Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DIVISIONS IN THE British Conservative Party over the privatisation of Channel 4 are bursting into the open, with the plans likely to face a bumpy ride in Parliament.
Tory MP and Father of the House Peter Bottomley told the PA news agency the House of Lords will take out any clause that privatises the network, and announced he will make a speech shortly after the Queen’s Speech in the Commons explaining why he deems the plans “unconservative”.
The British Government confirmed on Monday that it will proceed with plans to privatise Channel 4, which has been publicly owned since it was founded in 1982 and is funded by advertising.
Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said that while Channel 4 held a “cherished place in British life” she felt that public ownership was holding the broadcaster back from “competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon”.
Plans for the sale will reportedly be set out in a White Paper later this month and will be included in a new Media Bill for next spring.
After the Government made the announcement, it became clear that privatisation plans were not sitting well, not only with media personalities but also with senior figures in the Conservative Party.
A string of Tory MPs and peers, including Bottomley , former Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee Julian Knight, and former cabinet ministers Damian Green and Jeremy Hunt publicly questioned the plans.
Bottomley , who represents Worthing West, said he opposes the sale “because I am a Conservative”.
He added: “If you are considering a change, have a proper reason for doing it, if you say it cannot compete with Netflix, my answer is it is not supposed to compete with Netflix.
“And secondly, look at the number of people who view Channel 4 and its associated streams and compare that with the people using Netflix. Channel 4 wins hands down.”
Asked if the proposals will struggle to get through Parliament, he said: “The House of Lords will take out any clause that privatises Channel 4.
“And secondly, if you listen to one of the early speeches after the Queen’s Speech, it will be me. And I plan to explain why I regard it unconservative to propose this action to Parliament.”
Bottomley insisted it will not be a Tory rebellion as it will be the Government “rebelling against the status quo”.
A Government defeat in the Commons looks unlikely given Boris Johnson’s working majority of 77, but it might be a different story in the House of Lords as there is no Tory majority in the upper chamber.
Bottomley ’s comments were echoed by Mr Green, who also branded the plans “unconservative” in a tweet on Monday.
He said: “The sale of Channel 4 is politicians and civil servants thinking they know more about how to run a business than the people who run it. Very unconservative. Mrs Thatcher, who created it, never made that mistake.”
Knight questioned if the Government’s true motivation is rooted in a view that Channel 4 is too left-wing, as he tweeted: “Is this being done for revenge for Channel 4’s biased coverage of the likes of Brexit and personal attacks on the Prime Minister? The timing of the announcement 7pm, coinciding with Channel 4 news, was very telling…”
Former culture secretary Hunt told Times Radio he is “uneasy” about the sale, adding: “I’m not against privatisation of big national monopolies. But I believe in competition.”
Senior Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) shared a picture on Twitter, which said “David Attenborough thinks Channel 4 should remain publicly owned, share if you a agree”, and Tory peer Baroness Davidson tweeted the plans marked the “opposite of levelling up”.
Speaking on Wednesday morning to LBC Radio, Health Secretary Sajid Javid insisted the network’s privatisation will set it free.
He said: “I love Channel 4. I think it’s great, but I want a Channel 4 that can compete in what is a fast-changing landscape. I think we can all agree that since Channel 4 was created the media landscape has changed.
“You must think carefully about why could it be better off being sold, and the reason is that, to compete properly, it needs to be able to raise its own funds and capital, whether that’s debt or equity, to do that in a way that it can properly compete in a vastly changing media landscape.
“This will set Channel 4 free. It will still be, by the way, a public broadcaster like ITV. It will have a public licence. They will have duties under that.
“You know, ITV is a great British broadcaster too, but it has been privately held now for many, many years. And it’s growing stronger. It has been able to compete, I think, as a result of that more effectively.
“And, by the way, my understanding is the funds that will be raised – I don’t know how much eventually, that will have to be worked out – but the funds that will be raised, which will be considerable, from the sale will all be reinvested back in the creative industries, including independent productions.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Offshore Hacking is a terribly immoral practise altogether!
It has been well known for a long time that Panama is a flag of convenience, so why are we surprised by these revelations…..?
Oh the irony, the delicious Irony: a company that uses its offshore location to flaunt tax laws is complaining that some hacker in an offshore location has flaunted the law and stole their records.
