Is it in the UK’s national interest to intervene in Syria?

Advocates of being involved in Syria are out and about talking to Conservative MPs. They want us to agree that it is in the UK’s national interest to be involved in the future of Syria, though they accept for the time being that arming some of the rebels may not be the right policy. The government assures us it is not about to arm the rebels.

To me it is not in the UK’s national interest to contemplate intervention in Syria for a variety of reasons. The UN does not have an agreed view about the desirability of intervention, and the Security Council is split over whether the regime or the rebels should win. It is not therefore important to the UK’s role in the UN for us to take action. There is no UN mandate to enforce.

It is true, as some point out, that other regional powers are getting involed with Syria. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others are said to be “helping” various forces within Syria. Clearly Iran, Israel and other regional powers have a close interest in who governs Syria and what their foreign policy might be. To Muslims, the dispute between Sunni and Shia is an important matter, but not one which concerns a western secular state or state with an established Chistian Church.

It is also true that if Syria is in the wrong hands (and people differ on who that includes) there can be continuing violence from the state.If the regime changed the new one could change the regional balance for the better or for the worse.

However, the more I hear of the complexities and troubles, the more it seems to me the UK does not have the force or the moral and political authority to be able to make a decisive intervention for the better. I also remain to be persuaded that it is in the UK’s national interest to be involved. We do not like the current Syrian regime. We might like a replacement even less, or one may take over that is better. I do not see that we are threatened or in danger from any Syrian regime, if we keep out of the conflict.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

54 Comments

  1. Cheshire Girl
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    We really must stop being the world’s policeman! I’m sure the electorate is fed up with taxpayers money being spent on foreign interventions. There is no way that we can afford it, and we should be looking after the interests of this country first and foremost. It seems that there is an uprising somewhere almost every month now. It makes the heart sink to hear once again our leaders say we have a responsibility to intervene. Enough I say!

  2. Nina Andreeva
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    Spot on in your analysis here JR. HMG needs to recognise that Syria is just like the Spanish civil war and keep well away from it. By all means send lots of aid to the refugee camps in Jordan and may be grant asylum to anybody who makes it to Dover. However it needs to keep in mind that although the opposition may contain some liberals like Portillo’s dad, however inevitably you will be joining forces with some very disagreeable people (if you want to know what I mean, and have the stomach for it, have look at the atrocity/decapitation videos on Youtube).

    So just as had the Republicans won in Spain and would have rapidly transformed it into a brutal Stalinist state, as Orwell pointed out in “Homage to Catalonia”, overthrowing Assad would open the gates to something far worse.

  3. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    Your arguments are rationaland sensible. The situation is far too complex and if we were to be involved, it would give ammunition (figurative) to those countries who do not easily bend to our views . We could be taking on more than we bargained for.

  4. Andyvan
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    What possible advantage is there to the UK to get involved in yet another unending and unwinnable war in the Middle East? Why does Britain feel the need to stick it’s nose in every civil war that comes along?
    I’m sure that many arms manufacturers would love it and they offer large donations and directorships to political parties and MPs but is that really a good reason to flout logic and morality?
    If we want to help the world do it by offering an example of peaceful coexistence and neutrality to everyone. No more power politics and running to do Americas dirty work.

  5. lifelogic
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    The case for not intervening (especially just by supplying arms) is surely overwhelming, as you rightly point out.

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 7:54 am | Permalink

      Meanwhile we have NHS patients spending eight hours in ambulances outside A&E as they do not have the staff and space for them in A&E, especially at weekend. This then leads to ambulances not being available to new life and death emergencies.

      Cameron’s in three letters silly soundbite N H S is in desperate need of reform, why on earth do the government and top NHS staff clearly think that letting people die pointlessly, purely because it is weekend, is perfectly acceptable? Start charging, come clean about the mess that the NHS is, run it efficiently, start serving the customer and start sorting the mess out, rather than endlessly covering it up. It is supposed to be there for patients, not the convenience of staff and NHS managers.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10150635/Patients-facing-eight-hour-waits-in-ambulances-outside-AandE-departments.html

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 9:53 am | Permalink

      It seems unarguable that our involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan have been mistakes that have only made bad situations worse, and in those cases our leaders were absolutely convinced that it was right to intervene, so it seems obvious that in the case of Syria, where there are doubts right, left and centre, we should stick to our knitting and stay out of it. The fact that Cameron, who finds it so easy to make egregiously wrong decisions, is in favour of intervention is no comfort at all. He is confused and fancies himself as some kind of international statesman, which he ain’t.

      • Acorn
        Posted June 30, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

        Agreed Leslie, we are a post imperial nation now. It is only a matter of time before the UK and France, are forced to give up our seat on the UN Security Council; to be replaced by the EU. The EU will wince at “Cameron: I fought off attack on rebate” headline, but on the international stage, being “point man” within the EU for Obama, will not win us any friends in Europe and definitely not in the Middle East where the Arabs think the UK will do what ever favours the Zionists.

        PS. Have a look at Neil Wilson at 3spoken, he has worked out the 13Q1 sector balances. You have got to stop buying those imports. The Treasury deficit is going straight into the rest of the worlds pound sterling savings account and you lot have stopped saving and started borrowing again. Alas, one mans / governments lack of spending is another mans lack of wages.

        BTW Have a look at Neil’s “The Bank of England Balance Sheet – a five year view”. If you ever wondered what “dark matter” is in space; well, on Earth, it is called Central Bank “Other Assets”. They are both made of the same stuff, I reckon ;-) .

      • lifelogic
        Posted June 30, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Our involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan were clearly both entirely misguided and likely to be counterproductive as was very clear at the time the UK entered into them.Very many sensible people pointed this out at the time, despite all the intentional sexed up misinformation cooked up by the powers that be at the time.

  6. Roger Farmer
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    If the Government wish to do anything positive and useful, divert a large slice of our foreign aid budget to Jordan specifically to assist the massive refugee problem they have.
    As to Syria itself, stay well clear.

  7. alan jutson
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    John, agree with you, just try and keep us out.

  8. oldtimer
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    I agree with your view. If we want to stop others – for example the EUligarchy – interfering in our affairs, it makes no sense for us to start poking our nose in the affairs of other people where the national interest is not served. I am wary of claims about the “national interest” where they are used a cover for serving other interests, not least if it is a form of displacement activity for politicians seeking to distract attention away from domestic troubles or who seek to big themselves up on the world stage.

  9. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Your conclusion seems eminently sensible to me but in Hague and Cameron we have two warmongers who appear determined to intervene. Hague’s comments that to arm the rebels will reduce deaths is risible. He and Cameron want to be in the fight but they aren’t prepared to tell us the real reason why. As in so much else they cannot be trusted.

  10. Bill
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    I agree. As I understand it (and the media is not good at reporting how we reached the present position), moderate and non-violent protests against Assad were hi-jacked by violent factions with the result we now see.

  11. forthurst
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Once again people are trying to conflate our interests with those of Israel; that was the case with Iraq when Bliar lied and lied in order to put our forces in harms’s way. Our interests are served by maintaining peace in the ME so that oil supplies are not disrupted; therefore that includes not threatening or attacking Iran as well as Syria.

    Using words like ‘rebels’ or ‘opposition’ etc do not in any way disguise the fact that the war in Syria has been orchestrated and pursued by exclusively external forces hostile to the Assad regime through the use of mercenaries and jihadists. Such forces will not defeat a regime determined to resist it but giving such people weapons without knowing where else they might wish to effect ‘regime change’ is extremely foolhardy.

    It is quite clear that Russia feels that it was tricked into agreeing to a no fly zone in Libya without realising the true agenda and has no intention of permitting a replication of the same in Syria; it is not in our national interest to come into direct conflict with Russia, either.

    • zorro
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      The Western politicos are talking in the air……there won’t be any no fly zone when there are S300 and S400 air defence systems on the ground.

      Until Hague and Cameron fess up to the real reasons, no one will listen seriously to them. It’s just an extension of a Neo Con wish list…

      We don’t like Assad……whatever, there are lots of people we don’t like, but we can still trade and have good relations. The Syrian government have not threatened the UK national interest. All we are doing is colluding in the destruction of a relatively decent country (etc).

      zorro

      • zorro
        Posted July 1, 2013 at 7:29 am | Permalink

        I see that they are starting in Lebanon, another country on the wish list…..

        zorro

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

      For all those reasons well said. We are not directly dealing with Syria, but other nationalities who would like to see us weakened as in the example you give i.e. cutting off our fuel supplies.

  12. John Eustace
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Please maintain your stand. Your analysis is unassailable. We have heard nothing convincing to say that intervention by us would do any good for either Syria or the UK.
    Who are these people who are lobbying you in favour of intervention?

