Business

A workplace pension provider founded by two cousins has secured £500,000 in funding as it sets out to overhaul a market where the vast majority of employers say they are dissatisfied with their existing arrangements.

Compound, which targets growing businesses with a digitally native pension platform, closed the round with participation from Fuel Ventures and Paul Rippon, co-founder of the digital bank Monzo, who joins as a special adviser.

The timing looks shrewd. Workplace pension contributions across Britain are forecast to reach £480 billion by 2033, yet the sector remains dogged by outdated technology and disengaged savers. Some £50 billion in pension pots have already been lost track of entirely, whilst opt-out rates nationally sit at around ten per cent, climbing to fifteen per cent among millennials and seventeen per cent for Generation Z.

Auto-enrolment has succeeded in bringing millions of workers into pension saving since its introduction, but critics argue that poor user experience and impenetrable jargon mean many employees fail to grasp the tax advantages and long-term growth on offer. Research suggests that ninety-four per cent of companies encounter problems with their pension provider, a statistic that Compound’s founders believe represents a significant commercial opening.

The company, founded by Dan and Richard Klin, has built a platform that integrates directly with accounting and payroll software to reduce the administrative burden on employers. Alongside the business-facing product, Compound offers employees a mobile application with tools to find and consolidate old pension pots, a feature designed to tackle the lost pensions problem head-on.

Early results appear encouraging. Compound reports an employee opt-out rate of just 1.6 per cent, comfortably below the national average and a figure its founders attribute to removing friction from the process.

Richard Klin said the company was built to address what he describes as a fundamentally broken system. He argues that most people who opt out of workplace pensions are not rejecting the concept of saving but rather walking away from platforms they find confusing and untrustworthy.

Dan Klin, meanwhile, is keen to challenge perceptions of pensions as dull. He positions them as among the most powerful wealth-building tools available to ordinary workers, provided the administration is simplified and the engagement improved.

Mark Pearson, managing partner of Fuel Ventures, pointed to the scale of the problem that incumbents such as NEST have struggled to resolve, describing Compound’s product-led approach and sector expertise as well suited to disrupting the space.

Whether Compound can translate a promising pilot into meaningful market share remains to be seen. The workplace pension sector is dominated by large, entrenched players with significant distribution advantages. But with financial anxiety running high across the country and a generation of younger workers demonstrably disengaged from retirement saving, the appetite for a credible challenger has arguably never been greater.

Read more:
Monzo co-founder backs pension start-up Compound in £500,000 raise to shake up workplace savings

Teaching is full-time work, and carving out time for a graduate degree on top of lesson planning and grading takes real commitment.

That’s why many educators turn to 1 year online master’s in education programs: you stay in your classroom, finish in around 12 months, and come away with a recognized qualification. According to UPCEA, 71% of prospective graduate students now prefer fully online programs, and that shift shows clearly in education.

Here are four programs worth looking at.

1. International Teachers University (ITU): Best for International Educators

ITU built its 1 year online master’s in education programs on international teaching benchmarks, which makes it particularly relevant for teachers who work across different curricula or in international school settings.

The program includes eight core pedagogy courses and two specialization courses. You’ll study learning theories and assessment methods that track student progress in real time, alongside questioning techniques that develop critical thinking. Technology integration runs through the core curriculum with a focus on practical classroom application. Specialization tracks cover Early Years and Primary Education, English Language and Literacy, and Teaching Mathematics and Numeracy. The full program costs $7,500, with no additional fees.

2. Walden University: Best for Flexible Scheduling

Walden is one of the more established names in online M Ed programs, with specializations in Teacher Leadership and Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment that work well for practicing educators. Courses run on seven to eight-week terms, which keeps the workload manageable alongside a full teaching schedule. The university holds regional accreditation and wide recognition across U.S. school districts.

3. Western Governors University (WGU): Best for Experienced Teachers

WGU runs on a competency-based model, where progress is tied to demonstrated mastery. Experienced teachers with strong subject knowledge can often move through the program faster than a fixed-semester schedule allows. WGU’s online masters of education degree carries CAEP accreditation, which employers across the U.S. and in many international schools recognize.

4. Grand Canyon University (GCU): Best for Rolling Intake

GCU offers online M Ed programs with multiple start dates throughout the year, which helps if waiting for a traditional intake doesn’t fit your schedule. Specializations cover educational technology, special education, and teaching and learning. The curriculum leans toward applied learning, with coursework connected directly to classroom practice.

