Category: Uncategorized

CHANNEL FOR ALL

The government’s decision to privatise Channel Four is driven by ideology and could damage the media economy in the North.

With the BBC’s reputation soaring for its coverage of the Ukraine conflict, the Culture Secretary has had to tone down her war of words with the Corporation. So, to throw some red meat to her right-wing backbenchers, Nadine Dorries has opened another front with Channel Four privatisation.

The claim is that the publicly owned channel is constrained in its borrowing powers by public ownership and put at a disadvantage against the new streaming giants.

The government is expected to pledge the sale’s proceeds will be put into a creative pot to train young creative talent. This is completely unnecessary. Channel Four is already doing this. Last year two thirds of its programmes were commissioned outside London from a range of independent companies. It has established its new national headquarters in Leeds with the result that there is a strong media industry presence on both sides of the Pennines.

The future is now uncertain as private companies eye up the billion-pound prize. Will commitments to independent production and public service broadcasting be maintained by managers interested in profits?

Will Channel Four news survive? It has certainly been a thorn in the government’s side, and on occasions has lacked balance in my opinion. If this is the real motivation for privatization it is a disgrace, and a big parliamentary battle awaits.

TORY TURNING POINTS.

40 years ago, the Falklands War transformed the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. After three years of her efforts to effect major change in industrial policy, she was very unpopular. Some even feared defeat at the polls in 1983/84. It would have maintained the pattern of one term governments that had prevailed since the mid-sixties.

But the reconquest of a remote group of islands in the South Atlantic had an almost irrational impact on the morale of the country.

Mrs Thatcher had an anxious wait for victory. I remember, as a reporter, being summoned to Downing Street for an important announcement at the end of April. An even more obscure British possession, South Georgia, had been liberated. When I pointed out to the PM that the Falklands were the real target, I was abruptly told to “Rejoice at that news!”

By mid-June there was widespread rejoicing at the Argentinian surrender and Mrs Thatcher was able to go the polls the next year, embedding the Conservatives in power.

However, by this time of year, thirty years ago the picture looked rather different. By April 1992, Mrs Thatcher was gone and her replacement, John Major, was being run close by Labour leader Neil Kinnock in the General Election. But not close enough, the Conservatives won a fourth term but with a much-reduced majority.

If ever there was an election a party should have lost, it was the Tories in 1992. Within months of them winning, their reputation for sound economic management was shredded on Black Wednesday with our forced withdrawal from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. The rest of the parliament was dominated by splits over Europe and sleaze and New Labour won a landslide in 1997.

Two turning points in the history of the Conservative Party. Does another one loom?

BURNHAM AND NEVILLE: THE DREAM TEAM.

Sir Keir Starmer was back in Greater Manchester on Thursday, less than a week after Gary Neville told him to show his face a lot more up north.

The advice was given by the footballer turned businessman at a dinner attended by seven hundred people. It had the feel of the New Labour days in the mid nineties as the party prepared for its landslide in 1997.Party members mingled with business people who once again feel comfortable at Labour do’s after the Corbyn years.

However, I feel excessive confidence in Labour’s prospects and Starmer’s leadership would be misplaced. For one thing the Labour leader did a double header chat with Gary Neville. Starmer did gags about football whilst Neville showed a real grasp of politics which he should use to become mayor of Greater Manchester.

Then there was Angela Rayner, a striking presence in a long red dress more suited to an Oscars ceremony than a Labour dinner. But she worked the room well and is good for party morale. Neville and Rayner outshone Starmer, but to be fair Clement Attlee was a complete stranger to charisma.

Starmer is a man of integrity, and it is to be hoped that voters will support him as a change from the current incumbent of No 10 who may shortly face a fine from the police. But it is unlikely to be enough to overcome the huge Tory majority especially as the Scots show little sign of weaning themselves off the Scottish Nationalists.

The current mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was absent from the dinner through sickness we were told. But a pathway has now opened up for a return to parliament and a possible leadership bid by Burnham. The Urmston MP Kate Green is to stand down at the next election.

The Labour leader was in Bury to launch the party’s local election campaign. The party is hoping to capitalise on the cost-of-living crisis that will be biting hard by May. The opportunity for big gains is limited as Labour are in power in most areas being contested, which is unfortunate for Starmer who needs some great election results and striking policy ideas to shake off the perception that he is a nice guy that can’t cut through.

FROM NUMBER 11 TO NUMBER 10.

There have been twenty-four Chancellors since the war and only four of them have become Prime Minister.

I did this bit of research as the shine started to come off Rishi Sunak as the Spring Statement was subjected to closer scrutiny.

There are various reasons why Chancellors don’t get the top job. Pro-European views prevented Roy Jenkins and Ken Clarke becoming leaders of their parties but more often it has been the age-old problem of Prime Ministers really wanting to do both jobs; announcing the big policies and the money to pay for it.

Having someone in No 11 saying no did for Geoffrey Howe, Nigel Lawson and Sajid Javid.

