This has been an interesting week for those interested in the future of broadcasting, with two vision of the BBC’s future being laid out, first by the Adam Smith Institute and secondly by Labour leadership candidate David Milliband and former Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell.
The Adam Smith Institute, a right leaning think tank and is keen for the BBC to shrink back to a core service. The report was written by David Graham, a former BBC employee and calls for an end of the license fee to be replaced by a subscription because it penalises the poorest, privatisation of some BBC radio stations and a new regulation framework among many things
The press release states ‘This report, by media expert and former BBC producer David Graham, argues that the TV Licence Fee should be abolished, and that the BBC should instead become a subscription service. The report makes a number of points against the Licence Fee, but also makes a more positive case for reform, suggesting that shifting to a voluntary subscription model would encourage the BBC to compete with the big US studios, export more high quality content overseas, and spark significant growth in the UK broadcasting industry and its contribution to the wider economy.
While over at the Labour leaning Progress website, the option being floated is to turn the BBC into a Co-operative.
They state ‘Under a mutual model, membership of the BBC could be open to everyone who pays the licence fee. Members could have the right to elect representatives to a members' council that would elect a majority of members of the BBC Trust. This would give licence fee payers a way to democratic voice in the priorities of the BBC.
Greater public engagement with members could also take place via the website, to ensure the BBC was providing responsive services. With those running the BBC directly accountable to their members, they would have a clear mandate to canvas licence fee payers on all major policy decisions. Ideas like this should be considered as major questions about the future of media policy are confronted in the coming months and years.'
What both have in common is the need for more accountability from the BBC something few could argue with.
And normally when these ideas are floated they cause a few ripples and then disappear without a trace, but with the Coalition government committed to changing the UK’s broadcasting rules its important to know who is saying what and who is supporting each idea.
Whether these changes or others get the go ahead it will have an impact here in Wales, especially with BBC Wales being such a major provider of news and entertainment in English and Welsh plus it’s vital to make sure we the Welsh viewers and listeners are kept up to date with developments of the BBC future and the battles that lie ahead.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
A Scottish perspective on the economic debate
Over at the Scottish online newspaper Caledonian Mercury they are running a series of articles from different people on the best way forward for the Scottish economy in these testing times. Last week they had one from the Scottish Federation of Small Business (SFSB) which urged the Scottish Government to look at helping the 200,000 strong Scottish one man businesses expand after figures showed that over the past decade it was SME’s who created the biggest share of new Scottish jobs.
Colin Borland of the Scottish FSB writes ‘If the history books are any sort of guide, though, we know that a sustained period of mass unemployment must be avoided. Fewer people in work, fewer taxpayers and fewer consumer pounds going round the economy, coupled with more people drawing state benefits, is a tried and tested recipe for economic stagnation – and that’s before the massive social costs are even counted.
So, with Scottish unemployment standing at 216,000; poor local labour market statistics; and significant public sector job cuts on the cards, we urgently need more private sector jobs in the economy.
The only question is where they are going to come from.
The form guide says that over the last decade Scottish big business shed 34,000 jobs, while small businesses created 67,000. Thus, it is going to be down to our small firms to build on this track record and create employment wherever the opportunity exists.
So how can we make it easier for them to get on with the job?
First, we need to look at how we can make job creation more affordable and the UK government needs to consider cutting payroll taxes for new jobs in all small businesses, not just start-ups.
And, at Holyrood, surely it is now time to shift the focus of enterprise support from a small number of favoured companies and sectors to the solid, if unfashionable, small businesses which are going to form the foundation of any sustained recovery.
Why not, for example, focus some effort on helping the 200,000-strong army of single member enterprises in Scotland create more new jobs?
People are self-employed for many reasons – the structure of their industry, semi-retirement etc. – and becoming an employer is not for everyone. But what about those who are running successful businesses as owner-managers and who, like 30 per cent of small businesses in Scotland, are operating at full capacity?
Harnessing this untapped resource, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has argued, would be neither particularly complex nor expensive. Initially, it would require someone to sit down with a prospective employer and explain exactly what they would be taking on – dispelling the myths, but also setting out the obligations and costs. If they decide to move forward, there would be someone there to take them through that daunting first recruitment process – from placing the advert to drawing up the employment contract. This would require a dedicated member of staff, but that does not necessarily mean a net increase in headcount.'
It seems WAG are not alone in ignoring the needs of small businesses, but the big difference is despite the Scottish Government not paying much attention to those needs, SME’s have created the lion share of jobs the same is not true in Wales.
And Scotland still has an advantage because those medium and large businesses who the Government does support and are able to expand in the coming months and years, no longer have to compete with the Regional Development Agencies in England on a UK basis or with International Business Wales on a global stage.
Colin Borland of the Scottish FSB writes ‘If the history books are any sort of guide, though, we know that a sustained period of mass unemployment must be avoided. Fewer people in work, fewer taxpayers and fewer consumer pounds going round the economy, coupled with more people drawing state benefits, is a tried and tested recipe for economic stagnation – and that’s before the massive social costs are even counted.
So, with Scottish unemployment standing at 216,000; poor local labour market statistics; and significant public sector job cuts on the cards, we urgently need more private sector jobs in the economy.
The only question is where they are going to come from.
The form guide says that over the last decade Scottish big business shed 34,000 jobs, while small businesses created 67,000. Thus, it is going to be down to our small firms to build on this track record and create employment wherever the opportunity exists.
So how can we make it easier for them to get on with the job?
First, we need to look at how we can make job creation more affordable and the UK government needs to consider cutting payroll taxes for new jobs in all small businesses, not just start-ups.
And, at Holyrood, surely it is now time to shift the focus of enterprise support from a small number of favoured companies and sectors to the solid, if unfashionable, small businesses which are going to form the foundation of any sustained recovery.
Why not, for example, focus some effort on helping the 200,000-strong army of single member enterprises in Scotland create more new jobs?
People are self-employed for many reasons – the structure of their industry, semi-retirement etc. – and becoming an employer is not for everyone. But what about those who are running successful businesses as owner-managers and who, like 30 per cent of small businesses in Scotland, are operating at full capacity?
Harnessing this untapped resource, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has argued, would be neither particularly complex nor expensive. Initially, it would require someone to sit down with a prospective employer and explain exactly what they would be taking on – dispelling the myths, but also setting out the obligations and costs. If they decide to move forward, there would be someone there to take them through that daunting first recruitment process – from placing the advert to drawing up the employment contract. This would require a dedicated member of staff, but that does not necessarily mean a net increase in headcount.'
It seems WAG are not alone in ignoring the needs of small businesses, but the big difference is despite the Scottish Government not paying much attention to those needs, SME’s have created the lion share of jobs the same is not true in Wales.
And Scotland still has an advantage because those medium and large businesses who the Government does support and are able to expand in the coming months and years, no longer have to compete with the Regional Development Agencies in England on a UK basis or with International Business Wales on a global stage.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
'Six problems with the IDS benefit reforms'
Much of what I was going to write about the Government’s Welfare Reform plans was said by Alex Barker over at the FT Westminster Blog a few days ago.
So rather than reinvent the wheel here's what he said ‘No one can question the decency of Iain Duncan Smith’s vision for overhauling the welfare state. His message of “making work pay” is winning plenty of disciples. It is a revolution to simplify a fiendishly complex welfare system and make the benefits of employment clear. To some, it is the only way of ending the welfare dependency blighting British cities.
But conservatives should be on guard. Grand schemes are intoxicating. The allure of sweeping change can overpower. The IDS reforms require real, unavoidable sacrifices, even if George Osbourne pays billions of pounds upfront. This is not a case of hidebound Treasury bureaucrats blocking change to keep the poor tethered to the state. If the overhaul goes ahead, the risks and trade-offs are considerable.
Here are some of the hurdles that I’ve identified from speaking to people in Whitehall and Ian Mulheirn, an expert on this area at the Social Market Foundation.
They prompt two questions. Is it worth it? And is there a simpler way?
Winners and losers Without additional funding, the IDS plan involves raising the tax rate on millions of workers. To “make work pay” for the few he will need to make work pay less for the many. He rightly highlights the absurdity of people who would only keep 4.5p in the pound if they start work. But these are a minority of cases — less than 100,000 households. One IDS proposal to solve this is bringing the marginal deduction rate (MDR) to 75 per cent for everyone, so no one keeps less than £2.50 for every £10 earned. The trouble is that around 2m working households on income related benefits are now on an MDR of less than 75 per cent. They’ll all lose out and see their work incentives reduced. The only way around this is spending more on benefits — a multi-billion pound commitment that the Treasury will find hard to stomach.
An incentive to work less The IDS plan will make it attractive for some people to cut their hours of work. This is a natural result of smoothing out work incentives, which spike at around 16 and 30 hours because of the way tax credits are calculated. This shifts money away from those working 16 hours to pay more to those working as little as 8 hours. That’ll encourage people to take jobs, even for limited hours. But it will also makes it less painful for individuals to cut their hours — which is bad for Treasury revenues.
Thin evidence base All these changes are based on the assumption that if you encourage someone to do a bit of work, they’ll move on to more. It’s a conveyor belt theory. But there is no evidence to prove it. What if people who take low-paid mini-jobs get stuck? There’s a danger the system encourages people merely to stay on the fringes of the job market. One solution is to time limit state benefits. The other — floated in the paper — is for Jobcentre advisers to keep pushing people to work longer. But both involve the kind of complexity and a big administrative burden that IDS is trying to banish.
Moves £23bn from purse to wallet The reform option for a “universal credit” proposes paying the applicant in a household, rather than the carer. It is more simple. And it sounds innocuous. But it marks a massive shift in income from women to men. Presently tax credits are given to carers in households, which are predominantly women. The IDS plan would take around £23bn from them and allow the men in the household decide how the money is spent.
There will still be overpayments The waste in the tax credits and benefits system is huge — some £3.8 a year is lost in error, fraud and overpayments. IDS wants a real-time “pay as you go” tax system, which allows tax credits and benefits to be adjusted as incomes change. A good thing. But this will not fix overpayments. The Treasury have largely fixed the problem caused by changes in income. The remaining overpayments are driven by changes in circumstances — families splitting up or getting together. A real-time system of income reporting won’t stop couples breaking up.
It ignores hidden benefits The make work pay package does not include any calculation of benefits such as free school meals, free prescriptions or subsidised child care. These “passported benefits” make a real difference to net incomes. The point on the income scale at which these are withdrawn will mark a massive barrier to work. The IDS paper only addresses half the problem. Without tackling benefits in the round, we won’t know whether this will succeed in making work pay'.
And a final point, the Department of Work & Pension (DWP) is the largest spending department in Whitehall, but if deficit reduction is the name of the game then why is Ian Duncan Smith excluding pensions, which make up a sizeable proportion of the DWP budget from any type of reform?. It leaves the Tories open to the charge they are only hitting those least well off and can ill afford to lose the money.
So rather than reinvent the wheel here's what he said ‘No one can question the decency of Iain Duncan Smith’s vision for overhauling the welfare state. His message of “making work pay” is winning plenty of disciples. It is a revolution to simplify a fiendishly complex welfare system and make the benefits of employment clear. To some, it is the only way of ending the welfare dependency blighting British cities.
But conservatives should be on guard. Grand schemes are intoxicating. The allure of sweeping change can overpower. The IDS reforms require real, unavoidable sacrifices, even if George Osbourne pays billions of pounds upfront. This is not a case of hidebound Treasury bureaucrats blocking change to keep the poor tethered to the state. If the overhaul goes ahead, the risks and trade-offs are considerable.
Here are some of the hurdles that I’ve identified from speaking to people in Whitehall and Ian Mulheirn, an expert on this area at the Social Market Foundation.
They prompt two questions. Is it worth it? And is there a simpler way?
Winners and losers Without additional funding, the IDS plan involves raising the tax rate on millions of workers. To “make work pay” for the few he will need to make work pay less for the many. He rightly highlights the absurdity of people who would only keep 4.5p in the pound if they start work. But these are a minority of cases — less than 100,000 households. One IDS proposal to solve this is bringing the marginal deduction rate (MDR) to 75 per cent for everyone, so no one keeps less than £2.50 for every £10 earned. The trouble is that around 2m working households on income related benefits are now on an MDR of less than 75 per cent. They’ll all lose out and see their work incentives reduced. The only way around this is spending more on benefits — a multi-billion pound commitment that the Treasury will find hard to stomach.
An incentive to work less The IDS plan will make it attractive for some people to cut their hours of work. This is a natural result of smoothing out work incentives, which spike at around 16 and 30 hours because of the way tax credits are calculated. This shifts money away from those working 16 hours to pay more to those working as little as 8 hours. That’ll encourage people to take jobs, even for limited hours. But it will also makes it less painful for individuals to cut their hours — which is bad for Treasury revenues.
Thin evidence base All these changes are based on the assumption that if you encourage someone to do a bit of work, they’ll move on to more. It’s a conveyor belt theory. But there is no evidence to prove it. What if people who take low-paid mini-jobs get stuck? There’s a danger the system encourages people merely to stay on the fringes of the job market. One solution is to time limit state benefits. The other — floated in the paper — is for Jobcentre advisers to keep pushing people to work longer. But both involve the kind of complexity and a big administrative burden that IDS is trying to banish.
Moves £23bn from purse to wallet The reform option for a “universal credit” proposes paying the applicant in a household, rather than the carer. It is more simple. And it sounds innocuous. But it marks a massive shift in income from women to men. Presently tax credits are given to carers in households, which are predominantly women. The IDS plan would take around £23bn from them and allow the men in the household decide how the money is spent.
There will still be overpayments The waste in the tax credits and benefits system is huge — some £3.8 a year is lost in error, fraud and overpayments. IDS wants a real-time “pay as you go” tax system, which allows tax credits and benefits to be adjusted as incomes change. A good thing. But this will not fix overpayments. The Treasury have largely fixed the problem caused by changes in income. The remaining overpayments are driven by changes in circumstances — families splitting up or getting together. A real-time system of income reporting won’t stop couples breaking up.