How to Pick the Right 1 Year Online Master’s in Education Program

Before committing, check two things above all: whether the institution holds proper accreditation and whether the curriculum matches the kind of teaching you actually do. Scheduling flexibility matters too, especially if your school runs on a strict term calendar.

An online masters of education degree becomes a worthwhile investment when it points toward something specific, whether that’s a leadership role, a new school environment, or a qualification threshold you need to meet.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a 1-year online master’s in education program?

It’s an accelerated graduate degree in education completed online in around 12 months. It covers pedagogy, curriculum design, and educational leadership, giving working teachers a path to advanced qualifications without leaving their jobs.

Who should consider a 1-year online master’s in education program?

Any working teacher who wants to advance professionally without a career break. These programs work well for educators moving into leadership, refining classroom practice, or meeting qualification requirements for international or independent school positions.

What specializations are commonly offered in 1-year online master’s in education programs?

Common specializations include curriculum and instruction, educational leadership, early years education, educational technology, and English language teaching. What’s available varies by institution, so check each program’s course catalog before applying.

How do I choose the right 1-year online master’s in education program?

Start with accreditation, then look at how well the curriculum fits your teaching context and how flexible the scheduling is. For teachers in international settings, programs built on global standards tend to be more useful than those tied to a single national curriculum.

Are 1-year online master’s in education programs recognized by employers?

Yes, provided the institution holds proper accreditation. Most schools, districts, and international organizations recognize degrees from accredited universities. If you plan to teach abroad, confirm that recognition applies in your target country before enrolling.

Read more:
One Year Online Master’s in Education Programs: 4 Top Options to Consider

Changes to the off-payroll working rules coming into force this month will relieve scaling businesses of costly compliance obligations. Yet contractors who fail to adjust their rates risk being caught out, writes Business Matters.

From this month, a raft of amendments to the UK’s IR35 tax legislation will redraw the lines of responsibility between businesses and the freelancers they engage. For thousands of companies that have until now shouldered the burden of determining whether their contractors fall inside or outside the off-payroll working rules, the changes promise welcome relief. For freelancers, however, the picture is rather more complicated.

IR35, in essence, is the government’s mechanism for ensuring that individuals who work through intermediaries such as personal service companies, but whose engagements resemble those of employees, pay a broadly equivalent amount of income tax and National Insurance. According to HMRC, the framework has already shifted more than 130,000 workers into deemed employment tax status since 2021 – a figure that underscores both its reach and its continuing impact on the UK’s contracting workforce.

Under the current regime, responsibility for determining a contractor’s IR35 status rests largely with the hiring organisation – provided that organisation qualifies as medium or large under company law. Smaller companies have been exempt, with the onus falling instead on the contractor’s own personal service company. The April 2026 changes significantly raise the bar for what constitutes a “small” company, meaning many more businesses will now fall beneath that threshold and be freed from compliance duties.

A wider net for the small company exemption

Previously, a company qualified as small if it met at least two of three criteria: annual turnover of no more than £10.2 million, a balance sheet total of no more than £5.1 million, and no more than 50 employees. From April 2026, the turnover ceiling rises to £15 million and the balance sheet limit to £7.5 million, whilst the headcount threshold remains unchanged at 50 staff. The consequence is that a significant number of businesses that were previously classified as medium-sized will now be treated as small, and the obligation to issue a Status Determination Statement – the legal document setting out whether a contractor sits inside or outside IR35 – will pass back to the contractor.

Vincent Huguet, chief executive and co-founder of Malt, the European freelance talent platform, welcomes the reforms but sounds a note of caution. The shift in thresholds, he says, helps to move responsibility away from hiring managers, allowing them to concentrate on when and what they need rather than worrying about the tax implications of every engagement. Yet he warns that neither companies nor freelancers should become complacent.

The end of double taxation?

Alongside the threshold changes, the government is introducing a PAYE set-off mechanism designed to address one of the more contentious aspects of the existing rules. Until now, where a client failed to apply IR35 correctly, HMRC could pursue the full PAYE and National Insurance bill from the deemed employer without accounting for tax already paid at the contractor’s end through their personal service company. The new mechanism allows HMRC to offset those prior payments when calculating any outstanding liability.

Huguet describes this as an important step towards eliminating double taxation, noting that it removes the risk of a freelancer ending up paying more than their fair share and properly accounts for historic tax records.

