Do ya feel lucky, punk? Osbourne in Dirty Harry's sights.

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
So Osbourn the Smarmy, our Beloved Treasurer :)sarcasm) has, in his cost cutting drive, axed the UK Film Council. Which has a fairly small budget but helps bring in much needed revenue by helping overseas production companies film here. Axing it seems self-defeating.

Dirty Harry is not happy, and (along with many other actors protesting) has penned a letter to that effect.


I can only dream he mentioned the use of guns if he did not get his way :D

Now, with me, on three. You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?


Go Harry, bring back the UKFC!
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Instead of shutting down the council, why not sell the assets to a coalition of the actors' and writers' guilds, the production companies, film distributors, etc... those people who would directly benefit from the Film Council? Why does everything have to be a responsibility of the government, or not be done at all?
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Sympathies IRU! I hate to see good arts programs get a hit, but I feel that I can understand this one. With a jobs recession, an unemployment rate of 7.8% and a FY09 government deficit approaching 70% of UK's prodigious GDP, jobs and economic recovery must be the focus. Subsidising a foreign arts program doesn't actually generate wealth -- it merely redistributes it. If your "beloved Treasurer" didn't do this, he'd be paying grocery money to have his car detailed...

I just hope that your economy recovers soon and that when it does, your arts programs come back solidly. In the meantime, I think everyone here who's ever sacrificed income to pursue their love of literature can sympathise with how grim it must be for the people in UK's film industry. I agree with Don though -- in times of pain, people learn to adapt. Some of our best literature is not written in boom times, but in bust.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Instead of shutting down the council, why not sell the assets to a coalition of the actors' and writers' guilds, the production companies, film distributors, etc... those people who would directly benefit from the Film Council? Why does everything have to be a responsibility of the government, or not be done at all?
Because that would be a sensible resolution and these are politicians we're talking about. Sensible + politician...does not compute. Out of cheese error. Redo from start.

ETA: Ruv, in some ways I can see it. They employ 75 people - but 8 of those get over £100k. Streamlining or doing as Don suggested seems like a more viable alternative. Or maybe their grant is a percentage of the money they drum up? Again, too sensible....

As for the economy...you know, I haven't seen many effects except my fortnightly shop is more expensive. I know quite a few self employed - and many of those are saying this is their busiest year ever. I left a job because of various issues - and was unemployed for a whole day before I ofund a new one. Same wages, better hours, better job. However, I'll admit where I live may not be representative.
 
Last edited:

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Yep, our ability to create more employment depends on how far up the supply-chain we are. In a country like Australia when the mining companies wobble, the whole economy totters. In other countries, when the manufacters cough, everyone gets pneumonia. The UK economy seems to be substantially based on financial services, tourism and creative industries, but when money is tight, creative industries that can fund themselves are inherently more viable and vigorous than those depending on government subsidies to grow. In boom times, those subsidies can help stimulate new growth, but in contraction, money is often better spent stabilising industries that are already self-sustaining. :(

There's no balm for the pain of losing a job we love, whoever we are. But as someone working in both knowledge and creative industries well down the supply chain, I think that the most important asset to cultivate is agility -- it's part of the price of doing work we love.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I've been of two minds about that. First of all, there isn't a big private sector for filmmaking in the UK. That's just the way it is. Your route onto the big screen often start with a grants film, or by going via the BBC - which is run on license money. There's no Hollywood with large studios that have clout of their own. You do have the private TV channels, but they tend to recruit established talent that comes from... the BBC.

The BBC faces large cuts, and the film council gets scrapped altogether, which is going to mean a lot of negative things for the UK TV and Film-industries. There isn't a large private sector to catch all the new talent and intermediaries that are going to have a hard time selling scripts because BBC and the private networks are going to pursue more sure things with very established writers.

BUT a lot of cutting is necessary, and it is rich to ask that our little fiefdoms are protected. Tell that to nurses, firemen and ambulance personel that get sacked because we want another season of Coronation street without fuzz.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
I've been of two minds about that. First of all, there isn't a big private sector for filmmaking in the UK. That's just the way it is. Your route onto the big screen often start with a grants film, or by going via the BBC - which is run on license money. There's no Hollywood with large studios that have clout of their own. You do have the private TV channels, but they tend to recruit established talent that comes from... the BBC.

Dirty Harry is more saying that UKFC (not the Beeb) facilitates overseas film productions so they can film here rather than somewhere else. Films that need/want / would like to be filmed here but could be filmed somewhere else ,If the tax/grant breaks are better ( something Morocco is very hot on btw. which is why a lot of films get filmed there, because it's beneficial for them to do so) then they'll pump their money here. If not the won't. Discouraging foreign investment is not the way to go if you want to perk up your economy.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I guess, but I also look at things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

11 of the top 20 most grossing films originates from British culture; either indirectly such as with Lord of the Rings; or directly such as with the Harry Potters and Titanic.

