CentreRight

England hosting the World Cup would be a £3bn boost for the nation

Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on England's bid to host the World Cup in 2018.

FIFA, football’s global governing body, arrived in England yesterday for a four day visit to hear why we should be picked to host the biggest football show on earth.

After the highs and lows of South Africa, you might have thought Wembley would have been dead for the friendly against Hungary. But over 70,000 turned out with the vast majority right behind our team, comfortably drowning out the boo boys.

But it isn't just what happens at the top of the game - over a million people watch or play football every week. So FIFA can be sure that a World Cup in England would be embraced by the whole nation with sold-out grounds for every game and fans from around the globe welcomed with open arms.

We have world class stadiums - the likes of Wembley, the Emirates, Anfield and St James Park to name but a few - and the transport infrastructure to cope with putting on a tournament the size of this.

England is easy to get to and easy to get around. Our transport system gets hundreds of thousands of fans to games every weekend of the season and all of our proposed host stadiums are no more than three hours by train from London.

A World Cup here would also be an economic winner for both FIFA and the country’s coffers. Estimates from accountants PriceWaterHouse Coopers put the windfall to the nation at £3 billion. This would help us build a lasting legacy from the tournament - using football as a force for good around the world that would build on the work the FA does on international development.

It would also, of course, boost football on the home front, inspiring a new generation of players and coaches to help unearth the new talent we need. And who knows what that could lead to, half a century on from that magic moment in 1966?

Why Conservatives will not force the BBC to share the licence fee with other broadcasters

Earlier today ConservativeHome reported Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt MP's plans to reform the BBC. Tim Montgomerie expressed disappointment at the party's apparent decision to reject top-slicing of the licence fee. Jeremy Hunt explains his decision below.

We are strongly opposed to the government's plans to "top-slice" the licence fee to support ITV regional news. Here are the main reasons why:

1. If there is money spare in the licence fee, it should be given back to licence fee payers, not used to make other broadcasters dependent on the state. Times are tough for licence fee payers, and by an overwhelming margin they say they would rather the money was returned to them than doled out to someone else.
2. Regional news is a dated model: what people really want is local news. Our plans for a new network of local TV stations - not dependent on the state - would transform local communities, help local businesses and promote our belief in better local democracy. Propping up the old regional model will fail to achieve any of this.
3. There is an attraction for free-marketeers in making the BBC compete with others for licence fee money, and it is an option we considered carefully. However we rejected it because we believe it would make all broadcasters focus not on attracting viewers but on attracting subsidies. We need a BBC that uses the licence fee to produce programmes of the highest quality - and commercial broadcasters to keep it on its toes. The danger of the top-slicing model is that broadcasters would focus their energies more on lobbying Westminster than producing programmes that viewers want to watch.

The BBC can learn from politicians’ mistakes

By Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Over the last few weeks MPs have learned the hard way that there is no point being half hearted when it comes to transparency over expenses. We’ve made big mistakes and the public have rightly been angry. But with independent scrutiny and more openness things are finally starting to improve.

The BBC needs to take note and avoid the same mistakes. Dragging your feet on transparency does not work. Yesterday’s announcements published the expenses claims of just 10 people in an organisation of 23,000. We are still no closer to unpicking the Beeb's £14m taxi bill or £15m domestic flight bill.

So here are a few things I think the BBC should do:

• Learn from the mistakes of parliament and be forthcoming with information the public wants, and has the right, to know. Transparency means showing the expense and salary details of the many not the few.
• Instigate proper independent scrutiny of expenses to assess whether they were justified. If some are not, then they should be paid back.
• Allow the National Audit Office in at any time to judge whether BBC expenditure, including expense claims, offer value for money. Currently the NAO can only go in on the invitation of the BBC - that is not good enough.
• Be more flexible and open when it comes to Freedom of Information. Requests must not compromise journalist sources but the public does have a right to know how much BBC staff spend on taxis and lunches.

Who else can compete with Shakespeare, the Edinburgh Festival, the West End, our castles, stately homes and countryside?

By Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

At a time when we are desperately trying to rebalance the British economy away from financial services, we need to relook at sectors like tourism that have for too long been Cinderella industries under governments of all colours. Here are some reasons:

• Because by definition tourism cannot be outsourced or "offshored," every pound invested in tourism is a pound that continues to create jobs and prosperity for Brits for years to come.
• We have a huge competitive advantage. Despite appalling neglect, Britain is the sixth most visited country on the planet (and London the most visited city). Who else can compete with Shakespeare, the Edinburgh Festival, the West End, our castles, stately homes and countryside?
• Tourism is worth £114 bn to the British economy, employing 2 million people, mainly in small hotels, B & B, pubs and restaurants. We should support small family businesses.

Why we need an urgent review of regulations on local newspaper ownership

By Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media ad Sport

With advertising revenue down 35% since the onset of the recession, more than 50 local newspapers have now gone under. This week Northcliffe (owner of the Daily Mail) announced 1000 redundancies. Even Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has written about it. Should we be worried?

For localists like me, the demise of local newspapers has profound democratic implications. The represent in many parts of the country - not least my own constituency - the single most important mechnism for people to express their views on local issues. And judging by my own postbag, more than half of which is about local rather than national issues, people really do care about what happens on their doorstep. For that matter it isn't just local newspapers we need: local radio (struggling badly) and local TV (a joke in this country compared to the US) also have a very important role to play.

Licence fee: Andy Burnham's worrying response

I read the ConHome post on love bombing with interest. Hopefully David Cameron's strong line on both the licence fee freeze, the Ross/Brand affair and Mark Thompson's salary indicates that however often he meets the BBC hierarchy (and as Leader of the Opposition it is surely right that he does) he never pulls his punches when he wants to raise an issue.

It is, however, Andy Burnham's reaction to yesterday's licence fee announcement that should worry us the most. He said it was a matter for the BBC Trust and not politicians. Really? Even the BBC's own fact sheets say “the Government sets the level of the licence fee.”

The idea that the BBC Trust should set the level of the licence fee would mean the corporation writing a blank cheque to itself. Andy Burnham has confused editorial independence at the BBC, which is essential, and financial accountability.

When it comes to the editorial independence, we would actually like to see it strengthened not weakened, which is why we have proposed that the body that regulates the BBC should be accountable to parliament and not to ministers. As for financial accountability - speaking up for licence fee payers - isn't that precisely what politicians should do? And not just when it comes to the level of the licence fee either. I would like to see more accountability in three specific areas:

1. A detailed breakdown of how licence fee money is spent on the back of every licence fee, as council tax bills now do
2. Transparency over celebrity salaries paid by the BBC, which are currently kept confidential
3. Full and unfettered access by the National Audit Office to the BBC accounts.

The BBC licence fee should be frozen in these tough economic times

By Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Earlier today David Cameron announced that we will be opposing the 2% increase in the BBC licence fee due to come into effect this April. Every little helps, and when times are tough for families up and down the country the BBC should show leadership and voluntary decline the increase which amounts to £3 for every household with a colour TV.

The current licence fee settlement took effect in 2007 – when economic circumstances were quite different. They were considered generous at the time. Now, with nearly every commercial broadcaster cutting its programme budget, it cannot be argued that the BBC needs the rise to stay ahead in the market. In fact this year, for the first time ever, the licence fee income could be a whopping £1 billion more than the entire advertising-funded TV sector put together.

Nor should the BBC be facing anything like the cost increases previously predicted. Production companies are hardly going to be jacking up their prices, and organisations like the BBC should be taking this opportunity to root out unnecessary expenditure, whether on the £14m taxi bill, the £3m spent on public affairs or the 50 executives paid more than the Prime Minister.

We support the BBC. But the BBC, in turn, exists because of public support for the licence fee system. Declining to take up this year’s increase would be the best possible way to maintain that support in tough times.

Loss of local newspapers is bad for local democracy

Yesterday's decision by the Guardian Media Group to cut 95 jobs across its Surrey and Berkshire local papers and close two papers altogether should worry everyone concerned about local democracy (and not just me as one of the local MPs affected). So far more than 50 local papers have closed during the current downtrun. They are just the latest in a long line of media industry victims of the recession, but the implications are potentially more far reaching.

Local democracy is a shadow of what it should be in Britain, but for it to flourish local media is essential. How else will local electorates be able to choose their mayors in the cities a future Conservative government hopes will opt for direct elections? In the absence of a proper local TV sector in this country (one of the biggest failings of broadcasting policy) we totally depend on local radio and local newspapers. Both are in crisis. The former are hamstrung by cross ownership regulations set for the pre-internet era, and the latter have been crucified by the loss of classified advertising to websites like eBay.

What needs to happen? The only future for local papers is to be able to offer advertisers the best possible way of reaching locally-defined audiences. That means expanding beyond their traditional print bases to online, radio and TV. That in turn means looking at the media ownership regulations that often make this very hard.

Despite the urgency of the situation, the plight of local papers only got the briefest of mentions in the government's Digital Britain report. How many more will need to close before it sits up and takes note?

ITV loss could herald another industry wipe-out

Yesterday's losses from ITV showed that it isn't just banks and manufacturers that risk being wiped out in the current downturn.

The mouthwatering £2.7 bn loss was large made up of capital write downs. But the £167m trading profit from last year was for the calendar year 2008, with the slump in advertising spend only taking effect in the last quarter. With spend down around 20% this year, ITV is effectively trading at a loss. As most likely are both Channel 4 and five. And that's just the broadcasters. National newspapers are in a terrible state and things are even worse for local papers, more than 50 of which have closed since the recession hit.

The downturn in advertising is one problem - but structural change is an even bigger one. Advertisers are increasingly switching their spend online. Last year in the UK Google's revenues exceeded those of ITV. In fact only the only media players in reasonable shape at the moment are the BBC, cushioned by £3.4 bn of guaranteed income from the licence fee and Sky, which had the foresight to develop a commercial model based on subscription as well as advertising.

If media companies start dropping like ninepins, the implications are profound. Quality and choice in media isn't just about giving a better choice to consumers: it is actually about maintaining an open, free and healthy democracy. Stephen Glover is right to sound the alarm on this in today's Daily Mail.

But sorting this out is much less about government hand-outs than looking at the regulatory structure that was constructed for a pre-internet world. Unfortunately the government seems more interested in publishing endless reviews than actually sorting things out. The risk is that by the time they get round to doing anything there may not be much of a media sector left. Britain has some of the best choice and variety of media of any country anywhere - but it is hanging by a thread.

Localism applies to broadcasting too

David Cameron’s announcement today that Conservatives will give the country’s big cities the chance to vote for elected mayors is excellent for local democracy. But how will the new Mayors communicate to their electorate without proper ways of communicating with their electorate? Whilst local newspapers are incredibly important (think of the Evening Standard's role in the London Mayoral election) decent local television stations would enable would-be Mayors to communicate with much larger numbers of voters.

This is something we have always been uniquely bad at in Britain. Birmingham Alabama has a population of 230,000 and 8 local TV stations. Birmingham in the UK, four times the size, has none. London Ontario has a population of 355,000 and 2 local TV stations. Our London, with 22 times the population, has none.

It isn't just politics - local businesses too would benefit from the opportunity to reach consumers through TV advertising (which is one reason why any new stations should not be run by the BBC).

Both Ofcom and the government should take local TV much more seriously. A future Conservative government will do all we can to encourage the creation of local TV stations. We will ensure media ownership rules do not prevent local newspaper groups from investing in local television and urge Ofcom to be proactive in ensuring that spectrum allocations do not unwittingly prevent the emergence of a local TV sector.  

Blue Peter Blues

So it isn't just the economy that's suffering...the BBC Trust today revealed that Blue Peter lost 40% of its viewers in just one year. It isn't just Blue Peter either - over the same period BBC 1 has lost 5% of its under 12 viewers.

It is doubtful any of this would have happened if the BBC had real competition for children's TV. But since the decision to ban advertising of "unhealthy" food to children, ITV have pulled out of daytime children's TV and the BBC has had an effective monopoly. This is presumably why the Beeb felt comfortable cutting 20 minutes from its key after school slot in order to fit in the Weakest Link.

The lesson is clear: monopolies lead to less choice in broadcasting as in every field. Which is why the key outcome of the government's review of public service broadcasting must be to promote competition and choice for viewers across all genres. Children's TV is a case in point, but plurality of provision for news is even more important. If we want the highest standards from the BBC, they need to know we have a choice.

Digital disappointment

Today's "Digital Britain" announcement was a huge disappointment. Britain has some of the strongest creative industries in the world (film, TV and music etc) and also some of the slowest broadband speeds. But if we are to capitalise on our ability to make digital content, our companies also need a home market capable of distributing it. Today's announcement was supposed to address that problem - instead, after 9 reviews today's one simply announced a futher 8 consultations. Even by New Labour standards this really takes the biscuit for dithering and indecision.

The tragedy is that many in the industry hoped the new broadcasting minister Stephen Carter would get a grip and show leadership. Instead, as France, Germany and the US lay fibre optic cable to people's homes, we are stuck in the information slow lane - or will be until there is a Conservative government. David Cameron has pledged that a future Conservative government will aim to get superfast broadband to the majority of the population within 5 years. After delivering the satellite and cable revolution last time, it looks like it will once again be a Conservative government that takes Britain's digital industries forward.

Labour has abandoned the centre ground

One thing is clear from this afternoon's Pre-Budget report is that Labour has now comprehensively abandoned the centre ground of British politics.

With prudence thrown to the wind, income tax up, a £1 trillion debt explosion...this was not a party interested in taking difficult decisions to get the country through a recession, this was a party gambling all on a mini-boom to get it past the next election.

Instead of restoring confidence by getting its own finances under control, instead of practical measures to help companies in difficulty (like reducing employers NI, which went up instead), instead of telling people the truth about a long and painful recession, we had a Chancellor still peddling the lines that no one believes, not least that his "made in America" recession would be over by the end of next year.

Sadly today is likely to have made the recession deeper and more painful. How will a 45p top rate of tax help the City get back on its feet? How will a £1 trillion national debt persuade banks that they can trust government guarantees over their debt and start lending?  How will a temporary VAT bribe restore consumer confidence when they know higher taxes are round the corner? When it comes to this crisis, what matters for this lot is the election and not the economy.

Three changes that must happen post Ross/Brand at the BBC

Now the dust has started to settle on a truly terrible week for the BBC, what will the long term impact be?

Three things I suggest.

Firstly that the idea that it is ok to chase ratings for their own sake is dead and buried. The BBC's argument that it needs to reach everyone because everyone pays the licence fee is circular. Yes the BBC needs to attract large audiences (we don't want American-style PBS which is very worthy but no one watches), but it is to watch quality programmes and not chasing the lowest common denominator.

Secondly the whole issue of salaries. Jonathan Ross's salary is worth the annual licence fee of 43,000 people, and 50 executives at the BBC are paid more than the Prime Minister. This has got to stop - as David Cameron rightly says in the Sun today. Otherwise we get into football club scenarios where a huge amount of cash goes out of the back door to pay stars just as soon as it has come in through the front door. The BBC has had relatively generous settlements for the licence fee (up 15% in real terms since 1997) but this should not be to fund inflation in star salaries.

Finally on decency and taste I hope it is now established that socially responsible broadcasters should not allow their talent to behave in a way that legitimises unacceptable behaviour. Only two people who heard the Brand/Ross show actually complained, but the 30,000 who did so afterwards were doing so not because they listened but because they cared about the example being set.

The BBC is one of our national crown jewels and there is no reason it cannot continue to be so. Sometimes though it takes a particular incident to focus minds on where change needs to happen, so it is vital that when the dust does finally settle the Corporation learns these lessons and does not return to "business as usual."

Brown's lurch to the left

So we see it now, the total reversal of Brown's middle England strategy. This was the real story of his conference speech yesterday.

Do you remember his speech last year, with the blue backdrop and widespread speculation that he was going to try to wrongfoot the Conservatives by announcing some middle class tax cuts? Brown's reaction to his leadership woes was about as predictable as rain in August. Like nearly every party leader in difficulties, his advisers have clearly told him "Just be yourself." Otherwise known as the "If only Gordon could just be Gordon" strategy.

The problem for Labour is that the real Gordon is actually very left wing. "Fair" or "fairness" mentioned 39 times, blaming the financial crisis on city bonuses rather than his own regulatory failures, more free this and free that (but no mention of where the money is coming from) - this was the real story of yesterday.

As a speech it worked rhetorically because it was authentic. The trouble is that the authentic Brown is also the Brown who cannot connect to Middle England, and in a desparate last throw of the dice yesterday appealed to his grassroots to save his skin. Which leaves only the Conservatives in the middle ground - the last thing New Labour strategists can really have wanted.

Britishness and culture

I have to disagree with Andrew Lilico's view that there is no British culture and that there is no such thing as nationalism and self-determination.

His piece is a thoughtful contribution to the debate. However his central contention, that Britain is a political and not a cultural phenomenon, ignores the link between political and cultural identities. Does our experience of living in one of the most historically free countries in the world not impact on our culture? The structure and variety of the English language may be the main reason why we have one of the strongest traditions of literature in the world, but has not freedom of expression also played a part? Likewise our political identity, as citizens of one of the earliest democracies in the world has surely contributed to the innate British suspicion of an over-weaning state.

Labour and Olympic success

I totally agree with Alex Deane's post.

It must make athletes in Beijing furious that the government is trying to claim credit for their success. The real credit should surely to our superb athletes and no one else.

In fact lottery funding for grassroots sport has been virtually cut in half since 1997. If you add in government spending, there has been a real reduction of £135m per annum going into sport, mainly caused by Labour's lottery raids for ministerial pet projects.