  13. lifelogic
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    I see BBC Question Time (and indeed Any Questions) has an endless supply of (word left out ed) lefty “comedians” and actors to augment the (usually) three pro EU, fake green, big state, lefties from the three main parties. Russell Brand, Mark Steel, Sir Tony Robinson, Billy Bragg, Joe Brand …….. who on earth, at the BBC, selects the panels for balance?

    If we are lucky we get one member of the panel who is on the sensible wing of the Tory party, UKIP, or perhaps a sensible journalist. Usually outnumbered five to one, and on only perhaps one in three shows. Do the BBC not have some duty of political balance?

    Still it is always amusing to listen to irrational, self contradictory half baked, envious, chip on the shoulder, drivel of these lefties and indeed often those of the “BBC think” chairman too.

    Only 20% work for the state sector and yet perhaps 80% of the panels are state sector people (usually with the usual state sector think) or often actually paid by the BBC. Where is the balance? It is just more state funded BBC propaganda who cares what lefty actors and comedians think?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      lifelogic–Gird your loins for the “balance” to be struck by the BBC in the pre-election debate to come. Remember the last one. To let the Liberals in and, unbelievably, on a basis of equal time was the (not the main, but the) reason why we are where we are. Madness. Personally I couldn’t care less, as regards this type of debate, about the number of Liberal MP’s because, first, we hear enough from MP’s generally anyway (not a pretty sight) and, secondly, they result from a concentration in the SW which doesn’t impress me much. Of course UKIP with their significant following all over the country should be represented and by Mr Farage who will eat the others for breakfast because he is the only one anybody will be able to trust.

      Reply If Mr Farage went so presumably would the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the main parties in Northern Ireland, the Greens etc. It would be a very crowded platform.

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

      We know what they think anyway and know, from history, that it does not work – not even to help the poor.

  14. Jerry
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    “The government assures us it is not about to arm the rebels

    Quite frankly we should not even have a policy, bar that of total neutrality, if we must take a position then we would be well advised to be -as Lifelogic might put it- a greater Switzerland…

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      A greater Switzerland with sea ports, fewer hills, a sound currency, lower taxes, 50% richer, democratic, peaceful, with little debt, outside (and not even surrounded by) the EU, a smaller more efficient state sector and few cuckoo clocks or even yodeling sounds rather good to me.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 2, 2013 at 7:20 am | Permalink

        @Lifelogic: Well yes perhaps, but I was thinking more about Switzerland’s tradition of being the worlds police force by way of their neutrality and their non use of military force outside of their own boarders.

        Oh and you might be wrong about the UK (England, Wales and NI) not being surrounded by the EU should we leave, if Scotland votes for independence and then (re-)joins the EU, given that Eire is a member of the EU.

  15. Posted June 30, 2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    The UK has no interests in Syria and what happens there is none of our concern, A number of middle east countries are already involved on both sides, and which ever side we choose to help, one country or another will take offence. There is no reason to believe that the rebels are any better than Assad, indeed some are probably worse.
    We should confine our activities to the provision of humanitarian assistance to the refugees (from our foreign aid budget) and it might be appropriate to give Jordan some assistance should the fighting threaten to cross the border and cause their involvement.
    Finally, under no circumstances this country accept refugees/asylum seekers from Syria; there are plenty of middle east countries that such people can go to dependent upon which side of the conflict that they support.

  16. Bazman
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    There are fortunes to be made in destroying countries and rebuilding them. The contracts for rebuilding will be awarded to those who helped the victors not those who stood idly by. So It would make sound business sense to help both sides with arms, finance and supplies wherever possible and not be hand wring liberals pretending they do not want a piece of the action and in some way care about Syria and its population.
    The figures for foreigners using the NHS by the NHS are 33million a year the insurance industry estimates it to be between 50 and 200 million. The NHS budget is 190 billion….Leaving the question of how the fantasists justify their blame of foreigners for the state of the NHS? Have a ‘think’ this time about yourselves and your views. Think of the medical opportunities for the British business in Syria. Ram it.

    • zorro
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      The NHS budget is 109 billion pounds a year (2012/3) and it is very difficult to estimate usage by foreign nationals as their nationality papers are not checked and a lot of frauds terms rarely proffer their real details…..

      zorro

      • zorro
        Posted June 30, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        Your remarks (not genuine) about the situation in Syria are very distasteful…

        zorro

      • Bazman
        Posted July 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        This being the difference between the insurance company figures and the NHS one. It is not entirely unknown as you try to make it out to be in order to continue the fatwa. American and Russian companies and individuals have made fortunes in foreign wars and rebuilding so do not tell me what is genuine.

    • Mark B
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      China seem to be doing rather well, in both Libya and Afghanistan, not to forget the whole African continent. Can’t think why.

