Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

I fully understand how a lottery ticket is a terrible deal, but math doesn't apply to it - yes it is practically impossible to win, but on the scale of your whole life, the money you spend on it (assuming you are not going overboard) is entirely insignificant, while actually winning the jackpot would be life changing. It is a religion-substitute, paying for the hope that your lot in life might change.

[Jacob]

I fully understand how a lottery ticket is a terrible deal, but math doesn't apply to it - yes it is practically impossible to win, but on the scale of your whole life, the money you spend on it (assuming you are not going overboard) is entirely insignificant, while actually winning the jackpot would be life changing. It is a religion-substitute, paying for the hope that your lot in life might change.

Yup.

And in many cases (depending on location), the money from lotteries go to various social goods so at least it's not wasted. Though it does underscore the "tax" part of "it's a tax on [something]."

[Admiral Yi]

When I'm driving somewhere and I need to squeeze the lemon but I don't need gas, I'll buy a scratch ticket as a bathroom fee.

[Sheilbh]

Also on LGBT issues Johnson's dropped a pledge to ban conversion therapy, which he's previously described as "abhorrent". This caused a huge backlash from within the party and from outside groups - especially those attending an LGBT+ conference the UK government's convening and inviting groups from around the world called "Safe to be me" (I think it's on the 50th anniversary of the first London pride march).

So, as ever, Johnson u-turned and the conversion therapy was back but only for gay conversion therapy not trans conversion therapy. This has, if anything, caused the row to get even worse. Over 100 UK LGBT groups have pulled out of the conference because this u-turn is almost worse than the initial one dropping the ban. There's controversy within the party again.

And the former Archbishop of Canterbury has joined an open letter of various senior Church of England figures condemning the proposed discriminatory ban, that, among other points, states:

To be trans is to enter a sacred journey of becoming whole: precious, honoured and loved, by yourself, by others and by God.

To allow those discerning this journey to be subject to coercive or undermining practicses is to make prayer a means of one person manipulating another. It is a wrong-hearted notion of care and a wrong-headed understanding of conversion. Every church should be a safe space that affirms people in behing who they are, without fear of judgement.

It looks like Johnson is digging in. The current line is it's disappointing that groups have left the conference and "he is committed to bringing forward legislation to ban conversion therapy", but:

He has made the point emphatically that people who want to transition in their lives should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect, but the complexity of issues requires separate work to further consider transgender conversion therapy.

Not sure why and, given that trans people are disproportionatley likely to go through conversion therapy, that should be a priority The official line is it's "a legally complex area and we have a responsibility to ensure unintended consequences are not written into legislation, particularly in the case of under 18s."

[Barrister]

I fully understand how a lottery ticket is a terrible deal, but math doesn't apply to it - yes it is practically impossible to win, but on the scale of your whole life, the money you spend on it (assuming you are not going overboard) is entirely insignificant, while actually winning the jackpot would be life changing. It is a religion-substitute, paying for the hope that your lot in life might change.

I buy a lottery ticket a handful of times per year, generally only when the jackpot gets really huge.

I know I'm not going to win, but I figure for $5 I can fantasize about what it would be like to have that kind of money.

[garbon]

I fully understand how a lottery ticket is a terrible deal, but math doesn't apply to it - yes it is practically impossible to win, but on the scale of your whole life, the money you spend on it (assuming you are not going overboard) is entirely insignificant, while actually winning the jackpot would be life changing. It is a religion-substitute, paying for the hope that your lot in life might change.

I buy a lottery ticket a handful of times per year, generally only when the jackpot gets really huge.

I know I'm not going to win, but I figure for $5 I can fantasize about what it would be like to have that kind of money.

Can't fantasize without spending money?

[Sheilbh]

And in many cases (depending on location), the money from lotteries go to various social goods so at least it's not wasted. Though it does underscore the "tax" part of "it's a tax on [something]."

Yeah - basically any British film you've seen or any British Olympic success is funded by the Lottery

[Sheilbh]

Looks like government is going to push ahead with the plans to privatise Channel 4 - though still imposing a public interest requirement on any new purchaser.

