Channel 4 Won't Be Privatised
Discussion
Quite bizarre how these things seem to do 180's apparently based on little more than the whim of whoever is the minister responsible at the time.
Culture secretary ‘recommends dropping Channel 4 privatisation’
Culture secretary ‘recommends dropping Channel 4 privatisation’
Have to say, Good. Channel 4 does a lot of fine things in my eyes that its very clear to me it couldn't / wouldn't under a different model.
But to the original poster's comment, this policy flip flopping does irritate me. Perhaps I'm naive, but you vote in a party and kinda expect that across all manner of departments, you'll get a considered policy position bought into by the party. A clear direction. Yes, ministers might come and go but it irritates me to death that policies seem not to be party political, but the whims of whatever muppet happens to be in post. Transport, Home Office, Culture etc etc. You have to wonder why you bother voting for the party to start with if the policy direction has nothing at all to do with the collective view and solely on the individual that happens to be the role that day.
But to the original poster's comment, this policy flip flopping does irritate me. Perhaps I'm naive, but you vote in a party and kinda expect that across all manner of departments, you'll get a considered policy position bought into by the party. A clear direction. Yes, ministers might come and go but it irritates me to death that policies seem not to be party political, but the whims of whatever muppet happens to be in post. Transport, Home Office, Culture etc etc. You have to wonder why you bother voting for the party to start with if the policy direction has nothing at all to do with the collective view and solely on the individual that happens to be the role that day.
Newc said:
Why does the state have a stake in a commercial media organisation ? Government (of any flavour) should be trying to reduce its spending below 47% of GDP by any means possible, and that definitely includes privatising all the fripperies.
C4 doesn't appear to take any government funding. If privatisation resulted in a reduction of programme commissioning, it could presumably be a net negative for UK gov't tax revenue.Newc said:
Why does the state have a stake in a commercial media organisation ? Government (of any flavour) should be trying to reduce its spending below 47% of GDP by any means possible, and that definitely includes privatising all the fripperies.
1) Channel 4 more than covers its costs (as a non-profit, surplus that isn't taxed is reinvested in commissioning and distributing British shows and films - that, incidentally, is why it exists as a state-owned commercial organisation). 2) Spending is already well below 47% of GDP (44.6% in 2021/22), but that aside, how does the government divesting itself of a cost-neutral (or, depending on how you measure it, net-positive) asset help get that spending below that arbitrary level?
Traditiional broadcasters are becoming more and more irrelevent. Broadcast TV is dying as a medium; relevent perhaps only for Live broadcasts.
However, the Government must ensure that culturally relevent material continues to be produced in the UK for UK and worldwide audiences.
How that should happen in the changing world, I'll leave to brighter minds.
However, the Government must ensure that culturally relevent material continues to be produced in the UK for UK and worldwide audiences.
How that should happen in the changing world, I'll leave to brighter minds.
xeny said:
Newc said:
Why does the state have a stake in a commercial media organisation ? Government (of any flavour) should be trying to reduce its spending below 47% of GDP by any means possible, and that definitely includes privatising all the fripperies.
C4 doesn't appear to take any government funding. If privatisation resulted in a reduction of programme commissioning, it could presumably be a net negative for UK gov't tax revenue.The original purpose of C4 was to break what was then a monopoly held by ITV; then the only commercial broadcaster in the UK. With no other company expressing any interest in coming into the market, the government created C4. This kept advertising rates in check and also ensured that production quality was good.
But you have to look beyond the telly to see the true value of C4. Film 4 is owned by the same organisation and has been instrumental in reinvigorating the UK film industry. As xeny says, it gets no direct funding from government but the government does underwrite its investments. This means that C4 (or F4) can secure the funding to make the sort of films that commercial studios wouldn't want or wouldn't be able to. Film 4 films are generally lower-budget compared to others but because they have the headroom to try more things, be a bit more creative and edgy, when they do hit, they hit really big. Four Weddings and Funeral cost £3m to make but has generated over £200m in revenue - revenue that has come into to the UK from which tax has been extracted.
Film is far from a frippery. It's an industry that's worth £4b to the UK economy and growing at quite a pace. But it's high risk and investors tend to favour the big blockbusters that are guaranteed a huge return. But as Film 4 has shown, if you can appease the backers with government underwriting, you get to make interesting films that do quite often, generate the big-buck box office revenue.
