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
21st 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 the same as it was at the 2005 General Election. That would mean that an estimated 44.2 million voters are eligible to receive shares. Also, assuming a minimum of one share per voter, that would suggest that 44.2 million shares need to be issued. Along with other necessary administrative costs of such a venture, the expenditure on this policy project would therefore appear at face value to be relatively high.
As for the transformation of the corporation, a closer look at the costs of privatising BT and other previously state owned organisation in the 1980s would give a clearer idea of the costs of turning the BBC into a public limited company and the problems that would entail.
Time. How long would the procedure of this policy take? Could the next Conservative Government spend parliamentary time on another “needier” cause? Again, a look at previous privatisation attempts would provide a clue.
Recent Comments