Pricing: the freelancer’s blind spot

For contractors, however, the real sting may lie in the detail of their own rate cards. With a greater share of compliance responsibility now resting with them, freelancers must ensure their pricing properly reflects the full cost of engagement. Last year’s increase in employer National Insurance Contributions from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent, coupled with the reduction in the payment threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 annually, has already made hiring more expensive. Because employer NIC is deducted from the assignment rate before a contractor’s pay is calculated, those costs feed directly into negotiations – whether the contractor is deemed inside or outside IR35.

Huguet’s message to freelancers is blunt: get your pricing right. Those who fail to factor in these shifting obligations risk undervaluing their services at precisely the moment when the regulatory landscape demands they take greater ownership of their tax affairs. For businesses, particularly those that find themselves newly reclassified as small, the changes offer a chance to engage freelance talent with less red tape – but only if both sides of the arrangement understand what is now expected of them.

Read more:
Thousands of growing firms freed from IR35 burden – but freelancers warned not to underprice

The government has announced a £100million package of measures aimed at unlocking private investment for Britain’s entrepreneurs, start-ups and scale-ups, but business leaders have rounded on the plans, warning that established small firms are being forgotten while the broader strategy for enterprise remains “in a muddle.”

Brought into force at the start of the new tax year, the changes expand eligibility for the Enterprise Management Incentives scheme, which allows qualifying companies to offer employees tax-advantaged share options. The package also doubles the amount a company can raise through the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trusts, both of which offer tax reliefs designed to channel capital towards higher-risk, early-stage businesses that struggle to secure growth funding.

Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, said she was “backing business with a more active state” and making “big commitments to industry,” adding that the measures would help wealth creators access the finance critical to their success.

The reception from the business community, however, was notably cool. Critics pointed to the stark contrast between the sums involved and the £25billion a year the Treasury is now raising from employers following its increase to National Insurance contributions.

Katrina Young, a digital transformation strategist at KYC Digital, said the arithmetic does not flatter the policy. The expanded EIS, VCT and EMI reliefs are targeted at companies with gross assets of up to £120million and as many as 500 employees, she noted, leaving out the dental practices, family logistics firms and small bakery chains that employ the bulk of the workforce yet face an additional £900 per employee per year since the NI threshold was cut from £9,100 to £5,000. She pointed to British Chambers of Commerce data showing that 82 per cent of firms expect the NI rise to affect their business, with 58 per cent anticipating reduced recruitment.

The hospitality sector offered a particularly blunt assessment. Jess Magill, co-founder of Devon-based Powderkeg Brewery, said there is little point in throwing money at getting new companies off the ground if they are then taxed out of existence. She argued that what is needed is support for established businesses to survive, warning that popular venues are closing every week and the domino effect on suppliers is worsening.

Colette Mason, an author and AI consultant at London-based Clever Clogs AI, echoed those concerns, describing the £100million as “miserly” when set against the NI rises. She noted that the EMI expansion targets roughly 1,800 scale-up companies over five years, firms already attractive to investors, while the businesses that employ most people are cutting hours, freezing wages and reconsidering whether to hire at all.

Samuel Mather-Holgate, managing director of Swindon-based Mather and Murray Financial, said the government is sending mixed signals at precisely the wrong moment, increasing the amount companies can raise while simultaneously slashing the benefits for investors in those same businesses. The UK, he argued, needs to be incentivising companies both to start and to stay on British soil.

The announcement is likely to intensify the debate over whether the government’s growth agenda is reaching the businesses that need it most, or merely recycling a fraction of what it has already taken.

Read more:
Government’s £100m pledge for innovators dismissed as a drop in the ocean after £25bn National Insurance raid

Kate Alessi, Google’s managing director for the UK and Ireland, has pushed back firmly against warnings that artificial intelligence will trigger widespread unemployment, insisting that the greater risk lies in failing to equip workers with the skills to thrive alongside the technology.

Speaking as Google unveiled a new national upskilling programme backed by £2 million in grant funding from Google.org, Alessi argued that history offered a reassuring precedent. Every previous wave of technological disruption, she noted, had prompted the same anxieties about disappearing jobs – and every time, the fears had proved overblown as new roles emerged to replace the old.

Her intervention comes at a pointed moment. In January, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, cautioned that AI could bring about a new era of mass unemployment without proper oversight, while Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey drew comparisons with the Industrial Revolution, stressing the need for retraining and education on a significant scale.

Alessi does not deny that change is coming, but she frames it rather differently. Citing research from the policy consultancy Public First, she pointed out that roughly six in ten UK jobs are expected to be enhanced rather than eliminated by AI. The challenge, she maintained, is ensuring that people are prepared to step into the roles the technology creates, not simply bracing for the ones it displaces.

