The £2 broadband tax echoes Canada's 30¢ tax to save music

"Boy, hurting that new industry to save this dying one; that definitely won't backfire!" - Nobody, ever.

Remember when Canada introduced a compulsory levy on blank CDs to save the recorded music market, and how that totally made everything OK? Oh, you don't? 

Canada is one of a few countries which enacted what's known as a "private copying levy". Any "blank audio recording media", such as cassettes, CD-Rs, or MiniDiscs, is subject to a tax – of $0.29 per unit for CD-Rs, and $0.24 per unit for cassettes.

In a way, it's very similar to David Leigh's proposal to save journalism. Charge a levy on the new technology which is eating the old, and save the "valuable" incumbent at the expense of the upstart new entrant. In fact, it's better than Leigh's proposal; most audio recording media does have music on it, whereas very little internet bandwidth is used for news (if we were being fair about where the money goes, most of that £2 would subsidise porn – which is also suffering under the yoke of the internet).

So how did the levy do? It saved the Canadian recording industry, right? Not so much:

Source

The money taken from downloads is actually on the up in Canada, as with everywhere else; and eventually, the industry will recalibrate around this new funding source. But to pretend that state funding – particularly state funding based on a tax of an unrelated resource – can save the industry is sadly wishful thinking.

Newspapers pile up on the street floor. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn prompts Tory outrage as he blames Grenfell Tower fire on austerity

To Conservative cries of "shame on you!", the Labour leader warned that "we all pay a price in public safety" for spending cuts.

A fortnight after the Grenfell Tower fire erupted, the tragedy continues to cast a shadow over British politics. Rather than probing Theresa May on the DUP deal, Jeremy Corbyn asked a series of forensic questions on the incident, in which at least 79 people are confirmed to have died.

In the first PMQs of the new parliament, May revealed that the number of buildings that had failed fire safety tests had risen to 120 (a 100 per cent failure rate) and that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was "non-compliant" with building regulations (Corbyn had asked whether it was "legal").

After several factual questions, the Labour leader rose to his political argument. To cries of "shame on you!" from Tory MPs, he warned that local authority cuts of 40 per cent meant "we all pay a price in public safety". Corbyn added: “What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is the disastrous effects of austerity. The disregard for working-class communities, the terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners." Corbyn noted that 11,000 firefighters had been cut and that the public sector pay cap (which Labour has tabled a Queen's Speech amendment against) was hindering recruitment. "This disaster must be a wake-up call," he concluded.

But May, who fared better than many expected, had a ready retort. "The cladding of tower blocks did not start under this government, it did not start under the previous coalition governments, the cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government," she said. “In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'." In this regard, however, Corbyn's lack of frontbench experience is a virtue – no action by the last Labour government can be pinned on him. 

Whether or not the Conservatives accept the link between Grenfell and austerity, their reluctance to defend continued cuts shows an awareness of how politically vulnerable they have become (No10 has announced that the public sector pay cap is under review).

Though Tory MP Philip Davies accused May of having an "aversion" to policies "that might be popular with the public" (he demanded the abolition of the 0.7 per cent foreign aid target), there was little dissent from the backbenches – reflecting the new consensus that the Prime Minister is safe (in the absence of an attractive alternative).

And May, whose jokes sometimes fall painfully flat, was able to accuse Corbyn of saying "one thing to the many and another thing to the few" in reference to his alleged Trident comments to Glastonbury festival founder Michael Eavis. But the Labour leader, no longer looking fearfully over his shoulder, displayed his increased authority today. Though the Conservatives may jeer him, the lingering fear in Tory minds is that they and the country are on divergent paths. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496