Latest news with #neo-Thatcherite
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Harry Potter was filmed in Britain but made a fortune for Americans – Trump's film tariffs make no sense
Now I don't want to alarm anyone. But I'm starting to wonder if Donald Trump might have posted something on the internet without thinking through its implications beforehand. The President's proposal to levy 100 per cent tariffs 'on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands' sounds, on the face of it, like an attempt to shore up another struggling area of US manufacturing – namely Hollywood films that are made in Hollywood itself. Because of enticing tax incentives, top-tier facilities and highly skilled local workforces in places like the UK, Canada and Eastern Europe, studios have for many years been shooting and finishing their most expensive productions overseas. Even the most glaringly American movies are, these days, rarely all that American. Baz Luhrmann's Elvis swivelled his hips not in Memphis and Vegas, but on Australia's Gold Coast. Barbieland was built in Hertfordshire, about eight miles down the road from St Albans. This phenomenon, known as runaway production, is the sort of neo-Thatcherite arrangement that fiscal conservatives should love. Take the example of the Harry Potter franchise: a US studio, Warner Bros, buys the rights to a British series of novels, shoots them in the UK with an international cast and crew, generating huge investment in the local economy, then releases them worldwide and makes a fortune. All profits then flow back to the US-based studio itself, so they can happily repeat the exercise 15 years later when they remake the thing as a streaming series. Economically, everybody wins. But the claim that this means other nations have stolen America's film industry is obviously ludicrous: if anything, America's film industry has annexed theirs. And they – meaning we – are at peace with that. First because it's good for business. But also because it means Hogwarts can look like Alnwick Castle, Durham Cathedral and so on, rather than a computer-generated Skeletor's Fortress in the middle of Grizzly Creek Redwoods State Park. Presumably when Trump talks about tariffs in this instance – and much presuming is required, given the total incoherence of the announcement – he means hitting the studios with levies that would cancel out any tax breaks they receive overseas. And one of two possible consequences would flow from this. Either we'd see a grim (but temporary) fallow period for the entertainment business, as the studios build the facilities and staff they need at home: bad news for UK crew, who just weathered one of these due to the 2023 strikes. Or, more likely, we'd see a simple corporate abandoning of ship, as the studios establish bases of operations overseas instead and carry on in exile as before. The films themselves will still be made; the appetites of the international market (which far eclipses the American domestic one) will make sure of that. And US distributors themselves should be fine, since films are digital goods, and therefore exempt from tariffs in line with a World Trade Organisation moratorium on imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, which has been in place since 1998. True, the Trump administration might find a workaround for this, but the cost would ultimately be borne by American cinema-goers, as ticket prices increased to fund the latest Maga tax. The film industry's output can't be divided into American and Other: the business is simply too interconnected for that. Ultimately, the only credible way for Trump to crush the alleged 'national security threat' of, say, the Minecraft movie being shot in New Zealand is by offering federal tax credits that would make it worthwhile to shoot the thing in Los Angeles instead. Impotent flailing might play well with the base, but cinema is one area in which tariffs will cause far more misery at home than abroad. Trump's attempt to save film production in America might prove the final nail in its coffin. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
05-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Harry Potter was filmed in Britain but made a fortune for Americans – Trump's film tariffs make no sense
Now I don't want to alarm anyone. But I'm starting to wonder if Donald Trump might have posted something on the internet without thinking through its implications beforehand. The President's proposal to levy 100 per cent tariffs 'on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands' sounds, on the face of it, like an attempt to shore up another struggling area of US manufacturing – namely Hollywood films that are made in Hollywood itself. Because of enticing tax incentives, top-tier facilities and highly skilled local workforces in places like the UK, Canada and Eastern Europe, studios have for many years been shooting and finishing their most expensive productions overseas. Even the most glaringly American movies are, these days, rarely all that American. Baz Luhrmann's Elvis swivelled his hips not in Memphis and Vegas, but on Australia's Gold Coast. Barbieland was built in Hertfordshire, about eight miles down the road from St Albans. This phenomenon, known as runaway production, is the sort of neo-Thatcherite arrangement that fiscal conservatives should love. Take the example of the Harry Potter franchise: a US studio, Warner Bros, buys the rights to a British series of novels, shoots them in the UK with an international cast and crew, generating huge investment in the local economy, then releases them worldwide and makes a fortune. All profits then flow back to the US-based studio itself, so they can happily repeat the exercise 15 years later when they remake the thing as a streaming series. Economically, everybody wins. But the claim that this means other nations have stolen America's film industry is obviously ludicrous: if anything, America's film industry has annexed theirs. And they – meaning we – are at peace with that. First because it's good for business. But also because it means Hogwarts can look like Alnwick Castle, Durham Cathedral and so on, rather than a computer-generated Skeletor's Fortress in the middle of Grizzly Creek Redwoods State Park. Presumably when Trump talks about tariffs in this instance – and much presuming is required, given the total incoherence of the announcement – he means hitting the studios with levies that would cancel out any tax breaks they receive overseas. And one of two possible consequences would flow from this. Either we'd see a grim (but temporary) fallow period for the entertainment business, as the studios build the facilities and staff they need at home: bad news for UK crew, who just weathered one of these due to the 2023 strikes. Or, more likely, we'd see a simple corporate abandoning of ship, as the studios establish bases of operations overseas instead and carry on in exile as before. The films themselves will still be made; the appetites of the international market (which far eclipses the American domestic one) will make sure of that. And US distributors themselves should be fine, since films are digital goods, and therefore exempt from tariffs in line with a World Trade Organisation moratorium on imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, which has been in place since 1998. True, the Trump administration might find a workaround for this, but the cost would ultimately be borne by American cinema-goers, as ticket prices increased to fund the latest Maga tax. Donald Trump claims he is placing a 100% tariff on all films produced outside of America that are brought into the country. "Any and all movies coming into our country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!" — DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) May 4, 2025 The film industry's output can't be divided into American and Other: the business is simply too interconnected for that. Ultimately, the only credible way for Trump to crush the alleged 'national security threat' of, say, the Minecraft movie being shot in New Zealand is by offering federal tax credits that would make it worthwhile to shoot the thing in Los Angeles instead. Impotent flailing might play well with the base, but cinema is one area in which tariffs will cause far more misery at home than abroad. Trump's attempt to save film production in America might prove the final nail in its coffin.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Labour's welfare reforms are too little to stop Britain's imminent bankruptcy
Forgive me if I don't subscribe to the apotheosis of St Keir the Convert, who won the Labour leadership just five years ago on an avowedly Left-wing platform. I simply do not believe he has suddenly morphed into a neo-Thatcherite, small-state, low-tax, regulation-hating, enterprise-friendly, economically liberal politician and, to be fair, neither does the prime minister himself. He remains an old-style collectivist driven towards public sector reform by the need to find savings in parlous fiscal circumstances, not an apostate ready to abandon his cherished socialist nostrums. Those who detect a rightward shift in Labour's approach to welfare reform and the NHS need to define what they mean. Sir Keir believes the answer is more 'active government' while many of his backbenchers don't want any cuts. But there are some signs that a burning bush was encountered on the road to Islington, or rhetorically at any rate. Talking about welfare reform in moral and not just economic terms is long overdue. While cutting the amount paid out in benefits is essential it is not sufficient because the underlying causes of the expansion will not be addressed. That requires a complete rethink of what the welfare state is for, what it does and who it is meant to help. Labour tried this before, 25 years ago. The late Frank Field MP was famously tasked by Tony Blair to 'think the unthinkable' about welfare reform only to be sacked when he did. The debate is always framed in terms of how people 'trapped on benefits' really want to work but are prevented from doing so by lack of training opportunities, suitable jobs or poor qualifications. This may well be true in many cases but everyone knows that large numbers are living on benefits because they provide enough money to make working in a low-paid job make little sense. If you pay people not to work then they won't. While there are people unable to work because of physical disability or severe mental impairment – what in a far-off day were called the 'deserving poor' – others are gaming the system to avoid doing so and it is naive or wilfully misleading to pretend otherwise, though Ms Kendall continues to do so. Field, a man of deep Christian faith, wanted a system that harked back to the contributory principles that underpinned the Beveridge report on which the welfare state was built. He believed strongly that people should not get something for nothing but was not thanked for saying so in a world in which rights and entitlements were tenets of the new religion. He argued that if welfare was to be contained, the contributory insurance principle must be restored to the National Insurance system. If you did the right thing you would be supported through an insurance-based system, with a clear relationship between paying your dues and obtaining help when needed. Field foresaw that the time would come when voters were no longer prepared to pay for welfare if the costs continued to soar, yet even the Kendall reforms will make little difference. They are supposed to save £5 billion by 2030, assuming Labour MPs do not block them, but that is just a drop in the ocean set against the overall £100 billion. Half a century of rampant welfarism has had enormous consequences, both societal by creating a sense of entitlement that allows generations to live without working, and economic. The main reason why we have run an almost permanent deficit since the 1960s has been the explosion of entitlements following the break with the something-for-something contributory principle espoused by Beveridge. The state gives money to people because of who they are rather than what they need, irrespective of what they have put into the system. Once these commitments are made they are set in stone and cannot be undone without a monumental political fight. Almost everyone accepts the need for a safety net to help people when they get into difficulties or cannot fend for themselves through no fault of their own. But this largesse does not extend to people who are perceived to be abusing the system. We have lost the old belief that to take something out you should be willing to put something in unless you are simply unable to do so. Once, the incentive to do so was an overriding desire to avoid the disapproval that society would direct towards those deemed to have behaved fecklessly. Rights were always balanced by duties and responsibilities. Today we are reluctant to pass judgment on others and are paying a high price for our reticence. Over time entitlements have supplanted contributory benefits and given rise to resentment among the people who pay the taxes to fund them, who are in turn dissatisfied with the standard of services they receive from the state. If Labour were truly radical it would introduce insurance-backed savings schemes in which contributions from employers and employees are held in individual accounts which can be invested to fund retirement or hospitalisation costs. People could get better schooling for their children and higher levels of health and social care for themselves if they could spend more of their money on what they wanted rather than what they are given. The state would spend less as a proportion of national wealth but would be able to direct more help to the poor and needy. We have spent the past four decades relentlessly cutting the things the state is supposed to provide, like defence, policing and infrastructure, while being locked into a political arms race to see which party can promise more people more things they could and should do for themselves. Yet depressingly, we learn that four in 10 young people say they might give up on work and live on welfare, while one million foreign nationals are claiming benefits even though immigrants are supposed to be able to fend for themselves without being a burden on the state. This was a once-in-a-generation chance to do something about this mess but Labour ducked it. The current taxpayer-funded provision of benefits is unsustainable and Ms Kendall's technocratic reforms will barely scratch the surface of a problem that will eventually bankrupt the economy. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's welfare reforms are too little to stop Britain's imminent bankruptcy
Forgive me if I don't subscribe to the apotheosis of St Keir the Convert, who won the Labour leadership just five years ago on an avowedly Left-wing platform. I simply do not believe he has suddenly morphed into a neo-Thatcherite, small-state, low-tax, regulation-hating, enterprise-friendly, economically liberal politician and, to be fair, neither does the prime minister himself. He remains an old-style collectivist driven towards public sector reform by the need to find savings in parlous fiscal circumstances, not an apostate ready to abandon his cherished socialist nostrums. Those who detect a rightward shift in Labour's approach to welfare reform and the NHS need to define what they mean. Sir Keir believes the answer is more 'active government' while many of his backbenchers don't want any cuts. But there are some signs that a burning bush was encountered on the road to