MPs back foreign newspaper ownership ahead of Telegraph sale
The Government has proposed secondary legislation to ease an outright ban on foreign state ownership and allow passive shareholdings of up to 15 per cent.
The move was prompted by debate over the sale of The Telegraph, which in 2023 was the target of a takeover attempt by an investment vehicle mostly funded by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The deal was blocked by the Conservative government of the time, following a cross-party outcry over press freedom.
After lobbying from publishers including Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail, Labour has proposed a cap which it says will allow newspapers to access a crucial source of finance.
By allowing the UAE to retain a passive minority stake, ministers also aim to facilitate an onward sale of The Telegraph and end the ownership uncertainty which has gripped the newspaper for more than two years.
However, plans to allow foreign powers to own as much as 15 per cent met opposition from the Lib Dems.
They argued that the level should be only 5 per cent, as originally proposed by the Conservatives when they first imposed an outright ban last year.
The Lib Dems objected to the legislation in the Commons last week, forcing a vote to take place this Wednesday.
Nevertheless the law passed comfortably, with the support of 338 MPs. It will now head to the House of Lords.
Seventy-nine MPs, who are understood to be mostly Lib Dems, voted against the plans, while the Conservative Party abstained.
The legislation is expected to face further opposition in the House of Lords, where the Lib Dems are planning to table a 'fatal motion' to kill it before it passes into law. Some Conservative peers have also opposed the cap proposed by the Government.
If it passes, the law will help clear the path to a takeover of The Telegraph by a consortium led by RedBird Capital, a US private equity firm.
It was the junior partner alongside the UAE in the 2023 bid by a vehicle called RedBird IMI which was ultimately blocked.
RedBird IMI subsequently ran an auction to recoup its £500 million outlay but struggled to attract a buyer able to spend the necessary amount. The founder of RedBird Capital, Gerry Cardninale, has said he is confident the newspaper will justify that price.
Redbird Capital says that it has an ambitious plan to accelerate The Telegraph's growth at home and abroad once it takes control later this year.
Ministers have also been forced to lay a second statutory instrument to close a 'loophole' in their initial legislation, which critics said could have allowed several foreign states to own 15 per cent of a newspaper each, rather than in total.
Max Wilkinson, the Lib Dem culture spokesman, said: 'Freedom of the press is an historic and inviolable cornerstone of our democracy. That the Government is pushing to sell off stakes in our British papers to foreign governments is astonishing.
'It's outrageous that both Labour and the Conservative MPs failed to stand up, do their patriotic duty and block this legislation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
We have only ourselves to blame for the UK's land monopoly
While we might fume at the eviction of a whole village by its landlord, we only have ourselves to blame for allowing such power to remain in the hands of so few (An entire village in Dorset is facing eviction – proof that private money holds all the power in rural England, 28 June). Even socialist governments have balked at dealing with the issue of land monopoly, and we have failed to hold them to account. In 1909, when landed power was largely synonymous with the aristocracy, Tom Johnston, later to become secretary of state for Scotland, noted that land titles had originally been created 'either by force or fraud'. He urged the people to 'shatter the romance that keeps the nation numb and spellbound while privilege picks its pocket'. As George Monbiot's article shows, land monopoly today is not confined to the aristocracy. The most effective way to neutralise its power would be through land value taxation, which would ensure that those who claim to own the country bear its running costs. In 1910, the Inland Revenue initiated a full survey of land use, value and ownership across Britain. It was completed in five years, but the outbreak of war and a change of government meant the proposed tax measures were never implemented. Our present Labour government has four years to repeat the exercise and reform our broken tax system. It should start DigneyStirling The eviction of the inhabitants of Littlebredy in Dorset by their new owner Bridehead Estate Ltd, excoriatingly exposed by George Monbiot, has a strong historical echo from the 1770s at Milton Abbas, less than 30 miles away. Lord Milton bought