Could Mr Sunak go the same way at a time when the tensions between him and Boris Johnson will only increase as the cost-of-living crisis deepens?

REMEMBER LEVELLING UP RISHI?

Rightly most attention following the Spring Statement will focus on the inability of large sections of the population to cope with the massive bills coming their way.

It is not all the government’s fault. There are global forces affecting the energy and food markets that are beyond our control. However, the measures announced by the Chancellor are not sufficiently aimed at the poorest, unemployed and pensioners. They will simply not be able to pay the huge increases in energy bills that are coming firstly in April and then again in October. One has to start asking what will the government and energy companies do when millions rack up huge debts?

So, attention is rightly on the cost-of-living crisis, but in the North, we need to look at the effect of all this on the Levelling Up agenda. We have in Michael Gove an energetic minister who says all the right things and has put in place considerable funding for the Levelling Up programme. One got the impression last winter that he had assembled his package against reluctance and scepticism from the Treasury.

As Dr Arianna Giovannini of the Institute for Public Policy Research North observed, the Levelling Up agenda was hardly mentioned in the Chancellor’s speech. There are two dangers for the programme. One is that the government’s whole focus will be on the cost of living and Ukraine and Michael Gove will be side-lined. The second is that by the summer there will be pressure for emergency action by the Chancellor and the Levelling Up money will be slashed. Departmental spending is under massive pressure after this statement, and it is worth remembering the background to this in fairness to the Chancellor. The pandemic cost £400bn, the interest is £80bn.

It is a valid view that with Europe on the possible brink of war and people getting desperate over how to heat and eat, that devolution should be put on the back burner. But we should record this as a possible consequence and move on to consider the politics of the Spring Statement.

In that regard Rishi Sunak’s promise of a 1p cut in income tax to be made in 2024 stands out. It is a very important and extraordinary move in a number of respects. It is a sign of how great the unrest is in the Tory Party that the pandemic has trapped them into tax levels not seen since the 1940s. Sunak had to appease these backbenchers in his own leadership interest and for stability in the party. It also gives us a clear signal that this is going to be a long parliament. Remember all that speculation that Johnson would go for an early snap poll. We can now see that the summer or autumn of 2024 will be the time when we go to the polls. Whether we are to be much influenced by the income tax cut remains to be seen because the element of surprise, the impact, has been taken away.

CRITICAL BUDGET FOR SUNAK’S PROSPECTS.

RISHI AT THE WHEEL.

This could be make or break week for Rishi Sunak’s ambitions to be the next prime Minister.

Respond flexibly to the enormous challenges presented by the Ukraine war and rises in energy costs, and he will still be seen as the coming man. However, he is under pressure from the Treasury to refill the nations coffers, depleted by the pandemic. He may be tempted to go with Tory right wingers already in despair at the high spending, high taxing ways of Boris Johnson. He may offer little in the way of relief to hard pressed consumers and business. This may lead to grim results in the local elections and the party looking elsewhere than hard hearted Rishi for its next leader.

There is at least one alternative available. The Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, has done herself no harm in gaining the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

WHAT WILL THE CHANCELLOR DO?

Downtown’s MD Frank Mckenna is far from a lone voice in calling for a careful look at our Cop 26 commitment to Net Zero. However, the ink is hardly dry on the pledges made when climate change was seen as a major threat to the whole planet’s future. There would be a considerable backlash, especially among young voters, if the Ukraine war was used as an excuse to backtrack on those hard negotiated agreements.

These spring statements are intended to bring minor adjustments to the substantial budgets in the autumn but the massive rise in energy prices, supply issues, the damaging consequences of Brexit and inflation forecasts of 8%, make this a much more important event. Families could be £1000 a year worse off. This is big politics.

Much attention has focused on the hike in National Insurance contributions. Observers have noted that public sector borrowing is £13bn less than forecast and could be used for a year’s delay.

There are calls for a more generous energy rebate (and not in the form of a loan), changes to the universal credit taper and even a 5% increase in benefits and pensions. A cut in fuel duty has widespread support from business and motorists.

The CBI would like to see the super deduction on money spent on machinery, which is due to end next year, extended permanently. It forecasts it would boost business investment by £40bn by 2026.

In terms of raising tax to pay for any of this, there may be a temptation to put a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies. But the Chancellor needs their help in energy investment so killing off the goose may not be in his mind. Changes to Capital Gains Tax and the pension tax relief are also discussed.

This is the testing time of Rishi Sunak.

PEACE AT WHAT PRICE?

Meanwhile the awful carnage continues in Ukraine. I fear the outcome will not recognise the brave stand of the Ukrainian people.

A Ukraine pledge never to join NATO and possibly the EU. A recognition of Russian occupation of Crimea and the Donbas seems to me the minimum Putin will settle for. Aggression will be seen to have won and any Russian pledge not to start the pressure all over again will mean little.

Severe sanctions must be maintained by the West whatever the peace deal to induce a change of regime in Russia.