Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

And on Sunak - pretty good Labour mail-out (the "Rishi Sunak(TM)" is a nice touch), via John Rentoul:

[Josquius]

Using the tories tactics.
It's low. But it works

[The Larch]

How is that low? 

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I don't think there's anything low about it. Plus it's connected with reality and issues people are experiencing right now - combined with a couple of effective attack lines (high taxes because low growth and Sunak cares most about his personal brand).

I also think it's really effective if Labour can attack the Tories for raising taxes/economic competence - same as when the Tories can attack Labour over the NHS. Bring back the Harold Wilson "we can't afford another Tory government" line next


Edit: Incidentally on the non-dom thing, I think it's broadly been a good policy for the UK - but this absolutely kills Sunak's leadership ambtions. I don't think he'd necessarily get re-shuffled now and there's a non-zero chance this ends up with him being fired and replaced as chancellor.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The National Debt is a good attack area too. It has vastly increased under the Tories, they have borrowed more money (nominally) in the past few years than all the Labour governments put together.

It looks like we are in for a bout of inflation; this will likely lower the national debt relative to GDP. So the trick is to use the nominal value of the debt when attacking the tories and the relative to GDP measure when defending a future Labour government's record.

[Josquius]

How is that low? 

Pretending to be a letter from someone it's not.

[The Larch]

How is that low? 

Pretending to be a letter from someone it's not.

Not a fan of artistic licence for electoral propaganda? It's pretty clear it's not a real letter from Sunak.

[Sheilbh]

My husband left the tv on and I gotta say it would be a big shame if Channel 4 was privatised and this sort of groundbreaking content was lost:

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-simpler-life

I just went through a few days of their schedule - basically wondering whether I was missing anything when all I use All4 for is theri boxsets. From what I could see I'm not missing anything - there's maybe a couple of programmes that seem to fall within the remit of innovative, creative TV to serve minority communities/interests. It's the issue I have with this - I'd absolutely defend a public broadcaster with Channel 4's mission, I'm just not sure that is actually Channel 4 as it currently exists.

The National Debt is a good attack area too. It has vastly increased under the Tories, they have borrowed more money (nominally) in the past few years than all the Labour governments put together.

I wouldn't go in on the national debt - largely because I think it's one of those things that people would look at and attribute/excuse most of it to covid. I think that chunk of the debt is excusable.

But I think the point Labour are making about taxes also applies to national debt - the reason it is so high is because growth is so low. And the Tories have shown zero interest in the last twelve years in doing anything to support or increase growth (there is a bit of a Treasury brain issue here too).

Edit: And another briefing from someone in the cabinet that Sunak apparently blocked proposals to make a far larger energy rebate (loan) and to extend the repayment of it further for people on low incomes. I'm not sure if it's Johnson or Truss - but someone in the cabinet isn't taking any risks. They really want him gone.

[crazy canuck]

In Canada, the conservative plan for scrapping the CBC was to cut funding to the point that it became obvious that the CBC should be scrapped. I wonder if the same thing has happened to channel 4

[Sheilbh]

Channel 4 isn't publicly funded. It's publicly owned and has a charter with duties (creation, innovation, minority communities/tastes) and restrictions (it can't produce its own content in-house), but is a commercial channel that funds itself through advertising.

[crazy canuck]

Channel 4 isn't publicly funded. It's publicly owned and has a charter with duties (creation, innovation, minority communities/tastes) and restrictions (it can't produce its own content in-house), but is a commercial channel that funds itself through advertising.

If it's not publicly funded then I don't understand the uproar about changing the ownership. Frankly I don't also understand how it can be publicly owned have a charter required by the owner but the owner doesn't do anything to support it? How does that even work?

It seems it was set up to fail

[Josquius]

My husband left the tv on and I gotta say it would be a big shame if Channel 4 was privatised and this sort of groundbreaking content was lost:

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-simpler-life

I just went through a few days of their schedule - basically wondering whether I was missing anything when all I use All4 for is theri boxsets. From what I could see I'm not missing anything - there's maybe a couple of programmes that seem to fall within the remit of innovative, creative TV to serve minority communities/interests. It's the issue I have with this - I'd absolutely defend a public broadcaster with Channel 4's mission, I'm just not sure that is actually Channel 4 as it currently exists..

