Will The Tories Privatise The Banks

[Dave Spart]

When the Tories eventually win the next General Election are they likely to flog off the banks that were recently taken into state ownership at a deliberately low price?

Once they're elected are we likely to hear stories that the worst is of the crisis is over, there's never been a better time to sell etc?

Certainly the govt could do with the revenue to fill the hole in its finances and that would be a great excuse but would they sell at a deliberatley low price so that the share prices rocket when trading begins making themselves tidy private profits and completing the theft with their traditional City friends?

Your thoughts please.

PS would just like to add I have no political allegiances one way or the other.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Dave Spart

[rw42]

When the Tories eventually win the next General Election are they likely to flog off the banks that were recently taken into state ownership at a deliberately low price?

Once they're elected are we likely to hear stories that the worst is of the crisis is over, there's never been a better time to sell etc?

Certainly the govt could do with the revenue to fill the hole in its finances and that would be a great excuse but would they sell at a deliberatley low price so that the share prices rocket when trading begins making themselves tidy private profits and completing the theft with their traditional City friends?

Your thoughts please.

PS would just like to add I have no political allegiances one way or the other.

I'm far more concerned with the current government looking to sell '£50B' worth of property to finance their current binge.

[cells]

No but hopefully they sell off Richmond Park in London to some developers with no need for PP. Would net the state about £25-30B and give London a much need 300k more houses/flats. (plus some £15B or so in extra tax due to more jobs, stamp duty, etc)

Then they can sell off the BBC to the dumbest bidder (5 years from now I reckon the internet will be the source of worldwide TV and within 10 years conventional TV in the UK will be dead as no one will want to pay £150 a year for something they can get on the net for free). That will net the state £30-60B (depending on how much debt the BBC has)

Selling the BBC would be a win-win-win-win for everyone but the likes of Jonathan Ross who are paid ridicules £££ for something a lot of people would do just as well for 0.5% of the money he is paid.

Edited June 9, 2009 by cells

[Jadoube]

No but hopefully they sell off Richmond Park in London to some developers with no need for PP. Would net the state about �25-30B and give London a much need 300k more houses/flats. (plus some �15B or so in extra tax due to more jobs, stamp duty, etc)

Then they can sell off the BBC to the dumbest bidder (5 years from now I reckon the internet will be the source of worldwide TV and within 10 years conventional TV in the UK will be dead as no one will want to pay �150 a year for something they can get on the net for free). That will net the state �30-60B (depending on how much debt the BBC has)

Selling the BBC would be a win-win-win-win for everyone but the likes of Jonathan Ross who are paid ridicules ��� for something a lot of people would do just as well for 0.5% of the money he is paid.

A tad over-dramatic as a prediction for TV. However a perfect illustrration of why the tories will sell of the Internet part of the BBC dirt cheap (to the people who are incapable of being as good as the BBC) but keep what they will call the core element of the BBC to avoid public anger at the sell-off.

Loads of money for those who get in on the act.

[cells]

We have a 32" TV which we just have hooked up to a computer since we refuse to pay the license fee - it's a bloody rip off.

Yes more and more and more people will be doing the same.

5 years from now live TV from around the world will be available.

Why would you pay the BBC tax when you could watch 1000 channels around the world for free on the net? We are already moving to that type of world with things like the iplayer and 4 on demand etc.

The BBCs model will soon be dead.

The bit I fear is that the BBC will bribe/convince the government to slap a BBC Internet tax onto all broadband. So instead of paying £150 for a TV you end up paying £150 more for your Internet access.

I hope it doesn’t happen and I would not vote for any party ever if they permitted it to happen.

[CrashConnoisseur]

5 years from now live TV from around the world will be available.

Why would you pay the BBC tax when you could watch 1000 channels around the world for free on the net? We are already moving to that type of world with things like the iplayer and 4 on demand etc.

The BBCs model will soon be dead.

The bit I fear is that the BBC will bribe/convince the government to slap a BBC Internet tax onto all broadband. So instead of paying £150 for a TV you end up paying £150 more for your Internet access.

A TV licence is already required to watch live or near live TV via the Internet.

[cells]

A tad over-dramatic as a prediction for TV. However a perfect illustrration of why the tories will sell of the Internet part of the BBC dirt cheap (to the people who are incapable of being as good as the BBC) but keep what they will call the core element of the BBC to avoid public anger at the sell-off.

Loads of money for those who get in on the act.

It makes perfect sense to sell them now and pocket a few £billion rather than letting the BBC drag on and die slowly over the next 10 years from Internet competition.

It is very clear that the Internet will replace normal broadcasting in countries like the UK where we need to pay a £150 TV tax. The only option for the BBC is go bust or reduce their £150 fee to an acceptable level.

I for one would not pay even £50 pa for their “serviceâ€.

I would consider it at £20 pa but that would mean the BBC would need to shrink some 80%.

[cells]

A TV licence is already required to watch live or near live TV via the Internet.

surely that applies to just the 5 normal channels and not things like foreign channels or internet only channels.

even so they can quite easily get around that problem by putting in a 30m delay or having internet only channels

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

The act of parliament that deals with TV licences is called the Wireless Telegraphy Act. I don't think it's ever been tested in court in respect of TV viewing over the Internet. To do so would certainly be politically contentious, given that the TV licence is probably one of the most resented taxes in existence.

The BBC in its current form is an anachronism. The current funding model was proposed by Reith in the days when there were no other broadcasters and very few people had radios. He wanted to protect British broadcasting from what he argued were the negative effects of the purely commercial model effectively monopolised by David Sarnoff in the US, but paying for the BBC out of general taxation would have been politically unacceptable because only the very rich had radios at that time.

Nearly a century later, a funding model that requires you to pay company A in order to be legally allowed to consume company B's services is indefensible and on borrowed time. Given the BBC's almost naked pro-Labour bias now along with this and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Tories' next election manifesto includes a proposal to shift public broadcasting more towards the US PBS model, in which a small amount of programming which is justified on cultural grounds but not commercial is paid for out of a direct taxation pot, and administered by a quasi-independent body. The BBC would of course be able to bid to make those programmes just like anyone else: but if Ross wants his £6 million, he'll have to earn it commercially.

Edited June 9, 2009 by The Ayatollah Bugheri

[Olebrum]

When the Tories eventually win the next General Election are they likely to flog off the banks that were recently taken into state ownership at a deliberately low price?

More than likely yes, but it will be a good thing. You know, helping those 'wealth generators' in banking like they did during the 80's. Can't possibly see what could go wrong.

[blankster]

I think they'd hang on to publicly owned bank shares until they thought they could get the best price for them. But they might well judge it wrong.

[scheming]

A TV licence is already required to watch live or near live TV via the Internet.

It also mentions something about needing to have the licence if you have mobile phone on my latest reminder. the wording was a little vague I recall.

[Dave Spart]

I think they'd hang on to publicly owned bank shares until they thought they could get the best price for them. But they might well judge it wrong.

But that's just my point.

I suspect that rather than hanging on for the benefit of the taxpayer they will hang on for the exact opposite reason - to fleece the tax-payer for the benefit of the elite. They'll make it look like poor planning but rest assured it won't be.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Dave Spart

[Dave Spart]

A TV licence is already required to watch live or near live TV via the Internet.

I understood that you are required to hold a TV licence just by the virtue of having a television in the property regardless of what you do with it.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Dave Spart

[hilltop]

Please, someone, sell off S4C, the welsh language TV channel. It is the most highly subsidised and irrelevent broadcaster in Europe.

[porca misèria]

When the Tories eventually win the next General Election are they likely to flog off the banks that were recently taken into state ownership at a deliberately low price?

More likely they'll seek to sell at fair value. That works because RBS and Lloyds are trading and have a market value.

The theft has already happened. The selloff - which will happen no matter who is in power - is just recouping what's left: it's neither giveaway nor ripoff (and has already started in Lloyds case).