132: Pod Baby Pod

It seems everyone gets a tip these days.

Deliver food?

Get a tip.

Drive around town?

Get a tip.

Serve a drink?

Get a tip.

But here's one tip that can help you find a higher-paying career.

Merit America can help you get the training and support to find and succeed in an in-demand job, like data analytics or HR admin or supply chain planning.

It may be the last tip you ever need.

Learn more at meritamerica.org.

It's time to head back to school and forward to your future with Carrington College.

For over 55 years, we've helped train the next generation of healthcare professionals.

Apply now to get hands-on training from teachers with real-world experience.

And as few as nine months, you could start making a difference in healthcare.

Classes start soon in Pleasant Hill, San Leandro, and San Jose.

Visit Carrington.edu to see what's next for you.

Visit Carrington.edu slash SCI for information on program outcomes.

Page 94, the Private Eye Podcast.

Hello and welcome to another episode of Page 94.

My name is Andrew Hunter Murray and I'm here in the Private Eye office with Helen Lewis, Adam McQueen and Ian Hislop.

We are here to discuss all manner of news that has broken out since the last issue of the magazine went to print, chief among which, and on the cover of the magazine, is the inauguration of Donald Trump as the president of the USA again.

If it was a wedding, the kind of really good relatives spot was taken up by the tech guys.

The sort of parents of the groom, as it were.

It was very it did have that feel to it because they sat Kamala Harris and Joe Biden as sort of thrones on the front row, and then they had to sit there while Trump just slagged them off in his speech and said what a mess they'd made of America.

And then he went down to give another speech slightly further out in the rotunda and said, I wasn't really as bitchy as I wanted to be in my first speech.

Melania told me I couldn't have a go at them.

And then he went through now and then they have all the inauguration balls and he got gave a series of speeches which became more sort of vague and unhinged and hinted at all the things that he'd really wanted to say, like a sort of stacking set of of Russian dolls.

But he also appropriate image.

He also signed all these executive orders.

So, one of the very odd things about the way that American politics works is because the houses are usually so tightly negotiated and things have to go through Congress, which gets gridlocked.

Lots of American politics happens by executive order, which is that the whoever is president turns up and goes, Here's what I reckon this word means, or here's how I want this to be interpreted.

So, there's an immigration crackdown, there's an end to birthright citizenship.

So, this idea that if you are born on American soil or American military base, you are automatically American.

He wants to change that.

That is actually something that is in the Constitution.

So that's definitely going to get...

You have to find some lawyers to say it means the exact opposite.

Now, I know that's not hard.

I know that's how the law works.

But I thought even for the United States, who are quite keen on a written constitution, it is written.

It is written down really clearly.

So executive orders, as far as I gather, have some authority, but not

lots.

I mean, it is decrees, but decrees that can be haggled over later and argued and will be maybe legally challenged, this kind of thing.

Lots of them will end up being litigated in the court.

Then they often end up in the Supreme Court, which has currently got a 6-3 Conservative majority.

Right.

Presumably that's what he's gambling on now, is that he will be able to push it through that way.

No, they think even the Conservative-led Supreme Court being literate will go, no, no, Donald.

You've had a good run, but this one we might have to say, no, the wording is quite clear.

But what he can do is he can probably negotiate down to something else, else, right?

So it may be that if your mother is there legally on a student visa, an H-1B visa, then you get citizenship.

But they can do a crackdown on what they call kind of tourism, right?

The people who turn up eight months pregnant, just with being completely foreign nationals on a holiday and give birth and then take the kid home, but they're technically entitled to American citizenship.

That is not absurd.

That is the way that citizenship works in lots of other places.

Birthright citizenship is relatively unusual.

But I think, yeah, you might say he's gone for the most maximalist version because he quite wants the fight, he wants to look really tough.

And if he gets negotiated down to only half of what he asked for,

that's still a win.

But the executive orders, which are theatrical now, I mean, they used to be a sort of administrative function, they're now another version of theatre.

Someone pointed out that he's now using a very, very big, thick pen.

And I don't know whether that's because the printer has gone up in size, but whatever it is, it means he can write a big signature, show show you a big signature, and then throw the pen around.

As ever, I mean, if the first term is anything to go by, a lot of the theatrical moments don't turn into law.

Is that fair?

That certainly happened last time.

I mean, take the wanting to buy Greenland, for example.

The FT reported that there was a very, I don't know what that diplomatic language that they use, a very robust phone call with

the Danish Prime Minister about it, saying basically, no, well, give us Greenland, though.

Go on, though.

You want to give us Greenland, though.

But

who knows what really happens?

At what point is he prepared to invade another NATO country?

Ditto, there was a migrant flight to Colombia that used a military plane, and the Colombians turned it back.

And he immediately went, 25% tariffs on Colombia, everything.

No one will buy cheap coffee anymore.

And then they backed down, and he backed down.

And that was within the space of hours.

Yeah, it was a bit like that South Korean coup.

You could have had a nap and really missed those sanctions.

But this is also, there's a kind of ping-pong that happens.

So Joe Biden got got in and said, We're going to interpret sex as in no sex discrimination to also include gender identity.

And then Trump gets in and says, No, sex now just means biological sex.

