Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Grey Fox]

In English Canada, those private enterprises do a really shitty job of amplifying Canadian voices. It's an American simulcast 24/7. Even the fake Canadian productions are funded from US money.

On Radio-Canada, yes total Quebec pandering. The Quebec wing of the CPC really shuts those voices down.

There is 3.5* national francophones broadcasters in Canada : Radio-Canada, Quebecor & BCE. Losing R-C would be catastrophic.

The .5 : TV5 Quebec Canada is a non-profit org that comes from an International agreement between France, Belgium, Suisse, Monaco, Canada & Quebec.

*hijack intensifies*

But really - what is the value in 2022 of having a broadcaster?  I mean in my household if it wasn't for sports we wouldn't watch broadcast tv at all.  Everything is streamed online.  The better question is how (if at all) should the government promote more Canadian content on Netflix / Youtube.

As for "amplifying Canadian voices" - what does that really mean?  Are we really that much more unified as a country because of Murdoch Mysteries?

*Hijack Continues*

You tell me? Is the RoC interested in being more than USA north?

On being a broadcaster, yes. There will be more & more value into it in future years too. C-11 & C-18 are going to significantly reshape the broadcasting/streaming/internet Canadian media sphere in favors of our, sadly, already dominant big 3.

[Sheilbh]

The CBC is great. And the attack on it fits with what we were talking about in the Biden thread - about the right wing's continual attack on established institutions because they see them as arenas for political fights. If they can't control them and dictate the ideological content, they want to undermine and abolish them.

Which is, of course, one of the reasons I'm supportive of the CBC.

So the slight flipside of this to me is that I actually think it's probably fair for cultural conservatives to have some appointments when the Tories are in power. I sympathise with the Tory complaint about appointments that if they try to appoint someone who agrees with them/shares their views that's "politicisation" while various New Labour and Cameron ministers and spads haunting every institution somehow isnt'.

The tradition was things were broadly balanced and basically reflected parliament - so there'd be Tory and Labour leaning appointments to various quangos, but normally more Tories than Labour because they won more elections. Then New Labour arrived and really pushed their supporters/sympathisers - normally justified as "modernisation", but also because they basically thought quango appointments should be sympathetic with their policy agenda. Many of the people appointed by New Labour were also broadly recycled by Cameron especially because they operated in similar social circles.

So you'd have someone like Matthew Taylor who was Blair's head of policy - then he became CEO of the Royal Society of Arts. He sat on various government commissions and inquireies under Brown and then Cameron, then he gets appointed by Theresa May to do a big investigation to produce a (and very disappointing) report on the gig economy and just last year he was appointed chief executive of the NHS Confederation.

So I'm not opposed to trying to move back to actually trying to include other wings of British political life in institutions - such as conservatives or socialists. Frankly I'd not be opposed to going back to the pre-Blair system of parties getting appointments based on how well they did in the election and not really criticising who they're all appointing (unless they're outright fascists/tankies).

Right now there's people on the liberal left (i.e. The Guardian ) moaning about Michael Grade being appointed to chair the media regulator because he basically announced he was a Tory when he became a member of the House of Lords in 2010 and they think it's a political appointment. But his career was taht he was a director of programming at ITV, then he became controller of BBC1, CEO of Channel 4, chair of the board of governors of the BBC and then chairman of ITV - if he isn't qualified to chair the media regulator then no-one is and I think it's okay that he also has political opinions.

[Barrister]

The CBC is great. And the attack on it fits with what we were talking about in the Biden thread - about the right wing's continual attack on established institutions because they see them as arenas for political fights. If they can't control them and dictate the ideological content, they want to undermine and abolish them.

Which is, of course, one of the reasons I'm supportive of the CBC.

So the slight flipside of this to me is that I actually think it's probably fair for cultural conservatives to have some appointments when the Tories are in power. I sympathise with the Tory complaint about appointments that if they try to appoint someone who agrees with them/shares their views that's "politicisation" while various New Labour and Cameron ministers and spads haunting every institution somehow isnt'.

You know the ignore feature is pretty great, has definitely reduce my blood pressure around here.

Problem though is when people quote someone I'm ignoring, like Jacob.  (Not complaining Sheilbh - I'm ignoring him, doesn't I expect you to)

But Jacob's post is exactly the reason I can't be bothered to engage with Jacob.  He refuses to engage with anything I actually said, and goes straight to 'right wing attacks on established institutions'.  It's pure ad hominem.  There's no debate possible when anything I say is reduced to 'well you're just saying that because you're a right-winger'.


You see the same kind of dynamic in Canada Sheilbh.  Under Harper various Conservative appointees were described as terrible attacks on the Canadian values, despite having views perfectly in line with the median conservative voter.

[Jacob]

*hijack intensifies*

But really - what is the value in 2022 of having a broadcaster?  I mean in my household if it wasn't for sports we wouldn't watch broadcast tv at all.  Everything is streamed online.  The better question is how (if at all) should the government promote more Canadian content on Netflix / Youtube.

We watch plenty of publicly funded content via streams in my household, including CBC and Knowledge Network (BC version of TVO (Alberta used to have something similar, but it was apparently sold a decade ago or earlier). Just because it's streamed doesn't make it less significant.

As for "amplifying Canadian voices" - what does that really mean?  Are we really that much more unified as a country because of Murdoch Mysteries?

It means programming reflecting Canadian experiences - giving Canadian writers, producers, and actors opportunties to produce shows - and on Canadian specific subject matter that would not pass the greenlighting stage if they had to head to NYC or Hollywood.

There's a number of quite popular shows set in Canada like Trailer Park Boys, Letterkenney, Kim's Convenience and so on. While many of them are not directly funded by the CBC or TVO, they are part of a greater infrastructure and ecosystem partially sustained by public funding.

[Tamas]

This is amazing, Simon Jenkins does it again. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/british-sovereignty-falklands-absurd-imperial-hangover-argentina

[Sheilbh]

It's incredible, he never misses. And at least he's consistent in not really backing self-determination:

[Oexmelin]

As for "amplifying Canadian voices" - what does that really mean?  Are we really that much more unified as a country because of Murdoch Mysteries?

If the goal is "unity", then probably not. I think it's moot anyway, seeing as French and English-language fictions very rarely overlap (and I am always astonished that Francophones never seem to exist in English-language programmes in Canada, and Anglophones very rarely make an appearance in French-language programming)

But if you think there is some value to having certain themes, certain issues, certain stories, even, that aren't entirely dominated by American concerns (or British ones, for that matter), American points of view, or even simply entirely dominated by the necessity to appeal to ratings, a national broadcaster is a good idea.

I think, for instance, that our (national) political life has become much more Americanized in the later years. People on the right AND the left take a lot of their cues from Conservatives and Progressives whose rhetoric, pet peeves, and causes have been developped in the USA. I thought the comment from the person in the truck convoy about their "First Amendment rights" was really quite revealing. But I could also quote from left-wing activist in Quebec, who don't even really know how to argue their causes without reference to English-language slogans developped South of the border.

News have become a money-losing proposition, at a time when it's incredibly important to have access to quality journalism. Whether or not this is what the CBC or R-C provides, we can argue, but leaving it to private broadcasters seems a surefire way to have a bunch of "expensive" stories completely abandoned (e.g., news about the Canadian North, international news, etc.). Other niche interests really deserve more airtime as well: science journalism, ecology, spirituality/faith, etc.

I think the same could be said for experiences in story-telling, fiction, etc. The problem with the CBC and R-C, is that they continuously (and rightly) fear that their funding will be pulled if their ratings are poor. And ratings of the CBC have historically been a lot poorer than those of R-C, which historically was also a function of the direct competition of American TV and cinema. So CBC remain quite tame in the kinds of stories they tell, even if they stumble upon sucesses from time to time.

I agree that financing online content should be a priority, but I would argue that it should be in addition to current funding, or a revision of the funding scheme.