I have slightly mixed feelings about this, which is probably a reflection of the weirdness of Channel 4. For people outside the UK it's a state owned, but privately funded TV channel. It was set up by the Thatcher government with the restriction that it could not produce its own content. The intention was either to create competition/private sector TV production companies in the UK outside of BBC/ITV control - which it did incredibly well, it lay the seeds for TV production to be a big industry in the UK employing thousands and now even the BBC will, on occasion, use private companies. The other weird stipulation on Channel 4 was that it was basically set up to be innovative, look for new creators and specifically to produce content for minority tastes that might not be well catered for by mass producers like the BBC/ITV.

But the consequences of those decisions are that Channel 4 basically doesn't own the IP of anything. In terms of privatising a media company my assumption is that what buyers probably want is a healthy back catalogue they can then do other stuff with. Channel 4 doesn't have that because it was explicitly set up to not do its own productions, so all it has are licenses from various productions companies - and a big brand.

On the other hand whenever people defend Channel 4 on the basis of its public interest duties around innovation and minority broadcasting they are (and I do think when I defend it) overwhelmingly referring to TV produced in the 80s and 90s It was genuinely groundbreaking in commissioning new TV from interesting/innovative people, letting creative teams basically have free reign and in producing, say, black and LGBT-led content. But in my view it hasn't really been doing that much for the last 20-30 years. It's basically indistinguishable from almost any other broadcaster and to be honest distinctive "Channel 4" shows in the last 20 years have been reality then structured reality TV and panel shows. It also used to be the TV channel of American imports - ER, Friends, the Simpsons were all on Channel 4 but they've moved to Sky largely. Maybe that was necessary because it had to fund itself through advertising so it became more commercial rather than accepting lower viewership.

Which is why I'm really not sure how to feel about possibly privatising it - though lots of people you'd expect are up in arms. On a practical level I'm not sure who would want to buy Channel 4 as it actually exists, because I'm not sure what they'd be buying. On the other hand I think it's a really good idea to have a TV station dedicated to innovation, creativity and minorities and that definitely shouldn't be privatised, but I'm not sure that really describes what Channel 4 is anymore.

Not sure

[Josquius]

I probably watch more channel 4 content than I do BBC. Its news and other factual reporting certainly tends to be far more neutral and actually interesting- looking at global stories rather than "Guy in Margate has grown the worlds largest pumpkin!"
It has some questionable shows but also the greater part of the good stuff the UK has put out this century.

Its a crap idea. And I strongly suspect political game playing at work, Channel 4 not being afraid to lay into the government unlike the now even more thoroughly neutered BBC.

[Tamas]

There should be a BBC focused on free access to unbiased news, and platform for political discussions. Entertainment should not be the state's responsibility.

[Sheilbh]

It has some questionable shows but also the greater part of the good stuff the UK has put out this century.

Really? Because I was thinking about this and looking at people naming things from Channel 4 that we would lose if it was privatised and I'm hard pressed to think of anything this side of 2000.

That's part of the thought I have that when I think or see people saying "but what about Desmonds, Queer as Folk, Brass Eye, Mark Kermode introducing an Abbas Kiarostami film at midnight - Anna Friel killing her dad and having a lesbian kiss" (things that stick out for me), they're sort of making the point because not one of those happened this millenium. What did was Big Brother, Benefits Street, Come Dine With Me, The Jump/The Splash (and all other celebrity competitions where they might break a leg), Sex Box, Naked Attraction etc. They might be fun programmed but I'm not sure they're showing a commitment to what Channel 4 is supposed to be for which is innovation, creativity and minority communities.

Its a crap idea. And I strongly suspect political game playing at work, Channel 4 not being afraid to lay into the government unlike the now even more thoroughly neutered BBC.

Well yes the host of their flagship news chanting "fuck the Tories" at Glastonbury is certainly not neutered

I'm also not sure it's great though (or would just be brushed off if there was an equivalent newscaster chanting "fuck Labour" - I think we could all accept them having a go at the Lib Dems ).

There should be a BBC focused on free access to unbiased news, and platform for political discussions. Entertainment should not be the state's responsibility.

But Lord Reith's values were for the BBC to "inform, educate and entertain"

[Sheilbh]

Having said all of that the really weird thing seems to be that the government's doing this at all. As has been pointed out a lot on Twitter - governing is choosing. There is finite parliamentary time and resource within government so you need to identify your priorities.

Even if this gets through, which it probably will, everyone seems to expect that it will take up a lot of parliamentary time - especially in the Lords - and it's very complex so will take up a lot of civil service attention. This isn't a goverment with an abundance of bandwidth, it's one that has broadly struggled to get legislation actually passed (despite an 80 seat majority) and there's probably an election next year. It's quite the choice to decide to focus on a privatisation that's not going to really excite people (like buying, say, BT shares did in the 80s).
 
People have pointed it out elsewhere with the 90s angle of this government but the very weak policy announcements/agenda/achievement all make it feel very Cones Hotline. It all feels like a government rifling through the cupboards for policies to announce and really coming up with not very much.

[garbon]

Just looked at what were Autumn Highlights on Channel 4 in 2019 (so before our new era). Not exactly inspiring content:

https://www.channel4.com/press/news/channel-4-reveals-autumn-2019-highlights

[garbon]

Having said all of that the really weird thing seems to be that the government's doing this at all. As has been pointed out a lot on Twitter - governing is choosing. There is finite parliamentary time and resource within government so you need to identify your priorities.

Even if this gets through, which it probably will, everyone seems to expect that it will take up a lot of parliamentary time - especially in the Lords - and it's very complex so will take up a lot of civil service attention. This isn't a goverment with an abundance of bandwidth, it's one that has broadly struggled to get legislation actually passed (despite an 80 seat majority) and there's probably an election next year. It's quite the choice to decide to focus on a privatisation that's not going to really excite people (like buying, say, BT shares did in the 80s).
 
People have pointed it out elsewhere with the 90s angle of this government but the very weak policy announcements/agenda/achievement all make it feel very Cones Hotline. It all feels like a government rifling through the cupboards for policies to announce and really coming up with not very much.

I think this angle is fair. Feels like an odd place to invest their energy.

[Josquius]

It has some questionable shows but also the greater part of the good stuff the UK has put out this century.

Really? Because I was thinking about this and looking at people naming things from Channel 4 that we would lose if it was privatised and I'm hard pressed to think of anything this side of 2000.

That's part of the thought I have that when I think or see people saying "but what about Desmonds, Queer as Folk, Brass Eye, Mark Kermode introducing an Abbas Kiarostami film at midnight - Anna Friel killing her dad and having a lesbian kiss" (things that stick out for me), they're sort of making the point because not one of those happened this millenium. What did was Big Brother, Benefits Street, Come Dine With Me, The Jump/The Splash (and all other celebrity competitions where they might break a leg), Sex Box, Naked Attraction etc. They might be fun programmed but I'm not sure they're showing a commitment to what Channel 4 is supposed to be for which is innovation, creativity and minority communities.

Did channel 4 do many celebrity contests? Always saw that as more an ITV and slightly BBC thing.
Naked Attraction though yes, what stood out in my mind as questionable shows. Eurotrash for Gen Z. 

Good stuff by Channel 4 though- every decent comedy this side of Blackadder pretty much, Dispatches, 24 Hours in Police Custody, This is England, Black Mirror, Fresh Meat, lots of Film 4 stuff; they've really contributed a huge amount to the resurgence of British cinema.
BBC used to be the place for documentaries but Louis Theroux's rare appearances excepted Channel 4 holds that crown today.

Well yes the host of their flagship news chanting "fuck the Tories" at Glastonbury is certainly not neutered

I'm also not sure it's great though (or would just be brushed off if there was an equivalent newscaster chanting "fuck Labour" - I think we could all accept them having a go at the Lib Dems ).

Thats a bit different though as it would be assuming a bizzaro world where the tories aren't the establishment, actively fucking over the country and cracking down on the media.
Though in eg. the height of Blair's time in power I certainly expect it would/could have happened.