It's a pretty good track record. I don't know if that list would have been possible without the Film Council. There's a lot of criticism about the council as well, among filmers, that it's an insular organisation helping mates ahead of talents. I just don't know.

And as I said, I'm loath to see the UK film industry even more relegated to Hollywood productions and want it strengthened. Oh well...

OTOH the Film Council isn't funded with tax money, so I don't really see it as that problematic. It's funded with the Lottery money, and people get to decide for themselves if they want to buy into the lottery or not. So, if Osbourne keeps the cash in the government coffers, it will be like a second tax.
 
Last edited:

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
As for the economy...you know, I haven't seen many effects except my fortnightly shop is more expensive. I know quite a few self employed - and many of those are saying this is their busiest year ever. I left a job because of various issues - and was unemployed for a whole day before I ofund a new one. Same wages, better hours, better job. However, I'll admit where I live may not be representative.

Economics comes with lags. Changes in budget policy generally take 12-18 months to take effect, so the chancellor responsible for this year's recovery is Alistair Darling.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Interesting quote by Michael Winner, who backs the axe.:

'The council gives a lot of work to people who are out of work and who possibly deserve to be out of work, quite honestly'

O.O

Though he says this too : 'It's very difficult to justify giving money to movie companies when we needs hospitals, doctors and houses' which is a fair point.

However, the UKFC apparently makes £5 for every £1 it invests. If it's making money, why axe it?
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
However, the UKFC apparently makes £5 for every £1 it invests. If it's making money, why axe it?
Multipliers always look good on paper, but proving their validity is generally problematic, and sometimes involves incantations under a full moon. It also assumes there would be no multiplier for the originally intended use of the money by those who earned it.

It's easy to make the assumption that since that money won't be spent by the UKFC, it won't be spent at all. In reality, it will be spent by the folks who would have had it lifted from their pockets otherwise. If they want to support the arts, they can voluntarily donate to the UKFC... or spend it on bread and jam if that's more important to their budget.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Technically they 'donated' it by buying a lottery ticket. If they want bread and jam they should have bought it instead of the ticket? :D

In reality, it will be spent by the folks who would have had it lifted from their pockets otherwise
No, it'll be allocated to something else the lottery supports.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Technically they 'donated' it by buying a lottery ticket. If they want bread and jam they should have bought it instead of the ticket? :D
Ah, I see. You're absolutely correct. It was their choice to buy the lottery ticket instead of bread and jam.

I'm starting to become a big proponent of lottery-funded government. The expenditures are voluntary, and the suckers who buy into it actually get something for their money, even if it's just dreams.

Couldn't we fund government and staff it at the same time with one simple operation? Buy a lottery ticket and you may win $1 million, or end up Prime Minister of Greece.[/derail]
 

Romantic Heretic

uncoerced
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
2,624
Reaction score
354
Website
www.romantic-heretic.com
Funding government services through lotteries goes against the very idea of working to get ahead. It reinforces the idea that you have to depend on luck rather than work to succeed.

It also shows that a nation is getting very close to the end of its existence. Such an idea could only take hold amongst citizens who regard their citizenship as a voluntary thing, something they will only participate in so long as it's no skin off their ass.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Such an idea could only take hold amongst citizens who regard their citizenship as a voluntary thing, something they will only participate in so long as it's no skin off their ass.
Or among citizens who refuse to conflate being a productive member of society and support for a monolithic political machine dedicated to controlling society "for it's own good." Government is not the whole of society. Government's job is to keep people from doing bad, not forcing them to do good.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
Interesting quote by Michael Winner, who backs the axe.:

Yeah, but Michael Winner is a ****. As is George Osbourne.


However, the UKFC apparently makes £5 for every £1 it invests. If it's making money, why axe it?

The regional development agencies make five times their revenue, and they've been axed too. They're Tories. They don't give a flying fuck.
 

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
18,889
Reaction score
5,029
Location
We couldn't possibly do that. Who'd clear up the m
Website
francisknightbooks.co.uk
Yeah, but Michael Winner is a ****. As is George Osbourne.

Yes.




The regional development agencies make five times their revenue, and they've been axed too. They're Tories. They don't give a flying fuck.
Very few politicians give a flying fuck, no matter what their party. Labour fucked me and those like me for years, and didn't give a rat's arse they were doing it. *shrug* Tis politics.
 
Last edited: