a peck of pointlessness.

a peck of pointless opinionated narrative

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

Noblesse Oblige

Noblesse oblige: A simple and much used French expression to describe how privilege must be accompanied by responsibility. That the reward of high, even low and especially public office must also have that balance of the obligation that ensures the perks and powers of a position are not brought into disrepute.

The former, Right honourable Chris Huhne, has seemingly admitted that he was never particularly honourable in the first place. The deeply tragic personal side of the story has shown the man to be an ambitious careerist, and if his former wife is to be fully believed a callous bully who disregarded his family for his own gain.

Despite the issues raised by the private aspects of the story, a broader thought comes to mind. That at the most basic of measures Huhne was being human and making mistakes that doubtless will never just be associated with his name. Yet, can the public really expect politicians to adopt a higher form of humanity than say CEO's or directors of companies, within which group I'm sure this type of thing happens frequently but it is never reported.

I believe not. It is a fanciful idea that politicians should be the best of humans, even though they at times have to work in the dirtiest and most depraved industry. What the public can and do expect however, is the oblige, the responsibility. They do not expect politicians to be infallible and a human but rightly do expect them to take responsibility for their actions. Huhne should have known this, particularly as he was well versed in the public voice through his time in journalism. After the initial mistake he should have remembered his privileges and taken responsibility for his actions. The public, and the judge, and his former wife may well have forgiven him then.

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

One Nation, Nil Policy but just you wait…

As rebrands go the One Nation Labour one has been quiet but successful.  The broad ideals that stand behind the new marque have real affinity with both the Labour die-hards and more widely in the public. For instance one fundamental of the Labour’s ‘One Nation’ is the idea of a living wage. When times are tight and people are struggling to make ends meet this is something that doesn’t have to incur businesses vast amounts of extra cost and is a popular move. A criticism, however, is that Miliband is too concerned with establishing a difference between Old, New and his Labour, that he has focussed on the big picture at the expense of policy production. Something shown from the lack of substance on how the extra cost of living wage will be squared with companies across the UK, with corporation tax breaks perhaps? From a public viewpoint this is a fair cop. It is true that individual and specific policy is still firmly on the ‘to do list’. There is no doubt, however, that this will come along with time, especially as 2015 draws closer. Rushing policy production must be avoided in order to make each workable and robust, yet it’s also important that it does come sooner rather than later. The One Nation brand needs its core filling so that Labour can start to attack the failing government with a real and tangible alternative for voters. What is encouraging is that the frame work for the fundamental detail is positioned to ensure that it will make a significant difference to the wider public.

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

A cautious donkey...

Two things struck me after hearing the Chancellor’s comment of, "It is a hard road, but we're getting there. Turning back now would be a disaster" during the Autumn statement.  Firstly, I’m not sure you really experience how hard a road it is Mr Osborne, but nonetheless a comforting sound bite is always nice to hear from the heir to a baronetcy and massive fortune. Secondly, and more importantly is ‘we’ are not sharing the load evenly. How can he persist with the regime of austerity which hits the lower earners the hardest when the only sector of society to be given a tax break during this term of office is the richest?

All agree that what is needed is careful, well-structured policy that will encourage lending by banks and encourage owners of SMEs to up their production and employment. Essentially, what is needed is a nudge or motivation to take risks. Encouragement is needed to stimulate growth, but what incentive do the high earning business leaders have to take the risks of expensive credit when they already have had their lives made less austere by a tax rate reduction? The stick of a poorer lifestyle caused by cuts and austere economic policy will not affect the higher earners. Those generally choose to pay for private education, healthcare and the like, are simply unaffected. What is more Osborne is forgetting that a cautious donkey won’t move forward when it’s already eating the carrot, of a 10% tax cut. This seems to be being shown true with evidence which suggests that the policy of austerity is preventing, or at least stunting growth. The latest statistics from the Office for Budget Responsibility has adjusted the forecast for growth in 2012 downwards to -0.1% from 0.8%. Put another way, we are currently in a game of economic swing-ball where George’s austerity bat has the UK spiraling towards further recession. As there is no chance of a U-turn on the higher rate of tax the only option left is to spend to help the lower classes. At least that way the pressure on the lower earners will be slightly relieved and the load may seem a little less hard to bear. Let’s take the left fork, avoid the austere dead-end and get the donkey galloping Chancellor.

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

Why not give the youth a true voice?

The main argument for not lowering the voting age seems to be that the under 18s would not have the maturity, knowledge or interest in Politics to be given the vote. Obviously there is a necessity in the UK political system to draw an arbitrary threshold where voting is allowed. It is a flawed and vacuous argument, however, to suggest that the reason the voting age should not be lowered to 16 because the majority of under 16-18 year olds being unable to cope with the responsibility. Young adults vary massively in their interest and attention to current affairs and politics. Some are heavily engaged, others are deliberately apathetic and perhaps the majority often do not have an opinion. I would wager heavily that if you picked a section of society from those of voting age and compared them to 16-18year old bracket you would see similar engagement demographics.

