Author Archives: GK Strategy

Is levelling up a Conservative priority again, and what should Labour do about it?

GK Associate Sam Tankard analyses the recent announcement from Levelling Up Secretary, Michael Gove, on the Government’s plans to boost urban regeneration and kickstart new development, and what we can understand from the Labour Party’s response. 

Michael Gove announced this week a long overdue relaxation of planning rules to boost urban regeneration, bringing life back into the Government’s neglected commitment to levelling up the UK. The plans include setting up more than a dozen new development corporations, that would be able to use compulsory purchase orders to boost building and attract investment, akin to the hugely successful regeneration of the London Docklands. It will also relax permitted development rights, making it easier for disused office buildings to be converted to residential, all of which should come as a welcome package of policies for developers, businesses, and aspiring homeowners alike, all keen to see the densification of key cities.

One of the flagship examples announced to bring forward new homes, is the proposal for a new Cambridge Urban Quarter. The Quarter is designed to couple gentle density seen in many European cities and parts of London, with improved landscaping and infrastructure, with the aim of unlocking investment in the city’s growth areas of life sciences and tech R&D. This is something the city has sorely missed out on over recent years, while international competitors like Boston have soared ahead.

Indeed, this set of policies is shrewdly targeted at voters most at risk of fleeing the Conservative Party to the Liberal Democrats, demonstrated by recent by-elections in Conservative heartlands. By focusing the message on urban development, it focuses any future housing development in building up density in cities rather than urban sprawl into green space. This combines neatly with Sunak’s recent commitment to protecting the Green Belt around cities, and criticising Labour for the opposite.

However, the limitation of the Green Belt poses a much bigger problem for all stakeholders, having traditionally driven housebuilding in out-of-town developments instead of expanding cities themselves, therefore often encouraging urban sprawl further.

If properly implemented with the ambitious devolution agenda that has been set out, including 20 regeneration zones and investment zones, we could see the investment into the built environment required to really level up our industrial centres. Sunak will also hope it appeals to the middle of the road millennial voters who feel they are being priced out of cities, as well as those who oppose new homes due to lack of infrastructure.

What is Labour’s response?

This presents a significant challenge to Labour, who themselves are being urged to embrace a new levelling up agenda, which has so far been absent from Starmer’s Five Missions. However, Shadow Levelling Up Secretary Lisa Nandy has openly committed to radical planning reform to boost building, including building on the Green Belt, restoring housing targets, and making social housing the second highest form of tenure. In response to Gove’s plans, Nandy has criticised the Government for offering more empty promises, and for overseeing housebuilding which is at the lowest rate since WWII. Importantly, however, levelling up goes beyond just housebuilding, and revolves significantly around investment into local public services, prioritising education and early years, as well as attracting and supporting businesses in growth areas.

Therefore, Labour needs to look to capitalise on the separation created between Conservatives and Labour on the issue of Green Belt development and be braver to articulate what is possible from a comprehensive levelling up programme. This programme must reflect the full suite of issues that comprise sustainable and equitable levelling up. This will not only present a more ambitious levelling up agenda that delivers on chronic housing supply issues, but also brings disillusioned renters with them.

GK Point of View: The NHS and Us

On the 75th anniversary of the National Health Service, GK Strategic Advisor and former Minister of State for Care Services, Phil Hope, reflects on the NHS in its current form and looks ahead to how the UK’s major political parties will position their offering for the health system. Find Phil’s commentary here: NHS 75th Anniversary

What would Labour do? Issue No.3

In the third edition of GK Strategy’s ‘What would Labour do?’ series, the GK team looks at Labour’s flagship energy policies, covering key announcements on energy generation, domestic decarbonisation and green investment, as well as the competing dynamics at the centre of the Party. Find GK’s report here: What would Labour do? – Issue No.3

The Draft Media Bill: A wolf in sheep’s clothing?

GK Consultant and resident specialist on digital policy, Robert Blackmore, takes a look at the recently published Draft Media Bill, and discusses one of the Bill’s most controversial aspects.