The figures suggest there is considerable ground to make up. According to new research commissioned by Google, although nearly two thirds of the UK population have tried AI tools, just one in ten consider themselves advanced users. Only a quarter felt they were deploying AI in ways that saved them meaningful time or gave them genuinely new capabilities.

“Most people are really only scratching the surface,” Alessi said.

To address that gap, Google is rolling out a series of practical initiatives. Alongside the grant funding, the company plans to run Gemini tours across universities, aimed at ensuring graduates enter the workplace with a working knowledge of AI. It will also stage a series of pop-up events branded as “squeeze the juice” bars in towns and cities around the country, designed to show ordinary users how to move beyond basic prompting to tackle more complex tasks – from automating routine admin to conducting in-depth research.

Read more:
Don’t fear AI job losses – invest in training, urges Google’s UK boss

Increased defence investment stands to deliver a significant windfall for the British economy, with new analysis suggesting that the government’s ambitious spending commitments could add £30 billion a year to national output within two decades.

Research by EY, the professional services giant, has found that raising defence expenditure from its current level of 2.5 per cent of GDP to between 3.5 per cent and 5 per cent by 2035 would produce what the firm describes as “significant long-term benefits” for growth and productivity.

The findings lend economic weight to what has until now been framed largely as a security imperative. Sir Keir Starmer pledged at the Nato summit in June 2025 to spend 5 per cent of GDP on national security by 2035, including 3.5 per cent on core defence, as geopolitical tensions and pressure from Washington compelled allies to bolster their military budgets.

Yet translating ambition into action has proved problematic. The government’s ten-year defence investment plan, expected last autumn following the publication of its strategic defence review, has been repeatedly delayed owing to a £28 billion funding gap in the Ministry of Defence budget over the next four years. Neither the Treasury nor the MoD has set out a clear pathway to meeting the spending targets.

EY’s analysis, drawing on Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts and GDP projections, estimates that reaching the 3.5 per cent target would require an additional £31 billion of real-terms spending by 2035. Hitting 5 per cent would demand an extra £77 billion.

The potential returns, however, are considerable. The proposed increases could lift GDP by 0.8 per cent, generating £30 billion in additional annual economic output by 2045, according to the firm’s modelling.

Central to EY’s thesis is the relatively self-contained nature of Britain’s defence industry. Approximately two thirds of annual private sector spending by the MoD flows to UK-based suppliers, with just 31 per cent going overseas either directly or through the supply chains of domestic companies. That high proportion of domestic retention means more of every pound spent stays within the British economy, supporting jobs and underpinning industrial capacity.

Peter Arnold, UK chief economist at EY, said the defence sector is more capital-intensive than other areas of government spending, particularly in its support of manufacturing. A considerable share of the MoD’s budget is also directed towards research and development, which has the potential to produce dual-use technologies with commercial applications in fields such as aviation and cybersecurity.

Nearly a third of the MoD’s budget, roughly £20 billion, is allocated to capital expenditure on infrastructure, equipment and technology, rather than routine operational costs such as salaries and accommodation. That balance between current and capital spending gives defence investment an outsized economic multiplier compared with many other areas of public expenditure.

EY’s report also urged ministers to accelerate procurement processes and provide greater clarity over equipment priorities to encourage private sector investment. The call echoes longstanding frustrations among smaller defence contractors. The Federation of Small Businesses has argued that the procurement system remains skewed towards larger firms, leaving smaller enterprises struggling to compete for contracts.

The MoD said it was delivering what it described as the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War, with £270 billion of investment across the current parliament. Since last July, the department said it had signed almost 1,200 major contracts, with 93 per cent of that spend directed to UK-based companies. It also pointed to the launch of a dedicated Defence Office for Small Business Growth earlier this year and a commitment to increase spending with SMEs by £2.5 billion a year by May 2028.

Whether these measures will prove sufficient to close the gap between political rhetoric and fiscal reality remains to be seen. But EY’s analysis makes a compelling case that, if managed wisely, increased defence spending need not be viewed solely as a cost of security. it could become a genuine engine of economic growth.

Read more:
Higher defence spending could unlock £30bn annual boost for UK economy

The price of oil climbed above $111 a barrel on Tuesday as mounting anxiety over stalled diplomatic efforts in the Gulf pushed energy markets higher and left equities treading water.

Brent crude gained 1.6 per cent to $111.57 in early Asian trading, extending a rally that has seen the benchmark surge more than 50 per cent since Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas once flowed freely.

The immediate catalyst was Tehran’s rejection of a US peace proposal on Monday. Iran instead issued its own ten-point counter-plan, relayed through Pakistan, according to state media. Washington’s deadline for agreement expires at 1am UK time on Wednesday, and President Trump has made no secret of the consequences, warning that failure to reach a deal would see Iranian infrastructure reduced to rubble.

For businesses already grappling with elevated input costs, the prospect of a further escalation is deeply unwelcome. The International Energy Agency has described the strait’s closure as the most severe supply disruption in the history of the global oil market, with Brent futures touching nearly $120 a barrel last month when regional energy assets came under attack.

Some commodity analysts have gone further still, warning that a prolonged conflict could drive prices as high as $200 a barrel, a scenario that would dwarf the energy shocks of the 1970s and inflict serious damage on margins across transport, manufacturing and retail.

Stock markets reflected the uncertainty. The FTSE 100, reopening after the Easter break, was effectively flat at 10,425, whilst bourses in Frankfurt and Paris managed only modest gains. In Tokyo, the Nikkei closed barely changed.

Vasu Menon, managing director of investment strategy at OCBC in Singapore, captured the prevailing mood, noting that any US strikes on Iranian power infrastructure would represent a marked escalation, raising the spectre of retaliatory action against Gulf energy facilities.

For UK firms with exposure to global supply chains, the next 24 hours could prove decisive. A deal would offer some relief to energy markets; a breakdown in talks would almost certainly send oil prices sharply higher and deepen the squeeze on an already stretched global economy.

Read more:
Oil price surges past $111 as Strait of Hormuz deadline looms

Britain’s manufacturing sector is staring down the barrel of a near-£1 billion increase in annual business rates, piling further pressure on an industry already reeling from surging energy bills and escalating employment costs.

Analysis by Make UK, the manufacturers’ organisation, of official data on rateable value changes between 2023 and 2026 estimates that the sector will shoulder an additional £939 million a year in business rates from this month. The figures lay bare a stark imbalance: while manufacturing accounts for roughly 10 per cent of the economy, it contributes more than a fifth of all business rates revenues.

A companion survey by Make UK paints a bleak picture across the shopfloor. Nearly nine in ten manufacturers reported an increase in their rates for April, with two thirds seeing rises of up to 20 per cent. More troublingly, almost one in five companies face increases of between 20 and 50 per cent, and a small but significant minority, three per cent, have seen their rateable values climb by as much as 100 per cent.

The timing could scarcely be worse. The rates increase arrives in the same month that around half of manufacturers will renegotiate their energy contracts, compounding the impact of higher national insurance contributions and other employment-related burdens that came into force at the start of the tax year.

Verity Davidge, policy director at Make UK, described the current system as outdated and called the increase a hammer blow to one of the government’s priority sectors. For many companies, she warned, survival itself has become the benchmark of success.

The survey reveals just how heavily business rates weigh on the sector’s finances. Nearly a quarter of manufacturers rank them as their second-largest cost, while one in ten say rates represent their single biggest expense. Make UK’s modelling suggests the squeeze could put approximately 25,000 jobs at risk as firms consider reducing headcount to absorb the hit.

At the heart of manufacturers’ frustration is a rating system based on square footage rather than business performance. Under the current model, a small or medium-sized enterprise occupying a large factory floor can be classified as a high-value property despite modest turnover and a modest workforce. This structural quirk means that more than half of the sector’s rateable values exceed £100,000, and one in five manufacturers occupies a facility valued at more than £500,000, pushing them into a new high-value multiplier bracket that effectively penalises past investment.

The system also creates a perverse disincentive for manufacturers seeking to go green. Installing renewable energy infrastructure increases a facility’s value and, with it, its rates bill, an unwelcome contradiction at a time when government policy is urging industry to decarbonise.

At the other end of the scale, just six per cent of manufacturers hold a rateable value below £20,000, leaving the vast majority locked out of reliefs such as the small business rates relief scheme.

Make UK is now pressing the government to overhaul the system fundamentally. Among its proposals, the organisation is calling for alternative models that link rates to business size, type or turnover rather than physical footprint, ensuring that charges reflect who is occupying a property rather than simply how large it is. It also wants a 12-month notice period before new rates take effect following any revaluation, backed by a more generous transitional relief in the first year. Finally, it argues that local authorities should publish impact reports demonstrating how business rates revenue is being reinvested in local communities, a move designed to give firms a clearer sense of value for money.