      And in any case. I would rather not have my country involved in another war and blood on our collective hands. And to hell with rebuilding a failed and dodgy state.

  17. lifelogic
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    I have just watched, on the daily politics, an excellent interview by Andrew Neil with Michael Fallon (Minister of State for Energy at the Department for Energy and Climate Change). One has to conclude that the energy policy in this country is in the hand of innumerate fools addicted to the absurd “renewable” religion it hardly inspires confidence. Why on earth do they want to force us to buy electricity at 3 times the going rate and switch off businesses at 4.00PM ? Do they actually want jobs and growth?

    • alan jutson
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

      Lifelogic

      “Do they actually want jobs and growth”

      Yes they do, but they are so far divorced from reality, that they actually believe that governments can produce such, no matter what the external/commercial forces against them.
      With little real commercial experience, that is what you get from theorists.

      Perhaps if they were rewarded in both Pay and Pension in accordance with the results of their policies.
      Given that all Government Ministers and MP’s are financially shielded against any of the outcomes of their policies, we will still get the drivel policies you outline for years to come.
      Good job they were not in charge of the 100 metres in the Olympics, as our team (our team only) may have been told to run without spikes, just in case they may damage the track.

      I have just spent the last week on Holiday in Ironbridge, visiting some excellent museums which were all celebrating our past history and the start of the industrial revolution.
      I know one should never harp back, but the contrast between the CAN DO ATTITUDE of our inventors, industrialists and people then, when we were the powerhouse of the World, is in very, very sharp contrast to now, where all we ever seem to do is crush such ambition to death with the huge burden of regulation and taxation.

      As an example:
      The magnificent Festival of Britain Exhibition Building (not that long ago) from intitial conception, designed, manufactured, and then built on site in less than 11 months.
      Today it would take perhaps 11 years to even get Planning approval, such is the attitude !!!

      • lifelogic
        Posted July 2, 2013 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, decline by intentional government design.

    • Mark B
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      Energy policy is an EU (in)competence.

  18. Martin Ryder
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    You are right. Those who support intervention are wrong and have some very suspect motives.

    Humanitarian aid to Turkey and Jordan from our bloated Aid Budget is acceptable; aid to either side in Syria is not.

  19. Martin
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    I have know idea why the UK should be involved in Syria. Even in the days of Empire it wasn’t much of a concern.

    Delusions of imperial power continue.

  20. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Full marks for non-intervention. What I fail to understand is why Russia has such a strong interest in keeping the current Syrian government. What’s in it for them?

    Reply They think Assad is as good as it gets, and the replacement could be worse.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      Assad allows Russia to have a naval base in Syria, which is Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean.

      Another reason is that Assad is an Alawite (branch of Shia Islam), while most of the Muslims in the North Caucasian part of Russia are Sunni Muslims. So from Russia’s perspective a new nearby Sunni Muslim country may choose to support the Sunni Muslims that no longer wish to be part of Russia (such as Chechens), which will cause problems for Russia.

    • zorro
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

      He has also protected Christians in Syria….

      zorro

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      To reply, the Russians might well be right Assad is perhaps as good as it gets, and the replacement could well be worse.

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted June 30, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

      I was under the impression it was money for arms and strength of allegiance

  21. cosmic
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    “They want us to agree that it is in the UK’s national interest to be involved in the future of Syria, though they accept for the time being that arming some of the rebels may not be the right policy.”

    So they have a desire we be involved but they have no clear idea what even the general thrust of policy should be. It’s reasonable to question whether they have any understanding at all of Syria.

    What arguments are they advancing as to why it’s of benefit to us to be involved? Right off the bat, I can see none. It isn’t as if we have a successful history of these interventions.

    I think certain elements in British politics are itching to meddle in Syria and the reasons have more to do with them looking big on the world stage than anything sensible.

  22. Neil Craig
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Apart from the ethical issue on which I believe we are very much on the side of the (bad-ed) guys, as we were entirely in Yugoslavia and on balance in Libya.

    The national interest of Britain is very much in preserving the legal position of national sovereignty. Every time we engage in aggression against a small country we weaken our own rights. Machiavelli understood this but our leaders are less wise.

    I agree with John McCarthy that the worst thing that could happen to humanity would be a one world government, because it would enable the rulers to prevent human progress and we are, de facto, close to that.

    Like freedom of speech, where by definition you have to support the freedom of those you disagree with to defend it for everybody, we have to defend the principle of the sovereign rights under international law to defend our own rights.

