BBC’s impact on commercial rivals: why not also the impact of corrupt companies on the law-abiding?

John Whittingdale, secretary for DCMS, thinks “It is important to look at the impact the BBC has on commercial rivals”.   So even Tories want to rig the markets when it suits their interests.   And since Murdoch has always been a much-sought-after ally at No.10, and his ambition has always been to replace the BBC by Fox in Britain, Whittingdale’s words carry considerable influence.   Indeed he went further when he also asked Ofcom to carry out a ‘health check’ into the terms and conditions determining how the BBC treated independent producers.   The key principle in all this is of course competitiveness, and it is absurd to apply this to a world-beating news organisation like the BBC as though it were on a par with makers of widgets or icecream.

Nevertheless it does open up useful new angles for industrial policy.   If the BBC must not be allowed to harm or diminish the commercial prospects of its rivals in the market place, why should countries that mis-sell (i.e. palm off at a price) things that customers don’t want, rig Libor or the forex or gold markets to the disadvantage of unknowing customers, or swindle the nation out of billions in tax evasion/avoidance, be allowed to get ahead of those who are honest and play by the rules?   Why should those companies which hugely damage the environment in defiance of international rules or knowingly take on workers on near-slavery terms and conditions be allowed to undercut more scrupulous employers? And if a Right-wing government can intervene to fix the market rules to get the results they want, why shouldn’t Left-wing governments also fix the market rules to achieve their aspirations of protecting the environment, improving labour standards, calling corporate power more effectively to account, etc?

After all, it was Adam Smith who in his The Wealth of Nations who chose the East India Company as a case study to show how monopoly capitalism undermines both liberty and justice, and how the management of shareholder-controlled corporations invariably ends in “negligence, profusion and malversation (corruption)”.   Smith’s vision entailed firm controls on corporate power, and subsequent history, both then and now, has shown how absolutely right he was.   If it is to contribute to economic progress, the corporation’s market power has to be limited to allow real choice and prevent suppliers being squeezed and consumers gouged.    That suggests much more rigorous controls on over-dominant market share in several sectors.   Its political power also needs to ne constrained if it is not to rig the rules of regulation so that it enjoys unjustified public subsidy or protection.   Internal and external checks and balances must curb the tendency of executives to become corporate emperors.   That was written in 1776, but it’s horribly relevant today, and just as Adam Smith insisted, the enforcement should be carried out, now as much as then.

4 thoughts on “BBC’s impact on commercial rivals: why not also the impact of corrupt companies on the law-abiding?

  1. Bbc the torys mouthpiece yet they honour their part keeping stum on the culling of the stock yet day in day the tories tell its to far left pull the other one its so far right they taking the p but bbc just doesnt get it they will destroy it so why stick up for the tories when its we the peasants pay our dues to it while waiting for that tory news why are at the bbc not giving the real news its disgraceful how they get away with it day in day out we have those benefits programmes
    Showing up people’s on benefits while nothing about how the tories are attacking the justice system benefits system welfare system yet why because they keep the truth off the bbc yet it pays out monies to channels four and five why has these do the gories bidding its a laugh isnt it all kept quiet
    yet on it goes fox news hum another yanky company who are not wanted just another tory war mongering mouthpiece jeff3

  2. Ps just read if thats right jc taking back companies under government’s wing is against eu law if so then whot he said cant be done has it goes againt eu law

  3. Well now Mr Davies, there’s a question. The EU operates under administrative law, which in fact cannot be applied in Great Britain. On the TPUC site, in the archive is a copy of a letter of statement by David Willets that the opinion of the Parliamentary Library is that British Common absolutely supercedes EU law. Europe cannot exert lawful control over Great British affairs without treasonous complicity of our Common purpose political establishment. Therefore Mr Corbyn is able to tell that unelected Jesuit controlled fifth column to “Get lost”: But will he?

    I absolutely agree with this article; It is well known that no Parliament is bound irrevocably by its predecessors. I do wonder whether Adam Smiths’ masterpiece was motivated by emergence of the infamous Adam Weishaupt. Both named “Adam” (first man). Weis-haupt = Leader of the men who know. Then “Adam” 9First man) Smith (craftsmen (freemason?) = Leader of Freemasonry?

    The history mistaught in Great Britain of the real relevance of William the “Bastard” and the Domesday Book, and the Jewish Pope Innocence 111 has resulted in suffering upon a scale difficult to describe. The Crown Corporation if memory serves was created upon the Papal crimes carried out by William, by Innocent 111. The Jesuits that still control international institutions such as the UN are represented by an abomination: A Jesuit Pope in the US next week. What precisely will happen?

    The Vatican is the progenitor of Juricidic Persons (Corporations), and supposedly the buck stops there: Except the Buck has disappeared with the due process of law.

    The task facing Mr Corbyn is formidable. The grip of evil is upon everything. A fight worthy of a hero.

    I doubt very much whether I shall ever vote again following the last 80+ years of betrayal of the people by those elected to administer their lands and assets. But it is heartening to see what I hope is a leader of honesty and integrity. If Mr Corbyn kneels before Mrs Windsor, then I shall know that he is likely a sham. Mrs Windsor unlawfully signed the Lisbon Treaty. That lady is therefore no Queen of England.

  4. What does John Whittingdale think he’s doing ? How dare he say the BBC should change the time of the news to give ITV a free run.

    The BBC is independent – we don’t want this sort of political meddling by the government.

    Other countries would give their eye teeth to have a broadcast organisation like the BBC but what does our government do – try to undermine it at every opportunity. Shameful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *