Channel 4 is no stranger to privatisation talk – but this feels different

Published

4 years ago

June 18, 2021

admin

Almost since Channel 4 launched 38 years ago, with the first episode of Countdown, there has been speculation that it is facing privatisation.

In January 1983, just two months after the channel launched, Kevin Goldstein-Jackson – the executive who helped launch hits like Tales of the Unexpected and who later headed the ITV franchise operator Television South West – was calling for it to be privatised.

As Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation revolution rolled on through the 1980s, the calls kept coming, often from surprising directions.

In 1987, Michael Grade, who was then managing director of BBC television and who later went on to be dubbed Britain’s ‘pornographer in chief’ when he became Channel 4’s chief executive, said “it would be a very good thing indeed for British broadcasting if that were to happen”.

Somehow, though, Channel 4 managed to remain state-owned. The last serious calls for the broadcaster to be privatised came after David Cameron’s 2015 general election victory, when John Whittingdale, the then Culture Secretary and Matt Hancock, the then Cabinet Office Minister, were said to be pushing for it.

A key aspect to their proposal was that it would raise up to £1bn for the government.

Now, however, privatisation talk is again in the air.

The Financial Times reported on Friday that Channel 4 will be “steered towards privatisation” by the UK government as soon as next year. It said ministers were set to launch a formal consultation within weeks on the future of the broadcaster.

This could, according to the FT, even see an outright sale of Channel 4.

Ominously for Channel 4, which has always opposed being privatised, the FT said the consultation would be run by Mr Whittingdale himself.

There are a number of reasons why the idea has resurfaced now. The first is that, in the eyes of some in government, Channel 4’s business model is under pressure. As a free-to-air broadcaster that has few programme rights to exploit, it is unusually exposed to the vagaries of the advertising market, as has been shown during the last year.

The broadcaster reported a pre-tax loss of £26m in 2019 – Channel 4 itself has put this down to the cost of opening its new site in Leeds – but then suffered a collapse in advertising revenues when the COVID-19 pandemic erupted in March last year.

For its part, Channel 4 itself has said that it expects to report a surplus for the year, with advertising having bounced back strongly in the second half of the year.

The broadcaster also shored up its finances with aggressive cuts to its budget during the pandemic and by taking out loans. One indication of its recovery to financial health was that it repaid furlough money to the Treasury as long ago as last autumn.

It is also argued that the rise of streaming platforms like Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Netflix and the continued strength of multi-channel television broadcasters like Sky, the owner of Sky News, makes Channel 4 vulnerable to a loss of viewers that would eventually hit its advertising revenues.

Channel 4 has responded by arguing that, in 2020, it actually raised its share of television viewing, not only in terms of linear television, but also via digital platforms. It said at the end of last year that digital viewing now accounted for one in every eight hours of Channel 4 viewing.

Despite all this ministers fear that, as a business, Channel 4 is unusually vulnerable.

Earlier this year, Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, vetoed the reappointment of two of Channel 4’s directors, Uzma Hasan and Fru Hazlitt, even though both Channel 4 itself and Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, were supportive.

It was reported at the time that Mr Dowden wanted the two women, both of whom come from a production background, replaced with new directors boasting more financial experience.

Another reason why privatisation may be back on the agenda is the public finances.

Some in Whitehall believe that a significant sum of money could still be made from a sale of Channel 4 – although most analysts who have run the numbers believe any sale proceeds would fall well short of the £1bn mooted six years ago.

It is also argued that a new owner for Channel 4, with deep pockets, might help ensure the quality of its output. The problem is that there are few obvious buyers out there for the channel.

Most of the big US buyers who might be interested are focused on other things while Channel 4’s relative lack of intellectual property rights – a big contrast with, for example, ITV – means there would be few gains to be made by a big media buyer.

Viacom-CBS, the owner of Channel 5, is seen as the likeliest buyer but it, too, is more focused currently on building its streaming service, Paramount+, as well as trying to shore up confidence among its investors after a calamitous drop in its share price earlier this year related to the collapse of the hedge fund Archegos Capital.

Investors also suspect Viacom-CBS will be looking to conserve capital to invest more in content as it battles it out with rivals like Netflix and Disney, whose Disney+ streaming service has strongly outperformed Wall Street’s expectations, rather than use it buying an asset like Channel 4.

Moreover, if any of the big US broadcasters were interested in acquiring a UK free-to-air broadcaster, they are far more likely to alight on ITV which, unlike Channel 4, has its own production arm in ITV Studios and far more intellectual property assets to exploit.

That might make a flotation on the stock market, which would provide Channel 4 with more access to capital, as a likelier outcome – although it has been speculated in some quarters that ITV itself might be a buyer.

Expect Channel 4 to strongly resist any attempt to privatise it.

In the past the broadcaster has been able to muster a substantial lobbying campaign, relying on members of the arts establishment, to argue that its remit to produce distinctive programming would be jeopardised by a change of ownership.

It is also likely to point to the fact that it is a major investor in British content and spends heavily with independent production companies.

That, however, is a harder argument to make when the likes of Sky and Netflix are investing record sums in British programming, when the BBC’s drama output is still scoring hits and when ITV’s production arm is in such fine fettle.

In short, a lot of the arguments Channel 4 has used to resist privatisation in the past may not be as pertinent as was once the case.

This may represent Mr Whittingdale’s best opportunity yet to push for a policy he has sought for 25 years.

Business

AstraZeneca exit is a frightening prospect for the City and the government

Published

6 hours ago

July 2, 2025

admin

AstraZeneca exit is a frightening prospect for the City and the government

It’s a threat that will send a shiver down the spine of Downing Street and shake the City of London to its core.

Even the notion that AstraZeneca (AZ) – the UK’s most valuable listed company – is thinking of upping sticks and switching its stock market listing to America is a frightening prospect on many levels.

After all, if your biggest firm departs for Wall Street, what message does it send to an already bruised London stock market that has struggled to find its way since the UK’s vote to leave the European Union?

Money latest: Cash in your pocket set to change

The timing of the report in The Times that Pascal Soriot, the pharmaceutical company’s long-standing chief executive, is considering his own Brexit for the company, will not be lost on anyone.

The Treasury is under severe strain and the Starmer government, apparently focused on compromise given its welfare reform U-turns, bruised.

Ministers have been scrambling to get the support of business back, after a budget tax raid that has added to the cost of employing people in the UK, by launching a series of strategies to demonstrate a growth-led focus.

Mr Soriot’s reported shift is the culmination of years of frustration over UK tax rates and support for business – though it could also remove a focus on his own remuneration as the highest-paid director of a UK-listed firm.

AZ has its own gripes with Labour.

In January, the company cancelled a planned £450m investment in a vaccine factory on Merseyside, accusing the government of reneging on the previous Conservative administration’s offer of financial aid.

At the same time, it has been rebuilding its presence in the United States.

That speaks to not only a home market snub but also the election of a US president intent on protecting, as he sees it, America-based companies and jobs.

Donald Trump is threatening 25% tariffs on all pharma imports.

AZ has already promised a $3.5bn (£2.6bn) investment in US manufacturing by the end of 2026.

It has also rejoined the leading US drug lobby group, bolstering its voice in Washington DC.

There are sound reasons for bolstering its US footprint; more than 40% of AZ’s revenues are made in the world’s largest economy. Greater US production would also shield it from any duties imposed by Mr Trump and any MAGA successor.

Since Brexit, complaints among UK stock market constituents have been of low valuations compared to peers (with a weak pound also leaving them vulnerable to takeovers), weaker access to capital and poor appetite for new listings.

Wise, the money transfer firm, became the latest UK name to say that it intends to move its primary listing to the US just last month.

If followed through, it would tread in the footsteps of Flutter Entertainment and the building equipment suppler CRH – just two big names to have already left.

London was snubbed for a listing by its former chip-designing resident ARM back in 2023.

An initial public offering by Shein, the controversial fast fashion firm, had offered the prospect of the biggest flotation for the UK in many years but that was blocked by the Chinese authorities.

Efforts to bolster the City’s appeal, such as through the Financial Conduct Authority’s overhaul of listing rules and the creation of pension megafunds to aid access to capital, have also been boosted in recent months by investors in US companies taking a second look at comparatively low valuations in Europe.

Market analysts have charted a cash spread away from the US as a hedge against an erratic White House.

The Times report suggested that Mr Soriot’s plans were likely to face some opposition from members of the board, in addition to the UK government.

AstraZeneca has not commented on the story. Crucially, it did not deny it.

But a government spokesperson said: “Through our forthcoming Life Sciences Sector Plan, we are launching a 10-year mission to harness the life sciences sector to drive long-term economic growth and build a stronger, prevention-focused NHS.

“We have already started delivering on key actions, from investing up to £600m in the Health Data Research Service alongside Wellcome, through to committing over £650m in Genomics England and up to £354m in Our Future Health.

“This is clear evidence of our commitment and confidence in life sciences as a driver of both economic growth and better health outcomes.”

Governments don’t comment on stories such as these, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the departure of your biggest firm by market value is not the message a government laser-focused on growth can afford to allow.

Business

‘Catastrophic failure’ led to Heathrow power outage – with chances missed to prevent it

Published

9 hours ago

July 2, 2025

admin

'Catastrophic failure' led to Heathrow power outage - with chances missed to prevent it

A power outage that shut Heathrow Airport earlier this year, causing travel chaos for more than 270,000 passengers, was caused by a “catastrophic failure” of equipment in a nearby substation, according to a new report.

Experts say the fire at the North Hyde Substation, which supplies electricity to Heathrow, started following the failure of a high-voltage electrical insulator known as a bushing, before spreading.

The failure was “most likely” caused by moisture entering the equipment, according to the report.

National Grid, which owns the substation, missed two opportunities to prevent the failure, experts found, the first in 2018 when a higher-than-expected level of moisture was found in oil samples.

Such a reading meant “an imminent fault and that the bushing should be replaced”, according to guidance by the National Grid Electricity Transmission.

However, the report by National Energy System Operator (NESO) said the appropriate responses to such a serious issue were “not actioned”, including in 2022 when basic maintenance was postponed.

“The issue therefore went unaddressed,” the report added.

The design and configuration of the airport’s internal power network meant the loss of just one of its three supply points would “result in the loss of power to operationally critical systems, leading to a suspension of operations for a significant period”, the report added.

Heathrow – which is Europe’s biggest airport – closed for around 16 hours on 21 March following the fire, before reopening at about 6pm.

Around 1,300 flights were cancelled and more than 270,000 air passenger journeys were disrupted.

Tens of millions of pounds were lost, thousands of passengers were stranded, and questions were raised about the resilience of the UK’s infrastructure.

More than 71,000 domestic and commercial customers lost power as a result of the fire and the resulting power outage, the report said.

NESO chief executive, Fintan Slye, said there “wasn’t the control within their [National Grid’s] asset management systems that identified that this [elevated moisture levels] got missed.

“They identified a fault, [but] for some reason the transformer didn’t immediately get pulled out of service and get repaired.

“There was no control within the system that looked back and said ‘oh, hang on a second, you forgot to do this thing over here’.”

Sky’s science and technology editor, Tom Clarke, pointed to the age of the substation’s equipment, saying “some of these things are getting really very old now, coming to the end of their natural lives, and this is an illustration of what can happen if they are not really well maintained”.

The report also highlights a lack of joined-up thinking, he said, as “grid operators don’t know who’s critical national infrastructure on the network, and they don’t have priority”.

Responding to the report’s findings, a Heathrow spokesperson said: “A combination of outdated regulation, inadequate safety mechanisms, and National Grid’s failure to maintain its infrastructure led to this catastrophic power outage.

“We expect National Grid to be carefully considering what steps they can take to ensure this isn’t repeated.

“Our own Review, led by former Cabinet Minister Ruth Kelly, identified key areas for improvement and work is already underway to implement all 28 recommendations.”