Has the current series of last leg finished? That's been pretty great for diababled representation.

Mentioned channel 4 news, every day, tends to give far more interesting global outlook news than the mainstream broadcasters.

I note greyson Perry on tonight. Niche AF.

I do still think it's there. Though yes it doesnt do that exclusively. Is there anything in its rules about its balance between commercial and niche?
I wonder if there's a bit of the Russia today tactics in having mainstream stuff to bring people in and expose them to the niche stuff.

One thing I do wonder with it is its relationship with bbc4 which does sort of fill the same place these days, only without the minority focus, purely the cultural one.

[Sheilbh]

If it's not publicly funded then I don't understand the uproar about changing the ownership. Frankly I don't also understand how it can be publicly owned have a charter required by the owner but the owner doesn't do anything to support it? How does that even work?

It seems it was set up to fail

It was set up by the Thatcher government and at that point Sky hadn't launched and, as the name indicates, there were only three TV channels - two BBC and ITV. Then, and I think this is still broadly the case broadcasters, are licensed in the UK and are subject to general conditions by the regulator.

But it was an even bigger deal back in the 80s to set up a new TV channel because Sky, Freeview, Cable didn't exist so it wasn't even just a case of signing up to get a license.

So Channel 4 was established by an act of parliament. As part of that act of parliament it was banned from producing its own content. That was basically a Thatcherite, pro-market reform - they didn't want it to become another BBC or ITV producing all their content in-house, instead they wanted to encourage a competitive, private sector TV production industry. On that measure Channel 4 has been an enormous, incredibe success. It catalysed private sector production companies in the UK both for TV and producing indie films - to such an extent that even the BBC will, on occasion, decide to commission content from a private company.

The other bit was possibly a bit more high minded and I'm not fully sure what drove this - but it was given a specific requirement to focus on innovative, creative content and to cater to minority communities and tastes. My guess is this just comes from the very traditional controlled mindset of broadcasting here which we got from the BBC (so Radio 1 is for popular music, Radio 3 is for classical and "improving" content etc). The BBC and ITV were there for mainstream audiences, therefore Channel 4 should be for the niche/radical/novel.

But because it's Thatcher she didn't want to set up another broadcaster funded by a licence fee. So, like ITV, Channel 4 has to generate its own revenue through advertising etc. In my view, for the last 20 years, its focused on driving commercial revenues and boasting about viewership at the expense of its innovation mandate.

It a strange institution which, as I say, means it's a bit weird to think about. Because on the one hand it owns none of its own IP, by design. It's entire purpose is to commission and licence IP from private sector production houses. I'm not sure commercially what Channel 4's assets really are. On the other hand it has this really weird purpose, but I'm not sure it's really been fulfilling it for the last 20 years.

Honestly I think where I've got to is that I've no issue with it being privatised - but my preference would be that that's just a threat and actually we keep it in public hands but force it to go back to its mandate.

I note greyson Perry on tonight. Niche AF.

That was the one show I thought is still on brand.

[Grey Fox]

Are you sure it owns none of the IP?

Around here, the broadcasters usually owned parts or exclusive rights of privately produce content.
Altho, that is very rare. Almost everything is made in an hybrid system or in-house.

[Sheilbh]

Channel 4's model gets 90% of its revenue from advertising.

It is not allowed to create its own content. It has to operate as a "publisher-broadcaster" and all content spending needs to go to independent suppliers.

It is also not allowed to acquire secondary and international rights as a precondition for buying the (first-run) rights to a programme. Obviously that limits its ability to monetise any of the shows it does license and it doesn't really have the type of long-term IP revenue that, say, a Netflix does.

But that goes back to why it was created which was exactly to help launch and support independent production companies in the UK - and it's been phenomenally successful at that.

Channel 4's response to the goverment's suggestion of privatisation was actually just that the government should get rid of those restrictions and let it get on with it.