Milton Abbey, near Dorchester, in 1752. Capability Brown was brought in to 'improve' the surrounding landscape. He faced the problem of what to do about the unsightly medieval village of more than a hundred households. The solution was to move it. In 1774 Brown drew up plans for a new 'model village' of new homes. Over the next decade the villagers were decanted, some against their will, to new homes in Milton Abbas. Barely a trace of the old village exists. Lord Milton is often cited as one of the worst examples of the callous ostentation common among the English landowning Whig oligarchy of the 18th century. But at least he felt obliged to rehouse his tenants. Judging from Monbiot's piece, it seems that a corporate landowner in today's Britain is not even obliged to do that when it decides to socially engineer an inconvenient community out of house and GutchLondon Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
Keir Starmer told not to 'punish' children by keeping two-child cap
The SNP urged the Prime Minister to end the limit amid reports it could stay as a result of Labour watering down most of its welfare reforms. KEIR Starmer has been urged not to 'punish' children by keeping the two-child cap following Labour's partial U-turn on benefit cuts. The UK Government had attempted to save around £5 billion a year by cutting welfare, mostly for those claiming disability and health benefits, but made concessions following a revolt from MPs. READ MORE: At least 42 Palestinians killed by Israel as doctors warn babies facing death The move means the Treasury may not see any savings at all as the welfare budget is still set to rapidly rise in the coming years. Media reports suggest the move could see ministers keep the cap in order to save money. The Prime Minister previously indicated the Government would only abolish the two-child cap, which prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for more than two children, when it had the money to do so. Asked in May whether he would scrap the policy, he said: 'We'll look at all options of driving down child poverty.' The SNP, which will mitigate the limit in Scotland by 2026, has urged the UK Government to scrap the cap, which it says is pushing thousands of children into poverty. The party said analysis from the House of Commons Library found that 2.3 million families could be lifted out of poverty if the UK Government matched Scottish Government policies. These included the Scottish Child Payment, abolishing the two-child benefit cap and scrapping the so-called bedroom tax. According to the House of Commons Library, these measures would lift 96,000 families in Scotland out of poverty. The analysis also shows that over the past decade the number of children living in poverty in the UK has risen from 3.7 million (27%) in 2013/14 to 4.5 million (31%) in 2023/24. That number is expected to rise to 4.6 million (33%) by 2029-30, according to the data. SNP deputy Westminster leader Pete Wishart urged the Prime Minister to have a rethink on his welfare plans. Pete Wishart MP (Image: PA) He said: 'Keir Starmer must not punish children for his disastrous mistakes over the Labour Party's cuts to disabled people. 'It is utterly shameful that as a direct result of Labour Party austerity cuts, child poverty is rising to record levels in the UK – and the Prime Minister is failing to lift a finger to tackle it. 'Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is the absolute bare minimum – and it should have been done on the Labour Government's first day in power. READ MORE: Here's why banning Orange marches would be a bad idea 'It's pathetic that senior Labour Party figures now want to keep this punitive welfare cut just to show rebel MPs who's in charge. 'Saving Keir Starmer embarrassment is not more important than tackling child poverty.' Wishart urged Starmer not to 'drag his feet' on the two-child cap and to instead match the SNP's Scottish Child Payment with a similar policy for the entire UK. He added: 'Thanks to SNP action, Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling. 'Unless Keir Starmer urgently follow's Scotland's lead, his lasting legacy will be pushing millions of children into destitution.' A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are determined to bring down child poverty. We've just announced a new £1 billion package to reform crisis support, including funding to ensure the poorest children do not go hungry outside of term time. 'This comes alongside the expansion to free breakfast clubs and the move to make over half-a-million more children eligible for free school meals. 'We have also increased the national minimum wage and are supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. 'We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.'
Finextra
an hour ago
- Finextra
Deep Dive: Stripe vs. Adyen – Comparing Product Stacks and Pricing: By Sam Boboev
Two fintech heavyweights are vying for dominance in global payments: Stripe and Adyen. Both power a substantial share of online commerce, yet they've taken different paths to the top. Stripe, the Silicon Valley darling, built its name with developers and startups; Adyen, the Dutch powerhouse, quietly became the backbone for many large global retailers. Product managers and fintech founders on both sides of the Atlantic (especially in the US and EU) often face a strategic choice between these platforms. This deep dive examines how Stripe and Adyen stack up – from their product offerings to pricing models – and why it matters. Spoiler: Both companies have overlapping product categories (payments, fraud prevention, in-person solutions, and more), but their strengths and weaknesses can make each a better fit for different customer profiles. Let's dig in. The Payments Giants at a Glance It helps to frame the comparison with scale and performance. In 2024, Stripe processed about $1.4 trillion in total payment volume (TPV), growing 38% year-over-year, while Adyen was close behind with €1.29 trillion (+33% YoY). These figures underscore that both companies handle enormous transaction flows (roughly on par with ~1–1.5% of global GDP each). Adyen has long been profitable – it sustained an impressive ~50% EBITDA margin in 2024 – whereas Stripe historically reinvested for growth but finally achieved full-year profitability in 2024. In other words, Adyen is the rare fintech operating at bank-like profit levels, while Stripe proved its business model can scale financially. Both are now plowing resources into R&D and expansion, setting the stage for an intense rivalry. Stripe launched in 2010, targeting developers and small online businesses with easy-to-use APIs. Its strategy was bottom-up: win the hearts of startups and SMBs, then gradually move upmarket. Adyen, founded in 2006, took almost the opposite approach – a top-down focus on large enterprises and global retailers. Adyen built a single unified platform for 'unified commerce' (online, in-app, and in-store payments all in one), directly connecting to card networks and local payment methods. This made Adyen the go-to for many big multichannel merchants (think Uber, Spotify, Microsoft, McDonald's, H&M and the like), while Stripe became synonymous with the startup economy and SaaS world. Today, however, their offerings overlap significantly. Stripe now serves 50% of the Fortune 100 companies in some capacity, and Adyen is expanding its reach to mid-sized clients and platforms. Both are truly global – Stripe is used in 195+ countries with support for 135+ currencies, and Adyen similarly supports transactions worldwide (150+ currencies and dozens of local methods). A quick external perspective sums it up well: 'Adyen is better for midsize or large companies with multiple sales channels, whereas Stripe is good for small, online businesses.' In practice, Stripe's flat-rate pricing and plug-and-play simplicity make it popular among SMBs and tech startups. Adyen's custom approach and interchange-plus pricing appeal to high-volume, omnichannel businesses that can integrate a more complex solution. But these lines are blurring. Stripe has been aggressively courting larger enterprises (even Amazon inked a deal in 2023 to have Stripe process a significant portion of its payments across the US, Europe, and Canada). Meanwhile, Adyen is indirectly serving many SMBs via platform partnerships (for example, when Etsy or eBay use Adyen as their payments engine, thousands of small sellers are on Adyen's rails). The competitive arena is set: both companies offer a broad payments platform, but how do their product stacks and pricing compare in detail? Core Payments Infrastructure At their heart, both Stripe and Adyen are payments processors – they enable businesses to accept a wide range of payment methods and get paid online (and offline). Let's compare their core payments capabilities: Stripe and Adyen each support an extensive array of payment methods: global credit/debit cards (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, etc.), digital wallets (Apple Pay, Google Pay, etc.), bank transfers, and region-specific options (from **SEPA Direct Debit in Europe to ACH in the US, Alipay and WeChat Pay in Asia, Klarna/Affirm for BNPL, and many more). Stripe advertises access to 100+ payment methods out-of-the-box with a single integration. Adyen similarly prides itself on being a one-stop solution to 'offer your customers all their preferred payment methods with a single integration'. For example, a merchant using either platform can easily offer local favorites like iDEAL in the Netherlands or Boleto in Brazil alongside global cards. One difference is how these methods are integrated. Adyen built direct connections to many local payment schemes and card networks through its own licenses. This 'single platform' approach can improve authorization rates and reduce hops in the transaction process. Indeed, Adyen highlights its direct acquiring connections to Visa/Mastercard