In May, Ms Kelly’s investigation revealed that the airport’s chief executive couldn’t be contacted as the crisis unfolded because his phone was on silent.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who commissioned the NESO report, called it “deeply concerning”, because “known risks were not addressed by the National Grid Electricity Transmission”.

Mr Miliband said energy regulator Ofgem, which opened an investigation on Wednesday after the report was published, is investigating “possible licence breaches relating to the development and maintenance of its electricity system at North Hyde.

“There are wider lessons to be learned from this incident. My department, working across government, will urgently consider the findings and recommendations set out by NESO and publish a response to the report in due course.”

National Grid said in a statement it has “a comprehensive asset inspection and maintenance programme in place” and said it has “taken further action since the fire”.

This includes “an end-to-end review” of its oil sampling process and results, further enhancement of fire risk assessments at all operational sites, and “re-testing the resilience of substations that serve strategic infrastructure”.

A spokesperson said: “We fully support the recommendations in the report and are committed to working with NESO and others to implement them. We will also cooperate closely with Ofgem’s investigation.

“There are important lessons to be learnt about cross sector resilience and the need for increased coordination, and we look forward to working with government, regulators and industry partners to take these recommendations forward.”

The Metropolitan Police previously confirmed on 25 March that officers had “found no evidence to suggest that the incident was suspicious in nature”.

Business

UK content creators demand formal recognition from the government

Published

15 hours ago

July 2, 2025

admin

UK content creators demand formal recognition from the government

The UK’s YouTubers, TikTok creators and Instagram influencers have been surveyed on mass for the first time ever, and are demanding formal recognition from the government.

The creator economy in the UK is thought to employ around 45,000 people and contribute over £2bn to the country in one year alone, according to the new research by YouTube and Public First.

But, despite all that value, its workers say they feel underappreciated by the authorities.

“If you look at the viewership, our channel is not too different from a big media company,” said Max Klymenko, a content creator with more than 10 million subscribers and half a billion monthly views on average.

“If you look at the relevancy, especially among young audiences, I will say that we are more relevant. That said, we don’t really get the same treatment,” he told Sky News.

Fifty-six per cent of the more than 10,000 creators surveyed said they do not think UK creators have a “voice in shaping government policies” that affect them.

Only 7% think they get enough support to access finance, while just 17% think there is enough training and skills development here in the UK.

Nearly half think their value is not recognised by the broader creative industry.

The creative industries minister, Sir Chris Bryant, said the government “firmly recognises the integral role that creators play” in the UK’s creative industries and the fact that they help “to drive billions into the economy” and support more than 45,000 jobs.

“We understand more can be done to help creators reach their full potential, which is why we are backing them through our new Creative Industries Sector Plan,” he said.

“The UK has got a fantastic history of supporting the creative industries,” said Ben Woods, a creator economy analyst, Midia Research who was not involved in the report.

“Whether you look at the film side, lots of blockbuster films are being shot here, or television, which is making waves on the global stage.

“But perhaps the government needs to broaden that lens a little bit to look at just what’s going on within the creator economy as well, because it is highly valuable, it’s where younger audiences are spending a lot of their time and [the UK is] really good at it.”

According to YouTube, formal recognition would mean creators are factored into official economic impact data reporting, are represented on government creative bodies, and receive creator-specific guidance from HMRC on taxes and finances.

For some, financial guidance and clarity would be invaluable; the ‘creator’ job title seems to cause problems when applying for mortgages or bank loans.

“It’s really difficult as a freelancer to get things like mortgages and bank accounts and credit and those types of things,” said podcaster David Brown, who owns a recording studio for creators.

“A lot of people make very good money doing it,” he told Sky News.

“They’re very well supported. They have a lot of cash flow, and they are successful at doing that job. It’s just the way society and banking and everything is set up. It makes it really difficult.”

The creative industries minister said he is committed to appointing a creative freelance champion and increasing support from the British Business Bank in order to “help creators thrive and drive even more growth in the sector”.

The government has already pledged to boost the UK’s creative industries, launching a plan to make the UK the number one destination for creative investment and promising an extra £14bn to the sector by 2035.

These influencers want to make sure they are recognised as part of that.