  23. Martyn G
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    “Advocates of being involved in Syria are out and about talking to Conservative MPs. They want us to agree that it is in the UK’s national interest to be involved in the future of Syria…” That’s easy to say but can ‘they’ back their fig leaf assertation with solid facts as to exactly why it is in our nation interest and in which areas we shall lose out by not intervening in Syria?
    Syria is a cauldron of conflicting interests and it is far from clear who will come out on top and for our government to be thinking of pocking our noses into what is farily obviously none of our business is madness. It would be like poking a hornet’s nest with a stick and standing there to see what happens.

  24. Paul
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Surely the bigger problem here is how to deal with Iran? Sooner or later the government will have to confront the problems that Iran poses.

  25. Mark B
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Whilst Syria is tearing itself apart, Israel goes largely unmolested. But as always, it is better the devil you know, than the one you don’t. And Israel would probably want a stable regime that at worst was benign too them. That regime would in my opinion, be Assad.

  26. Peter
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Quite right John.

    One group of Syrians doesn’t see eye to eye with another group of Syrians. That’s a shame but it doesn’t make it any of our business.

    Strict non-intervention is the only sane policy. Sadly it looks as though Hague has already ditched that approach.

  27. outsider
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood,
    The short answer to the question posed in your headline is No. The long answer, which you have eloquently expounded on several occasions, is also No.
    But what relevance does this have to UK government policy?

    One could after all, pose a series of such questions about government policies to which the answer would almost certainly be No, especially if one substituted “the interests of British voters” for the vaguer “national interest”.

    Is the Green Power strategy and the accelerated closure of coal-fired power stations in our interests?
    Is a substantial annual planned increase in the population through immigration in our interests?
    Is the progressive centralisation of hospital services and the phasing out of personal GPs in our interests?
    Is the laissez faire policy on foreign ownership of UK business (up £75 billion in the latest four quarters according to ONS) in our interests?
    Would Turkey’s entry into EU membership, supported by all three main parties, be in our interests?

    The list of such questions is long, if not endless. Consensus policies loom particularly large.

    But good luck on Syria anyway.

  28. Pleb
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    The UK is a tiny island on the north coast of Europe. We have no power or influence. Lets work to becoming a Switzerland. ASAP.

  29. Posted June 30, 2013 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    When the UK is running all hunkydory and we have no problems of our own then perhaps we will be in a position to demonstrate to the world that there is a better way of going about our daily affairs.

    In the meantime, I would suggest that there are a 1.3 trillion problems right here in our own country that need addressing.

    The UK Government is elected to deal with those.

    If foreign attack comes our way then the UK Government has a duty to deploy what resources it has at its disposal to repel it.

    We really shouldn’t be looking to get involved in affairs halfway across the world. Not only do we have no business there but we, literally, can’t afford it.

  30. Nash Point
    Posted June 30, 2013 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Does anybody know Saki’s short story “The Mappined Lives”? This discussion is so much like that, except I think things were getting serious in Abyssinia in the story.
    Basically, the point is that it is of no consequence what you, I or even Mr Redwood thinks about what should be done about Syria. It’s totally out of our control. If the idiot majority elects governments that just act like puppets to large institutions such as the USA or the EU, or Goldman Sachs or the Bilderbergers then we as a country deserve everything that comes our way.
    We should concentrate on our immediate surroundings and own lives, our families and friends. And try to cope amongst the madness that surrounds us.

  31. Winston Smith
    Posted July 1, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps you can ask Mr Hunt why he blocked the NAO’s attempt to fully analyse the BBC’s payroll. Something I have reminded you several times. The NAO have accessed the BBC’s recent severance pay deals and look at what they have published today. My contact at the BBC (senior HR) says its a freeforall with public money. Salaries aand benefits are totally out of perspective, which is why nobody wants to leave. They even commute from London to Salford.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 2, 2013 at 7:37 am | Permalink

      @Winston Smith: As long as the NAO also fully analyse the payrolls of all publicly funded broadcasters in the UK, this would mean any broadcaster or carrier station that screens commercial adverts, as more people pay money into the UK’s broadcasting coffers that way than they do the TVL – even more so when one considers that even those without a TV still funding such broadcasters. Ho-hum…

      An ITV franchise award wasn’t refereed to, by their own directors and shareholders, as a license to print money for no reason, in the days before first Ch4 and then Sky started to also take a cut of the income revenue pie from selling broadcast air time to the ad agencies.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
    Published and promoted by Thomas Puddy for John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page