and even domestic networks, claiming it can optimize approval rates via intelligent routing (their RevenueAccelerate tools). Stripe, on the other hand, initially partnered with banks for acquiring in various regions, but over time it also obtained regulatory licenses and built out global infrastructure (Stripe has regulatory licenses in multiple jurisdictions and data centers worldwide, ensuring transactions are processed locally where possible for speed and better success rates). Both companies now can offer very high uptime (Stripe boasts 99.999% historical uptime, and Adyen is known for reliability as well) and the ability to settle funds in a currency of the merchant's choosing. Adyen explicitly lets merchants 'choose when and in which currency' to receive payouts, a flexibility important for international businesses. Stripe is almost universally lauded for its developer-friendly APIs and documentation. It provides client libraries in every popular programming language and famously simple code snippets. For a small business or product team, Stripe's developer tools can shorten integration time dramatically. (As an example, Stripe's drop-in checkout or pre-built UI components – Stripe Elements and Checkout – let you start accepting cards with minimal coding.) Adyen's platform is also robust, but the common refrain is that Adyen is not as 'plug-and-play' for small merchants. Adyen often requires a bit more initial setup and understanding of payment flows. That said, Adyen offers comprehensive APIs and SDKs too, along with client-side components (its Drop-in UI and Components for web/mobile) to handle payment method selection and encryption. The gap in ease has narrowed over time, but Stripe's polish in developer experience and documentation remains a strong differentiator. For a startup with a lean engineering team, Stripe's 'it just works' approach can be very attractive – everything from the initial integration to handling webhooks for events is well-supported. Adyen tends to shine for merchants that need fine-grained control and are willing to invest in a more bespoke integration. Transaction Performance: Both Stripe and Adyen invest heavily in optimizing payment success rates. Adyen's advantage of direct network connections means it can sometimes get slightly better authorization rates, especially in regions where local processing matters (for instance, processing European cards with a European acquiring license to avoid cross-border inefficiencies). Stripe has countered by developing its own smart routing and 'adaptive acceptance' algorithms, and by working with card issuers. Stripe even formed an Enhanced Issuer Network program to share data with card issuers, reportedly reducing fraud and boosting authorizations by 1–2% on eligible volume. In practice, both processors are top-tier in transaction quality; large merchants often run A/B tests between providers and find both Stripe and Adyen to be high performers, with differences depending on specific geographies or banks. It's not unusual for an enterprise to use multiple PSPs in active-active mode and route traffic between Stripe, Adyen, and others to optimize costs and uptime. Both companies understand this and continually roll out improvements (for example, Stripe has machine learning to retry failed payments at optimal times and auto-update saved card details, while Adyen recently introduced an AI-powered tool called Adyen Uplift to improve payment conversion by an average 6%). On core payment processing capabilities, both Stripe and Adyen offer a full-spectrum, global solution. Stripe wins praise for ease and developer tooling; Adyen wins praise for technical robustness and global unified infrastructure. For most standard online payments use cases (accepting card payments on a website or app), either will get the job done with high standards. The differences emerge more clearly when we expand into other aspects: in-person payments, platform payments, and value-added services. Source: Stripe vs. Adyen 2024 performance and strategy highlights NerdWallet on ideal customer profiles for Adyen vs Stripe Stripe Newsroom: Amazon expanding use of Stripe (enterprise win) Stripe Enterprise documentation (custom pricing options) Adyen official pricing page (interchange++ transparency) Codelevate 2025 PSP comparison (product features & pricing details) Fintech Wrap Up deep dive (TPV and product developments in 2024) Adyen website ('One platform' omnichannel messaging) Codelevate on strengths/drawbacks of each platform FXCintel analysis on Adyen's 2023 results (North America focus) Disclaimer: Fintech Wrap Up aggregates publicly available information for informational purposes only. Portions of the content may be reproduced verbatim from the original source, and full credit is provided with a "Source: [Name]" attribution. All copyrights and trademarks remain the property of their respective owners. Fintech Wrap Up does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the aggregated content; these are the responsibility of the original source providers. Links to the original sources may not always be included. For questions or concerns, please contact us at
