AXA Crowdsource new name for ‘pension’

AXA have taken a bold step after YouGov research suggested that 17% of 18-24 year olds are put off starting a pension because  they do not like the word.

AXA have teamed up with Collins English Dictionary and have embraced crowdsourcing, an emerging trend in business, to find a new word to replace ‘pensions’ in their product range. The company has invited suggestions for the new term to be submitted on its website or via twitter.

The winning suggestion will get £4,953, the equivalent of a year’s basic state pensions. Entries will close on November 26 and an expert panel, including representatives of Axa and Collins English Dictionary, will select a short list of five potential names. The public will vote on the five selected words or phrases via the Axa website.

Cameron’s Big Society – Practical Vision or Pipedream?

This post is copied from John Humphrys’ YouGov Blog

One of the phrases that haunted Margaret Thatcher was her saying “there is no such thing as society”. It was taken as evidence of her callousness. In fact what she meant was that society is not the sort of thing that can itself take decisions and act on them. It’s only “individuals and families” that can do that and society is what results. But that’s not what came across. Thatcher was portrayed as a latter-day Marie Antoinette.

David Cameron was never going to make the same mistake. One of the first things he said on becoming leader of the Conservative Party was: “There is such a thing as society but it’s the same as the state”. Now he has started to flesh the idea out. He says that what he wants is a Big Society not a Big State. And he boldly claims that the Tories are now “best placed to fight poverty”.

His starting point is that the big state, far from being the solution to society’s problems, is itself the problem: “The size, scope and role of government in Britain has reached a point where it is now inhibiting, not advancing, the progressive aims of reducing poverty, fighting inequality and increasing general wellbeing. Indeed, there is a worrying paradox – because of its effect on personal and social responsibility, the recent growth of the state has promoted not social solidarity, but selfishness and individualism.”

He claims that although the huge increase in public spending and government intervention in the last twelve years under Labour has done good in some areas, overall it has failed in its principle aims. The inequality gap has widened and social mobility has stalled. All we are left with is a huge debt.

He goes further. Not only has the big state failed in its own terms but it has also changed the underlying culture of our society for the worse. When the welfare state got going a hundred years ago and especially under the Attlee government after 1945, it did so in the context of a society whose members broadly believed in self-improvement, personal responsibility and helping each other. But the increasing involvement of the state has gradually taken away from people their sense of responsibility to do things for themselves and for others. Such attitudes were snuffed out by regulation and bureaucracy. Now, he says, “human kindness, generosity and imagination are steadily being squeezed out by the work of the state”.

Mr Cameron does not simply want the state to retreat, leaving the defenceless to fend for themselves. He argues (against what many people think Thatcherism believes) that the old values of personal responsibility and mutual assistance won’t simply revive if the state gets out of the way. Rather, he thinks that the state has a role in helping to recreate a society built on those old values. It needs to redistribute power, giving the state’s power away to local authorities and local groups. There should also be “a new role for the state: galvanising, catalysing, prompting, encouraging and agitating for community engagement and social renewal. It must help families, individuals, charities and communities come together to solve problems. We must use the state to help stimulate social action”.

But sceptics have raised many questions about whether this really is a practical vision for change or just a pipedream – one intended simply to improve the Tory party’s image by further distancing it from Thatcherism.

In the first place, they say, the reason why the welfare state got going at all was because, however justified the Victorian reputation for philanthropy and charitable work may have been, it was not sufficient to deal with the huge social problems of the age. That is why the state had to intervene directly.

Secondly, they ask, where are the people who are meant to do all this new voluntary work in their communities? Mr Cameron himself acknowledges the challenge. “The big society needs the engagement of that significant percentage of the population who have no record of getting involved, or a desire to do so. The big society demands mass engagement – a broad culture of responsibility, mutuality and obligation.”

In the past, much of this voluntary work was done by women, through such organisations as the Women’s Royal Voluntary Service. But these days far more women are working and it is government policy to encourage even more women to work. Furthermore, as the pressures of work push people into working longer hours, there is less and less time left for social engagement, even for people who might want to volunteer.

But perhaps the biggest issue, as always, is money. Charities find it relatively easy to raise money for popular causes. But if Mr Cameron’s ‘big society’ is going to encourage charities to tackle difficult issues which divide opinion on how best they should be handled (for example, by attempting to grapple with antisocial youth behaviour through ‘soft’ – and expensive — programmes to rehabilitate offenders rather than just locking them up), then fund-raising will be much harder.

What that is likely to mean is that the state will have to stump up the money for such schemes. But that raises more questions. In the current state of the public finances, where will the money come from? And even if it is found, won’t the charities Mr Cameron so wishes to encourage simply become agencies of government, with all the bureaucracy and regulation that entails? And in the end, is there any reason to suppose that such charities can do the job better than existing government agencies, struggling with all the problems of inadequate funding and the intractability of so many of our social problems?

Mr Cameron has set the Tory Party on a new course in dealing with society’s problems. But there are still a lot of questions that need answering before anyone (including, perhaps, Mr Cameron) can know whether it will work.

What’s your view? Is Mr Cameron right to think the big state is the problem rather than the solution to society’s ills? Do you think the widening inequality gap and the stalling of social mobility is evidence that using the state to make our society a better place has failed? What do you make of his claim that the big state is undermining personal responsibility, mutual help, kindness and self-improvement? What do think of Mr Cameron’s idea that the state can be used to galvanise the creation of a ‘big society’ in which people take more responsibility for themselves and others? Do you support his plans to decentralise power or not? Do you think a ‘significant percentage of the population’ who have not hitherto engaged in social action can be persuaded to do so? And what about money: do you think charities could raise much money for the sort of activity Mr Cameron is talking about? Do you think voluntary organisations would do a better job than existing state agencies? Do you think the Tories are now ‘best placed’ to fight poverty or not? And do you think the Tory leader really does intend to try to put his ideas into practice, or is he airing them just to put his party in a better light?

Let us know your views.

15% Buying Presciption-Only Drugs Online

About 15% of British adults admit to bypassing the healthcare system to get hold of prescription-only medicine without a prescription, according to a YouGov poll for Pfizer. This could add up to about seven million people risking their health with fake medicines.

This is a big concern for the government, who have just launched a particularly graphic campaign to discourage people from buying them.