The Obscurer

A Million Dead-End Streets

“We are the change makers”, thundered Tony Blair last week, giving it the big “I am” before the Labour Party conference. A very odd sounding phrase, I thought, but one that got me thinking about change, and our attitudes towards change.

If you were to take a look at our common sayings and phrases then change is universally regarded as being positive; it “will do you good”, it is “as good as a rest”. Certainly, I can’t think of a phrase along the lines of “change will make you look like a right twat when you return to work after a fortnight off”. But in real life change is not always seen in such rosy terms; how often, for example, do we hear teachers complain that what the profession needs most of all is a period of stability after endless reforms?

I imagine that it was a recognition of such everyday resistance to change (along with a desire to make a shed load of money) that led Spencer Johnson to write Who Moved My Cheese?, a management parable of how to deal with change in the workplace. Now I haven’t read the book, so I may be off course here, but I know people who have, and opinion seems sharply divided on its merits. The partners at the firm where my friend works think it is a great book, so much so that they bought a copy each for all their staff. The staff think it is a patronising load of shite, and if they are to be believed than I can see why. The moral of Who Moved My Cheese? seems to be that change is always for the good, always to be welcomed, it cannot be avoided, so just get on with it and do as you are told (as I say, I haven’t read it myself, so if I have misunderstood its message then I am happy to be corrected).

Why such a divergence of opinion about the book, and indeed about change in the workplace in general? I suppose it depends on your position within the firm. At work I am far more of a change taker than a change maker. I wouldn’t say that my colleagues and I are resistant to change, indeed we will often suggest changes and improvements to our line managers; it is just that we are rarely listened to. Usually the changes that we do have to deal with are top-down, made by people who have never done our job, and who often appear to be making change for change’s sake; indeed at times it seems as if some peoples’ jobs depend upon tinkering with the parts of the system that appear to be working just fine, while leaving the myriad problems in place. Moreover, somethimes what the change makers announce as a vital new development for the business is recognised by the rest of us as a way of just reverting to how things used to be done 5 years ago; and for those with longer memories, to that way things were done 5 years before that.

What of the change makers themselves? Well, often (although by no means exclusively) their position in a firm is a purely transitory one; perhaps they don’t hang around long enough to develop the same cynicism towards change. They may well be on a promotion fast track, barely in one job for any length of time before they are moved on further up the corporate ladder and away from the consequences of their actions. They may be parachuted in from a private equity company to make swift, short-term changes before they sell up and move on. Or they may be from a management consultancy, whose only responsibility at times can appear to be to make changes, get paid and then bugger off; they don’t seem to have any obvious incentive or vested interest in actually improving their clients’ business. Who do these management consultants actually consult with anyway? They have never consulted me; we just get their reforms handed to us as a fait accompli. Has a consultant ever come into a company and said, “D’you know what, things here are working really well, we can’t improve on your current system. Goodbye”. I very much doubt it; they have to get paid for doing something, so they will move things around a bit, even if all they actually do is to change things back to the way they were before the last load of management consultants got called in. It is a bit like the interior designers on Changing Rooms; if they see an old Georgian fireplace in a room they feel the need to cover it up, but if the fireplace is already covered up they just have to dig it out and restore it. There may be some very good management consultants knocking around, but I haven’t yet knowingly stumbled upon one.

And so back to Blair; how does he fit into this pattern? He has always been fascinated by his place in history, and his renewed zeal is perhaps because he knows he is running out of time, and that his current spot in the history books is deep down in a lengthy chapter entitled Iraq-The Quagmire. So with extra verve he wants to make reforms, to be the change maker; but rather like the transitory manager he knows full well that he will be off in a couple of years time, and that if things do go tits-up they will likely land on Gordon Brown’s toes. No wonder he wants to push for change, while Brown is considered the more cautious; Blair is acting like a bad management consultant.

But at least we know that Blair will soon be on his way; and that is at least one change that I am looking forward to.

Good Morning, Good Morning

Well, the sleep has been prised from my eyes, I can still taste the toothpaste, but I am off to watch a game of premiership football. Oh joy.
When I first read that the City-Everton game was an 11:15 Sunday kick-off I thought it was a mistake. A Sunday kick-off? Fine. I knew that Everton would be playing in the UEFA Cup on Thursday so was expecting the game to be moved, but surely they couldn’t mean 11:15? But when the City website, Yahoo!, Sky and the BBC all agreed on the kick-off time I had to accept it. I briefly wondered if they could all be quoting the same, inaccurate source for the information, or even that perhaps there was some computer cock-up involving the clocks going forward and that they really meant 12:15. But no.

So why the ungodly hour? Steve at Occupied Country thinks it is so they can screen it at a reasonable time in China, and he could be right; but seeing as there must be about fifty time zones in China I doubt there is one uniform time that could be considered “reasonable”, so I don’t see why a kick-off an hour or so later would make much of a difference. According to the club website, this change was made at the request of Sky; I think it is more likely that as the game was originally slated as being a PremPlus match at 12:30 on Saturday, when they came to move the match to the Sunday the only way they could avoid a clash with another live game was by shoving us on before noon. That is a crap reason but it is the best one I can think of; after all, ITV were happy to show two Champions League games simultaneously on Tuesday, and I can’t imagine many neutrals being tempted to pay £7 or whatever it is to watch City-Everton under any circumstances, regardless of whether or not there are other live games being shown on the regular Sky Sports channels at the same time (while I would have thought the number of City and Everton fans lost to the televised Arsenal-Birmingham match at 13:30 would be fairly negligible if the two games clashed). But when it comes to re-arranging these matches I suppose there will always be a pecking order of considerations, and usually if they think they can get away with it then the fan or paying customer will find themselves at the back of the queue.

I suppose it could have been worse. As we are playing Everton there may still be a few hardy souls plucky enough to brave the short trip along the M62 in order to sit in the away end at the City of Manchester Stadium, having gone to bed early, or not at all. Imagine if we had been playing a team whose fans would have to travel from the other end of the country (Portsmouth, Sunderland, United); would that have troubled the minds of the change-makers? I doubt it.

So, wish me luck (unless, for obvious reasons, you are looking for an away win from this fixture) I’m off. At least when I get back from the game I will have the lion’s share of Sunday left, free and untouched.

Update 14.45: City 2-0 Everton. A lacklustre first half but an improvement after the break particularly when Lee Croft came on (why doesn’t he get a start?). At his 150th attempt Danny Mills finally saw one of his long range wellys fly into the top corner (the people in the executive boxes were cowering in anticipation when he shaped up to shoot) and then Darius Vassell had no right to reach Joey Barton’s through ball but his pace gave him a great chance to push the ball past Nigel Martyn and he took it well. Can’t we play at this time every week?

In the other games that kicked off at the same time, The Gun Inn continued their fine run of form with a convincing 8-2 victory over Dynamo Denton. Meanwhile the bitter local derby between AFC Poynton and Pott Shrigley Amateurs had to be postponed when Tony couldn’t find the keys to his van.

Wash Out

I picked a bad time to do the washing up this afternoon. It’s not a chore I usually mind doing on my days off; it can be a pleasant break from Cbeebies, and I get to listen to a bit of Radio 5 on my swish Pure Tempus-1 digital radio. Today, however, while doing the dishes I innocently blundered upon a live broadcast of Tony Blair’s speech to the Labour Party conference. Did he really walk on stage to Sham 69’s “If The Kids Are United”? Yes, I’m afraid he did.

So, how did it go? Well, surprisingly, quite well I thought. No major surprises, nothing to get worked up about, pretty average all in all. The only thing that really annoyed me was that once I had drained the water I realised that I had left two breakfast bowls in the living room, but not to worry; I’ve just placed them by the side of the sink and I will do them next time around.

Blair’s speech? Oh, fuck knows. I switched off; first mentally, and then, when I felt my blood start to boil at his mention of “a radical extension of summary powers to police and local authorities”, literally. I would rather wash the pots in silence. So I did.

Post Script: My favourite Labour conference was a couple of years ago. We were on holiday, staying in a cottage in Cornwall, our movements somewhat restricted by my then three-month old son. Blair’s speech that year was memorable for a hilarious, nonsensical line about the Tories being in danger of going “back where they’ve never been, in 100 years, ’til now”.

But that was trumped by a speech from a sycophantic party hack who praised Blair for having had the courage to remove Nasser Hussein from power; just a few weeks after Nasser had indeed resigned the England captaincy. If Blair really was behind that act then I’m surprised he doesn’t make more of it. After all, the England cricket team look in a far better shape than Iraq does right now, where I believe Blair had a hand in toppling that other Hussein fellow?

Ad Hoc

The other day I watched a programme on ITV2 as part of their 50th anniversary celebrations. This one listed the best 20 adverts in the history of ITV, and it was okay. In common with all “list” programmes it had its fault, and in particular this programme shared similar flaws with a Channel 4 programme from a few years back called The Hundred Best Adverts Ever, Ever, Ever, or something similar.

I don’t just mean that they picked adverts I don’t like – that is bound to happen with a subjective list – but that they restricted each product to one advert only. So, Guinness, which has always had brilliant adverts, gets represented solely by that “horses and surfers, tick-followed-tock” one; a fine advert to be sure, but is seems a shame that other commercials in their canon never seem to get considered.

