Channel 4 and another half-baked political idea

The case for full privatisation of Channel 4 has almost certainly been lost – so naturally it’s time for an even worse proposal…

The rather strange idea that Channel 4 has somehow got to be privatised to ensure its future has been quietly dropped, hasn’t it?

Probably, but it’s really difficult to say what is really happening in the shadow world of conventional politics obscured by the daily blitz of referendum claim and counter claims, lies and damned lies.

It will be the autumn before the dust begins to clear, and of course if the British people were to be persuaded to leave the European Union in the face of powerful arguments against such a course, then the dust wouldn’t clear for years.

The word has seeped out privately that ministers have pulled back from a full £1 billion privatisation and that any work on the BBC’s Royal Charter renewal has so dominated the DCMS agenda that serious thought will not be given to the future of Channel 4 until after the summer.

As recently as late April Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, however, was still telling the House of Lords Communications Select Committee looking into the privatisation issue, that Channel 4 would be “better off” in private hands.

“This is not about raising money for the Government but about trying to find a model to sustain Channel 4,” Whittingdale said.

As Channel 4 chief executive David Abraham argued memorably, this is a solution looking for a problem.

The curious thing is that Channel 4 has never formally been an explicit target for privatisation, meaning it should not even be a matter for debate, yet behind closed doors it is very much a matter for serious consideration.

Now in the shadow lands of political policy making, the case for full privatisation has almost certainly been lost – so naturally it’s time to move on to an even worse idea: partial privatisation or bringing in either a minority or even 50-50 shareholder.

[advert position=”left”]

It’s interesting to grope around and try to discern why Channel 4 was ever a target in the first place and why the idea has now apparently been dropped.

As to the why there is no need to look much further than the obvious – it was on the list as a public asset that could be sold and in the mind of the most right-wing Government since Margaret Thatcher, why not?

The failure of the nascent policy is far more instructive.

Once the initial wheeze of simply announcing privatisation in the Spring budget failed – because of the leak of the plans poking out of the civil servant’s briefcase as he walked into Downing Street – it was always going to be difficult.

Primary legislation with a full debate in both houses of Parliament was always going to expose Whittingdale’s threadbare argument that you could have the Channel 4 remit and £1 billion.

The public fuss would have been enormous and the coup de grace for the line that Channel 4 has somehow got to be saved from eventual, if not exactly impending collapse, surely came with the publication of the channel’s 2015 results.

Channel 4’s revenues have reached nearly £1 billion a year, record sums are being spent on original production, cash reserves are strong and viewing figures stable – even showing tiny increases – despite immense increases in competition and winning more awards than ever.

Why would anyone want to mess with a British success story?

A part was also played in winning the argument by a book put together by a team of hackacademics led by John Mair – What Price Channel 4?, published this week, of which I contributed a chapter.

Its main chapters and ideas have been widely sprayed around the media over the past few months and all of the text has been submitted as evidence to the House of Lords committee.

In it Abraham argues that all six chief executives have handed on a baton to protect Channel 4’s unique remit to be innovative, diverse, experimental, distinctive, challenging and to nurture talent and the UK’s broadcasting entrepreneurs.

“For the sake of the next generation of audiences and creative talents, let’s hope that never changes,” Abraham argues.

It could very easily change if, for the sake of having something to do, part-privatisation were to replace full privatisation.

Then there’s the latest Whittingdale wheeze – trying to force Channel 4 to close its Horseferry Road headquarters in London and move to Birmingham even though the broadcaster already commissions extensively outside the M25.

Discovery chief executive David Zaslav was commendably honest recently when discussing his interest in possibly taking a stake in Channel 4.

Zaslav revealed that Discovery, a perfectly respectable company in every way, had looked at Channel 4 over the past couple of years and could be interested.

Any deal for Channel 4 would obviously depend on price but according to the Guardian Zaslav added there would also need to be “enough flexibility to commercially programme it”.

In a word Discovery would want to place its own commercial programming stamp on the channels.

Other commercial buyers would surely feel the same way and the baton could be dropped.

A 50-50 deal always has the potential for conflict and deadlock and who would actually want a minority stake without any say over proceedings?

Presumably any sale proceedings would go to the Treasury and the minority shareholder would have to receive a share of any profit – money that would not be invested in Channel 4 programming. It could also be a staging post on the way to full privatisation.

If the Government is intent on securing “greater public value” from Channel 4 and feels the need to do something, anything, then the least damaging initiative would be to leave the existing structure intact and require the broadcaster to pay an annual dividend to the Treasury.

Again that would be money that couldn’t be invested in programmes and the greatest public value that Channel 4 could create for the UK is to be allowed to continue to do what it does without being fettered by half-baked political ideas.

Channel 4 also surely has a right to ask that the flow of destabilising rumours and whispers from the shadows should cease and Government plans for the broadcaster be spelled out in detail and in public so that they can be properly assessed.

The really revolutionary thing to do would be to leave Channel 4 exactly as it is – free from endless Government interference by innuendo.