[Sheilbh]

I think the same could be said for experiences in story-telling, fiction, etc. The problem with the CBC and R-C, is that they continuously (and rightly) fear that their funding will be pulled if their ratings are poor. And ratings of the CBC have historically been a lot poorer than those of R-C, which historically was also a function of the direct competition of American TV and cinema. So CBC remain quite tame in the kinds of stories they tell, even if they stumble upon sucesses from time to time.

There's a similar challenge here for the BBC. Its funding is different because it is tied to its charter which is up for renewal every ten years and includes a funding settlement (basically a tax the BBC then collects - and prosecutes for non-payment).

But there is a tension between on the one hand needinig to show that it is relevant and has public support in order to survive v its founding principles to "entertain, educate and inform". My view is that it's probably gone a little bit too commercial trying to keep its ratings up and made lots of baffling decisions in recent years (shutting down BBC 3 to move it to iPlayer despite strong public opposition, then re-launching it in the space of six years springs to mind) - I'm sure they see it as doing what they need to to survive.

Although I will never not be pissed off at the amount of cultural/arts shows they've cancelled or stop making that are dirt cheap in the scheme of the BBC budget but easy to get rid of because it's non-controversial - even if it's, arguably pretty directly linked to their principles.

Having said that I imagine the rumoured Marvel-inspired Dr Who television universe re-launched by Russell T Davies (again) for the 60th anniversary is pretty expensive

[crazy canuck]

Without the CBC in Canada we would not have much of a viable independent news source.  I suspect that is the main reason conservatives want to get rid of it.

[Sheilbh]

Wait - what. Sunak may have had a Green Card for a year into his Chancellorship

Rishi Sunak is in his most difficult period as chancellor - and it could be about to get worse
The chancellor is learning who is friends are, and there are perhaps fewer in the cabinet than there once were, with his position now lonelier than ever.
Sam Coates
Deputy political editor @SamCoatesSky
Thursday 7 April 2022 23:37, UK

Rishi Sunak's allies are now freely admitting this is the most difficult period since he became chancellor, and it could be about to get worse.

Some have been canvassing whether the chance of even higher office is now dead. They worry he could have handled many aspects of recent weeks better - and express surprise that he does not appear to have better answers to the inevitable questions his family's wealth was bound to bring.

He is learning who his friends are - fewer perhaps in the cabinet than once were. His position is lonelier after a conspicuous silence at points during the prime minister's partygate woes, and the emergence of other rivals for the crown in the increasingly unlikely event Boris Johnson is ejected from office.

Some close to Mr Johnson have not forgotten and are still quick to criticise and pass judgement.

There are divisions among allies. A council of war was held asking whether he should come publicly out fighting or keep his counsel.

Some suggested he avoid fuelling the fire on multiple fronts but yesterday he pressed ahead with an interview in The Sun, saying: "It is a confusing situation that she is from another country."

And then there have been personal sacrifices. The chancellor has decided not to go to his Californian bolthole over this parliamentary recess, despite the speculation he might. Yorkshire beckons again for him, having failed to get to the US over Christmas and complaints he desperately needs a holiday.

This all weighs heavy on him and those around him, but none of it generates the anger and angst felt by Mr Sunak as having his wife, Akshata Murty, take centre stage in a national debate about propriety.

The prime minister's spouse, Carrie Johnson, may often find herself in the news, having herself previously held political roles, but Ms Murty has never felt such exposure. He lets his anger show - identifying himself with Will Smith who slapped a critic of his wife.

The Sunaks have operated as a couple for much of their professional lives - making philanthropic donations together to his old school Winchester College, Stanford Business School where they met, and her undergraduate university Claremont McKenna - but she has never had the exposure of some political spouses.

Seen around parliament at events as recently as three weeks ago, she has kept out of the limelight despite her exceptional wealth.

Now that is under the spotlight at the most inconvenient moment, with the confirmation she has "non dom" status, which allows those born abroad to pay a lump sum and avoid tax on earnings overseas.

At a time when families struggle with every bill, even the appearance of wealth can draw criticism from large parts of the political spectrum, feeding into the political question over whether Mr Sunak understands the everyday struggles now of ordinary families.

