Election result implications for BBC, Channel 4 and STV

The general election result changes the terms of reference for the debate around the future of broadcasting.

Labour’s big majority means Sir Keir Starmer can govern without being a hostage to small groups of MPs with niche interests.

It would also take a dramatic reversal in Labour’s fortunes – or the collapse of Reform UK – to bring the Conservatives back to power in 5 years’ time.

Realistically Labour will be in power for the next 10 or even 15 years, with those qualifications. 

Labour’s recovery in Scotland also means there is no prospect of Scottish independence in the foreseeable future even if the SNP wins the 2026 Scottish election.

So what does this mean for broadcasting? It was an issue little discussed during the campaign.

First of all, there is no longer any prospect of an existential threat to the BBC. Those who want to “defund” the corporation will be banging on the door of an empty house.

But does that mean the squeeze on BBC funding is over? 

In the short term will there be any restorative rise in the licence fee? Then rises to ensure inflation does not erode its value?

It will be interesting to watch.

Should there also be a debate over the return of free TV licences for everyone aged over 75, funded as before by the government to ensure the BBC does not lose out?

Everyone who cares for the BBC knows the cuts cannot go on. There are few significant efficiency savings to squeeze out or niche services to close. Less money in real terms simply means more cuts to programmes and services.

But if there is to be any real terms rise in BBC funding there needs to be a proper discussion first.

Would that money be used to restore services which have suffered like English local radio?  Or be used to ease pressures across the board?

Or is there a risk of it being used simply to compete against commercial broadcasters? New money for mainstream music radio or popular TV entertainment? 

With the existential threat gone, supporters of the BBC should not be afraid of a debate over whether there are realistic alternatives to the licence fee such as a standing charge for every household.

The status quo as the “least worst option” should not be ruled out but new ideas and modifications should be discussed too.

Only commercial funding and direct government funding should be ruled out.

Channel 4 can now be confident that the privatisation threat has finally lifted. At least for now.

It needs to use this opportunity to prove its purpose with more bold commissions of value – otherwise at sone point in the future the threat will return and be met once again with a collective public shrug of indifference.

Labour would never privatise C4 on ideological or dogmatic grounds. But, unless C4 can demonstrate convincingly that viewers win from its current status, there is always the chance of the Treasury looking to sell off non-core assets to raise money.

Maybe a new model for C4 can be found? Mutually owned by production companies with none owning, say, more than 5pc.

I mentioned Scottish independence for a reason. 

Will the BBC continue with its efforts to try to reach out to those supporters of independence who felt alienated in 2014?

The SNP envisaged a separate Scottish public service broadcaster though it also argued BBC channels would still be available – rather like RTÉ in Northern Ireland and the BBC in the Republic. 

It is also worth wondering whether constitutional uncertainty may, at least in part, explain why ITV has never bought STV.

With STV now doing little beyond its legal obligations, it is hard to argue a takeover would lead to much more than a rebrand. Online, people in the STV area would gain full access to ITVX without the need for jiggery pokery.

Lastly comes the question of the end of Freeview.

I simply cannot imagine any mainstream government – left of right – allowing Freeview to go as long as it is still used by a significant number of people.

No politician would want to be responsible for a decision which could leave many elderly and vulnerable people without TV.

Freeview will only go if Freely somehow becomes the default option for everyone. That means ensuring everyone has free broadband of sufficient quality. 

Will any politician commit to that? 

Acknowledgements