What will Richard Desmond do with Channel 5?

Now he’s purchased the channel, what changes can we expect to see?

Richard Desmond bought Channel 5 for £103.5m on Friday, but ever since the deal was first hinted at, speculation has been rife about what direction he might take with the broadcaster. Here's what we know so far.

First, let's put to rest the idea that it will be filled with pornography as soon as Desmond takes over. As a terrestrial channel, Five is obligated to provide news and current affairs programming, and cannot transform itself into an X-rated paradise. Desmond might have made a fortune out of Television X (the Fantasy Channel) and Red Hot, but he's going to have to keep the two separate or risk the wrath of the regulators.

In fact, he has insisted that he will not be taking the channel "downmarket", but instead plans to invest £1.5bn over the next five years. Big Brother, Panorama, Coronation Street and The X Factor are all programmes he has said he would like to see broadcast by his new acquisition.

We could well see a change of name, though. In an appearance on Live From Studio Five shortly after the sale was agreed, Desmond hinted that he would be dropping the "Five" brand and reverting to the original name of "Channel 5", though he did say "you'll have to talk to the chief executive" about any definite name change.

Although Channel 5 has performed badly in the past, it does have a couple of popular imports, notably Neighbours and CSI. Keeping hold of these will be vital to building a new audience.

Roy Greenslade, in his Evening Standard column, suggests that Desmond will attempt to mirror his success with OK! magazine by featuring more celebrity programming and seeking more star presenters. Perhaps he will even attempt to forge links between magazine and television by inviting those who appear in the pages of OK! to follow up with a TV appearance on Channel 5.

We can certainly expect him to attempt to cross-promote his different media outlets. European legislation prevents him from advertising his newspapers (the Daily Express, the Daily Star and associated Sunday titles) on television, but there is no reason why he can't promote Channel 5 in the newspapers. Given the Murdoch empire's success in combining print and television, Desmond is bound to follow suit.

Another possibility is that he will cough up the £115m required for the station to rejoin the internet TV platform Project Canvas. The channel was initially withdrawn to save money, but if the venture takes off, Desmond won't want to be left behind as others enter a new market.

Despite Desmond's plans for big investment, he is also going to have to cut costs if he wants to move the channel forward. In line with this, it is rumoured that Channel 5 will be moving from its base in the West End to the new proprietor's own office in the City.

Finally, I hear from a Daily Express insider that the cost-cutting agenda has become the butt of many a joke in the office. I understand:

The running joke at the Daily Express is that Channel 5 is going to be nothing but a DVD player in a week.

You heard it here first.

Caroline Crampton is web editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.