking beverages of a primary colour, if not a big drinker drink diet drinks while eating doritos and dominos pizza.
5. Get a car, a silver car, a sleek car oooh what a car, drive across unspoilt uninhabited roads while talking away from a camera like Richard Hammond with a stroke. Drink unpalettable Spanish Lager (it's still primary coloured!) if good looking and succesful. Get a nag of a girlfriend who won't let you pursue an inane activity such as hug your tyres or sleep with a prostitute made of tyres. If you are a failure as a human being marry an older woman and buy BT internet. If you can't even manage that, become a teacher.
6. Serve as the comic foil for your oh so multi-tasking wife while not so much as shifting your arse off the sofa to think about mortgages, before she runs off with a younger drinker of Spanish Lager, impress her and treat her to a ready made box of tacos. Finally develop a cockney accent, bet on football, talk about vans and spray a fence a revolting shade of brown.
7. Now it's too late to make ay serious money, insure your life! That or cash in on the mortgage you never paid off. Develop an irrational hatred of lawns that aren't radioactive green in colour. Feed slightly cheap toffee to unsuspecting grandchildren before going on a cruise, marrying Judith Chalmers and dying.
Women to follow...
Cameron's attack on Brown shows the nonsensical skill of the PR man.
First of all allow me to get it out of the way that I have no truck with anyone using any sort of legal argument to get away with the parliamentary abuses that have gone on, be that parliamentary privelege or any other legal argument that the accused MPs may employ. I am not a lawyer and further than that, if they are acquitted of wrong doing there has still been an unbelievable abuse of their role. However the words of Cameron's statement once again expose his shallow politicism. He is perfectly prepared to accuse Brown of lack of leadership of his party, perhaps a legitimate criticism, while exercising none over his own party. Are we prepared to accept that a Tory can accuse gay people of being not worthy of his marriage allowance? Are we prepared to accept his own (and shadow cabinet's) far greater abuses of the allowance system than lack of discipline? Mrs Julie Kirkbride should become a major political issue given his supposed attack on parliamentary expenses in my opinion. The accusations that the Tory leader has thrown over the past day are not just idiotic (considering he has committed the same fallacies) they are counterproductive and deliberately against the interests of politics. One can only think that he is listening to Mr Hannan a little bit too much, and those of us whose economics lecture he addressed know where he leads, in fact his blog says it today.
In summary, there is no point saying 'Dave, be fair, it's all our fault' so politics will descend in to the mire.
In summary, there is no point saying 'Dave, be fair, it's all our fault' so politics will descend in to the mire.
Wednesday 3 February 2010
At bloody last. Almost by accident Labour has hit upon the strategy that can actually hurt the Tories. Their inconsistencies and intellectual dishonesties have been building up for a while, and over the past month they have finally put their rope upon the gallows. However it would be completely wrong for Labour to crow over the fact that despite the best intentions of Geoff 'Buff' Hoon it's been a good month for Labour. In order to avoid the same mistake Labour must look at why Cameron's strategy has been wrong, not just over the past month but for 5 years. It starts with the phrase 'one can prove anything with statistics'. No doubt there are a lot of things about Britain that are not 'Great' but one can overstate the point, it is not 'broken' as the Tories like to say, nor are we 'broke'. On the other hand 'Voting Blue' was never going to turn Britain green, and as for 'letting sunshine win the day' fucking hell, for a party whose natural pessimism about human nature is a selling point, that is just idiotic. An opposition can say anything it wants, a government cannot. It can be darn obfuscating, it can tell you meaningless things and dress them up as profound achievements, it can even produce cringe worthy soundbites, but it quite rightly gets pilloried when it oversteps the mark (Iraq, fundraising, etc). Here is Cameron's strategy's major flaw, he consistently overstates his case, people may be fearful about crime and feel someone should do something about it, but they know it hasn't gone up 236% in 7 years, with the proliferation of CCTV it has understandably gone down. In layman's terms if you want to impress a girl and keep your dignity you may overstate your knowledge of music, you don't claim to be best mates with Oasis. Both cases smack of only one thing, ulterior motives. So instead of a credible and fair way of reducing the deficit we get 'the nation's maxed out its credit card' or instead of let's reduce crime and disillusionment with society we get 'broken Britain'. In the individual case Liam's best mate just wants the girl's nickers on the floor, in the Tories case it is power and the ability to do things the public might not want but hedge fund managers think are great. People quite rightly ask 'If you do genuinely care, then why use lies and misrepresentations?' Labour has become mistrusted because it did the same, it overstepped the mark between portraying the best of itself and dishonesty, we know the Tories are worse than they are, simply because against a weak government they can't put their case without resorting to idiotic sophistry. Labour should not crow or claim this shows why Tories are evil scum, that would be the same mistake, let the Tories show put a flush on the table or get caught bluffing. With the amount of PR men and tabloid types in their ranks, my bet's on the latter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)