Grassroots sport is not the same as elite sport, but just as vital when it comes to London 2012, where we won the bid on the basis that we would inspire young people through sport.

But even the funding for elite sport has been a shambles. In March 2006 the government promised a £600m package of which £100m would come from the private sector. They have failed to raise this money, and yesterday a government minister said this was because at that time it was "unclear" which rights the government would have to sell off. A few phone calls to the BOA and the IOC could have cleared things up - instead of which they persisted with a promise they are now struggling to fulfil.

The harsher economic climate doesn't make things easier either, but they might have had a chance if they had started two years ago. Since then we are on our third Culture Secretary which I suspect is the real reason why this particular ball was dropped.

PS I have the honour of having riled Labour so much over my criticisms of their sport funding that today Labour MP Michael Connarty called on me to resign.

Beijing behind the scenes

Today I had a behind the scenes tour of the Birdsnest Stadium and the Aquatic Centre. Both are huge, much huger than ours will be in London. They are also beautifully designed both inside and out. The Chinese have decided that Beijing 2008 is going to about spectacular venues - and they have delivered. What struck me first was how difficult it is to build a venue that is large enough to host the Olympics, and yet not so large that it becomes a white elephant afterwards (e.g. Athens). The London facilities have been carefully designed so they can be massively reduced in size after the Games to avoid this - the stadium reducing from 90,000 seats to just 25,000 for example. This requires getting a tricky balance right between temporary and permanent structures. The second thing that struck me was the huge blocks of seating that have to be reserved for the press and Olympic dignitaries. These are very rarely full even during the Games. Nothing would annoy the British public more than stacks of empty seats when tickets have sold out. I know this is something the London 2012 team want to avoid. Final Olympic bit of trivia: you thought it was all over for competitors after their races? Not at all. They have to go straight from their races to a long penned walk through area (like airport check in queues) where journalists and TV crews fire questions at them. Fine for the winners, but must be grim for the rest.

...and reality sets in

Lunch with Tessa Jowell, then tennis and badminton. After the highs of yesterday's gold, reality has set in. Not because of Team GB's performance (although we weren't in any of the finals I saw). With 11 gold medals under our belt, we are well on our way to the best performance for over half a century. This will put us well on track for an inspiring performance in the medals league at London 2012. Seeing China's stellar performance here, you see that home teams really do have an advantage. Whether it is supportive crowds, or the fact that host nations tend to invest more in developing their own top talent, the effect is tangible - and will help us too in London. No my dose of reality has been to reflect on the huge responsibilities I will have should I be Culture Secretary after the next election.

This morning I went round the press and broadcasting centres, the greatest concentration of journalists anywhere in the world. All people who know a project of this size can go horribly wrong as well as brilliantly right. Seeing the big picture whilst showing enormous attention to detail, delegating but also rolling up your own sleeves, being the voice of the people to the Olympic establishment as well as leading a huge team of people delivering the games...these are challenges that are truly humbling. I am lucky to have a great Shadow Sports Minister Hugh Robertson to share them with. And I have absolutely no doubt at all that London will rise the challenge...judging by this week we may even bag a Santa's sackful of medals for Team GB in the process.

Tingle in the spine

Arrived yesterday morning for the first day of my four day trip to the Olympics. Am with Hugh Robertson and we are seeing what lessons we need to learn for London 2012.

The first question that crossed my mind was "have I landed in the right country?" The last time I came here was 12 years ago, when Beijing was a grey, bland monument to totalitarian brutalism. This time it felt more like arriving in Japan. A brand new Norman Foster-designed airport made Terminal 5 seem like a shed in the back garden. Helpful signs in English everywhere. And everyone smiling...not the Beijing - or indeed the China - that I had imprinted on my mind from backpacking days.

Sure there are signs of the ancien regime - but you do have to dig a bit. I cannot access ConservativeHome, the bible for MPs travelling abroad, let alone websites for Falun Gong or Free Tibet. But mostly what comes across is a country renewing itself with the extraordinary (and scary) fervour of one of the newest members of the capitalist club.

Yesterday I went to the rowing, a 40 minute drive from the centre of Beijing. This is one of our strongest sports, and I was thrilled to see Britain win two bronzes and a gold. Nothing quite prepares you for the emotion of hearing the national anthem played on foreign soil - like every Brit there I confess I had a real tingle in the spine. Thank you to Steve Williams, Tom James, Andy Hodge and Peter Reed in the Men's 4 who made it happen - and gave me a little Olympic magic on my first day.

> Jeremy Hunt MP: The ten questions I'll be seeking to answer in Beijing