ConservativeHome's 100policies

Aristeides: Three for the road

> Policy summary

Three simple road transport policies to enhance the experience of road users in the UK: raising the speed limit on motorways, introducing countdowns on traffic lights and reforming the vehicle registration system.

> Policy explanation

Road users are the poor relations of Britain’s transport system. Encumbered with ever more irritating obstacles and road signs, entrapped by ever more sophisticated spy and camera apparatus, and taxed at astronomically high levels, the average road user could use a few breaks. The experience of vehicle ownership and usage should be altogether less burdensome.

The first policy would be to raise the speed limit to 80mph for cars on the open motorway. The current limit is hopelessly out of date and barely observed. Advances in car and road safety have been huge in the time since the 70mph limit was invented, and it is time this obsolete level was changed to something approaching realistic. Dynamic limits on motorways during hours of congestion are the absolute norm already, so there is no sense in which this could be construed as irresponsible. This policy would also support the introduction of variable speed limits to reflect conditions on the road, although they are generally (but not compulsorily) advised on most stretches of motorway these days. Those who wish to continue to drive at 70mph would be free to do so.

The second policy would be to abolish amber on traffic signal. This quaintly confusing “Ready, Steady, Go” signal could quickly be replaced with proper signalling of the time, counted down in seconds, until the lights are to change. This improved level of information will help all traffic at junctions, as well as pedestrians, and it will stop unnecessary revving of engines and vehicle creep in anticipation of the lights changing.

The third policy would be to change the vehicle licensing and number plate systems. The number plate system is an almost purely state command and control system, with bizarre and unmemorable registrations being doled out at the state’s illogical whim, whilst it profits from undermining its own system with “cherished” numbers. 

If the state gave out email addresses in the same way, it would make you have to have the year 01 in it, even if you were born in January 2002, and if you were born in Luton or Northampton, the address would have to start with a K. The second hand car market makes it pointless to have the vehicle’s origin suggested in the number plate anyway.

The whole daft system needs to be scrapped and replaced with vehicle registrations at the choice of the vehicle owner, just like choosing an email address. There would be a higher annual charge for the fewer numbers and digits used. The licensing system would be merged with the number plate system with a single yearly charge to abolish the need for tax discs. In other words a seven digit registration such as NEWCAR1 would cost £110 or £175, depending on the size of the engine, minus the administrative savings. The registration CAR 1 would cost, say, £310 or £375 per year. Random seven letter registrations could obviously be generated for those who do not wish to choose their own, as it is appreciated that some people do not like to make a choice, even when offered one. All existing registrations would be charged at the £110/£175 rate until non-renewal or transfer.

Furthermore, anyone should be able to manage payments and documentation for renewal over the internet, without having to send a clutch of important documents to be lost in Swansea. DVLA systems already integrate with insurers and the MOT system, so cross checking documents is no longer necessary.

> Political risks and opportunities

The political opportunity here is to get votes from frustrated road users who will understand and support clear, simple and commonsensical road policies. These are the sort of policies people will think “I wonder why we didn’t do this years ago?” about.

The political risk it that one will get bogged down in arguments with road safety and environmentalist fanatics, for whom anything which does not make life harder for road users cannot be contemplated.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Is 80 mph the right upper limit for motorways, or should it be 90mph?
• Have you seen traffic light countdowns being trialled anywhere in the UK?
• Does anyone consider the current car number plate system logical or comprehensible?

> Costs

Raising the speed limit on motorways would cost practically nothing as national speed limit signs were designed with potential changes in mind. The benefits in reduction of congestion and journey times would be of some benefit to the overall economy.

Changing traffic lights from the amber system to a countdown system could be done in the course of normal maintenance to signalling systems. The software required to operate the LEDs should really not be very costly. Indeed, countdown systems are quite common in countries such as Thailand and India, so they cannot be too expensive.

The number plate system would deliver efficiency savings via the abolition of tax discs and the bureaucracy that comes with them. The annual registration fee would be aimed at being revenue neutral after the cost savings with an equivalent bonus to the Treasury for income generated by plates with a lower number of letters and numerals to that gained today by the sale of “cherished” numbers. It would not be the specific aim of this policy to change the different initial rates for different car engine sizes.

