Letter: Canny Churchill
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.HOW CAN the scrupulous Alan Watkins (11 July) equate the Government's planned Post Office shareholding with the former 51 per cent BP shareholding? In autumn 1914, when BP was in desperate need of development capital, Winston Churchill invested pounds 2m of public money into the company in return for 51 per cent ownership, and for the guarantee of Royal Navy oil supplies in the impending war. He literally "bought" our naval oil supplies, at a time when oil was in its infancy as a propellant, and coal was still king. It was an inspired and creative political coup.
But it was a device of war, a war-time convenience. There was never any political principle behind the move, let alone any socialist principle. It was right that the Government's shareholding position was unwound, whether by Tony Benn or (finally in 1987) by the privatising Margaret Thatcher.
In the case of the Post Office, the use of a PLC is merely a means of relieving the Treasury of any residual "guarantor" function for PO financial liabilities, thus forcing creditors to have recourse only to the assets of the company itself. At the same time, the enterprise remains firmly in the public sector. The device reflects current political preoccupations with limiting "government" financial exposure.
But it is an equally inspired and creative move, sound in company law and socialist practice. We shall surely see the method used much more extensively in future. Alan Watkins should be more careful with his parallels.
ROGER WARREN EVANS
Swansea
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments