The Emirati / RedBird IMI bid for the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator is opening up a wider conversation: how much of our national infrastructure should autocracies be allowed to buy? The Emiratis have been on a bit of a spree in recent years. They have 10 per cent of Heathrow airport, 15 per cent of Vodafone, 49 per cent of the Dogger Bank wind farm, Man City FC and now they want the Telegraph and Spectator. It would be the first time that a dictatorship would own a newspaper in a democracy, thereby setting a precedent. Much is riding in whether the UK government approves the deal.

LBC radio has just held a phone-in on the topic hosted by Ali Miraj, pegged to a new poll showing two-thirds of the public are against such deals. I opened the debate. Foreign owners, I said, are not a problem: Nikkei owns the FT. The issue is government ownership: a free press means freedom from government. You can listen to my case at the end of this blog; I’ve made similar points before. What I was interested in, and what I’d like to write about now, is what others had to say.

First was Hassan in Kensington. ‘Media is an important part of our society. It’s not just another business, it is designed not just to hold foreign governments to account, it is designed to hold every centre of power to account, whether local or abroad.’ He voiced dismay at seeing Richard Sharp, a buddy of Boris Johnson, being made BBC chairman. ‘We have seen how important an independent media is.’ But Qatari-owned al-Jazeera, he said, did offer ‘very useful’ contrast to BBC.

Josh in Chiswick said that no foreign government should own media but ‘I’d say the same for key infrastructure.’ He saw the Evening Standard as a cautionary tale, given the Lebedev family’s links. He said this contradicted my point about how papers represent the opinion of readers not owners: the Standard came out for the Tories, but Sadiq Khan won. Lebdev, of course, became a Tory peer.

Josh then made a point that you see a lot on social media: that right-wingers don’t seem to like tasting their own takeover medicine. ‘You can’t be part of an organ that champions [free market] ideology and then suddenly call for restrictions on ownership.’ But free marketeers, of course, have always called for restrictions: to prevent monopolies and guard against undue state interference. When governments or their proxies actually buy private companies, that’s not the free market at work. That’s nationalisation, as Charles Moore has argued. So I’m not sure that I see a contradiction. National security duties also means keeping certain critical assets – including the democratic apparatus like the free press – out of dictators’ hands.

RedBird IMI says that the Emirati government is a passive investor with no strategic input. Jeff Zucker, to whom I’d report as editor, has said he’d resign if there was any attempt from Abu Dhabo to interfere. But who would I then report to? And how likely is it that Abu Dhabi would pony up hundreds of millions of pounds to buy the Telegraph and Spectator and then vanish? Does this theory pass the smell test?

Russ in Leyton said ‘for me, it boils down to whether Redbird’s assurances of editorial freedom can be assured in the long term.’ (An independent editorial board has been promised for the Telegraph but not the Spectator.) Russ said he shares my ‘consternation at the idea of any government owning a significant slice of our media landscape.’ Zucker strikes me as a professional, respectful of The Spectator’s traditions. I don’t think he’d distort the magazine’s character. My concern is that, under the proposed deal, either he or I could be replaced in two shakes of a camel’s tail.

Then we had Shahid in Hemel Hempstead who said: ‘I’m not buying the the explanation that the opposition is because it’s a foreign owned government. If that was the case […] then why on earth are the likes of China and France allowed to own our nuclear power stations, especially China?’ I’d argue that the press, in particular, should not be owned by any government. But the point about Chinese ownership of UK critical infrastructure is well made.  A few who phoned up LBC also argued (in effect) that right-wing publications are anti-immigrant and this informs objections to bid.

Aaron in Liverpool pointed out a flaw in my argument. I say that press barons don’t impose their opinions on readers because papers who lose touch with the readers go bust. Surely this logic could be used to defend foreign government ownership? (My view is that governments have different priorities which is why so much that they run doesn’t work. As proprietors, they’d put influence over profit.)

It’s suspicious, Aaron said, that the Emirati royal family would actually want to own a national newspaper. “Democratic governments don’t tend to own assets like newspapers,” he said. “It’s only really a dictatorship that would enable themselves to buy infrastructure or newspapers. I can’t see the British government owning a newspaper in America or France.”  Again, a point well made. Norway has a big sovereign wealth fund. It’s unthinkable that this would be used to by Le Monde or La Stampa.

Duncan in Romford pointed out that alliances change. ‘I don’t want any foreign government owning a British newspaper because even though they might be friendly governments at the moment, supposedly sharing our democratic values, there’s absolutely nothing to prevent them changing in the future.’ Again, an important point .The Emiratis are UK allies. But have been getting closer to Russia in recent years and last month welcomed Vladimir Putin as a ‘dear friend’ when he visited. The Emirati royals have seen, in Putin, a friend in need. They have bought his oil, hosted Russian businesses and done plenty to fuel the Russian war machine. As I asked recently, how much of Britain should Putin’s “dear friends” be allowed to own?

We need to remember that the readership also has the power to walk

Mark in Tunbridge Wells

Mark in Tunbridge Wells closed the debate by pointing out that journalists ‘can always walk’ if they don’t like the ownership. ‘We need to remember that the readership also has the power to walk. The reason the Spectator in particular is such a good trophy asset is because it’s done so very, very well over the last 10 to 20 years or so, particularly online.’ People wouldn’t read it, he said, if it were to go downhill.

I agree, which is why I do not see RedBird damaging The Spectator on a week-by-week basis. The Arabs would not demand we run a camel-racing section or that we change our approach to Israel. Jeff Zucker struck me as someone would be a supportive, laissez-faire boss. So I’m not arguing that the magazine would be vandalised by its putative new owners: if they invest in the right things, I can see it thriving. But always with a cloud of suspicion hanging over us.

Think of our campaigns. In 2013 we rejected press regulation with a cover saying “No!”. If we did that again, it would be seen as a message from the Emirati government. During lockdown, we returned the furlough money to the taxpayer as we realised we didn’t need it. If we did that again, it would be seen as a bung from Sheikh Mansour. For 200 years we have campaigned for press freedom from government. How hypocritical it would be for us to do so while being actually owned by a dictatorship. As Andrew Neil said, The Spectator were formed in 1828 to campaign for democracy, so people could vote. How ironic if we’d be end up bought by an absolute monarchy.

Some argue that Emirati money would supercharge The Spectator and that we’d be the Man City of publishing. But we no need of a sugar daddy. As Mark in Tunbridge Wells said, we have done very well over the last 10 to 20 years: thanks to you, our readers. The Spectator was valued at £20 million when I became editor in 2009 and has just been sold for £90 million. If RedBird were to sell us again, they’d likely get even more. Some UK publications are tanking and badly need cash injections: we’re not one of them. Nor is the Telegraph, whose profit levels have risen fivefold since 2018. We need an owner who believes in us, believes in our growth and lets us reinvest more of our income (ie, accept lower profits for a while). But I suspect any new owner would let us do so, as the business is so compelling.

We don’t often write up radio phone-ins, but LBC has just held an important conversation – because media ownership affects all of us. Readers will want to know what strings are attached to the radio stations, newspapers and magazine they read and listen to. MPs have been slow to realise the importance of this. ‘With some rare exceptions, security implications of foreign investment were a low or no priority for most economies until about a decade ago,’ said a recent OECD report. That is, now, changing. Parliament could do a lot worse than hold a debate along the lines of that opened up this evening by LBC. There is plenty at stake.