Overall, these policies are designed to make road usage and vehicle ownership a more human and user-friendly experience, with greater consumer choice.

Phil Taylor: Untax the poor

Phil Taylor (blog) runs a small business in Hammersmith and is a councillor for the Northfield ward.

> Policy summary 

Untax the poor - pay no tax or NI until you earn £10K.

> Policy explanation

Right now the worst paid in our country, and typically the worst able or inclined to deal with the "system", have to deal with it twice.   They have to pay income tax and National Insurance at a stupidly low threshold of only £5,035 per annum, or barely £100 per week.  They then have to get snared in Gordon Brown's evil tax credit system to get some of their money back.  Not only does this waste the time and lower the quality of life of the low paid but thousands of bureaucrats have rubbish jobs in battery offices taking money off people and giving it back to them and dealing with all their problems.  The whole edifice is a waste of life.

The new adult rate for the minimum wage came into force last October.  £5.35 per hour.  Anyone working a 37.5 hour week on the minimum wage is earning £10,432.50 and paying £931.79 in income tax.  Our munificent chancellor will gives a single person over 25 years old £421.31 in Working Tax Credit, meaning they make a net payment of £510.48.  This represents a net rate of tax of 4.89%, a rate that is increasing steeply with fiscal drag (see table attached).

The Office of National Statistics' Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) for 2005 shows that average (mean) annual income for all workers in the UK are £23,400.  What they call the 25 percentile is £11,513. In other words 25% of their sample earned £11,513 or less.  This is the minimum wage territory.

By setting the tax and NI thresholds at around £10K we would take almost 25% of workers out of the tax system.  As a side effect we would increase incentives to get into work as the attraction of keeping your own money is great compared to getting benefits or taking on low paid work and having to claim means-tested benefits to make ends meet.

Lost revenue would be replaced by reducing or even eliminating GB's system of tax credits.  Savings in terms of cost of collecting tax and NI from itinerant, low paid workers would be significant both for the state but also employers.  If there were still a shortfall we should look at indirect taxes and new environmental taxes but untaxing the poor should be our priority.

> Political risks and opportunities  

Risks: Would be expensive in terms of short term lost revenue that would need to be replaced. Might look like LibDem policy but they only propose to remove lower rate of tax.

Opportunities: Strong message to the disenfranchised and the underclass that the ladder is being lowered down. Reinforces change message because it prioritises the lowest paid

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you feel that it is right to exclude the poor from paying tax? 
• When should people start to make a contribution?
• Should we keep tax credits for children? 
• Should family life be recognised through allowances (for all) rather than tax credits (for the poor only)? 

> Costs

Working out the cost of this would be a job for the IFS rather than me! Clearly it would be costly but it could be argued, Laffer style, that additional incentives to work, increases in indirect taxes, corporation tax, etc would, over time give rise to a net increase in government revenues. Much of the cost, as I have said already, could be recovered by dismantling the tax credit system and not having to deal with the least capable in society.

David Cooper: Opposing road pricing and tracking

David is a solicitor who has practised in employment law for 20 years, advising many small and medium sized businesses, and is a branch chairman of the party in South Staffordshire.

> Policy summary

Clear and robust opposition to the Government’s stated intention to introduce road pricing and vehicle tracking (“RPVT”).

> Policy explanation

The broad reasons to oppose RPVT – another tax increase upon already overtaxed motorists (promises of revenue neutrality ring very hollow indeed), the fact that fuel tax already reflects mileage, Government “form” on infrastructure overspends and poor results from technology based projects, and the onward march of the surveillance society and the Bully State – are well rehearsed. A number of further detailed grounds, non-exhaustive and possibly overlapping, are set out below. Some may sound trivial and far fetched but there are analogies with the time honoured principle of today’s satire becoming tomorrow’s reality!

Economic Damage: -

1. Areas served mainly by premium rate roads would become wastelands as their business occupants moved out or ceased trading.

2. Job mobility would decline as a result of increased disincentive to drive to better paid work, with income tax revenue falling in parallel.