Tango is another brand that has a fine history in producing quality adverts, but again suffers because only the original “orange bloke slapping someone on the chops” advert seems to be included on these programmes. In fact, the greatest advert of all time is for Tango; but it isn’t for orange flavour, or even apple flavour. No, the best television commercial ever was when Tango advertised their blackcurrant flavour, for the one and only time.

I know there are more important things going on in the world, but I think it is an injustice that this genius of an advert has been consistently overlooked; but no longer. Inspired by the ITV programme I typed something along the lines of “blackcurrant tango advert” into Google and came up with this gem of a site where you can watch this little masterpiece again and again in all its glory; and a load of other adverts while you’re are at it.

Watch it, and just see if I’m not right.

Flatter To Deceive

People cleverer than I have been discussing the issue of a flat tax across medias both new and old recently. It is a subject that interests me, and although I don’t have a detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of the tax, I do have an opinion.

Simply put, the idea of a flat tax is to replace the current tiered levels of income tax, which increases from 10%, through 22% and up to 40% as income rises, with a single tax rate regardless of how much one earns. Instinctively I would expect to oppose such a move as it not a progressive system of taxation where the richest pay a higher proportion of their income in tax; but the matter is not that simple. Proponents of a flat tax tend to favour a higher personal allowance, of around £10,000-£15,000 rather than our current £4895; as the poorer one is, the larger proportion of your income is made up of the untaxed personal allowance, there is still a level of proportionality to the tax. In addition, with a simplified taxation system there are fewer places for the rich and their accountants to hide their wealth in a thicket of tax loopholes, and levels of compliance increase; this is another way in which the flat tax can in fact be considered fairer to the poor. An accountant friend of mine tells me that there are slim picking these day for those trying to avoid tax; but still, I do think that a flat tax has much to commend it, more than I initially thought I would.

Not surprisingly my pals at the Daily Mail also find the flat tax an interesting idea, although I suspect for rather different reasons to mine. I imagine that some of the things that attract me to the flat tax are the sorts of things that cause the Mail to have reservations, but we cannot always choose our allies and we certainly can’t choose their motivations. However, there remains a problem for the Mail.

When the Adam Smith Institute advocated a 22% flat tax with a £12,000 personal allowance its studies showed that no one would be worse off financially as a consequence. Unfortunately, such a system would accrue only £88 billion in revenues to the treasury rather than the £138 billion currently raised by income tax. Doubtless the ASI don’t see that as too much of a problem, believing that government takes too much money from us all in the first place. Secondly, it is argued that the greater economic efficiencies and incentives resulting from a flat tax will make up this shortfall in revenue (as people are not penalised for working harder and earning more money) and indeed they may do; but they may not. I know the ASI is interested in deregulating gambling (well, they are interested in deregulating pretty much everything, and so support deregulating gambling as a consequence) but to gamble with the finances of the country seems a bit risky to me.

The Economist then commissioned a study into the flat tax to see what would be the result if it was introduced at a level that was revenue neutral (ie. raised the same amount of revenue as is collected by the current system of income tax). It found that there could be a flat tax with a rate of 30% and a personal allowance of £10,000. Those earning less than around £20,000 and more than £50,000 were better off as a result of this change. Unfortunately for the Mail, the people in the middle-income group (earning between £20,000 and £50,000) would end up paying more in tax; these are the very inhabitants of “middle England” that the Mail claims to represent and who pays its wages, the same people who the Mail currently consistently complains are being clobbered by the government and its numerous stealth taxes.

So the Daily Mail will ultimately probably not charge the barricades demanding a flat tax, and if the figures above do accurately show how it would work in practice, then it looks a less enticing prospect than it does in theory.

But of course there is one way we could get a flatter (if not flat) tax tomorrow, and that is simply by combining income tax with the employees national insurance contribution. Then, rather than having an incentive-denting leap in tax rates from the standard 22% to the whopping top rate of 40%, we would instead find that our tax on income only rises from 33% (22% income tax, 11% NI) to 41% (40% income tax and 1%NI) at the top level. Perhaps if we did this, and publicised this “change” in our tax regime, then we would reap some of the benefits the ASI think will come from abandoning a system that so penalises those who work harder. Do you reckon?

I still think the flat tax has much to recommend it, especially when, as I have just explained, the current system is not as progressive as it is sometimes painted; even less progressive when you consider other taxes such as VAT and the Council Tax. I am still quite attracted to the theory; but at the moment I need to know a little bit more about the facts.