The same thing with the so-called global gag rule about whether or not foreign NGOs can talk about abortion and still receive federal funding.

It just ping-pongs between some are saying it's no way to run a country.

Well,

it is a big challenge.

So, I mean, you guys know I'm all into my climate stuff.

And if you, I mean, Trump gets in and he says, Right, we're going to have no more federal leasing of wind.

And a lot of the wind turbine projects that are already, you know, at various different stages of completion or planning or whatever it is, right, they're all nixed.

That's a system that provides about a tenth of America.

Very good American terminology.

Oh, thanks.

Yeah, yeah.

Now that was terrific, Andy.

But that's a tenth of America's electricity.

You know, that's a substantial thing to start mucking around with every four years or so.

And if you look at somewhere, I'm afraid, like China, which started thinking in a really big way about batteries in about, what, 25 years ago, you know, and has now constructed in a very, very complex and all-encompassing supply chain.

Hooray for communism, says Andy.

Well, behold, my five-year plan.

Warming to it, yeah.

But I mean, is there something between communism and what you call the pendulum and Andy calls short-termism?

Again, Trump says, you know, it's time to drill, baby, drill, and really get America's oil and gas supplies revitalized.

And then various American commentators appear saying,

production's really high.

It's at a record.

I'm not sure we can sell anymore.

And if we do, the price drops and then uh we'll all go into recession.

It

how long does it take between the Trump theatre and the disillusion?

That's the bit I want to know.

Immigration enforcement is going to be a really big test of that because actually late era Obama did far more deportations than either Biden or first term Trump.

That's actually when they they really peaked.

And so w you have to ask yourself the question about whether or not there will be theatrical deportations.

They talked about the fact they want to be able to go into schools or churches and sort of drag people out, you know, this very ostentatious kind of cruelty and toughness versus what are the actual numbers of it.

I think those are the kind of things where

Trump's kind of theatricality can sometimes cloud the vision about the, you know, like the way that Obama did all those sort of drone strikes, you know, that we tend to sort of think about things in the vibes that people give off, but actually the numbers underneath are often tell a slightly different story.

Where are the Democrats in all this?

They all decided to have a little rest,

a little sit-down and have a think about where it all went wrong.

The interesting thing about that is that, you know, Trump, in all his inauguration speeches, said it was a landslide, I won all the swing states.

And yeah, he did win all the swing states.

He didn't actually win by that greater margin.

Biden won by a bigger margin over him last time.

But the thing is that they've just can't have the argument among themselves about what they did wrong.

They've got a really big problem with their donor class, you know, the kind of activist groups who are all pushing for very aggressive social progressivism.

And no one really wants to come out and say, I'm sorry to the ACLU or whoever it might be, but we're not going to be able to give you this menu of policy requirements you want because the voters don't like them.

You know what I mean?

The thing that Keir Starmer did in order to bring Labour back to winning that massive majority was he had to move a lot, he had to drag their positions rightwards back from the Corbyn era.

And no one in the Democrats has really put their hand up and sort of volunteered for that yet.

But if the option is, you know, which obviously the media conglomerates have decided, is to say, we were completely wrong all along.

The whole thing was a terrible error.

We believe everything you do now.

I mean, the Democrats can't really do that if 48% of the country voted for what they stood for last time.

I mean, they have to find another route, I hope.

Yeah, I mean, you see people like Ruben Gayo, who's the senator in Arizona, who's himself Hispanic, and he took a much tougher line on the border because actually, all the evidence shows that even very recent immigrants to America are really worried about immigration, right?

That kind of classic pattern of like, I've just made it across the Rio Grande.

Who are these guys invading this country?

And so I think there are voices like that, but I also think they're just completely bruised because they feel like what happened in 2016 is they went out and they said, he's a pussy grabber, he's a Nazi, he's a Russian shill.

Scream, scream, scream, scream, scream.

And the main effect of that was a lot of people just decided to stop consuming politics news anymore.

And I think they just think they can't rerun that playbook.

So you're seeing a lot more, for example, when Elon Musk did or didn't do a Roman salute here, and I know you're very keen on the fact that it definitely, definitely was a legitimate Roman salute, and that's a real thing.

But when you just.

Just for the purposes of a diversion here, no Roman ever did that salute.

There is no written, there is no visual evidence at all.

It's Rome in the sense of Rome in the fascist era of Mussolini.

It's that kind of Roman salute.

But the point about that was that that was an edge case where he said I was just putting my hand on my heart and then raising my hands upward, as anyone might do.

Not an impossible thing to say.

Almost none of the Democrats came out and said anything about that.

J.B.

Pritzker, who's the governor of Illinois, who's a potential candidate, did say something.

Alexandra Casia-Cortez, who's the very left-wing congresswoman from New York, said something.

But by and large, people like Gavin Newsome, the governor of California, who's obviously lining himself up next time, didn't get involved in that kind of outrage cycle because they just don't think it works for them.

They think that what happens is they say something, it sounds scoldy.

The right-wing media goes, look at that, you know, the lying MSM just are trying to even make out that we're Nazis.

And then

they go and praise the alternative for Deutschland.

Sort of talk about.

I mean, it's the cartoon we ran in the eye of two people in a pub.

One of them is dressed in full Nazi regalia.

He's having a drink with another man.