Little fanfare met the long-awaited publication of the Media Bill during the early hours of March 29th . This was perhaps not a surprise – it was, after all, published in draft form. Furthermore, the Government’s previously publicised decision to U-turn on its highly contentious proposal to privatise Channel 4 certainly took the ‘sting’ out of its release.

However, the importance of the legislation cannot be understated, and nor should the potential for it to become another front in the Government’s delicate attempt to balance freedom of expression with the ‘safety’ of its citizens.

But first, why is the Government proposing an update to media law?

The draft bill represents the Government’s understandable desire to refresh the rules that govern a broadcasting landscape that has altered dramatically since New Labour’s 2003 Communications Act.

Back in 2003, notwithstanding the ascendancy of Sky Television and its monopoly over coverage of the Premier League, the linear model of television consumption still dominated, and few questioned the prominence of the Public Sector Broadcasters (PSB), namely, the BBC, ITV, STV, S4C, Channel 4 and Channel 5. Ofcom define these broadcasters as those that deliver “impartial and trusted news, UK-originated programmes and distinctive content.”

Two decades on and the market has been transformed. 75% of households use online Video-on-Demand (VOD) platforms, such as Disney+ and Netflix, with few viewers limiting their media habits only to linear television channels. This, combined with the consolidation of the global broadcasting market by global media entities in recent years, has raised questions regarding whether PSBs are so “prominent” after all.

The draft bill proposes several solutions to the so called ‘crowding-out’ of PSBs. Some are relatively minor, such as compelling set-top boxes and streaming sticks to provide PSB VOD services with priority in terms of discoverability, while others more substantial, like allowing online programmes to count towards PSBs meeting their public service remit.

However, one proposal has proven particularly contentious and far-reaching.

With echoes of the Government’s attempt to reign in ‘global big tech’ through the Online Safety Bill, written into the draft Media Bill is an extension of Ofcom’s remit that would grant it regulatory oversight of global (‘Tier One’) VOD platforms with a UK customer base, likely to include the likes of Netflix and Amazon.

This would take the form of a new code of practice that would seek to protect audiences from ‘harmful content’ and place impartiality requirements on non-news programmes. Indeed, for the first time, a UK viewer would be able to file a complaint against a non-PSB VOD platforms, which if upheld, could lead to Ofcom issuing fines of up to £250,000.

For global VOD platforms that operate in the UK, such a proposal is an unwelcome development, and an example of what they would describe as ‘government overreach’.

At a recent Westminster Forum event, Benjamin King, UK and Ireland director of public policy at Netflix, stated this proposal could have a “chilling effect” on the provision of its service, and undermined “freedom of expression”. He cited that it would significantly undermine “Netflix’s appetite to make available our many documentaries, which are so beloved by UK members”. He also called for legislators to carefully reflect on attempts to transpose UK regulations across international content.

Mr King will have welcomed, therefore, that the publication of the Bill was in draft form. This (relatively unusual) step allows the Bill’s text to receive pre-legislative scrutiny, and a potential re-drafting, prior to its formal introduction to Parliament.

Legislators are not naïve to the concerns of global VOD platforms. The Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee immediately launched an inquiry into the draft bill in April. Amongst the questions the Committee highlighted in its terms of reference was: “Do the proposals in the draft Media Bill create any risks to UK’s desirability as a market for VoD content?” Interested parties have been granted the opportunity to feed into the inquiry via written evidence that will support the Committee in their scrutiny of the draft bill.

For their part, PSBs have broadly welcomed the proposals, with ITV crediting the draft Bill for providing them with the confidence to apply for a 10-year renewal to its PSB licence. However, they are also impatient for the Government to allocate parliamentary time to the Bill.

So what are the next steps for the draft Bill?

While it is believed that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is very keen for the Bill to be formally introduced in the 4th (and final) session of this Parliament, the legislative timetable is already highly concentrated. Indeed, if following the pre-legislative scrutiny the Government decides that major changes to the draft Bill are necessary, publication this side of an election (expected in 2024) could, ultimately, prove difficult.