It also enhances the country's cultural 'landscape' which sounds a bit fluffy but does have profound economic impact in terms of promotion of arts and the industries that support it.
If the government were to have offloaded C4, it would have put a few quid in the coffers for sure, but the longer term impact would almost certainly have been a decline in the contributions Channel 4 and Film 4 make to the UK economy.
Rivenink said:
Traditiional broadcasters are becoming more and more irrelevent. Broadcast TV is dying as a medium; relevent perhaps only for Live broadcasts.
However, the Government must ensure that culturally relevent material continues to be produced in the UK for UK and worldwide audiences.
How that should happen in the changing world, I'll leave to brighter minds.
I agree. And I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer posted above However, the Government must ensure that culturally relevent material continues to be produced in the UK for UK and worldwide audiences.
How that should happen in the changing world, I'll leave to brighter minds.
Newc said:
Why does the state have a stake in a commercial media organisation ? Government (of any flavour) should be trying to reduce its spending below 47% of GDP by any means possible, and that definitely includes privatising all the fripperies.
2xChevrons said:
1) Channel 4 more than covers its costs (as a non-profit, surplus that isn't taxed is reinvested in commissioning and distributing British shows and films - that, incidentally, is why it exists as a state-owned commercial organisation).
If it's so successful, it can run itself. And the other replies above imply that it very much is needed and successful, so why does it need to be an agency of the state ?
If in fact it is doing something that isn't commercially viable, but is deemed to have intangible value, why does the state need to be an owner? Put the intangible objectives out to tender as a grant. Plenty of organisations work that way. The government isn't a shareholder in the Royal Opera, and they seem to manage their grants ok.
2xChevrons said:
2) Spending is already well below 47% of GDP (44.6% in 2021/22), but that aside, how does the government divesting itself of a cost-neutral (or, depending on how you measure it, net-positive) asset help get that spending below that arbitrary level?
Nope. 47% according to the government's own stats. https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and...
Arbitrary it may be, but are you really going to stand there and say that state spending at that level is ok? What non-arbitrary level do you think it should be at ?
Newc said:
If it's so successful, it can run itself. And the other replies above imply that it very much is needed and successful, so why does it need to be an agency of the state ?
If in fact it is doing something that isn't commercially viable, but is deemed to have intangible value, why does the state need to be an owner? Put the intangible objectives out to tender as a grant. Plenty of organisations work that way. The government isn't a shareholder in the Royal Opera, and they seem to manage their grants ok.
It can be argued that its success and commercial viability is directly attributable to its status and relationship with government.If in fact it is doing something that isn't commercially viable, but is deemed to have intangible value, why does the state need to be an owner? Put the intangible objectives out to tender as a grant. Plenty of organisations work that way. The government isn't a shareholder in the Royal Opera, and they seem to manage their grants ok.
The reach, economic impact and running costs of the Royal Opera is a tiny fraction of that of Channel 4 that is consistently creating original British content that is sold around the world.
There's no doubt it would survive as a timely company but would almost certainly loose its edge that makes it unique amongst broadcasters and this would ultimately negatively impact the economic gain it has on the British economy.
StevieBee said:
Rivenink said:
Traditiional broadcasters are becoming more and more irrelevent. Broadcast TV is dying as a medium; relevent perhaps only for Live broadcasts.
However, the Government must ensure that culturally relevent material continues to be produced in the UK for UK and worldwide audiences.
How that should happen in the changing world, I'll leave to brighter minds.
I agree. And I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer posted above However, the Government must ensure that culturally relevent material continues to be produced in the UK for UK and worldwide audiences.
How that should happen in the changing world, I'll leave to brighter minds.
The whole thing was just a personal vendetta of Nadine Dorries after C4 accused her of being an out and out liar over that reality tv thing she did. Then there was an independent enquiry that found the C4 were right, and she was a liar. She doesn't like to be made to look foolish (she can do that perfectly well on her own).
Now she's finished because Boris has gone and no one else would give her the job of even watering their plants whilst on holiday, the new minister has seen the plan for what it was and scrapped it.
Now she's finished because Boris has gone and no one else would give her the job of even watering their plants whilst on holiday, the new minister has seen the plan for what it was and scrapped it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff