Suppose the viewers of @Channel4 really did not want to watch a Murdoch / Amazon / Netflix / Apple owned channel in the future and decided to do something about it. Suppose they decided to buy it instead…. a thread…..
@Channel4 has been put up for sale by Nadine Dorries. The idea horrifies many. No one but a few dogmatists on the far-right of politics can see a gain from this. They, though, want another platform for their message. Suppose the viewers decided to stop them. Could they?
Clearly they could. At a maximum 7 million people watch @Channel4 (the Bake Off). @Channel4News manages an average of 750,000. Let’s suppose the latter number really care about the future of the Channel.
£1 billion split between 750,000 people is £1,333 each. Now suppose a new company was created by those wanting to preserve the ethos of the channel and people were invited to subscribe. The minimum sub would be £25. The maximum might be £100,000 to prevent any risk of influence.
The structure would make this a refundable share capital, but on which interest might be paid at up to 3% a year, but only if profit was made. This is technically possible.
Would it be possible that such a company could find sufficient subscribers to buy the channel? I suspect that at least 100,000 people might be required. Many more than that have already signed petitions opposing privatisation.
There is £8.4 trillion of financial wealth in the UK. The owners of some of that must want to put it to social use to hold back the tide of neoliberalism that underpins the idea that all news media must be owned by large corporations or individuals with a right-wing message.
The idea would require some guarantors who would risk funding the bid. The subscribers would not be asked for their money until there was a real chance of winning. But surely those guarantors might also be found?
In that case, what about a public bid for Channel 4? It could be done. So why not try it? And would the government really ignore such a movement if it could show mass popular support?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Richard Murphy

Richard Murphy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RichardJMurphy

Apr 8
I spent yesterday writing about the technicalities of domicile as they might impact Rishi Sunak’s wife. But that’s because her tax decisions cast doubt on his suitability for office. Another thread, this time in the man himself ….
Sunak shot to prominence in 2020 when appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although not quite unknown before then, few had paid him much attention.
Even his appointment as Chancellor looked as much like luck as anything else. He’d managed to be promoted through the ranks of obscure ministers to hold the number 2 position at the Treasury when Sajid Javid resigned. Appointing him saved a reshuffle, so he got the job.
Read 29 tweets
Apr 7
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
I need to report what a spokeswoman for Murthy has said, which was: “Akshata Murthy is a citizen of India, the country of her birth and parents’ home. India does not allow its citizens to hold the citizenship of another country simultaneously. (Continues in next tweet)
So, according to British law, Ms Murthy is treated as non-domiciled for UK tax purposes. She has always and will continue to pay UK taxes on all her UK income.” I would have hoped that Ms Murthy could buy advice that was right, but this statement is wrong.
Read 23 tweets
Apr 3
It would cost around £50 billion to save people from the hunger, the cold, the poverty and the despair they are now facing. That money is available tonight. It would take a few keystrokes on a Bank of England keyboard to create it, instantly. So why won’t the government do it?
I am sure some will say this is just the magic money tree at work. And in the very short term it is, just as was used to get us through Covid. But in this case money creation would save the economy from collapse as the people heading for poverty could continue to spend.
And when you ensure that millions of families can continue to spend what they would otherwise be unable to do then you provide millions of others with the income they need to prevent them going into poverty too. In economics we call this the multiplier effect.
Read 9 tweets
Mar 28
Sunak's claim that he can't afford the cost of more borrowing is fabricated and involves inappropriate accounting for the cost of paying off index-linked bonds maybe many years from now. If inflation falls between now and then, which is likely, the Treasury will get a bonanza
In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting that interest costs will tumble to new record low levels in a couple of years for precisely this reason. Now guess what Sunak will do with the fall in his interest costs at that time?
Will he give a bonus to those he is pushing into poverty now or will he cut taxes for the best off just before an election? I think you know the answer to that. So does he. So don't be fooled by any of his claims as to unaffordability right now. They're fabricated nonsense.
Read 23 tweets
Mar 26
There is a growing and numbing realisation of just how bad Sunak's budget really was. Worse, he’s even now saying that there is nothing he can do about poverty. This is a long thread to explain why he’s failing and what we can do about it if we want to change our politics.
For those who don’t want to read a long Twitter thread there is a blog version here. taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/03/2… if you want a summary of the whole thread it’s this: the neoliberal thinking that all our main political parties subscribe to is now bankrupt. We need something new now.
Sunak faced a challenge this week. A winning Chancellor has to decide how to secure the support their party needs to win elections. In that case there will always be winners and losers in a budget. So Sunak had to make decisions.
Read 140 tweets
Mar 21
I'm seeing some confused comments from people on the left of centre on appropriate reactions to the current cost of living crisis. It's OK to be green, of course (I am) and to want to beat inequality (I do) but in the short term we have to beat inflation. A short thread….
I am troubled that some obviously green commentators are saying we should not be subsidising fossil fuel prices right now. Trust me, I want to cut emissions. But I don’t want people to starve, freeze, lose their livelihoods, and collapse into debt, so subsidies are essential.
That’s because it’s not green to persecute people for the profit exploitation that's driving up all energy costs right now. Instead we have to buy time to put in place policy to beat that exploitation whilst also proposing all the green remedies needed to wean us of fossil fuels
Read 18 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(