The renaming issue has made progress, taking into consideration the very many comments made.
This time I am only offering one suggestion:
This is a variation on Finance for the Future, but it is tighter.
The suggestion being made is that this blog is about answering the question 'How are you going to pay for it?", which is that which plagues all those who want to promote change in our society.
The fact that the blog is written by me is acknowledged, but so too is a focus on sustainability, the economy and justice.
Importantly, the title is meant to be forward-looking and solution orientated.
In practice, this might look like this when translated to the blog header:
In time the 'formerly Tax Research UK' would be dropped, but I suspect it would be important for a while.
When this new name is embedded, the site's URL will change to FundingTheFuture.org.uk. I have bought the domain names. This can be done whilst keeping all old links working, including those on other sites. In other words, if you used a taxresearch.org.uk link it would still get to the site, or the specific page you wanted. However, it is hard to do this more than once so getting this name change right is important.
So, your opinion is asked for, yet again:
Is 'Funding the Future' an appropriate new name for this blog?
- Yes (74%, 371 Votes)
- I still think you need to think again (12%, 60 Votes)
- I'm abstaining, but show me the results anyway (8%, 39 Votes)
- I preferred Tax Research UK (4%, 21 Votes)
- No (2%, 11 Votes)
Total Voters: 502
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If you call it that maybe every labour frontbencher will read it for ideas. They are always asked that question, in order to show they have no better ideas than the tories.
That would be good
… but this blog is so much more than “how do we pay for it”.
Sure, it is also more than “Tax Research ” but that name has history. If you are to actively change name then it should cover a bigger chunk of your output.
My vote is still “Political Economy”….. but then my vote probably shouldn’t count because I will read whatever it is called.
I am afraid political economy turned out to be rather niche…
As you know, it was my first alternative, and that of Andy Moyle, my tech guy
I quite like Funding the Future (better than Finance …) and am very pleased to see ‘sustainable’ and ‘fairer society’ in the by-line, but am uneasy with ‘paying for’. As Clive rightly says, this blog is about much more than how to pay for ‘it’. It’s at least as much about what the ‘it’ should be. While perhaps not perfect ‘funding’ doesn’t grate like ‘paying for’ and could be taken to include discussing what needs to be funded.
Not everything we might see as desirable for society needs to be paid for primarily with money and ‘but how do we pay for it’ often serves as a handy excuse for doing nothing by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. How about something like providing for, enabling, moving/working towards/for, …. ?
Funding is a huge improvement on Finance. Well done indeed. However, I think you simply don’t need the “paying for” phrase in the wording as the tag works perfectly well without it – AND you avoid the implied ‘acceptance’ of the ‘How are you paying for it?’ interrogation.
Very well done indeed. This will work well.
Thanks
Definitely an improvement on ‘Finance for the Future’ which sounded too much like a Banking Industry conference.
I don’t care what you call it Richard just keep doing it,
thanks.
I am not sure sufficient people vote for “the future”. They vote for their future. What they want is someone to tell them they are the same thing; they care about their future, and wish to believe they care about more (but as Hume and Adam Smith understood; the sense of obligation is limited). If this is where you wish to go my hunch is “Funding your Future” has greater capacity to grab attention. If you are going to play the game, I suspect – this is the game.
‘What do I know?’ is probably a fair riposte.
At least we’re on nuance now…
Your implies the individual but the average individual will only flourish in the right context.
Funding OUR future, perhaps.
I admit I have an aversion to ‘our’ (as in ‘our NHS’, when it is not ‘ours’) or your (as in ‘that’s your news’ when it was nut my news, it was what the broadcaster chose to comment on).
So I am not sure about either. Sorry.
I understand your objection; but the definite article is not value free, save by abstraction from identifiable reference. Whose future is “the” future?
Anyones if they are there
Philosophically, I would say it is the future that happens; and that – I am fairly sure, which is the best I can do – will not be the future that any of us speculate, surmise or forecast will happen. It never is.
I concede that my short philosophical ramble is of no use to your decision here; I did confess I shouldn’t have entered this thread.
Oh, you are noticed
I agree that choosing between “the”, “your” and “our” future could be important if the target was a flyer for an election campaign, or similar.
My guess is that the readership of this blog will scarcely notice the nuance, if at all, and head directly for the content once they’ve changed the links in their browser’s bookmark list.
The links will work without a change when the url is altered
“Funding our Future” sounds more inclusive, i.e. it suggests we are all part of the same community.
Perhaps you should consider “Funding our Future Today” which suggests the much of what is required can be done straight away without going through years of “saving up” first.
I was mulling over ,Funding Your Future’ just before I read John Warren’s post, but I decided it sounds too much like an investment advice site. ‘Funding Our Future’ might work better.
I’m a little disappointed that ‘politics’ can’t be worked into the new name somewhere, but, as others have said, I’ll continue reading it, and linking to it, whatever it’s called.
It will be all about politics
But then, everything is
On ‘nuance’, I delberately avoided a capital for ‘Funding your Future’. This is an illustration of how problematic this becomes; what seems trivial so often is actually important, but that is disconcerting. I promised myself not to be sucked into this debate for that reason, and because there are no answers; as I said, ‘what do I know’? Cyndy Hodgson is probably right; especially perhaps for regular readers of this Blog.
Hmmm – I’ve been mulling this over.
I don’t nuance I think.
I think that what you’ve always presented is an alternative to what has been dominating our lives this 40-50 years.
The future could be anything, but surely one needs to ensure/ that what you are saying is that what you present will/could be different as well as better?
I don’t know. Just a thought.
I hope that is implicit
That works. “Funding” is better than “Finance”, and the tagline says it all.
Thanks
Are we “paying for” a clean, sustainable economy, does that imply having to find and save money?
Or are we “investing” in a clean, sustainable economy?
We pay, even with MMT
Let’s not pretend otherwise
We have reallocated resources and that is payment
The future involves choices and that is what politics is about.
Funding is obviously about the economy and implies the question underlying all choices -how will we pay for it?
So the proposed title covers ‘political economy’.
Thanks
I still like the idea of having fairer in the headline rather than the tagline, as the headline is what will initially grab peoples attention. I think it’s imprortant that you’re signposting a different and better future which is mainly what the blog is all about. Like many here, I will read it whatever the name, but you are rightly looking to catch the attention of new readers – it needs to be a sharp hook amidst the plethora of information out there.
What is attracting attention on Twitter is using quotes presented as graphic images from posts
This is making the posts promoting blog posts five times more liked on Twitter than before
Ultimately content matters and the name less so, or the site would have failed ages ago
I agree that finding the right name is necessary, and takes time. However I have to admit that, had I been asked, I would not have been able to tell you what the blog was called. I might have done when I first joined, but, having found it, the name just became irrelevant.
I think that one of the most interesting comments made
I suspect that for many that was true
When I tell people about it, particularly on Facebook, I always direct them to taxresearch.org.uk with a link to the particular thread.
I find people don’t like having to search for things and find it much easier to be given a direct link.
If the name changes, I’ll still do the same.
Since I had covid I find lots of words difficult to remember, so please make it easy to remember for other people like me.
As you will have noticed I do the same with weownit.org.uk, my two go to blogs for most things I am interested in.
Thanks
Noted
In a nutshell (!), ‘Richard Murphy on paying for …’ is just too limiting. Please find something else!
Sorry to be a naysayer, but I don’t like it – I don’t like its mouthfeel!
Also, it sounds on the one hand like you’re raising money for a local kids nursery and on the other hand has a whiff of the meaning-free corpro-politico BS that all the main parties use – I could imagine it as the heading for a list of 9 ways the Tories are going to cut back spending to fund the future; or the six ways Labour are going to use the proceeds from some minor tax change to fund the future.
I was talking about you to someone I met last night, trying to succinctly describe your work and the thing that raised a smile (and hopefully stuck in his mind long enough to look it up) was The Joy of Tax!
However, just to reiterate what others have said though – I’ll read it, and tell people about it, whatever it’s called!
The problem is this site covers many issues
Any title will only hint at the coverage
Other names might be used for podcasting and youtube – both of which are developing
Very good new title and subtitle, but I would make it “Our” future .
Noted
My preference would be the first heading – “Funding the Future” – with “Richard Murphy on paying for a sustainable economy and a fairer society”, underneath.
“Formally Tax Research UK” would then be to the side.
In the future when this is dropped, the main heading, with subtext will remain unchanged.
Obviously, not including the quotation marks.
Just a thought.
That will be what happens in the end
Does ‘Funding the Future’ sound like it already exists? YES
Do the words to look balanced YES
Is ‘Funding the Future’ helpful in framing the conversation the blog leads? YES
Does it pass the Ronseal Test (does exactly what it says on the tin)? YES
Does it pass A/B share test against alternative? (Check results)
Would the proposed strap line enhance Tax Research UK? YES 100%
The above are the questions I asked myself before voting. It’s been fascinating seeing this discussion unfold.
Thank you
“Funding the Future” reminds me of pensions…
I can see that “Tax Research UK” is no longer accurate. Perhaps in a decade “Funding the Future” won’t be either.
This is your site, so I’ve vote for putting “Richard Murphy” somewhere prominent.
And if it is all around “How do we pay for it?” perhaps something as simple as “How to pay for it” would do.
Noted…
I agree with Ian Tresman @ 9:58; ‘Funding the Future’ works well. Likewise the tagline, although I would prefer it’s split to be before ‘sustainable’ so that second line is longer. Better from a visual prespective but that split would also keep your concept of …’sustainable economy and a fairer society’… together on the bottom line. On printed documents, it’s usually better to have the lower line longer but nowadays splits happen depending on screen size. Your ‘tech guy’, Andy Moyle’ may be able to embed your new logo to cope with the multiplicity of viewing devices.
Off topic; I was in London last week and visited our mutual favourite cafe/bookshop at Friends House opposite Euston Station. Sadly they are no longer able to provide a ‘suspended soup’ service to homeless people. Apparently demand had far exceeded supply of donated funds; yet another sign of the depressing times we endure.
That is a shame
And noted re the split. Good point
No name is perfect, but ‘Funding the Future’ sounds pretty good to me. Incidentally, the 1945 Labour manifesto was entitled ‘Let Us Face the Future’, which I suppose shares most of the merits and deficiencies of your proposed name – but turned out quite successful. 🙂
How about “Funding a Fairer Future”?
Let me muse on that
Yes. Snappy and to the point. It is what tax is for, after all, while in practice you have been dealing with a wider range of issues than tax alone
‘Funding a Fairer Future’ (as suggested by Bernard Hurley @ 1:33) is a fine alliterative phrase. Although you would then need to rework the tagline. When in doubt, reach for Roget; his Thesaurus is still the best… two centuries on from it’s creation.
Musing on it
Seriously…
I would give it a big thumbs up too.
Please, Richard, don’t stick that earnest qualifier into your excellent new title.
Everyone knows that they face “the” lower case “Future”. That is a statement not only of the obvious but also a reminder of the uncertain and, in the present state of our society, the often scary unknown. The idea that there is a place where “Funding” it is under debate/discussion/active consideration is ‘good’ and even ‘encouaging’ news. That looks like a plain man’s beacon.
Sticking “Fairer” in sounds immediately like the kind of qualifier that ‘politicians’ (Starmeresque?) use to temper the expectations of their offer. Just ‘Fair-er’, you understand; not so radical /rash a promise as ‘Fair’!
Leave your new title and tag as is. It does recall the tone of 1945. No mucking, no dodgy qualifiers – just here’s where we face up to things… and your tag does the rest very well.
So many opinions….
@Nigel Mace has a point about the comparison “fairer”. Ideally we should want the future to fair, not just fairer. So how about:
“Funding a Fair Future”
or:
“Funding for a Fair Future”?
But fair is impossible to define because each has their own definition
Fairer can be identified though
So fairer is better
Richard, a technical note, and not necessarily for publication. If you were to register xxxx.co.uk (when the name decision is made), you can also register and use xxxx.uk, which is snappier.
I have done both
And .co.uk
Thanks!
Fair Future Funding?
Funding a fairer future is winning right now
Partly because it becomes ‘stop faffing around and fund a fairer future’.
I’m a big fan of this blog – it’s my first read most days.
I like your critical analysis of current events, the data, as well as your point of view and those of many contributors.
During 2021, I became interested in MMT and realised that I had very limited of understanding of what money is, where it comes from, and how the state could use money to create a fair and equitable society.
Those are still my three key questions, so the new title without fair gets my vote.
Fair is probably implicit for most readers and may not add much for new readers, but I’m happy if you disagree……
Noted
I suspect
“Founding a Fairer Future”
might be accused of being too recherché. It does, however, cover more than just “money”, or “paying for”.
Sounds like a new green private equity fund desperate to raise money. Capitalist at heart but keen to greenwash to attract the innocent investor with a heart that is trying to improve society. You can, and should do better.
Like?
Richard Murphy on developing a sustainable economy and a fairer society?
I would like the title for the email that appears in my mail headers to say what that individual blog contains.
Sorry – I just don’t have time to do that
Remember, most of this blog is written in my spare time
I agreed with many others that finding the future is one of the key issues but that your scope is so much wider. How about “Prosperity Economics”? Something that captures the idea that we are thinking of a wide range of issues, including wealth distribution, environment, the benefits of trade (duh), emotional well-being, respect for others etc etc.
Aren’t they all covered by the sub title?
Richard,
Something has been bugging me since I first read about a new title and it has distilled into the thought that including the word “funding” would risk reinforcing the orthodox narrative rather than defining a new one. How about “Facilitating a Fairer Future” – seeing how money and the economy can be tools to enhance our well-being rather than the masters whose tune we have to dance to?
It always come back to money so funding is right
MMT is part of the answer though
But it is still funding
Good discussion.
Funding is better than finance as the latter suggests it might be about banking.
Future because it tells us what the funding is about, and implicitly challenges short termism
I liked Our but like Fairer more as it describes the kind of future we want. Could have been Sustainable Future but Fairer has wider appeal.
Thanks
I have observed with interest over the last couple of days the discussions relating to the naming of this blog and until now have resisted making any comment because I’m not sure I could add value to what has already been suggested and ultimately this is your blog and what it’s called is, in the end, up to you.
I fear that the multiplicity of ideas and nuances posted may, if not careful, send you off course from what you are trying to achieve by changing the name of the blog (apologies, the irony of me adding this comment is not lost on me!)
Unless I’ve got it wrong, the whole point of the name change is to:
1) Make the name more relevant to current and future content
2) Bring an even larger audience to the content
Your regular readers and contributors I would say are already engaged in the content and by extension the name to them is less relevant.
Therefore I guess the priority is to attract new visitors, which I think is the bigger discussion that’s needed.
I sense this is important to you and that your use of Twitter etc is helping to attract new visitors. I particularly like the use of large picture quotes within some of your tweets and the polls within the blog posts are generally thought provoking.
However, it seems there are important groups that don’t appear to visiting here and I’m not convinced that a name change will necessarily on its own attract them.
On a separate but not unrelated point, you make reference earlier to the name of a podcast and your YouTube work having possibly a name different to that of this blog, apologies if I’ve misunderstood but whilst this is not a marketing exercise per se would it not be appropriate to keep a consistent “brand” identity across your YouTube, podcast and blog work.
All noted
Thanks
Charles makes good points. He brings out “brand identity”; important for new readers. What is the brand identity. Her it is:
Richard Murphy.
Sometimes the obvious is too obvious to be noticed.
But I can’t be Richard Murphy from The Richard Murphy Blog
Excellent! ‘Funding the Future’ is suitably brief, memorable and informative, while the subtitle gives the appropriate moral framing and tells everyone who is writing.
I very much like that it is a positive and confident declaration of intent (the current blog title is fairly neutral/analytical by comparison) making clear the ‘how will you pay for it?’ question is being addressed. The battle to demonstrate ‘economic competence’ to voters is still where it’s really at, after all.
In summary, a fine new calling card to show anyone looking for serious, viable solutions to the deep social/economic mess we are in, whilst also getting an understanding of the mistakes and snake oil which led us to this sorry state.
Thanks Mark
I almost like it, but would suggest –
Funding Our Future
See comments already made
Far too many connotations – based on who is ‘our’, which might be an elite – can be read into that
I pressed submit too soon. The problem with what you have is that ‘the future’ is totally abstract, I don’t think you can fund ‘the future’. Funding Our Future makes it concrete as well as emphasizing that it is about all of us.
Funding the UK’s Future.
The future belongs to the planet
Yes to “funding”, preferable to finance, way more descriptive than tax research.
How about even shorter version, “Future Funding”?
Like most people saying, I’ll keep reading whatever you choose 🙂
Just call it Richard Murphy’s blog.
But do keep producing it!
I think you’ve got it right with ‘Funding the Future’ Richard. Short, to the point, and it addresses the point endlessly brought up whenever anyone dares to suggest substantial change from the current mess the neoliberal right have got us into.
That is, where is the money going to come from to solve the problems caused by the privatisation, small state, worship of markets mantra we’ve had in the UK for 40 years. From the state, via MMT, and a form of QE applied for positive uses like house building, the Green New Deal and taking failing privatised infrastructure like the water companies into public ownership and this time funding them properly.
It’s not about retaining your existing readership, but getting in new ones, many of whom won’t be aware of the MMT arguments, but are desperately worried about the climate crisis, housing crisis and so on, and can see, even if they are not politically aware or interested, that they’re not being solved at present.
Thanks
I think you summarise the argument well
I have decided however there will be no change this week