For an industry navigating tariff uncertainty, global supply chain disruption and a domestic cost environment that grows more hostile by the quarter, the message from the manufacturing lobby is unambiguous: the current rates regime is broken, and without reform, the consequences will be measured in lost jobs, shelved investment and diminished competitiveness.

Read more:
Manufacturers bracing for £1 billion business rates bombshell as April cost crisis deepens

Bristol is about to join the big league of British live entertainment, with the city’s forthcoming Aviva Arena setting its sights on staging the Brit Awards within its first years of operation.

The 20,000-capacity indoor venue, which is taking shape on the historic Filton Airfield in north Bristol, the very site where every British-built Concorde rolled off the production line, is on track to open in late 2028. Its backers believe it will plug a glaring gap in the country’s events infrastructure, given that the south-west remains the only English region without a major arena.

The project sits at the heart of a broader development called YTL Live, which will occupy the three vast Brabazon Hangars once used to assemble supersonic aircraft. The central and largest hangar will house the arena itself, flanked by conference and exhibition spaces designed to keep the complex busy well beyond gig nights. Organisers expect the venue to stage upwards of 120 major events each year, generating an estimated £1 billion for the wider Bristol economy over its first decade.

Andrew Billingham, chief executive of the Aviva Arena, said the ambition extends well beyond regional pride. The venue wants a place on the global touring circuit, and the Brit Awards sit firmly in its crosshairs following the ceremony’s well-received stint in Manchester earlier this year.

The arena’s specification suggests those ambitions are not merely fanciful. Plans include 20 state-of-the-art dressing rooms, extensive production facilities and what is billed as Europe’s largest services yard, with capacity for up to 60 touring lorries at once. A new railway station, Bristol Brabazon, is due to open this autumn, giving the site a direct public transport link that many rival venues lack.

Behind the project is YTL, a Malaysian infrastructure conglomerate and the largest Malaysian investor in the United Kingdom, whose British portfolio already includes Wessex Water. The group acquired the Filton site roughly a decade ago with a vision that went far beyond housebuilding, it set about creating an entire mixed-use community encompassing homes, workplaces and leisure. Construction of the arena is expected to support more than 2,000 jobs, with a further 500 permanent roles once the doors open.

For Bristol, a city whose creative economy already punches well above its weight, the arrival of a venue of this scale represents a significant commercial moment. If Billingham and his team can deliver on the Brit Awards pledge, it would mark the latest step in the ceremony’s journey away from its traditional London base, and confirm that the south-west finally has a stage to match its cultural ambition.

Read more:
Bristol’s new arena sets sights on hosting the Brit Awards

GB News has made a bold bid for access to the public purse, arguing that government broadcasting grants should be opened up to competitive tender rather than flowing automatically to the BBC.

The loss-making news channel, backed by hedge fund financier Sir Paul Marshall, set out its case in a submission to the government’s consultation on the BBC’s royal charter. At its heart is a call for “contestable funding”, a mechanism that would allow broadcasters beyond the traditional public service operators to bid for taxpayer-backed support.

The BBC’s World Service is the most obvious target. Once funded entirely by Whitehall, the service now draws primarily on the licence fee but still receives grants from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office worth £137 million last year. GB News believes it should be eligible to compete for a share of that pot, assessed on criteria including quality, audience reach and value for money.

It is a striking proposition from an organisation that has accumulated losses exceeding £100 million since launching in 2021, and one that is unlikely to find a warm reception at Broadcasting House. GB News framed the argument in the language of market competition, contending that opening funding to tender would drive innovation and encourage what it called “diversity of thought and content”.

The channel pointed to precedent. Between 2019 and 2022, two pilot schemes, the Young Audiences Content Fund and the Audio Content Fund, distributed £48 million across a range of broadcasters and independent producers. GB News also drew attention to New Zealand’s NZ On Air model, which allocates public money to a variety of media outlets, suggesting a similar framework could bolster plurality in Britain’s broadcasting landscape.

The submission to the charter review is part of a broader lobbying campaign. In a separate filing with Ofcom, GB News made a parallel case for contestable funding. It is also pressing for prominence rights currently enjoyed only by the established public service broadcasters, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C, which guarantee their channels favourable positioning on television sets, albeit in return for strict obligations around regional production and news output.

Whether the government has any appetite for redirecting public funds towards a commercially owned, politically divisive broadcaster remains to be seen. But GB News’s intervention ensures the question of who qualifies as a public service provider, and who should pay for it, will sit squarely at the centre of the charter debate.

Read more:
GB News makes its pitch for a slice of public broadcasting funds