Islington, or rhetorically at any rate. Talking about welfare reform in moral and not just economic terms is long overdue. While cutting the amount paid out in benefits is essential it is not sufficient because the underlying causes of the expansion will not be addressed. That requires a complete rethink of what the welfare state is for, what it does and who it is meant to help. Labour tried this before, 25 years ago. The late Frank Field MP was famously tasked by Tony Blair to 'think the unthinkable' about welfare reform only to be sacked when he did. The debate is always framed in terms of how people 'trapped on benefits' really want to work but are prevented from doing so by lack of training opportunities, suitable jobs or poor qualifications. This may well be true in many cases but everyone knows that large numbers are living on benefits because they provide enough money to make working in a low-paid job make little sense. If you pay people not to work then they won't. While there are people unable to work because of physical disability or severe mental impairment – what in a far-off day were called the 'deserving poor' – others are gaming the system to avoid doing so and it is naive or wilfully misleading to pretend otherwise, though Ms Kendall continues to do so. Field, a man of deep Christian faith, wanted a system that harked back to the contributory principles that underpinned the Beveridge report on which the welfare state was built. He believed strongly that people should not get something for nothing but was not thanked for saying so in a world in which rights and entitlements were tenets of the new religion. He argued that if welfare was to be contained, the contributory insurance principle must be restored to the National Insurance system. If you did the right thing you would be supported through an insurance-based system, with a clear relationship between paying your dues and obtaining help when needed. Field foresaw that the time would come when voters were no longer prepared to pay for welfare if the costs continued to soar, yet even the Kendall reforms will make little difference. They are supposed to save £5 billion by 2030, assuming Labour MPs do not block them, but that is just a drop in the ocean set against the overall £100 billion. Half a century of rampant welfarism has had enormous consequences, both societal by creating a sense of entitlement that allows generations to live without working, and economic. The main reason why we have run an almost permanent deficit since the 1960s has been the explosion of entitlements following the break with the something-for-something contributory principle espoused by Beveridge. The state gives money to people because of who they are rather than what they need, irrespective of what they have put into the system. Once these commitments are made they are set in stone and cannot be undone without a monumental political fight. Almost everyone accepts the need for a safety net to help people when they get into difficulties or cannot fend for themselves through no fault of their own. But this largesse does not extend to people who are perceived to be abusing the system. We have lost the old belief that to take something out you should be willing to put something in unless you are simply unable to do so. Once, the incentive to do so was an overriding desire to avoid the disapproval that society would direct towards those deemed to have behaved fecklessly. Rights were always balanced by duties and responsibilities. Today we are reluctant to pass judgment on others and are paying a high price for our reticence. Over time entitlements have supplanted contributory benefits and given rise to resentment among the people who pay the taxes to fund them, who are in turn dissatisfied with the standard of services they receive from the state. If Labour were truly radical it would introduce insurance-backed savings schemes in which contributions from employers and employees are held in individual accounts which can be invested to fund retirement or hospitalisation costs. People could get better schooling for their children and higher levels of health and social care for themselves if they could spend more of their money on what they wanted rather than what they are given. The state would spend less as a proportion of national wealth but would be able to direct more help to the poor and needy. We have spent the past four decades relentlessly cutting the things the state is supposed to provide, like defence, policing and infrastructure, while being locked into a political arms race to see which party can promise more people more things they could and should do for themselves. Yet depressingly, we learn that four in 10 young people say they might give up on work and live on welfare, while one million foreign nationals are claiming benefits even though immigrants are supposed to be able to fend for themselves without being a burden on the state. This was a once-in-a-generation chance to do something about this mess but Labour ducked it. The current taxpayer-funded provision of benefits is unsustainable and Ms Kendall's technocratic reforms will barely scratch the surface of a problem that will eventually bankrupt the economy.
