Channel 4 is already operating in a fiercely competitive market and generates far more bang for its buck than many broadcasters. Indeed this is where the ideological argument clashes with the commercial one. 

Many advocates of Channel 4’s sale make the opposite case: not that public ownership shields the broadcaster from competition but rather that it prevents it from reaching its full potential.

There are four main rebuttals to this line. First, if Channel 4 had one hand tied behind its back, wouldn’t the management team be screaming to be unshackled?

Second, it’s hard to see how it would help Channel 4 to compete against the likes of Netflix by allowing it to potentially be bought by the likes of Netflix. Even if it was snapped up by ITV, the combined entity would remain a minnow on the global stage.

Because, third, the horse has bolted. Amazon’s streaming service is essentially a loss-leader designed to get customers to buy more products from its e-commerce site. 

Netflix borrowed more than $16bn (£12bn) over a decade while continually foregoing profits in order to build market share. The possibility of Channel 4 competing with these companies, regardless of its ownership structure, is for the birds.

And, fourth, Channel 4 is doing perfectly well thank you very much. The broadcaster’s finances have rarely been in better shape. This year turnover is expected to reach £1.2bn and the broadcaster’s surplus is forecast to breakthrough £100m for the first time. With no shareholders to worry about, that will all be reinvested in the creative economy.

The beauty of the UK’s television industry is the variety of structures. We have one broadcaster that is fully taxpayer owned and funded, the BBC, another that is a privately-owned commercial organisation, ITV, and a third, Channel 4, that is a hybrid – publicly-owned but commercially-funded. 

The different structures give them different strengths. Channel 4’s was specifically designed to allow it to take risks and not just in the kind of programmes it commissions; it is often forgotten that the broadcaster launched an online streaming service well before Netflix.

There is one last – slightly Machiavellian – potential motivation behind the Government’s push to privatise Channel 4. Some industry experts believe it might try to engineer a sale to BBC’s commercial arm. This would allow the Beeb to earn extra income to make up for any future reduction in the licence fee.

That makes a kind of sense but, boy, would it be convoluted. It would involve a lengthy battle to get a complicated bill through parliament while maintaining enough of Channel 4’s requirements as a public service broadcaster to ensure there’s only really one bidder left interested. 

It would be like killing two birds with about 38 stones. Would it really be worth the effort?

And this, surely, is the best argument against the plan: the Government has plenty of far more important items on its “to do” list. Not only is the privatisation of Channel 4 a solution in search of a problem, it’s a fight the Government should be too busy to have.