And he says, Yeah, you can't just go around calling everyone you disagree with a fascist.

And that seems to be what the musk apologists would like to do.

You just say, Would you like to look at the clip again?

Yeah.

And then tell me, hand on heart that this is from Star Trek.

Yeah, I think, but I think they just realise that you could have an argument about the essentially unresolvable argument about the gesture, or you could try and focus on the fact that he went to a panel and said, you know, Italy should be for the Italians, right?

And just say this is the kind of, you know, this is the undeniable cut-and-dried things that he has said.

I think there seems to be a lot more depression than outrage among

the various opponents of Trump across the world.

And there's a sense in which...

Now people seem to have tilted to the position that, well, you know, he says a lot of stuff, and none of it has any effect, really, so maybe maybe it's all actually okay, which feels like a distinct underpricing of the risk.

Oh, it's sustainable stability.

Totally, because he has really gone full bore, as I say, with all these executive orders, with lots of domestic stuff.

He seems to have been less focused internationally.

It's taken him a long time to phone Keir Starmer and a long time for Marco Rubio, who's now Secretary of State, to talk to David Lamy, despite David Lamy's enthusiastic campaign of greasing up to them.

Can I just ask,

as you say, Trump's coming in with all this sort of sound and fury

and announcing things that may or may not happen.

Has he this time around?

I get the impression he's got more of a machinery behind him that might actually make it happen.

Because it was full chaos first term, wasn't it?

I mean, it was Steve Ballon in, Steve Bannon out, Scaramucci in for 10 days.

There was just nothing actually, so there's no sort of impetus behind him, and no people who were going to make it work for him.

Yeah, they didn't have a kind, they didn't have the sort of grim-faced bureaucrats that you needed any great system like that.

The difference is this time he's had four years of everybody on the conservative right thinking that, you know thinking about what is possible and what they might be able to do.

So one of the Democrats' big attack lines during the election campaign was this project 2025 which was overseen by the Heritage Foundation.

And that was a really

obvious blueprint for a kind of socially conservative, libertarian, in some respects fiscally libertarian, but also you know untrammelled executive power kind of blueprint for government.

Trump totally disavowed this during the campaign because the Democrats just keep holding up a big book that said project 2025 and went went all you need to know about this is it's very sinister.

But there were loads of people in his orbit that were involved around it, and sure enough, those things are kind of creeping in.

And there's things in there, for example, you know, they want to do random factory inspections on places that manufacture abortion pills, morning after pills.

You know, these kind of the sand in the gears of bureaucracy they could throw just to make things that they don't like harder and harder to do.

They've really thought about that and about the way that they can use regulators, for example, just to achieve the ends that they want.

The question is, as you say, whether or not any of this will actually happen.

They've certainly got it all locked and loaded and ready to go.

But it does involve having a functional White House and having a functional congressional system to some extent.

And they have got a very narrow, particularly because of his appointments, have taken more people out of Congress.

Really, really narrow.

Like J.D.

Vance had to come in and cast the vote on, always ready to cast the vote on Pete Hagseth becoming Secretary of Defence.

They can only afford to lose three senators on those confirmation votes.

And they've got two of them who are pretty independent-minded anyway, plus Mitch McConnell, who's now cross and has nothing to lose.

So, actually, he's

yeah, but he's gonna, you know, so that I think that the same the A, the questions about the functionality or dysfunctionality of the White House remain, and B, the questions about how do you get things spending commitments through.

Because there are still people in that Republican Party that don't want to lavishly spend money on stuff, whereas Trump's instincts are just run up the debt, who cares?

Like, just I want stuff that I want

the small print or the actual actual putting the work in, doesn't he?

No, but I mean, certainly, I get the impression there's a slightly more professional setup behind him him this time, even with Elon Musk kind of bouncing around the place.

You know,

it's not Ivanka and Jared kind of just wandering in and saying, why don't you do this?

I think they were two of the most functional people there.

Jared's Middle East policy brief actually led to the Abraham Accords.

He's one of the few that can boast that he actually did something substantive.

The big more problem was your Scaramucci's and your Bannons, who are essentially podcasters, who should never be put in charge of it.

Government by podcaster.

It's the coming thing.

But you now have the first female chief of staff in the White House ever, Susie Wiles, who's a long-time Florida operative who is just used to working with men from Florida with massive egos.

She might be

possibly more able to run it competently.

The Trump campaign this time was much less drama-filled than previously.

You mentioned the Middle East policy.

These think tanks, they've obviously been very worried about abortion.

They don't seem to have spent a great deal of time looking at either Gaza or Israel.

So Trump says, why doesn't everyone from Gaza move someone else?

Maybe short term, maybe long term.

I mean, as though these options A were possible and B, he'd just thought of them.

This doesn't suggest a huge amount of pre-planning, does it?

No, there's going to be a big thing that happens as well where lots of constituencies that foolishly believed him.

So you mentioned the unions before, and I think that's exactly right.

The Teamsters endorsed him.

Is he going to bring in pro-union, pro-labour policies, or is he going to give tax cuts to the rich like we always thought?

And I think the same thing is true of the Middle East, which is that,

you know, there are some people, like those voters in Michigan, who didn't want Kamala Harris because they thought she was,

she was too in Hoch of Israel.

