MORE NATIONALISATION – BROADBAND
“What next (for nationalisation)?” Sherbhert asked in its article the other day on Communism and Extremism. It was a short wait. Labour now says it will nationalise the UK broadband , if elected. What will be the cost? Not just in £s but in freedom of information.
The CEO of BT, owner of the UK broadband network, is reported to say that the total cost will be up to £100 billion. Who knows? Labour says something around £20+ billion. It is certain that the acquisition price will not be market value as price will be decided by Parliament, in this scenario a Labour majority led by a Communist cabal. There are then also investment and running costs which customers will not be funding as the idea is to provide broadband free. The Sherbhert view is to be wary of anything that is to be provided for free, as there will always be other consequences. So where will the money come from?
Voters of course may love free broadband of itself . Perhaps for the necessary extra billions the State will seek taxes and fees etc from corporate users. Will they pay or prefer to leave the market? Maybe the State will borrow, and the nationalisation programme may involve a lot of borrowing, which , it must not be forgotten , will need to be repaid.
The taxpayer will in any event eventually pay. Bad for them and bad for investors in BT, including any voter with pension money invested in the markets, just as with many other nationalisation ideas.
Sherbhert leaves it to experts to express their view on financial cost. Sherbhert is more concerned with the principle of applied communism, which seeks to harvest for the State the nation’s assets, and have them controlled ultimately by the Labour leadership team. Their capability to make good business decisions and deliver a good service provided on an at least break even basis, without punishing the taxpayer , corporations and even the consumer generally, must be questioned. The individuals on Labour’s front benches must be assessed as to their commercial, not ideological, competence. This is to ignore the flight from markets in the UK by investors whose assets will be prone to future State pickings.
Then perhaps the biggest question of principle: to what extent will ownership by the State ( that is control by extreme ideologists in this case) enable it to control the flow of information to the British public? Sherbhert is suspicious. Communist regimes, to prop themselves up in power, typically exercise control over information provided to the people, in order to control freedom of thought, speech and action, and therefore resistance to their ideology. Perhaps the degree to which such control may be exercisable is also a question for the tech experts.
And if competitors leave the market as initial commentary suggests may occur, the State will have a free hand to manipulate as it pleases. This is perhaps the most worrying of all the nationalisation proposals.