Friends of Mr Sunak may rail and look for enemies, and ask if there is a coordinated campaign against him. The answer may involve less of a conspiracy, as tough times mean Mr Sunak - who found fame and popularity for his generosity in the pandemic despite his instincts as a fiscal hawk - was always bound to face greater scrutiny.

Now he is vulnerable to a wide variety of issues being used against him to suggest he is not in touch with struggling Britons.

One such issue is the nature of his relationship with the United States, where he has one of his homes.

Sky News has been told that Mr Sunak and his wife held US green cards, permitting him residence, until more than a year into his chancellorship - before then giving it up during his period at the Treasury.

Holders of a US green card are required to pay US tax on their worldwide income, and to pledge the US is their forever home.

The US government website says the card is only for people who "make the US your permanent home" - which would be odd for someone holding multiple jobs in government, including local government minister, chief secretary to the Treasury, and chancellor.

A source close to Mr Sunak said "neither of them have green cards", but refused to answer questions over whether they had them during any of his period as chancellor.

Meanwhile, Mr Sunak suggests the ultimate family destination will be India - telling The Sun "that's where she, you know, ultimately will want to go and look after her parents as they get older".

No one doubts this has left the chancellor in a weaker spot than just two months ago when many touted him as a possible replacement for Mr Johnson.

There is an alternative universe where Mr Sunak struck early and hard against the man next door, resigned over his unhappiness at partygate and challenged the PM for the top job, rather than coded criticism and conspicuous absences.

He will never know now if that was the better course.

I think he waited to long - could have toppled Johnson early but waited and as well as these stories there's now also the cost of living and his tax increases.

Incidentally the fact that she's an Indian citizen (India doesn't allow dual citizenship) isn't entirely relevant here. That means that - as long as she has the intention to not retain in the UK permanently - she is eligible for non-dom status. But after that she has an option of choosing to pay her taxes in the UK or paying taxes on income only arising in the UK (minimum of £30k, and paying the rest in India or wherever else).

She chose to only pay taxes on her UK income. Her Indian citizenship and intention to return to look after her parents mean she's eligible for non-dom status, but everything after that - like the tax avoidance - is her choice. And it's an extraordinary one for the person married to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

The Green Card thing is also just really weird - again especially for a UK minister

More generally though - his defence of this is, I think, very misguided. He seems to be going down the route of robustly defending everything, saying it's not okay to bring his wife into politics etc - but to me it seems that's just digging a bigger hole. Especially now the Telegraph has a front page with someone in the Treasury accusing Number 10 of briefing these stories against Sunak.

I thought it might be Johnson or Truss behind this but I am won round by the idea that it might just be that the lobby has turned on him (so this is a story when it wasn't a fortnight ago) after the Spring Statement, plus basically every other department and minister feels like they've had something thwarted by the Treasury including Number 10. In a functioning government the Treasury shouldn't have that power but that relies on a PM with political capital, an agenda and relentless attention - and on SoSs around Whitehall with similar to push back. Needless to say that doesn't really describe this government.

[HVC]

Forever home? Sounds like the US is adopting sunak from an animal shelter.

[Tamas]

It's incredible, he never misses. And at least he's consistent in not really backing self-determination:

 

This is especially amazing because the war did save Johnsons skin

[Sheilbh]

The US really does place a lot of store in a sort of honour system. "Are you a terrorist?"

[Sheilbh]

This is especially amazing because the war did save Johnsons skin

And, compared to his initial goals, Putin was stopped by Ukrainians (with some help from their friends in the West).

Although my favourite will possibly always be his realisation after two years of a global pandemic that he was "perhaps" wrong in his judgement that we should take coronavirus "with a pinch of salt".

[The Larch]

This is amazing, Simon Jenkins does it again. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/british-sovereignty-falklands-absurd-imperial-hangover-argentina

It's incredible, he never misses. And at least he's consistent in not really backing self-determination:

I took a look to check the cringe level of the article (seriously, what's going on in the heads of some of the Guardian's opinion piece writers?), and once you go past the provocative title, some of the things he brings up are actually reasonable and could merit further discussion. Now, given the writer's track record I understand the reaction.