National News C4 privatisation

So I do understand where all you "Let's not privatize Channel 4" folks are coming from. I also would not trust this Tory government not to **** up any simple task.

But are Channel 4 a great media company because they still, in 2022, have a remit of public service obligations - or is it because they're just a really well run and managed corporation?

As you can probably tell from my postings, I lean towards the later. I think a bunch of the great things that Channel 4 have done have nothing to do with the public remit, and everything to do with the quality decision making of their management team over the years.

Yes, the public remit almost certainly helped shape the channel in its early years - but now it has an established brand (its film brand is established worldwide) and its own niche in the TV spectrum. So maybe it is a good time to let it go off and establish itself as an independent entity - especially as the vast majority of the public service remit is less important today as it is now covered by the vast array of other entertainment options*.

(* I accept that the "Some of the programming must be produced outside of London" part of the remit is one that might still be just as important today. Frankly, I don't know enough about the UK TV industry to comment intelligently on that)
 
So I do understand where all you "Let's not privatize Channel 4" folks are coming from. I also would not trust this Tory government not to **** up any simple task.

But are Channel 4 a great media company because they still, in 2022, have a remit of public service obligations - or is it because they're just a really well run and managed corporation?

As you can probably tell from my postings, I lean towards the later. I think a bunch of the great things that Channel 4 have done have nothing to do with the public remit, and everything to do with the quality decision making of their management team over the years.

Yes, the public remit almost certainly helped shape the channel in its early years - but now it has an established brand (its film brand is established worldwide) and its own niche in the TV spectrum. So maybe it is a good time to let it go off and establish itself as an independent entity - especially as the vast majority of the public service remit is less important today as it is now covered by the vast array of other entertainment options*.

(* I accept that the "Some of the programming must be produced outside of London" part of the remit is one that might still be just as important today. Frankly, I don't know enough about the UK TV industry to comment intelligently on that)
is it a "well run and managed corporation" because the board are appointed by Ofcom, with strict limits on borrowing and investment? or should it be like Netflix as some in government have suggested - so $16billion in debt with profits on paper more linked to accounting practises than anything else.
 
is it a "well run and managed corporation" because the board are appointed by Ofcom, with strict limits on borrowing and investment? or should it be like Netflix as some in government have suggested - so $16billion in debt with profits on paper more linked to accounting practises than anything else.

Yes, the Board are appointed by Ofcom......until the government decides to step in and veto the appointments, like they did twice last year:


Now yes, absolutely, these decisions were likely made because the Tory government wanted to clear the decks of anyone who would stand in the way of privatisation.

But it still speaks to my point - when a corporation is owned by the state, the ultimate level of control rests with the current government. All the current Board appointments at Channel 4 had to be approved by Mad Nad herself! And that's not going to change as long as the corporation is state-owned.....the Board will always then serve at the behest of the current government.

Yes, selling it off for the most cash they can grab so it can start to operate to maximize shareholder profits is not a great solution.
But I guess my confidence in central government has now been eroded to the extent that I don't want anything to be centrally managed that doesn't have to be, either.

Making it an independent non-profit with its own charter would have been the ideal middle ground.
 
Yes, the Board are appointed by Ofcom......until the government decides to step in and veto the appointments, like they did twice last year:


Now yes, absolutely, these decisions were likely made because the Tory government wanted to clear the decks of anyone who would stand in the way of privatisation.

But it still speaks to my point - when a corporation is owned by the state, the ultimate level of control rests with the current government. All the current Board appointments at Channel 4 had to be approved by Mad Nad herself! And that's not going to change as long as the corporation is state-owned.....the Board will always then serve at the behest of the current government.

Yes, selling it off for the most cash they can grab so it can start to operate to maximize shareholder profits is not a great solution.
But I guess my confidence in central government has now been eroded to the extent that I don't want anything to be centrally managed that doesn't have to be, either.

Making it an independent non-profit with its own charter would have been the ideal middle ground.
So how many times since 1982 have the Government vetoed Ofcom board appointments, I wonder:unsure:

Not a trick question, I honestly don't know the answer, but maybe will try to find it!
 
So how many times since 1982 have the Government vetoed Ofcom board appointments, I wonder:unsure:

Not a trick question, I honestly don't know the answer, but maybe will try to find it!

If I was a betting man, I would guess - including the two times that BoJo & Mad Nad did it last year - probably twice.

But they've always had the power to do it.
 
If I was a betting man, I would guess - including the two times that BoJo & Mad Nad did it last year - probably twice.

But they've always had the power to do it.
And if I were a betting man, I would bet you are absolutely right. And yes, every government since its inception have had that power.

And that in itself is a damning endictment of this current government and the shabby way they choose to do business.

As soon as the government start meddling in the media because they don't like being questioned or held accountable, we are on a pretty dangerous trajectory.

And then when you couple that with the fair wind the likes of GB News get from many in the government, I think it tells you all you need to know.

Still amazing that some think this is OK, or are even simply prepared to look the other way[emoji2369]
 
If I was a betting man, I would guess - including the two times that BoJo & Mad Nad did it last year - probably twice.

But they've always had the power to do it.
Same as they used to allow selection of suitable people with experience for roles like chair of the charity commission, instead they imposed university friend of BoJo, and Tory party donor Martin Thomas, with reports suggesting "grave questions about the integrity of the process". He had to resign after previous inappropriate behaviour whilst in a position of power came to light. He defended himself by saying "In my role overseeing 14 charities during a 30-year career, I have had to make tough decisions which can make me unpopular." - however his explanation of him sending a photo of himself in Victoria's Secret holding a mannequin in a thong as "accidental" seems less like a "tough decision" and more like BS.
 
cronyism is rife throughout this government .....

alongside ex pm Cameron, and current pm Johnson in the infamous Oxford University Bullingdon club picture are Ewan Fergusson ( back row second last on the right), appointed chairman of the Ethics committee in 2021 , and Sebastian James ( front row first ) Chairman of Boots , who have be given Lateral flow Tests , paid for by UK taxpayers, to SELL ( in March 2022)

ITV had a look at the Bullingdon club members depicted in the accompanying image in 2019- before Fergusson and James were 'selected' for jobs for the boys by Johnson and his cronies more recently....

 
cronyism is rife throughout this government .....

alongside ex pm Cameron, and current pm Johnson in the infamous Oxford University Bullingdon club picture are Ewan Fergusson ( back row second last on the right), appointed chairman of the Ethics committee in 2021 , and Sebastian James ( front row first ) Chairman of Boots , who have be given Lateral flow Tests , paid for by UK taxpayers, to SELL ( in March 2022)

ITV had a look at the Bullingdon club members depicted in the accompanying image in 2019- before Fergusson and James were 'selected' for jobs for the boys by Johnson and his cronies more recently....

It's the UK version of the Oligarchy

And every bit as corrupt!
 
Back
Top Bottom