http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_barker/sets/72157624562877557/

Last Wednesday, while working with a group in Manchester, I ran out for the evening and went to the Cornerhouse Cinema to see the new Chris Morris film ‘Four Lions’. There has been a great deal of controversy over the film, which I can understand.

However, I think the controversy has been generated by people who believe the film to be a ‘Comedy’. It’s not a comedy, no one should ever make a ‘comedy’ about suicide bombers, especially one where real events clearly provide inspiration for the piece. But… Four Lions is not a Comedy, it a piece of Satire. As ever with Chris Morris’s work, people have confused the two.

I felt Four Lions was a brilliant film, I laughed out loud four or five time, but… was more often on the verge of tears. It is a touching, clever, thoughtful film, which, as all good satire does, exposes the glaring great fault lines in the dominant society which finds it so, so offensive.

Oddly, I think the film poster (above) is itself a piece of satire. Funny? Yes, but Comedy, No!!

But this provides us, the electorate, with another opportunity. The introduction of the TV debates in the UK gave us a great opportunity to better (or more easily) understand the priorities and manifestos of the parties, today we have an new opportunity.

How the different leaders behave in the coming negotiations over the weekend, and probably into next week, will enable us to see how people behave in practice. Where their real priorities are, and what is the outcome they want from this process.

I believe Nick Clegg is right to turn first to David Cameron, Firstly, it’s consistent with what he said he would do, but more importantly, despite our ‘constitution’ it also recognises, that out of the three parties, the Tories did get the most votes.

How Cameron behaves now, what is most urgent to him to resolve, and how he chooses to resolve it, will tell us a lot about his deeper beliefs, his leadership style and how much he is able to let go of personal aspirations to deliver the urgent national adjustments he says are his priorities.

We wait and see…

This should be considered the first of the Leader’s Debates for the next election, which may be sooner than we expected.

Today I have been walking, pottering and working with the biggest smile on my face after listening to the sublime and fantastic Frank Cottrell Boyce. Frank is the writer of  some classic film and TV such as Welcome to Sarajevo, 24 Hour Party People and the fantastic God On Trial.

For me it’s my second favorate ever DID, following John Peel’s appearance in the early 90′s.

Listen here…

At the turn of 20-10’s we’ve had the launch of two very interesting campaigns, the Robin Hood Tax, which I have already added comment on, and now the launch of the FinancialAccess@Birth (FAB) Campaign. The FAB campaign is, in my view, a very different campaign that aims to bring together partners who are not the most natural bed-fellow’s – Governments, NGO’s, Banks, IT professionals and academics. Perhaps most controversially it aims to put $100 into a bank account of every child born.

If you think this is an interesting idea, but uncertain about how can it play a part in reducing poverty, and increasing the quality of life for future generations, I can do a lot worse than point you in the direction of Hernado De Soto and his book The Mystery Of Capital.

Salcombe Feb 2010 from Jim Barker on Vimeo.

I strongly suspect that I’m not going to find many advocates among my friends, but noticed this was doing the rounds (a rebranding of the Tobin Tax), and felt the need to look a little closer. and… there were a few things which raised alarm bells with me.

Now.. before I set off too many people let me state a few things I do believe in.

1. The banks should be taxed, and taxed significantly (especially over the next few years) given the bail out they have been given.

2. Bankers bonus should be curtailed significantly and directly linked to long-term performance.

3. Taxing the banks on behaviors we don’t want, rather than taxing behavior we do want.

But introducing a blanket tax on investment of 0.05% is potentially counter-productive to developmental aid and is just not targeted toward poor practice. The tag line of the campaign is “Not Complicated, just Brilliant”, I beg to differ, a better tag line might be “Not complicated, just simplistic and opportunistic.”

For a more informed view from a seasoned economist, working in a development context, go here.

[EDIT 11.09.10] Owen has, very helpfully. articulated further here…