3. Great hardship for key workers who needed to drive but could not charge for their overheads, e.g. doctors, health visitors. Exemptions would be perceived as unfair and open to abuse.

4. Mobile service industry (e.g. home deliveries, tradesmen) severely affected as higher overheads were passed on to end users who then reduced or stopped their custom.

5. Consequential unemployment as disposable incomes fell, and inflation as the worst affected sought to recover their increased overheads via higher prices.

6. Possible “last straw” inspiring more high earners to emigrate. 

Hidden Costs and Inefficiencies: -

1. Unproductive public sector payroll increased – car inspectors, camera watchers, data processors, etc.

2. Drivers’ time and resources wasted in attending for fitting of in car monitoring devices. Insult to injury if drivers forced to pay for the devices.

Increased Crime: -

1. Risk of more “hot cars” on the road, untaxed and uninsured, with consequential effect of their involvement in accidents – all the more so if the inevitable increase in the cost of driving instruction led to more unqualified drivers on the roads.

2. No guarantee of data security, e.g. dishonest camera watchers passing details of airport car park users to burglars.

General Law of Unintended Consequences: -

1. Congestion not cured but only moved to non-premium rate roads.

2. Adverse effect on tourist areas poorly served by rail, e.g. Cornwall, Lake District.

3. Risk of serious injustice from system errors, number plate cloning etc.

4. Disincentive for leisure pursuits needing car travel, e.g. sport, out of hours school activities – indirectly, a less healthy nation.

5. Family ties weakened (e.g. deterrent to visit far flung parents in rural areas) and pensioners virtually imprisoned.

> Political risks and opportunities

With our party’s prior support (albeit lukewarm?) for the principle of road charging, misguided as many may have believed this, a fresh policy of unequivocal opposition to RPVT might inspire more allegations of “flip flopping” and “not wanting to save the planet”. Indeed, the grounds for opposing RPVT may be dismissed as scaremongering. We should not hold back on asserting that the grounds for its introduction are far more deserving of that charge, indeed that they amount to a giant confidence trick.

This is, of course, a policy of opposition and does not expressly set out to propose an alternative. The principle remains that the status quo is infinitely better than RPVT. A general question for Conservative Home readers may be “what practical measures not involving further high tax and erosion of freedom would it be better to take against the perceived problem?”

To the extent that face may need saving, there may be no problem confirming that if individual cities wanted to consider such schemes (and felt that they could live with the local consequences), a Conservative government would not stand in their way as long as this had no nationwide effects.

With the Downing Street petition opposing Labour’s RPVT proposals now exceeding 1,600,000, we surely would not want UKIP to tune into the popular mood by proclaiming themselves the only party to be unequivocally opposed to RPVT.

There is every advantage in putting clear blue water between our party and a manifestly unpopular scheme such as this. “No mobility tax/no Big Brother in your car under the Conservatives” is clear and distinct, consistent with our renewed robust opposition to ID cards and our ideal role as a party of incentives and not penalties, and a vote winner through and through. 

Avoiding the massive civil disobedience that might flow from RPVT going live must be a good incentive too (!).

Put at its simplest, RPVT would make our lives a misery. There are great gains to be made from clear, unequivocal and principled opposition to it now.

> Costs

In the first place, look at the savings of not implementing RPVT. The writing off of anything spent on it by Labour prior to its scrapping is a relatively minor issue (think of ID cards again and the marker we have just put down on that issue).

If a fraction of what would otherwise be committed to the infrastructure of RPVT was diverted towards driver friendly road improvements and better rail service, all well and good.

The supposed net profit from RPVT should be ignored in context. Leaving aside the inherent unfairness of such a further tax rise, it is well known that the only other example of road pricing in the UK – London’s Con Charge – is notoriously poor value for money and arguably only profits from penalties and fines.

 

Russell King: Bringing the school year into the 21st century

Russell is a Councillor for Balham Ward, Wandsworth.

> Policy summary

Our current school year consisting of three school terms with a long summer holiday originates from the need to have the children working in the fields during harvest time. I believe that in the 21st century a school year that reflects the economic needs of a modern dynamic economy would brings benefits to parents, kids, teachers and the taxpayer.

Conceptually my proposal is very straight forward - I am simply aligning the school year with the business year. There will no longer be school holidays. However, children will not be in the classroom for any longer than they are now. The extra time available to schools will be used for extracurricular activities such as sports, music and community work (potentially children who are behind in their academic subjects could sacrifice extracurricular time in order to catch up).

> Policy explanation

There are several problems with the current school year:

Impacts on teachers – anybody who knows teachers will be able to tell you that by the end of a school term teachers are exhausted and close to burn out. This is due to the nature of the school year. In effect we ask teachers to cram a full years teaching into about forty weeks. The only way that teachers can do this is to burn themselves out during term time by working excessive hours and then spending the holidays recovering. This is not a healthy lifestyle and has significant impacts on the quality of our education system. First of all, the quality of teaching inevitably deteriorates as teachers get more tired towards the end of term. Secondly, it leads to a very high incidence of stress related absenteeism amongst teachers and thirdly, it results in many teachers leaving the profession prematurely either through early retirement (in order to prevent burn out) or leaving in order to change their lifestyle.

Impacts on Parents – the main impact on parents is a financial one. During the school holidays many working parents have to pay for expensive childcare in order to continue to work. Additionally, holidays for parents and their children are very expensive because everyone is going away at the same time. 

Impacts on Children – the impacts on children can be seen in two areas. First of all, their education suffers as their teachers are often tired and they have to cram in their learning into forty weeks. Secondly, during the school holidays many children (especially those in more deprived areas), participate in unstructured (and often destructive) activities. This increases social problems such as obesity, anti-social behaviour and outright criminality.

Impacts on Taxpayers – we continue to get poor value for money from our education system, which fails to turn out highly educated children well prepared for the economy of the 21st century.

> Political risks and opportunities

The biggest single risk is how teachers will respond to these proposals. Although, I believe that there are significant advantages for teachers we know that any change will be met with some level of resistance. 

The advantages to many parents of these proposals will provide us with significant political opportunities.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers 

• One of the major issues that need to be tackled is when the children and the teachers get holidays. Conceptually the answer to this should be simple – at any time during the school year (exam times may require a holiday embargo). Teachers can have up to 25 days a year (similar to other professions). The disadvantages of not having a teacher in school for a day (or even a couple of weeks) should not be an issue when compared to the benefits of having energised teachers who have had plenty of time to prepare for lessons. I do not believe that taking the children out of the class for holidays will cause a significant headache for teachers. All children by the end of the year should still have had the same amount of teaching. Am I downplaying the holiday issue?
• One of the (many) problems in our education system today is that many policies from Westminster assume a one size fits all approach is best. In reality every school is different and faces different circumstances. Therefore, would we want to roll this out to all schools or would we want to run pilot schemes? Alternatively we could ask schools to opt-in or force schools to hold referendums allowing parents to vote on whether the school year changes.

> Costs

When the total costs of looking after our children are taken into account, including education, youth services, extended schools, childcare, etc and given that our schools and wider services are currently awash with cash, I do not believe that the extension of the school year has to incur an increase in costs (although there are issues about how this money is reallocated). I do not expect teachers to do any more work (teaching in the classroom being only one element of what a teacher does in school) than they do now. In fact, we are improving their quality of life. Therefore, I would not expect to see an increase in teacher costs.

 

Andrew Morrison: Close directors' dividends loophole

Andrew Morrison is a member of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party's Policy Forum.

> Policy summary

To close the tax-loophole whereby directors pay themselves dividends out of their own companies in place of a salary which often results in a nil tax liability whereas the typical employee of the same earnings would be paying 22% income tax and 11% national insurance.

> Policy explanation

Although technical in nature, it is important that the ordinary taxpayer comprehends this one issue because at its heart is a fundamental unfairness between ordinary employees, and self-employed people who are able to establish their own small private company, and become directors of that company.  Whereas the employed person receives a salary and must pay tax and national insurance on those earnings, often at very high marginal rates, the person who becomes director of his own company can declare dividends payable to himself amounting to approximately £32,000 per annum and have a nil tax liability.

The Inland Revenue recently entrenched this inherently unfair practice through their Inland Revenue Ruling 35 ('IR35' for short) which provoked an uproar among the accounting profession.  This ruling has served as a 'green light' to directors of smaller and medium sized entities (known as SMEs) to continue this totally legal tax efficiency practice.

The Inland Revenue has a definition in tax law of these smaller companies, which are referred to as 'close companies'.  A company is defined as being 'close' if it is under the control of the directors.  This in practice means the directors have a majority shareholding.

To redress this imbalance in the tax system which deprives the treasury of tax receipts each year, all we would need to do is change tax law so that any dividends made from a company defined as being a 'close company', to a director of that company, so that the sums are treated as being a wage instead.

> Political risks and opportunities

While the Conservative Party, and any other centre-right party for that matter, has typically been affiliated with at least the agreement that a low tax economy is a healthy economy, and at least harbour the desire for a tax cut even if its actual policies are contrary to that, it is important that by actioning this policy we spell out to the public that this is not a tax rise; instead, we are making the system fairer by closing down an easily exploited loophole.

The primary opportunity of this policy is if the treasury is collecting the proper amount of taxes that the spirit of the law intends, then the government will have sufficient funds to offer strategic tax cuts, such as for low earners and abolishing inheritance tax, without being accused of cutting back funds allocated to public services.  This reconciles with the party's pledge to maintain investment in the NHS, and improving the armed forces, schools, infrastructure and so on.

There may be some protests from groups championing the causes of the smaller entity however.  What is needed to counter these is a clear demonstration in layman's terms that we are restriking the balance to employees and directors of owner-managed small companies so both are taxed at the same rates appropriate to their earnings.  Support by the wider public would drown out criticisms from those benefiting from the existing unfair scheme, so long as the issue is put forward in a clear manner that the wider public can comprehend.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Does this tax reform seem fair, or do directors deserve to earn ~ £32000 per annum tax free?
• Can you think of a manner to sell this policy to the public, so we can gain more political capital from its enactment?
• Are there any other tax-loopholes which could be closed that come to mind?

> Costs 

There are no costs envisaged in implementing this policy, other than resources spent in Parliament enacting the necessary legislation.  What would occur as a result of this however, is a boost to the amount of tax receipts receivable at the treasury.  Increasing tax receipts by collecting the proper amount of tax that the spirit of the law intends would in fact permit the government to cut taxes elsewhere.

 

Jonathan Munday: Rule by Referendum

> Policy summary

That all controversial social and constitutional topics should be put to a compulsory referendum and subsequently enacted.

> Policy explanation

When parliament was set up in the 13th century it took 3 weeks for MPs to travel from their constituencies and it was impossible for them to quickly consult their voters, who had to rely on their judgement. Now with the internet and modern communication it is far easier. There is no reason why important decisions of morality or constitutional or treaty law cannot be made by the electorate as a whole. Indeed there is increasing evidence that MPs as a class are failing to represent their constituents both for Party reasons and because they are different from them in kind - more male, more chattering class, more metropolitan. There is an economic theory called "the wisdom of crowds" that says that crowds i.e. the electorate as a whole are more likely to come up with the right answer than "experts" e.g. MPs.

Social issues e.g. gay marriage, GM foods, hunting, cloning and constitutional issues e.g. English parliament, EU treaties are issues which cut across party lines. Often they are unwhipped. They are issues where the personal opinions of 646 MPs are no more valid than that of their 60 million constituents. They are binary choices of morality or of constitutional importance well within the grasp of the electorate. MPs are elected because of their views on income tax and the NHS, not GM foods. Lords are not elected at all and their views are their own.

The Conservative Party has suffered much over the last 25 years from the media and from special interest group pressure for a social and constitutional agenda that is social democrat and profoundly anti-conservative. This has been promoted ubiquitously in the media and has become the new orthodoxy. To cavil against it has had us described as the nasty party. This proposal allows us to appeal over the heads of the media to the quiet people of England who are much more "small c" conservative. If we lose, at least we know that it is the popular will of the English people and not just the enacted prejudices of a metropolitan elite.

This proposal is that we should enact a law that all these issues should be put to a referendum and then the result enacted. The detail of any law would be left to the government and MPs in the House but as a security, the Law Lords must issue a certificate that the law enacted was in accord with the letter and the spirit of the referendum result before it could take effect. If the government refused to bring in a law, then it would be up to the electorate to punish them at the subsequent GE. Perhaps in the case of a constitutional question, the Queen should have the duty to dissolve parliament and cause a general election, if no law is forthcoming within 24 months of the referendum.

Any political party, which had more than 2m votes in the previous election would be able to suggest 3 referendums over the lifetime of the parliament and any pressure group would be able to ask for a referendum if it could present a petition to parliament with 500000 signatures of voters on the electoral register. Referendums would take place at the next national election i.e. EU or GE so that the electoral admin. and cost were kept to a minimum. In order to stop perpetual referenda on key topics, the Law Lords would have the power to refuse a new referendum on any topic until 10 yrs after the enactment of legislation that they deemed to be on the same topic.

> Political risks and opportunities

The cost of the ballot papers. All campaigning costs would be borne by interested parties.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Do you trust your MP?
• Can we call ourselves a democracy when there is no capital punishment in the UK despite 20 years of opinion polls suggesting that that is what people want?
• How long are you prepared to wait for an English Parliament or another vote on the EU?
• How well is the House of commons working these days as a democratic tool?

Do you have a policy idea?

We're running out of policy proposals from our initial batch, so if you have any ideas please email sam@conservativehome.com with a synopsis of what you would propose.

If you have already had a go feel free to have another! Final drafts need to be in the structure shown by all previous policies.

We're also a bit behind on counting up the votes from the last few policies, but we'll do them all in 24hrs so you still have a chance to vote for them.

Deputy Editor

Chris Palmer: Nationalise the BBC

Chris Palmer is a Conservative political blogger who regularly contributes to ConservativeHome. He is also co-founder of the Reinstate Roger Helmer Campaign and an active member of the Conservative party in Somerset.

> Policy summary

To nationalise the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation.)

> Policy explanation 

This policy would entail a Conservative Government giving direct ownership of the BBC to the people of this country. The BBC would be established as a Public Limited Company in a similar manner to the privatisation of British Steel, Gas and Telecom during the nineteen eighties. However, unlike privatisation, the next Government and Treasury would not benefit with an immediate financial cash injection from this nationalisation of the corporation since the shares in the BBC plc would not be sold on the market.

Every eligible member of the electorate (ie. all those on the electoral register) would be given a certain number of shares in the BBC. The number of shares per member of the electorate could be distributed as proportionate to the number of years that person has been a taxpayer/on the electoral role, or simply indiscriminate of electoral age and tax contribution with every person being able to own the same number of shares (for example, one share per person.) Either way, only members of the electorate would be initially eligible to own shares – no companies or organisations or the Government would be able to own or buy shares in the BBC.

The people of Britain would therefore be free to do what they wish with these new BBC shares. They could chose to keep them, which would provide certain ownership benefits such as a say on important BBC decisions, a vote on the election of BBC board members, the receiving of dividends, along with any other normal shareholding privileges. Alternatively owners might wish to sell those shares on the open market. The decision is entirely theirs. Further, potentially the initial (first) sale and profit gained from the selling of BBC shares may be tax exempt. (This factor may be open to some negotiation closer to the time.)

At the same time, the license fee would be abolished along with the tearing up of the BBC’s Royal Charter. British television consumers would no longer be forced to pay a broadcasting tax if they did not wish to watch BBC channels.

> Political risks and opportunities

At the beginning of the 21^st century, in a changing world where we now have access to 24/7 multi-channelled television and radio, should Government still own and to an extent control a corporation which was created and ran at a time when there was only one or a few television stations and it served political purpose to control the content of that media?

There are numerous and far reaching political consequences and opportunities that would arise from such a policy being enacted.

