Could Richard Curtis have another hit with the Robin Hood tax?

Bill Nighy stars in short film to launch campaign for a tax on financial transactions.

 

Richard Curtis and Bill Nighy have made a new film, but it isn't a romance and it doesn't feature Hugh Grant.

The short film (above) takes as its topic a proposed banking tax -- previously known as the financial transaction tax, or the Tobin tax (after the economist who named it), but rebranded here as the altogether more snappy "Robin Hood tax".

Bill Nighy, a brilliantly shifty and unpleasant executive, cashes in on the public's suspicion of bankers as he tries to wave away the "very complex" proposal.

The film argues that a tax of just 0.05 per cent on global transactions between financial institutions (equating to five pence for every £1,000) would raise hundreds of billions of pounds to alleviate poverty and fund public services.

The campaign -- supported by a coalition of domestic and international charities and unions -- was launched today, although early on Tuesday morning, the phrase "Be part of the world's greatest bank job" was projected on to the Bank of England. Such innovative, guerrilla marketing tactics may well be an effective way of mobilising public support. At the very least, it informs people about an arcane tax law in an exciting and entertaining way.

There are arguments to be made for and against the tax (the Guardian summarises a few of these perspectives), but with Curtis onside, making use of YouTube, Facebook and celebrity endorsements, it will be interesting to see what impact, if any, the film has on public discourse, and even policy -- let's not forget that Gordon Brown endorsed the idea not so long ago.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.