Funny how there seems to be a media blackout from Rupert Murdochs news outlets this morning about David Camerons fathers account and other MPs that are involved? As Mr Cameron said yesterday ‘its an entirely private matter’.
But for anyone else to do it, it’s wrong, says Dave.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jun/20/jimmy-carr-tax-david-cameron
unless Cameron inherited the off shore accounts, and didn’t renationalise the wealth, then it is probably a private matter. if he, or members of his family, did inherit these accounts, well then…
How is it private matter?. He is the prime minister whose government can make the laws, close the loop holes but if his family meaning his mother, brothers, sisters are benefitting from these loop holes and evading tax.. Then why should it be a private matter.. It means he is not acting in the public interest because privately it benefits his family meaning his mother etc and he is not going to do anything that effects their wealth.. So how can anyone expect anyone in government to do anything about , tax evasion, off shore banking if privately their families are doing these things…
David Cameron own words …
David Cameron has criticised the comedian Jimmy Carr, describing him as “morally wrong” for seeking to avoid taxes
The government is acting by looking at a general anti-avoidance law but we do need to make progress on this. It is not fair on hardworking people who do the right thing and pay their taxes to see these sorts of scams taking place.”
Earlier, a Downing Street spokeswoman had said Cameron backed George Osborne’s description of aggressive tax avoidance as “morally repugnant”.
Unless of course it’s your own family , mother , brothers , sisters ..
Then its a private matter , eh David…
Dauid
Very true about the blackout in many media organisations. I have just looked at the irish Independent online you have to go far down in the opinion column with David Mcwilliams, nowhere is it on most read, however we are treated to countless articles on Michaella McCollum. There will be a huge hush job here as the most powerful in the world do not want to be exposed and this neatly ties into News Corp and the most powerful corporations in the world.
David Cameron has been called out for hypocrisy by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden after the PM, who has presided over a raft of new surveillance powers, claimed his late-father’s tax affairs are “a private matter.”
In response, Snowden, who exposed the extent of GCHQ and NSA mass surveillance, tweeted: “Oh, now he’s interested in privacy.”
Honestly, I think his very public statements criticising people and organisations that dodge tax while Daddy Cameron was doing the exact same in Panama is more hypocritical than his privacy requests.
David Cameron’s father (Ian Cameron) was a stockbroker, he was never an MP……
Should refer them to the local Data Protection Commissioner for having inadequate security.
While the rest of the world was shocked, last night rte were kinda saying ” ah sure its grand” really nothing to see here! Couldn’t watch it!
Yes, RTE brought on a tax lawyer from Ronan Daly Jerymn to argue that these offshore accounts and offshore vehicles are used for legitimate trading purposes. Yeahh, I bet.
The reality is that elaborate and multi tiered complex structures, usually going through a few different offshore jurisdictions are used to conceal wealth from the oversight of public scrutiny.
Would any Irish politician disclose in the list of interests in the Dail the holding of such offshore interests?
There is also the factor, as shown by the Moriarty Tribunal, how offshore accounts are used to channel payments to or for the benefit of politicians. Mr. Michael Lowry is well aware of this.
she did look terribly uncomfortable with what she was saying, didn’t she? it’s almost as if a high worth individual within RTE was trying to implement RTEs famous “any old opposite opinion is equal” argument, to take the tax avoiders/evaders side.
Defending the indefensible can be tricky. She was very uncomfortable and her last comment was extremely banal and brush off. I got the impression that the tax lawyer was not wholly convinced by her own case.
The next spiel will be from law firms and accountants saying that we will show you how to do all of this much more discreetly and secretly.
IT security experts are going to be very busy as company formation agents, law firms, accountants and discreet family offices upgrade security to prevent more hacks.
She was asked several times what legitimate reason there would be for using private offshore accounts/shell companies other than to evade tax. She evaded that question with all the nuance of a tax advisor, by saying there was nothing illegal in principle with these arrangements. But seriously, what reason is there? She should have pushed harder for valid reasons, at least hypothetically.
Well, in fairness there isn’t anything that’s technically illegal about these operations in a number of jurisdictions. The main issue is that, while not technically illegal in many countries, it is morally reprehensible.
That being said, in Ireland we can’t really judge. After all we’ve basically built up a good portion of our economy to support this exact sort of carry-on.
They’ve also been strangely quiet about the role of Anglo. It was cited as a go to bank if you wanted to set up in bvi
Give them an IDA grant to relocate their headquarters here, we are in great need of such services.
Ironically, this disclosure serves only to confirm the authenticity of the massive amount of data leaked. The important thing is that the disclosed data is accurate. it will take quite some time to tease out its full implications.
It looks as if politicians and ther advisers considered the Panamian route through the BVI and other off shore jurisdictions as the most effective method of hiding assets.,
We are only getting a very tiny glimpse behind the curtain of concealment. This is just one disclosure of how the wealthy and the powerful manage to immunise themselves against disclosure of wealth.
Nothing we did not know already. A bank was hacked by someone or some organisation. We do not know the point of the information being hacked or the agenda coming from the release.
With the wiki leaks the information was leaked to inform people of the covert actions of states and to put those actions under the full glare of the public. Wiki leaks was about holding states to account for their international actions and served a greater social justice.
Leaking people’s private bank account details is a very strange action. Putting that information into the public domain in the manor it has been through a corporate channel is a staged and planned stunt. Who are the people releasing the information into the public domain?
What is the agenda with the release of this information ?
The thing is Brian, Wikileaks did pretty much the same thing. They got their hands on classified documents and leaked them piecemeal to supportive news agencies.
it wasn’t a bank, though. and importantly it wasn’t “private” personal information, but rather company information that should have been public in the source countries of the origin of the wealth.
But those doing the release believed they were doing it for social justice.
What was the point of leaking people’s bank accounts in the manner it happened and who are the people behind the leak. This is a planned event who is planning it?
While wikileaks has taken the route of exposing either illegal, unethical or immoral practices of states and state bodies, this leak has highlighted yet another type of injustice- that of the 1%
Only a small minority in both cases have actually broken any existing laws. However, many would agree that the laws are unjust and that bringing this information to light, will hopefully lead to changes in policy and legislation worldwide that will make the wealthiest in our societies pay a fair share of tax.
Ala, that is an excellent comment! Hear, hear.
Ah god bless us lads. I though the world recession was cause of people on the dole or those families living in hotels or don’t get me started on those lasy homeless. Some people on here are blind to the real facts of the world economy. How many times do we here “my tax paying for these scroungers” yet they are blind who is really to blame. Look up people, while your looking down someone is peeing down your back
Paul, the dole scroungers and black economy is spun by the media and politicians such as Joan Burton to distract away from the real abusers of the system.
Joan Buton alleged that over €2 billion annually was being defrauded from Social Protection. By weeding out some fraud and depriving some legitimate claimants only €120 million was saved.
DOB was able to sell his Stephens Green office block for multi millions of a gain and he was able to avoid any tax exposure at all.
Should candidates for elections and public office be required to swear a Statutory Declaration that they don’t have and never have had offshore held interests or offshore vehicles, as suggested by another poster?
It’s hard to see why politicians and persons in public office would require such offshore services except for likely nefarious purposes.
Now we know lets have more info
I get the feeling there will be at least 1 maybe 2 irish charities might have something to hide!?!
It must be terrible for them.. Bet their phones havent stopped ringing , All those clients that have been outed as tax dodgers.. Wondering what has been released…
Does the fact that no American politicians were outed mean that they are squeakyclean?
The U.S. generally routes through Bermuda, Grand Cayman and Antigua.
No, as it was pointed out that Mossack Fonseca is just one company involved in setting up these sorts of tax-dodging enterprises. That being said the US is incredibly harsh when it comes to white collar crime, nowhere near like the soft touch you find in Ireland.
Highly unlikely! It probably just means that service providers – wherever located – to US based clients in these matters have robust CIA approved sentries at their IT gates.
So, criminals arent allowed to hack criminals?
Selective leaks.
Of necessity because only one operation was penetrated.
I wonder if the Panamanian operation is insured against the claims for breach of confidentiality by aggrieved clients?
A lot of powerful people will be very, very unhappy. Interests connected with Putin may be especially unhappy.
And there’s a certain hacker or group of hackers somewhere that just boosted their employment prospects!
Right Jason, what hasn’t yet been released is how and why Ian Cameron’s company (Blairmore Holdings Inc) took the decision in 2010 to move the offshore company to Ireland from the Caribean tax haven. If this isn’t money laundering then I don’t know what is…..
hmmmm no American companies involved ??? really ?? come on this is an US leak
You do realise that a lot of the information still hasn’t been released yet, right?
have your say