It ignores hidden benefits The make work pay package does not include any calculation of benefits such as free school meals, free prescriptions or subsidised child care. These “passported benefits” make a real difference to net incomes. The point on the income scale at which these are withdrawn will mark a massive barrier to work. The IDS paper only addresses half the problem. Without tackling benefits in the round, we won’t know whether this will succeed in making work pay'.
And a final point, the Department of Work & Pension (DWP) is the largest spending department in Whitehall, but if deficit reduction is the name of the game then why is Ian Duncan Smith excluding pensions, which make up a sizeable proportion of the DWP budget from any type of reform?. It leaves the Tories open to the charge they are only hitting those least well off and can ill afford to lose the money.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Will Julie Morgan stand in Cardiff North next year?
Thanks to a comment on another thread that drew my attention to a blog entry from Vaughan Roderick last Sunday (2nd August) on Labour at the Eisteddfod and possible Assembly candidates, comes some interesting news.
From my limited understand of Welsh, it seems that Labour are quietly confident that Julie Morgan the former MP for Cardiff North until the recent General Election will stand in the constituency for Labour in next year’s Welsh Assembly Election.
Her opponent would be sitting AM Conservative Jonathan Morgan, who was by consensus facing a relatively easy campaign and re-election next May, but if Julie stands things could get interesting. Labour will pour money and resources into the seat and it would become a very competitive race just like the General Election where she only lost by a handful of votes. Jonathan Morgan and the Tories will certainly need to up their game and be on their guard.
Im left wondering is this a smart move for Labour looking to well known candidates in potentially winnable seats to boost its chances of an overall majority next year or is it desperation from a Party looking to claw back ground lost to apathy and a sense of betrayal and the other parties in Wales over the past few years?
Either way it would be another constituency to add to the list of ones to watch in what’s turning out to be a very interesting selection process ahead of the Assembly Elections.
From my limited understand of Welsh, it seems that Labour are quietly confident that Julie Morgan the former MP for Cardiff North until the recent General Election will stand in the constituency for Labour in next year’s Welsh Assembly Election.
Her opponent would be sitting AM Conservative Jonathan Morgan, who was by consensus facing a relatively easy campaign and re-election next May, but if Julie stands things could get interesting. Labour will pour money and resources into the seat and it would become a very competitive race just like the General Election where she only lost by a handful of votes. Jonathan Morgan and the Tories will certainly need to up their game and be on their guard.
Im left wondering is this a smart move for Labour looking to well known candidates in potentially winnable seats to boost its chances of an overall majority next year or is it desperation from a Party looking to claw back ground lost to apathy and a sense of betrayal and the other parties in Wales over the past few years?
Either way it would be another constituency to add to the list of ones to watch in what’s turning out to be a very interesting selection process ahead of the Assembly Elections.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Not just difficult questions for S4C, but for the Western Mail and Daily Post as well
With all the goings on at S4C at the moment and the general decline in the rest of the Welsh media, you’d think that they would be more careful not to draw even more attention to their own viability and performance of late.
But this is what’s happening as articles from the Our Kingdom website about the Western Mail and Daily Post over the past few weeks show. They were written by Andy Williams, Research Fellow at Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies about the decline of the Welsh Print Media, one that is dominated by Trinity Mirror. It's provoked quite a response judging from the comments section and also from Alan Edmunds, Editor of the Western Mail.
The article was also followed up by Guy Aitchinson who looked at how the current cuts in the Newspaper will affect Trinity Mirrors staff and output across the UK.
The links are below and in date order, including Alan Edmunds Response
Unholy Trinity: The decline of Welsh News Media (Andy Williams)
Trinity Mirror: Cuts and the Crisis in the Media (Guy Aitchinson)
Trinity Mirror editor hits back at university study on Welsh newspapers (Guardian blog)
Open Letter to Alan Edmunds, Publishing Editor, Media Wales (Andy Williams)
But this is what’s happening as articles from the Our Kingdom website about the Western Mail and Daily Post over the past few weeks show. They were written by Andy Williams, Research Fellow at Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies about the decline of the Welsh Print Media, one that is dominated by Trinity Mirror. It's provoked quite a response judging from the comments section and also from Alan Edmunds, Editor of the Western Mail.
The article was also followed up by Guy Aitchinson who looked at how the current cuts in the Newspaper will affect Trinity Mirrors staff and output across the UK.
The links are below and in date order, including Alan Edmunds Response
Unholy Trinity: The decline of Welsh News Media (Andy Williams)
Trinity Mirror: Cuts and the Crisis in the Media (Guy Aitchinson)
Trinity Mirror editor hits back at university study on Welsh newspapers (Guardian blog)
Open Letter to Alan Edmunds, Publishing Editor, Media Wales (Andy Williams)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)