Channel 4 is no stranger to privatisation talk – but this feels different
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”.
The FT reported that John Whittingdale, a firm supporter of a privatisation historically, is to lead a consultation
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.
Channel 4’s historic headquarters in London (pictured) has been watered down through a new site in Leeds. Pic: AP
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.
The FT reported that John Whittingdale, a firm supporter of a privatisation historically, is to lead a consultation
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.
Channel 4 has prided itself on alternative, original programming throughout its history. Pic: AP
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.
Cash-strapped Thames Water has revealed a further rise in its debt pile while recording a return to profit on the back of inflation-busting hikes to bills.
The UK’s largest supplier said the 31% rise to customer bills since April had allowed it to increase capital investment by 22% to £1.3bn amid demands it improve performance in preventing sewage spills and stopping leaks.
Thames Water said it recorded a 20% drop in pollution incidents over the six months to the end of September, and leakage performance was holding steady despite the “extremely dry summer”.
Money latest: How much is a fair restaurant tip?
While waste complaints dipped by 11%, according to the company, there was a 42% surge in the number of customers complaining about the hike to bills.
Thames Water revenue rose 42% on the same period last year to £1.9bn, helping a return to profit after tax of £328m on the back of a £190m loss during April-September 2024.
The company said profitability was damaged by higher debt serving costs.
Its debt pile was recorded at £17.6bn – a rise of 5%.
The results were released against the backdrop of continuing talks involving the government and regulators over a proposed rescue deal by major Thames Water creditors.
Their consortium is known as London & Valley Water.
It effectively already owns Thames Water under the terms of a financial restructuring agreed early in the summer but regulator Ofwat is yet to give its verdict on whether the consortium can run the company, averting the prospect of it being placed in a special administration regime.
Without a deal the consortium, which includes investment heavyweights Elliott Management and BlackRock, would be wiped out.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
August: Is Thames Water a step closer to nationalisation?
Ofwat, which is to be scrapped under a shake-up of industry oversight, has been leading scrutiny of London & Valley’s operational plan and proposed capital structure.
The prospective deal would write off billions of pounds of the company’s debt and inject billions in fresh equity, in return for an adjustment in the regulator’s approach to future financial penalties.
Thames sees the creditors’ proposal as the only viable solution.
Despite huge hikes to household bills – allowed across England and Wales to bolster aging infrastructure including storm overflows – the company says its financial turnaround has been hampered by record fines for things like sewage leaks and bonuses to retain key staff.
Sky News revealed on Tuesday that its remuneration committee will meet next week to decide whether to proceed with nearly £2.5m in retention payments to 21 senior managers.
Read more from Sky News:
Reeves hit by Labour rebellion
The Bank of England’s take on ‘elevated’ risks
Thames Water chief executive Chris Weston said the company had made good progress on its operational and transformation targets.
“This progress has all been achieved as we also manage the recapitalisation of the business. We continue to work closely with stakeholders to secure a market-led solution that we believe is in the best interests of our customers and the environment.
“This in turn will allow the transformation of Thames to continue, a programme that will take at least a decade to complete and will restore the infrastructure and operations of the company.”
FIFA has backed away from using dynamic pricing for all 2026 World Cup tickets amid concerns about the cost of attending the tournament in North America.
The organisers insisted they always planned to ring-fence tickets at set prices to follow your own team.
But the announcement comes just days ahead of Friday’s tournament draw in Washington DC, which Donald Trump plans to attend.
Fans will have to wait until Saturday to know exactly where and when their teams will be playing in next summer’s tournament.
Scotland will be one of the teams in the tournament, held in North America and Mexico
Variable pricing – fluctuating based on demand – has never been used at a World Cup before, raising concerns about affordability.
England and Scotland fans have been sharing images in recent days of ticket website images highlighting cost worries.
But world football’s governing body said in a statement to Sky News: “FIFA can confirm ringfenced allocations are being set aside for specific fan categories, as has been the case at previous FIFA World Cups. These allocations will be set at a fixed price for the duration of the next ticket sales phase.
“The ringfenced allocations include tickets reserved for supporters of the Participating Member Associations (PMAs), who will be allocated 8% of the tickets for each match in which they take part, including all conditional knockout stage matches.”
FIFA says the cheapest tickets are from $60 (£45) in the group stage. But the most expensive tickets for the final are $6,730 (£5,094).
There will also be a sales window after the draw from 11 December to 13 January when ticket applications will be based on a fixed price for those buying in the random selection draw.
It is the biggest World Cup with 104 matches after the event was expanded from 32 to 48 teams. There are also three host nations for the first time – with Canada and Mexico the junior partners.
The tournament mascots as seen in Mexico in October. Pic: Reuters
Read more from Sky News:
Pope urges Trump not to oust Venezuelan president by force
Government delays Chinese ‘super embassy’ decision
FIFA defended using fluctuating pricing.
“The pricing model adopted for FIFA World Cup 26 reflects the existing market practice for major entertainment and sporting events within our hosts on a daily basis, soccer included,” FIFA’s statement continued.
“This is also a reflection of the treatment of the secondary market for tickets, which has a distinct legal treatment than in many other parts of the world. We are focused on ensuring fair access to our game for existing but also prospective fans.”
The statement addressed the concerns being raised about fans being priced out of attending.
FIFA said: “Stadium category maps do not reflect the number of tickets available in a given category but rather present default seating locations.
“FIFA resale fees are aligned with North American industry trends across various sports and entertainment sectors.”
Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales could also still qualify.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.
Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.
Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.
Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA
MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.
In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.
‘Time to stand up for farmers’
The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.
“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.
“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”
After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.
“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Farmers defy police ban in budget day protest in Westminster.
The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.
Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).
“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”
Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.
“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.
“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
UK ‘criminally’ unprepared to feed itself in crisis, says farmers’ union.
Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Torquil Crichton (Western Isles), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) and Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr).
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024