{"id":33580,"date":"2016-05-31T07:57:54","date_gmt":"2016-05-31T06:57:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=33580"},"modified":"2016-05-31T07:57:54","modified_gmt":"2016-05-31T06:57:54","slug":"to-engage-or-not-that-is-the-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2016\/05\/31\/to-engage-or-not-that-is-the-question\/","title":{"rendered":"To engage or not; that is the question"},"content":{"rendered":"

It would seem I have touched a raw nerve for\u00a0some regular commentators by suggesting that I welcome the IMF article<\/a>, recently published, that appeared to recognise the failure of neoliberalism to tackle inequality and the inappropriateness of much of the austerity agenda.<\/p>\n

It now seems that this article<\/a> has attracted a vicious backlash from the FT<\/a>, which clearly sees it as touching on neoliberal heresy.\u00a0In that case to suggest, as some do, that this article is inconsequential is, in my opinion, wrong. \u00a0If nothing else, it has revealed the true opinion of the FT, and the sharp divide between its editorial stance and the opinion of its lead economic \u00a0columnist, Martin Wolf.<\/p>\n

It is also safe to assume that if this has been the response outside the organisation then the debate within it has been at least as heated, \u00a0and all this on an article which says it can find merit in some parts of the neoliberal agenda.<\/p>\n

Why come back to the issue then? \u00a0I think there are three good reasons for doing so.<\/p>\n

First, how to respond to such an article from such an organisation opens up one of the more difficult questions in campaigning, which is whether to engage or not with those organisations that you criticise? \u00a0It is not possible to be a tax justice campaigner and to not have been critical of the IMF and its approach over the last few decades. \u00a0I have been of the IMF, the World Bank and, of course, of\u00a0the Washington Consensus<\/a> \u00a0that they have promoted. \u00a0But, a long time ago I decided that the only viable way \u00a0in which I could help deliver tax justice was by engaging with those people and organisations whose opinions I wished to change.<\/p>\n

Over the years I've been criticised for this, and \u00a0been told that the policy would undermine my chances of success. \u00a0So, variously, \u00a0I was told that it was a mistake to serve on George Osborne's\u00a0General Anti-Abuse Rule \u00a0committee. \u00a0Likewise, engaging with the \u00a0OECD BEPS \u00a0process was described as a mistake by some because the terms of engagement were clearly biased against developing countries. \u00a0Others have also suggested that it was a mistake not to object to Jeremy Corbyn \u00a0using some of my policy ideas. \u00a0 I suspect some would also criticise the fact that I went to the World Bank last week \u00a0and there were definitely those who suggested that I should not accept an appointment at City University, precisely because it has got links to the City of London. As for the Fair Tax Mark; some say that is a sell out.<\/p>\n

In all cases I disagree. \u00a0It is my job to \u00a0create ideas \u00a0that might effect change. \u00a0My purpose for doing so is, I hope clear: \u00a0my aim is to create a more \u00a0genuinely prosperous, more equal, more democratic, more accountable, more sustainable, \u00a0more tolerant \u00a0and so more enjoyable world in which we might live. \u00a0More is an important word in that sentence: \u00a0it could be prefaced with 'much' \u00a0in many cases but I do not think we will ever create \u00a0utopia. \u00a0I want better because I doubt that the best I believe possible is actually achievable within the necessary compromises that human society requires, not just now but ever.<\/p>\n

That, then, brings me to my second point. \u00a0I am not seeking a revolution, but an evolution. \u00a0I respect those who wish to be perpetual outsiders because they believe that the only way forward is to sweep away all that is in their path to create an entirely new society, but their's is not a path I would ever choose. \u00a0There is good reason for that: I believe that the cost of such change is too high, and the uncertainty of the outcome too great for any such risk to be taken. \u00a0The chance \u00a0that what we have will be replaced by tyranny is also too significant to justify this approach, in my opinion.<\/p>\n

But, perhaps, most of all, \u00a0and thirdly, I believe that the power of an idea at the right time is sufficiently strong to ensure that such a revolutionary approach is wholly unnecessary. \u00a0I stress, I am not claiming that my ideas are in this category; \u00a0I am suggesting that ideas can be. \u00a0Neoliberalism arose because it was an idea in the right place at the right time, even if I fundamentally disagree with the prescription that it offered. \u00a0The post-war consensus was similarly created in this way.<\/p>\n

I regret that as yet we have not reached a point where a similar replacement idea has been sufficiently developed to capture, unambiguously, the common political narrative. \u00a0Discussion of sustainability is become mainstream, but not in reality commonplace. \u00a0Disquiet with austerity is deep-rooted, but has not yet displaced the obsession with balanced budgets. \u00a0Debate on inequality \u00a0in its many egregious forms is taking place, but is not yet reversing trends. Some \u00a0political developments \u00a0now arising are deeply \u00a0antagonistic to democracy. But, and I stress the point, \u00a0the fact that all these things are happening is, in itself, indication that something really important is going on and that we may, in my opinion, be reaching a point where real change is possible.<\/p>\n

I stress, in the context the IMF article is, in my opinion \u00a0important even though it is not \u00a0as radical as that \u00a0which many people would wish to read. \u00a0But that is how change takes place: very few of us are really capable of embracing giant leaps. Most of us have to, inevitably, partake in incremental steps on the way to a bigger goal.<\/p>\n

I accept, and embrace that fact, \u00a0which I perceive to be a reality. \u00a0That is not to say there is no place for the campaigner who demands, with reason, more radical change. \u00a0Whilst I see many of the attractions of being a 'no compromiser' \u00a0that is not the path I have chosen to follow, even with tax havens (as my Plan B for Jersey<\/a> made clear). \u00a0If the choice is between a pitchfork and a pen, then I choose the pen, \u00a0believing that at the end of the day this is the way to \u00a0create real change. But as a result I also choose to engage, without apology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It would seem I have touched a raw nerve for\u00a0some regular commentators by suggesting that I welcome the IMF article, recently published, that appeared to
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}