The nationalisation of the BBC would, for many people be the first time they have owned shares in a company. This first taste of ownership may perhaps encourage more people to take an interest in shares, prices and how the market works while at the same time giving shareholders a sense of control over the previously unaccountable BBC. It would be their BBC.

The BBC on television, radio and on the internet would be opened up to much needed competition which would increase standards across the broadcasting and online markets due to the BBC license fee funding monopoly being annulled. Currently, the BBC dominates online news in Britain, stifling alternative attempts to enter the market. Forcing the BBC to compete on even terms with other private companies would benefit the consumer and the market as a whole.

The electorate would be empowered by being given the freedom of choice to do as they see fit with their property. Power and decision making over a previously independent government organisation would be opened up to higher and more rigorous levels of scrutiny.

Within the broadcast news sector the BBC is no longer impartial – despite desperate and angry bleating from a small few to the contrary. Once nationalised this would probably end once and for all the dominant liberal left bias and control that has held sway over the corporation for many years – and even if it remained, then that would be largely acceptable since not every television viewer would be indiscriminately forced to pay a tax for the propaganda that they show. The decision about paying for the BBC would now be about personal choice, which is ultimately the fairest method.

However, the political risks of this policy are, in my opinion, also quite substantial.

The BBC is much loved by the left and liberal ends of the political spectrum. If people of such persuasion believed that their beloved corporation may be broken up or their political stranglehold and monopoly over influential broadcast news and internet published news was to be radically curbed, then they will be out in full force to prevent this occurrence. This policy and issue would be a battle and not a quiet one either. It would be very public for all to see and judge and therefore would have to be handled with the utmost care with all Conservatives engaged in the debate needing to be fully briefed and knowledgeable on the matter.

Further, I do not doubt that many politically and financially motivated employees of the BBC will be out to do their very best to prevent this policy coming to fruition; many of them will certainly have some sort of adverse reaction to the idea that their wages and productions may be opened up to real competition. Jonathan Ross on £8m a year for example may start to worry (and so he should.)

Some comments that may arise from such a policy:

“Privatisation by the back door”: This is not a policy of privatisation though it is comparable in certain respects. The Government will no longer own the BBC, but there will be an improvement over previous privatisation in that any funds raised will be the result of a personal direct decision by the electorate, and that the BBC will not be sold to “private” investors but instead given to the general public.

“Selling the crown jewels”: Though a Conservative Government would be creating a public limited company out of the BBC in a similar fashion to that of British Telecom and British Gas under the previous Conservative Government, no “selling” of shares would be taking place. The people of Britain would be empowered by being given the opportunity to do as they wish with their rightful slice of the BBC (since the BBC has always belonged to the people and has only been held in stewardship by the Government.) If shareholding members of the electorate wish to sell on their allocation of shares, then that is their choice – it’s called individual responsibility.

“Advertising on the BBC”: Would the BBC turn down the path of so-called “dreaded” advertising if it no longer had the license fee to fund it? Potentially, yes, the BBC may have to start using advertising to pay for some of its costs. Without the license fee, for example, it would be extremely difficult to charge people for listening to BBC radio stations. However, on the other hand, with television the BBC could implement a subscription system similar to that of Sky Movies or Sky Sports. Those that wished to watch BBC channels and BBC programmes advert free could pay directly to do so [maybe with some sort of discount if they remained a shareholder] instead of under the previously grossly unfair system where you paid the BBC an expensive broadcasting tax even if you didn’t want to watch any of their productions.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What about those people who have not paid the license fee and/or do not own a television? Do they deserve to have a share in the BBC?
• Is this policy issue too controversial to be initiated during a Parliament where the Conservative Government only has a small majority?
• Would this policy ultimately prove popular with the British public?
• Is “Nationalise” the correct term to describe such a policy, or should “Privatise” or perhaps another analogy be used?
• Should the BBC be broken up in the process of nationalising? For example into three different outfits; television, radio and online?
• Can you think of any other opportunities or risks that I have missed?
  

> Costs 

The costs of such an undertaking are of course variable depending on the circumstances at the time of nationalisation, though I think they could probably be predicted to some extent.

Let us assume for the moment, that the electorate stays roughly