Another argument against it is that the 16-18year old bracket does not participate in all areas of public life, for example they do not pay tax and cannot even order a pint in a pub.  It is wrong to do this. The idea that a group of people should be excluded from having a voice because they do not participate in ALL areas of public life does not sit right and to claim that young people have less at stake than other demographics such as pensioners is absurd. This is emphasised when we consider recent decisions taken over issues of high importance for young people, such as University fees and EMA.

We live in a democracy and one in which there should be equal voice for those people that are most effected by the decisions taken by government. The idea that at 16 people are not ready to have an option to vote is wrong. Otherwise Britain’s youth rely on the older generations to be their voice. In essence they rely on those generations that still contain a majority of apathetic teenager types.

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

Rejection of Leveson? Gluttony driven by fear.

There are two ways to look at the Leveson report, with reason or with an ulterior motive. The trouble is it would seem that a cycle of gluttony mists the eyes. Let us take the stakeholders with the power to actually implement the findings, the government and journalists. These two groups are so ready to gorge themselves on spin and sensation respectively, they are the least likely to try a diet of straight thinking and reasoned action.   

It should be plain to observers that journalists, both academically and in reality, will disagree with the proposals to create a press standards body. Why would they when the news industry, particularly the printed section, is in vast decline and every copy sold is metaphorical neck bandage in a more and more cut-throat business? Let’s be cynical, and suggest that the ulterior motive for the journalists’ adamant protection of press freedom, is that under Leveson’s proposals they could be denied the right to print unsubstantiated or dubiously sourced stories to give the public the sensations they demand.  This gluttony of sensation is driven by the fear that by acquiescing to tighter regulation which is not controlled by someone who is within the industry and knows first-hand the challenges the industry faces would be effectively professional suicide. By being magnanimous for a moment – we can acknowledge that if this is the case, the ‘hacks’ are only protecting their livelihoods. Who can really say that the fear of losing a job that keeps a roof over their families head would not lead them to embellish a story? Especially in this age of hard financial times, can we begrudge them that? In truth the public should and do. Pity should never go to the point of permission. The evidence heard in the enquiry has been damning and shows some journalists to be professionals who, in pursuit of selfish ends, are at best naive and unscrupulous and at worst merciless and depraved. Some of the hacking cases, most notably Milly Dowler, are several hundred morals below the safe high ground of revealing corruption and scandal in the establishment, that the press flee to when criticised.

So how do the press deal with this ‘attack on their freedom’? They turn to their trusty steed called spin and saddle up for the long gallop to convince the public. The dark deflection of Leveson facts into favourable light has been vociferous in the written media. Some newspapers have questioned the legitimacy of the recent YouGov poll which suggested that 79% of the public favoured an independent press regulator established by law. The irony of this is not lost, considering this extends to denying polls that are often the bedrock of a newspaper’s front page.  Incidentally, lets us not forget, that YouGov are a company for which an impartial reputation is essential. Call me naïve but if they were to manipulate their poll it would surely be a bit more prudent in the claim?

Spin is also well used by the other stakeholder, the government and more specifically the Tories. The party have farcically tried to pass off their lack of strength as protection of freedom of speech, hoping against hope that the country will remain ignorant of Leveson’s moderate and sensible proposals. Press freedom would undoubtedly be lessened by setting up an independent press standards body.  The health check by a panel, set up by the Lord Chief Justice however, amounts to less than the type of freedom taken from a con-artist, when they are told to move their ‘three-cup show’ on by the Police. The common sense driven, reasonable and practical solutions offered by Leveson should be implemented immediately. In the mean time I would like to ask Jeremy Hunt when the last film was censored by the Ofcom and whether he would have approved of it being shown to the wider public. Actually, no I wouldn’t, he’d probably spin it into how it was an attempt to stop the gluttony of violence in the British youth.

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

Tax? There will always be a loop-hole.

Friends who work in the tax departments of the financial services sector are currently very angry. The idea that suddenly the Government may make earning their fee’s that little bit harder is not what they wanted to hear. I, smugly, think it’s a great thing. Maybe they’ll start putting in the hours the rest of us do now? It’s the least they can do when they’re trying to exploit another loophole in tax law that gains their clients millions in tax savings every year and leaves the exchequer with a big pound shaped hole.

The sad thing is the ability of businesses to legally avoid tax is an endemic problem with both the tax legislation itself and by the inherent slow pace at which legislation is produced. In order to encourage business and growth tax law needs the loop holes that are subsequently exploited by those with the ability to pay firms to find them. For example to allow growth there is a need for tax breaks for differently structured businesses such as franchises. Not only this but with the advisory industry trying so fervently to help the big firms avoid corporation and capital gains tax, are generally able to pay the higher wages and therefore pick the best talent from graduate upwards. This gives them a powerful resource and the legislation seemingly cannot be made nuanced and technical enough, to flummox the formidable force of Tax firms. It would seem from the outside that the only way this can be stopped is by even smarter tax law and a quicker legislative process. In a time where corporation tax is something that could improve the lives of the general public by reducing the pressure put on them by the exchequer, this is something that the government should be looking into. We don't need to tax the big corporations out of the UK but just gain fair share of the profit they make from this country. Let's be more confident in our consumer appeal.

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

Deconstructing the 'Nanny State'? Don't forget about the other parents Dave...

David Cameron is an awful parent. An exaggerated claim perhaps, born from feeling sorry for his daughter after that ‘incident’ which left her stranded in a pub; or the betting man’s hunch that he’d wear those dodgy type of Speedos if he wasn’t always on those wealth belying ‘stay-cations’? Neither, it’s what he’s gifting to his children in the backbenches and what he’s subsequently doing to other parents in reality which really shows his parenting credentials. Without wanting to go too tabloid on the metaphor, the PM’s recent policy which will attempt to abolish the housing benefit for under-25s shows him to be the inconsiderate father. A father who, on whim, buys that brand new extortionately priced games console for his kid, a month before Christmas and just after when all the other parent’s are beginning to win the battle against the line ‘...but Joe Bloggs is getting one!’. Simply, he is not considering the fellow offspring harbourers’ personal circumstances.  It must be acknowledged of course that he is in a difficult position. There has always been a well shrieked opinion held by several of the conservative backbench kids, that the present benefits structure, along with any other general service that helps those in most need, is a flagrant abuse of individual choice. Furthermore, that on the whole parts of the ‘Nanny state’, are an unnecessary tax burden; ‘forced upon one’s wealth by those misguided lefties’. This is undoubtedly a rock which wedges the PM against a hard place created by a coalition government and the ‘caring Dave’ reputation he mustered in the last election. He can’t be seen to be too soft for his party supporters nor too hard for the Lib Dems or public. 

It is surely impossible, especially in these austere times, for anyone to contest that the welfare state is not something to be vehemently protected. This is something demonstrated by the British public’s opinion of the most famous parts of the ‘Nanny state’ the NHS. Regarding this, even with the messy changes being implemented by this government, the vast majority (nearly 60% according to the King’s Fund poll) of the British Public exclaim that they are happy with the NHS.

  Surely, therefore it should be the conservative brood that should lose out. Yet, and not only for posterity’s sake, it must be admitted that these wily ‘young’ Tories have a point which is fundamentally agreeable. A point which, even a soot faced, gnarly handed Labour supporter, who represents more earth gathered sodium chloride than the amount allegedly found on Eric Pickles’s chips on a Friday night, would support the PM on. Everyone should earn their money and no one deserves a free ride courtesy of the tax payer. This concurrence is definitely stronger when it’s coal miner Joe footing the bill (and let’s be honest it is him at the moment, even middle class comedians will take tax breaks quicker than the Michael).

  So how do you square this circle? If you’re a Tory PM with hoody hugging kindness in your recent relationship history, clearly temporary amnesia (of the overpriced Christmas present buying kind), regarding the country’s parent’s is the way to go. By mooting a policy that takes away housing benefits for the under-25s DC forgets that not all parents are like him. Many are not financially or physically able to provide a stable home for their children past the age of 16, let alone 18. There are of course some who do not have the want or inclination to provide this, but the PM is also forgetting that the vast majority do. Not only this, but for those young people who are not fortunate enough to have parents to look out for them as they tread the now obstacle filled path into employment and adulthood, he takes away a crucial aid. Removing the housing benefit denies many the ability to move out of households which do not necessarily promote the positive environment needed to progress. His ‘holier than thou’ approach, which stresses family as the bedrock of society, most would happily agree with. Yet, it is easy to suggest that family should provide the safe-haven of nutrition for the young, it’s a lot harder to admit that often this is not reality.

  Undoubtedly, there will be support for Cameron that suggests that the system is abused and that it needs to be addressed for the good of all, but surely erring on the side of limitation when it comes to a beleaguered young population struggling to progress their lives is wrong? Whether this is another ‘dip your toe and see’ popularist policy idea, or a genuine show of right wing colours, I hope for the good of all of us that Dave returns this particular backbench gift as quickly as possible.

[apeckofpointlessness-blog]

Are the public LIBOR-ed of the middle ground?

It would seem that yet another reason for the public to hate bankers is emerging through the Libor scandal. Obviously, this needs to be investigated and why it was heartening to see politicians initiating the process to take the perpetrators to task through the questioning of Bob Diamond by the Treasury Select Committee.

Isn’t there something broader at stake here though? It could be suggested that the boredom, or more accurately the lack of attention to detail that eventually accompanies these types of story, comes not from the busy lives of the public but from apathy shown towards politics. The seemingly perpetual fight for the middle ground by the parties could be seen to churn out politics that turns people off the main story. The start of the LIBOR scandal is a prime example. At this point it seems like no party will stake a bit of their polling on a harsh opinion of the Bankers actions. Obviously with the lack of the full evidence it is natural to be cautious, but this is detrimental both to politics but also to the public. The belief that real action will be taken by politicians over scandals such as this is important. The political process needs to be trusted and valued by the public. I believe there is enough evidence already to, at the very least, intonate a legislative move for harsher punishment in the form of fines for LIBOR corruption. This would demonstrate unequivocally that politicians are taking action on behalf of the public. Surely this is the perfect time for Labour, minus the shackles of the coalition, to strike out and make a move towards this type of regulation?  Let’s be honest, it looks like they’ve got good reason to.