General : Channel 4 to be privatised

[OLD BOY]

Channel 4 has put counter-proposals to the government which would involve being able to seek private investment while remaining a public sector channel. I hadn't appreciated that they had done this, but perhaps this will change the government's mind about privatising it.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...-privatisation

[EXTRACT]

In February Channel 4 put forward its own counter-proposals to government, which would see it seeking private investment while remaining in public ownership. A leaked copy of the document shows the broadcaster’s bosses want to have a commitment to regional output built into its legal mandate, with a pledge to move 300 more jobs out of the capital, rapidly expand the Leeds office, and reduce office space in London.

Unlikely, as the proposals were made over a month ago to Dorries…

https://www.ft.com/content/b897bf61-...a-dcf153eb3384

Channel 4 proposed partnering with private investors to spend £200mn a year on British films and shows as part of an alternative plan to head off privatisation, according to documents shared with ministers.

The confidential blueprint presented in February to Nadine Dorries, culture secretary, set out a business case for the commercially funded, government-owned broadcaster to remain in public hands, based on the biggest overhaul of its model since it was founded in 1982.

Along with an injection of private capital, the plan seen by the Financial Times would have allowed Channel 4 to benefit from the secondary sale of rights to projects commissioned through the joint venture, a controversial evolution of its “publisher-broadcaster” model.

Alex Mahon, Channel 4’s chief executive, pitched the approach as a way for the broadcaster to raise investment while keeping a public ownership model that would increase its support for Britain’s creative economy, particularly outside London.

Dorries ultimately rejected Channel 4’s proposals this week, deciding to press ahead with legislation to enable the privatisation because government ownership was “holding back” the broadcaster from competing with Netflix and Amazon.

According to documents seen by the FT, Channel 4’s business plan sought to give the broadcaster access to private capital and debt, using a hybrid structure that it argued would keep the borrowing off the public sector balance sheet. The joint venture would be majority-owned by private investors.

Other elements of the plan included expanding the on-demand streaming service All 4 to international markets, doubling its staff presence outside London, and enshrining a commitment to direct at least half its spending to the UK’s nations and regions.

“Our alternative vision for Channel 4 would bring private capital into the business for the first time — outside of the public sector balance sheet — to enable greater content investment,” the broadcaster said in its paper to ministers.

[OLD BOY]

It will be interesting to hear the debate in the Commons if this idea proceeds. I certainly agree with the need to bring in private finance, etc, but I’m not sure why Nadine appears to have rejected that idea.

I wouldn’t be in favour of privatisation if it was purely on ideological grounds.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It will be interesting to hear the debate in the Commons if this idea proceeds. I certainly agree with the need to bring in private finance, etc, but I’m not sure why Nadine appears to have rejected that idea.

I wouldn’t be in favour of privatisation if it was purely on ideological grounds.

It sems to be purely on ideological grounds, for as you say, there's other means to bring private funding into Channel 4 if the government wished to. Let's not forget that Dorries is not exactly an expert in broadcasting and thought Channel 4 was subsidised by the state.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It sems to be purely on ideological grounds, for as you say, there's other means to bring private funding into Channel 4 if the government wished to. Let's not forget that Dorries is not exactly an expert in broadcasting and thought Channel 4 was subsidised by the state.

Yes, I agree with that. And Nadine Dorries was the wrong choice for this job - she doesn't seem to have a clue.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, I agree with that. And Nadine Dorries was the wrong choice for this job - she doesn't seem to have a clue.

Yes, well she's another of Boris' conquests by all accounts. He must have drunk a lot that night.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, I agree with that. And Nadine Dorries was the wrong choice for this job - she doesn't seem to have a clue.

Maybe that's why she was given the job. A cabinet made up of nodding dogs, pushing through decisions made above their paygrade, could be quite useful.

[RichardCoulter]

In this recent interview with Nadine Dorries, amongst other things, she proudly boasts that she's never behaved like a politician and that criticism aimed at her is because of her Northern accent and because she's a woman:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017cf0

[DECKAS]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

In this recent interview with Nadine Dorries, amongst other things, she proudly boasts that she's never behaved like a politician and that criticism aimed at her is because of her Northern accent and because she's a woman:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017cf0

No she's thick

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by DECKAS

No she's thick

Pretty much...

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by DECKAS

No she's thick

So a nurse that founded a company that was sold to Bupa is thick , I dread to ask what that makes most users on this site

[epsilon]

Not all skills are transferable. I guess selling a child care company to BUPA didn't give her the knowledge needed to fulfil her current remit.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by epsilon

Not all skills are transferable. I guess selling a child care company to BUPA didn't give her the knowledge needed to fulfil her current remit.

That's not my point , clearly she is not thick , I would say that most politicians of what ever party don't have knowledge to fulfill any remit. Yet we still think they do

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Itshim

That's not my point , clearly she is not thick , I would say that most politicians of what ever party don't have knowledge to fulfill any remit. Yet we still think they do

Nah, she's thick.

[epsilon]

Originally Posted by Itshim

That's not my point , clearly she is not thick , I would say that most politicians of what ever party don't have knowledge to fulfill any remit. Yet we still think they do

If she doesn't understand her remit and is too lazy to do any research, she should, at least, have enough sense to keep her mouth shut.

---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 23:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Nah, she's thick.

Agreed!