They are also going to follow the trajectory of people who are going to have a cold realization of the realities of electoral politics.

But there was a clue, wasn't there, that in the first term he moved the American embassy to Jerusalem.

I mean, he was fairly clear on that.

And, you know, all of those people who are saying, oh,

Kamala Harris is overseeing genocide.

I can't possibly vote for her.

I mean, now do you think they're reacting to him coming in immediately off the back of

a peace deal, saying, well, why don't we just actually get all of the Palestinians out of Gaza?

Maybe keep them out of there.

Yeah, what if they just moved to Jordan?

There may be a few reasons not to.

Yeah, and also one of his really big donors, Miriam Adelson, who was the widow of Sheldon Adelson, the casino tycoon, one of her big policy issues is Israel.

You know, there are really big donors for whom this is the foreign policy issue that they really care about.

And any kind of backsliding of U.S.

support for Israel will be very horrifying to them.

I mean, I feel sorry for those voters, the sort of Gaza voters, because there's no one in American politics for them to vote for, really.

You know, that is the problem of a two-party system with essentially a pretty unified view on the Middle East.

We've got to talk about the two cryptocurrencies that the first couple launched.

If you want to track these coins, they have a dollar sign and then the name after them.

So Dollar Trump was the first one that was launched, and it immediately hit to capitalization, market capitalization in the billions.

Trump owns a big chunk of that, right?

And then they sell off another stuff, another portion of it, driving the price of his stake up.

They say it's not an investment vehicle.

And the magazine made this point that everything in it's like, you're just expressing your love of the word Trump.

But then, quite quickly afterwards, Melania launched her coin, which then created the value of the Trump coin.

So, someone said, even without having divorced him, she's managed to take a quarter of his assets, which is quite impressive.

Is hers more popular than his?

No, hers is not as popular as his, but people say because she'll be out the door very quickly.

His then recovered, I think, in value.

Crypto people are quite angry.

They're saying you're tarnishing the good name of crypto, which is very objectively funny to me.

But

there is a theory that Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are the two really big crypto currencies, Trump has talked about establishing a US strategic reserve of crypto.

Now, you might say that's just numbers on a spreadsheet.

How would that work?

Fort Knox used to have like actual bars of gold.

But what it means is if they did that, they'd buy up a lot of it and drive the price up.

This is a tool for potentially corruption on a scale hitherto undreamed of.

So that's what another reason why there are so many people around him who are into crypto.

So much of that podcast sphere that drove him to that, they have crypto adverts or have crypto investments.

And the downside of it is, I made a program for the BBC and we talked to some people who invested in crypto and had their wallets, their digital wallets stolen, or they'd invest in something that then completely tanked and they couldn't sell it.

This was people's like home renovation money or their kids' college funds or, you know, it's got all the same problems.

It is gambling.

I mean, that's how I think we should think about it.

Yes.

So if you had in the second row all the casino owners from Vegas, it would be more or less less the same sort of message going out.

Yes, the bosses who own these things think it's a great investment, but you, the sucker, you think you're being bold and reactive and counterintuitive and brave and frontiersy.

But you're not.

You're just a mug.

The White House always wins.

Very nice.

Dreaming of buying your first car or a new home?

Knowing your FICO score is the first step in making it real.

With My FICO, you can check your score for free and it won't hurt your credit.

You'll get your FICO score, full credit reports, and real-time alerts all in one simple app.

Your credit score is more than just numbers.

It's the key to building the future you've been working toward.

Visit myfico.com slash free or download the MyFICO app and take the mystery out of your FICO score.

My phone just buzzed.

Another data breach alert.

It was a reminder that VPNs and encrypted apps can't fix what's broken at the network level.

That's where CAPE comes in.

Cape is a secure mobile carrier built with privacy as its foundation.

It doesn't collect names, addresses, or personal data, so it can't sell what it never stores.

Use the code CAPE33 to get the first month of premium nationwide service for just $30 a month and 33% off the first six months.

Go to CAPE.co.

Privacy starts at the source.

Right, now

let's come back from the...

Well, actually, we're not coming back from the USA, are we?

Because we're going to talk about Prince Harry.

We're going to go to the other side of the usa now adam there's been a lot of coverage of the um the prince harry versus everybody trial which has been going on for so long well it's one of many that have been going on for very very long but my whole professional life literally since the year i graduated was when the phone hacking story broke out well i have to put you on that because this is not about phone hacking this particular case.

That was ruled by Mr.

Justice Fancourt quite early on in proceedings that Prince Harry was no longer in a position to sue over phone hacking by either the News of the World or as he alleged the son because he'd run out of time.

So this case was limited to other unlawful activities by people connected to News UK.

When Prince Harry did briefly take the stand to talk about phone hacking, it didn't go very well, and the KC basically carved him up because he couldn't seem to remember anything, particularly not incidences where the type of phone had either been invented or he wasn't on the phone at the time.

So, this was the case against the mirror last year, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That didn't go so well.

Now, the really big thing, the one big thing in this new settlement, which was both Prince Harry and Tom Watson, former deputy leader of the Labour Party, was that an admission has been made of illegal activity taking place on behalf of the sun.

However, not by journalists on the sun, but by private investigators working for the sun.

So what we know, what we can legally and safely say, which the lawyer will be happy with, is that we now know that there was extensive illegal activity, unlawful activity, and phone hacking on the News of the World, on the Sunday Mirror, on the Sunday People, on the Daily Mirror, but not the Sun.

Even though lots and lots of people move between all of those different tabloids at different times, and it seems to be rife everywhere else, somehow it just never happened.

It's like the blood-brain barrier.

Some things just don't get through and it's

just through that door at whopping, and just

all thoughts of how to hack phones and all memory of that just vanishes through your own.

Okay.

Okay, so that's the legal position.

Now tell us where our sympathies should lie.

Prince Harry Murdoch.

It's a tough one.

You might say neither.

Who cares?

But when I heard the judgment, I thought Prince Harry should be crowing,

and yet he came out.

He didn't say Murdoch's paid all my costs, which is the first thing I'd have said if I'd won against Murdoch, which obviously I haven't ever.

And I've made an absolute staggering amount of money.

I no longer need my day in court.

It's total victory.

It wasn't, though, was it?

It wasn't that.

No, no, no.

He said at an event in December, the goal of this is accountability.

It's really that simple.

He said, it wasn't about the money at all.

He said the scale of the cover-up is so large that people need to see it for themselves.

Well, in the apology that was read out in court last week, they didn't see that.

What they got was this admission that unlawful activities have been carried out by private investigators working for the Sun.

The closest they got to anything about a corporate cover-up, of which there has been evidence for years and years, and we've written about on occasion, right back to the 2014 trial of Rebecca Brooks, of which she was found not guilty, and Andy Coulson, who was found guilty, along with various other uh figures from the News of the World back in the day.

They said that um NGN's response to the two thousand six arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable, which is a magnificent bit of legalese.

And the other big admission was in the case of Tom Watson, which was that he had been placed under surveillance in two thousand nine by journalists of the News of the World and those instructed by them, which was a weird thing that came out in the preparations for this case.

There was a strange conspiracy theory going on within News UK that Tom Watson had spies within the company who were feeding things back to Gordon Brown, who was determined to bring them down at the time to get revenge for them switching their allegiance from Labour to the Tories.

So that was as close as they got to kind of exposing any of that.

But even that is not...

I mean, if you think back to 2009, so that's about the time for those of us who are

in the world who are less nerdy about the phone hacking saga than I am, which is absolutely everyone in the world.

This was the point at which it was revealed by Nick Davis and The Guardian that contrary to

News UK's insistence that this has all been limited to one rogue reporter and one private investigator on the News of the World,

actually they were quietly trying to pay out very, very large sums of money to other people as well,

including Gordon Taylor, who was head, I think, of the Professional Football Association at the time.

So that was when that blew up.

Well, at that time, we knew, and it was admitted, we're going back years and years now, that Charlotte Harris and Mark Lewis, who were two of the lawyers who were working on behalf of Gordon Taylor and other claimants at the time, had been followed by private detectives.

Those ones, not instructed by journalists on the News of the World, but by Tom Crone, who was the legal boss at the News of the World.

So we did actually, I mean, it is alarming, but we, you know, we have known for a while that this sort of stuff was going on.

And there was also, clever readers of the eye might remember, an admission, not quite an admission, but a settlement of a case brought by Chris Huhne, former cabinet minister, former jailbird as well.

He brought a case against the Sun and he claimed in that that there was also unlawful activity going on involving private investigators of him and other government ministers, which wasn't about stories in the newspaper at all.

It was about trying to make sure that Murdoch got his way with the sky bid back in 2011.

So this is straightforward corporate malfeasance.

Yeah.

Via private investigator.

Yes.

It's not even journalism at all.

It's just targeting your enemies in a threatening way.

And it is alarming and it is shocking, but it isn't particularly new, as I say.

Isn't it sad though, the bit that your brain rumors?

Because I too feel like this has been my entire career in journalism.

And yet all the bits that I can remember is like the fact that Charlie Brooks, didn't once drink a pintire pint of fairy liquid.

Didn't that come out in the evidence?

This is the kind of thick detail that my brain hangs on to.

And I just, for 10 years now, I've been thinking, that's very impressive, isn't it?

You know, I remember sitting in court in 2014 and listening to Charlie Brooks on the witness box say that he couldn't check his messages overnight because he refused to keep his mobile phone in the bedroom because it would fry his brain.

I mean,

very good authority.

That's very sensible, actually.

That's the first sensible thing I've heard him say.

Sitting in the court in 2014 and listening to an entire day of testimony from Charlie Brooks about his attempts to hide his collection of lesbian porn videos in a bin in a car park so as they wouldn't get found by the police who were searching for his wife Rebecca Brooks' computers.

That was and I'm sure there are stories that our readers will remember that we're not going to comment on at all for legal reasons.

And I'm certainly not going to bring any of them up.

So can we get back to

Prince Harry?

Let he among us who has never hidden a collection of lesbian porn videos from the police in a car park.

So illegal activity.

Yeah.

Have we said exactly what that was in this case that we're talking about with Harry now?

We can't because the evidence was never heard in court because it was settled at the very last minute right before the book.

But it involves stuff that was done by private detectives.

Now, the difficulty that they would have had with this had it gone to court is that the lawyers for Harry and Tom Watson were alleging all sorts of nefarious things like blagging.

So, blagging was a technique whereby private detectives would phone up, say, a doctor's surgery or your mobile phone provider or BT or whatever, pretending to be you and asking for copies of your bill and they would get it sent through not to your home address but to them instead so they could see who you'd been calling and then from that point on it was usually used as a start of phone hacking because you particularly phone bills you know you can see what numbers people have been calling and then you know whose voicemails you have to hack to to get messages from the celeb or royal or whoever in person.

So that might be one of the kinds of things that would have been alleged had this gone to court, which it then did not.

Yeah, it absolutely was.

I mean, the problem that they would have had proving that and the defence that News UK would have put up, is that there was an awful lot of perfectly legitimate work that was done back in the day by private investigators.

Everyone has this idea of private investigators, they kind of think of sort of Philip Marlowe, kind of shady characters

in darkened offices, swinging back bourbon.

In fact, I mean, these are basically researchers.

They're just people that you farmed out the stuff that long before all of this stuff was available on the internet, people could

go through phone books and get you kind of addresses or number plates and things.

Now, some of that was done illegally.

It was done by bribing people like the DVLA or people who had access to the police national computer.

So, there was some dodginess, but there was also some less dodgy stuff going on.

And one of the legal arguments that I know was being put forward by some people involved in this case was that various records which they managed to get disclosure of on evidence disclosure from News UK showed things like electoral roll searches.

And they said, we think this is a code word for

something very, very dodgy.

And you sort of think it slightly more likely, possibly, that actually it's code for searching the electoral roll to find people's addresses, which

would be perfectly legal and perfectly acceptable.

So that would have been, I mean, this was scheduled for eight weeks this trial.

This is the sort of thing that would have been untangled.

It wouldn't necessarily have been desperately sexy stuff.

And some of this evidence was presented to me at a certain point because it involved me in saying that we've we've got evidence that they they were looking into you and it was literally they they'd looked up my address on the electoral roll and there's nothing much i can do about that so i mean there is a a sense in which the private detectives I think were just charging money for nothing very much.

But we're talking a long way back as well.

1996 to 2011 was the

period that was under consideration in the Prince Harry case.

This latest case.

Okay.

Oh wow.

Yeah.

So going back to 1996 and involving his mother and the treatment of his mother as well.

Okay.

It's a sign of how far we've come that in those days you were desperate to find out the medical records of the royal family.

Now they tell us and everyone's very sympathetic.

The strategy is working.

They make you a lovely video.

The suggestion was, and not from the judge, who was obviously very annoyed that they couldn't get on and settle this until they eventually did.

The suggestion is this is the deal Prince William got quite a long time ago.

Yes,

the difficulty Prince Harry faced and the reason that he hasn't had his day in court, a bit like Charlotte Church, who years ago was saying, I'm going to fight this all the way, I'm going to have my day in court, Hugh Grant did the same and eventually settled.

The difficulty they've got is that if an an offer has been made into court to settle, you push through with the trial, but the judge decides to award you a smaller amount in damages than was offered into the court, you are liable for all the legal costs of the other side.

And it's not, the settlements aren't enormous.

Well, I mean, they are large terms in anyone's sense, but the legal costs on these kind of things are stupendous.

I mean, the figure of 10 million is being thrown around in this particular case, I think, quite reliably.

As the award to

the legal costs that have been run up already.

So that would have been what Harry and Tom Watson became liable for, possibly even more than that, had they been awarded by the judge less in damages than had already been offered into the court by News International.

Having occasionally been in court myself over the years, even with this rule applying, if you wanted your day in court, I don't see what is to stop you saying, obviously, I don't want to pay £10 million worth in damages.

I have been offered under this anomaly in the law this amount of damages.

I can't possibly pay my costs.

You must must award me a very, very large sum of money indeed to cover the costs.

I mean, it's certainly what I would say if I was in there because.

Tell me if your track record saying things like that to judges, Ian.

It's not generally the sort of thing they take particularly kindly to, is it?

Damn.

I mean, that's the other thing, the breakdown, we do not know how this works at all.

I mean, a figure of 10 million is being thrown around.

All that's been said officially is a substantial sum in damages.

So, for all we know, you know, Prince Harry and Tom Watson got 50p in damages each, and Rupert's paying out, what's that, £9,900,999 in

legal costs.

That is possible.

I mean, Murdoch has already paid out a billion pounds over cases related to phone hacking and other illegal activities.

They've got, they had 50 million budgeted last year for the ongoing cases.

It will be obviously more this year, probably, because this is quite a substantial payout.

That's wild when you think about the value in commercial terms of the stories that were obtained through phone hacking.

I mean, they had some relatively decent royal exclusives, but I don't know whether or not the profits of the papers from those years will actually ever have covered that.

I mean, I know this is a secondary point to the ethics of it, but actually,

as a commercial enterprise, this was a very bad idea.

Apart from that, well, that was, I mean, when Clive Goodman was arrested, it was incredible because that was just tittle-tattle for his black adder diary that he was writing at that point.

And it was just sort of absolute nonsense.

The story that led to his downfall and the arrests was about Prince William having a knee injury.

Yeah, yeah.

And what about the defence of the senior executives?

Wouldn't it have been cheaper?

Sacked a lot of them, throw them all under the bridge.

Well, that's been the really interesting thing about this.

What Harry and Tom Watson and an awful lot of the other people who are still involved in the litigation wanted to prove was a corporate cover-up, which, as I say, we know there was.

I sat through the trial, you know, we talked about the way that that worked and the urge within News UK to keep a lid on this and keep it all silent before it all burst out in 2011.

There was a lot of specific stuff they were going to allege about deletion of emails, which did happen on a stupendous scale.

Again, not that new.

I remember sitting in the courtroom while the email from Rebecca Brooks was read out that said she wanted to eliminate emails that could be unhelpful in the context of future litigation in which a news international company is a defendant.

Ironically, putting that and several follow-ups on emails, which proved to be extremely unhelpful.

But nevertheless, as we say, and we should reiterate, she was found not guilty of all of the charges against her at the time, which included perverting the course of justice.

Yes.

And she was living with the man who went down as guilty.

Is that right?

She had an affair with the man who went down as guilty at that point.

Yes.

Right.

Yeah.

So they probably spent some time together.

They did.

We got all full details of that in court as well.

He's got a podcast though now.

I think it's worked out okay.

Everyone's got a podcast.

It's just another theme of the episode.

Everyone's got a podcast.

You want your master's degree.

You know you can earn it, but life gets busy.

The packed schedule, the late nights, and then there's the unexpected.

American Public University was built for all of it.

With monthly starts and no set login times, APU's 40-plus flexible online master's programs are designed to move at the speed of life.

You bring the fire, we'll fuel the journey.

Get started today at apu.apus.edu.

I was sipping my latte when my friend gasped.

Her phone had just alerted her to a data breach.

Again, that's when I told her about CAPE.

It's not just another app.

It's a mobile carrier built to protect your privacy.

No name, no address, no data collected.

Cape offers premium nationwide service for $99 a month.

First month, just $30.

Use code CAPE33 and get 33% off your first six months.

She signed up that afternoon.

And now, no more gasps.

Go to CAPE.co.

Privacy starts at the source.

Okay, time now, if we may.

I would like us on page 94 to go for growth.

This time next year, I want it to be called page 98.

and so on.

This is something that's happening today as you hear this podcast go out.

Rachel Reeves is making a speech at a secret location in Oxfordshire.

Any bets?

Diddley Squat Farm.

There's farms in Oxfordshire, isn't there?

Diddleby Clarkson's farm.

Exactly.

And it's going to be all about her attitude to growth, and she's going to make the shocking announcement that she is for it.

She's pro.

It's going to be about planning, regulation, energy, and trade.

And this is the kind of wider context of British politics at the moment, which is the government desperately searching around Downing Street for a big lever marked growth, which it can pull as hard as it can for the next four and a half years.

And there's like sort of trade-offs and compromises that have to be made along the way.

It was the one legal objection I had in the last issue.

There was a series of jokes about the Prime Minister's WhatsApp group in which someone in the group accused Rachel Rees of sounding like Liz Truss.

And I know it was a joke, but it struck me as defamatory in the extreme.

You'll get a legal letter from Liz Truss.

Yeah, yeah, I should be very happy to send another out.

It's the blob, it's the markets.

I'm going to come out and say that I think he's got a point.

And Kirstan, when he said it, when he said about it, wanted to be a nation of builders, not blockers, and I think Reeves has got a point.

If you look at the fact that we have struggled to build things like nuclear power stations, HS2, anywhere near enough houses, there is clearly some kind of massive problem about infrastructure in this country.

And we're being held hostage by vested interests.

Can I talk about the bat tunnel?

I'm obsessed with the bat tunnel.

Of course, you can.

Can I briefly mention the fact that one of the things that was going to add a huge amount of cost onto HS2, the high-speed rail link, was this tunnel for bats.

And it just turned out there were a huge number of quangos who all had to sign off various things.

And there were some bats vaguely near the tunnel that, when they researched into them, turned out not to be as rare as they thought.

But nonetheless, basically, the ruling was that no bat death was acceptable.

The value of a bat was therefore infinite, and any amount of money needed to be spent on preventing their death.

And part of me thought, I want to go down there with an AK-47, machine gun the bats, and then we can just get on with building HS2.

We've lost the audience.

There we go.

And that's why.

Alan says you want to kick dogs as well.

Go on.

Yes.

But the point about it was we could.

Yeah, so obviously when you build some infrastructure or housing, you are going to destroy some natural habitats.

And that does need to be managed.

But clearly, the balance has gone wrong slightly somewhere.

Yes, and this is the whole timbre of the speech that Reeves is going to be making today.

There have been lots of slightly leaked announcements and soft launches and interviews and rollouts and all other kinds of hints at what's going to happen.

But the interesting thing, I think, is that none of this is any different to anything Rachel Reeves has been saying for the last two years, with the exception of the budget in October, which was quite different in tone.

You know,

it raised spending, it raised taxes, but on businesses rather than on individuals, and it covered the gap between those two with a bit more borrowing.

So

the argument from the government, I think, was that that was imposing stability.

And now we've reasserted a bit of stability.

Now we can go for growth.

It's stable now, is it?

Apparently so.

Yeah.

Well, there was a piece in the last mag about the sort of Gilt Price roller coaster in January, which a lot of papers got very, very excited about and then shut up about immediately when things recovered.

So Rachel Reeves has been to Davos, where she announced she was going to go soft on non-DOMs.

All sorts of talk about really cracking down on non-doms, and now we're going to be just sort of gently squeezing them a little bit.

She's announced that there's going to be this new great program.

This is, as we record this, it's going to be building houses houses near train stations is going to be sort of automatically approved.

I presume because it's too difficult to build a railway.

Yes, there's a default presumption in favour of planning because one of the things that is a problem is if you've got some existing low density housing, how do you convert that to higher density housing near places where people actually want to live?

And the problem with our planning system is basically if you've got a house you've got to vote.

Whereas all the people who'd like to have a house but don't have one have no input into that.

There's no way for the system to register their desire not to pay half their salary and rent every month.

The way way it's been pitched is a huge battle between growth and net zero.

Which what do you think should win, Andy?

I'm a fan of both.

No, no, but I, you know, people are painting it as a battle between Rachel Reeves, hard Iron Chancellor, concrete fan Rachel Reeves, and tree-hugging drip Ed Milliband, who wants to crush your Range Rover, rip out your boiler, and make you live in a tree.

Neither of those is a really accurate characterisation of the two sides in this.

You're saying polarised debate in Britain isn't very helpful.

The other thing we've been told for ages is that net zero is going to involve lots and lots of converting things and building things and huge amounts of infrastructure.

Who has approved more nationally significant infrastructure projects since the election than anyone else?

I suspect it's Miliband, who's waved through lots of very big solar farms.

Almost the first thing the government did was lift the ban on onshore wind turbines, which was in place, kind of de facto ban under the Conservatives.

So I think Labour's argument, or certainly their pitch, is that exactly, we like building things.

A lot of these things are going to be actually very good for the environment over the longer term.

The bit where it gets tricky is, and this is why the papers have been so excited about it, over things like a new runway at Heathrow.

That obviously is going to be bad for the country's overall carbon emissions.

Milliband is not.

It's probably bad for a lot of marginal constituencies on the outskirts of London.

Which are actually yes and no, in the sense they don't want flights overhead, but also Heathrow and the airports are big employers and suppliers of decent jobs in their areas.

Absolutely.

It's kind of mixed.

But it's green now.

I heard Rachel Reeb saying that the planes flying overhead circling, if you had another runway, they'd land quicker, they'd emit less fuel, and everyone would be happy.

The air quality would be fine.

So it's both billed and clean.

Okay, I would like to ask a little bit about that.

Just saying, Andy, I'm just saying what she's saying.

But having flown back and forth in the US a lot, one of the problems is when you fly in overnight, you often do end up circling until the runways are allowed to officially open in the morning.

That is annoying, Andy.

It is annoying, but stacking above Heathrow is not the main source of carbon emissions from planes that run on jet fuel, everyone.

I know it's irritating.

It is not the...

But I want to get to Preta Monger in the arrivals hall.

When you fly back 5,000 miles from Florida, the extra three above Heathrow, it isn't very good for noise or air quality in London, but it is not the beal and end all carbon-wise.

The other thing that Reeves said, and actually we should just say, you know, like in 2008, when this was last mooted by the last labour government this was going to be a resignation issue for Ed Miliband he has this time around rode back and said no resignation absolutely no no no no no so I think there is a sense that they are rowing together a bit more on this as opposed to rowing together

can I ask a question of you which is how does the shadow chancellor of the exchequer Mel Stride feel about all this has anyone found himself anyone has asked

the borough like where is he one of the ways the government's trying to pitch itself is as a government of trade-offs so look you know you yes we're going going to cut emissions fast and we've done very well, but also we may need to build a new airport.

And it's what they've done with VAT on school fees.

They've said, well, it'll cost a bit more to send a child to private school, but, you know, that money will go into the state sector, and that's a trade-off that we're comfortable making.

So they keep making that argument of these are grown-up decisions being made, which is not a daft way of pitching it.

Or you can move to Dubai, like Isabella.

I think this narrative of we want to clear these mad obstacles to building that, I mean, almost everyone I know has had some experience of coming into contact whether it's you know putting an extension on your home or whether it's like putting something in the garden or whether almost everyone has a story of like the mad sclerotic way things are done in Britain today I don't think there are quite enough NIMBYs to fully you're raising your eyebrows Helen there's a lot of NIMBY's

or do they call them lib dem voters yeah but I think I think the calculation is that either we we lose a few constituencies by building pylons between Suffolk and London, we will lose some constituencies, or we'll lose lots if the economy stays anemic and doesn't grow at all.

That is Labour's calculation, I think.

That sort of blunt force calculation is.

Can I just talk a bit about sustainable aviation fuel?

Yes.

Well, can we stop you?

Is there any

way?

You can stop listening, and that's absolutely fine.

I'll be very used to it.

I've got a special jingle for this, man.

It's Andy's sustainable aviation fuel time.

It's just to pick up Reeves on something she said, which was Bollocks, which is that a lot has changed in terms of aviation.

And actually, we've got a new thing called the SAF mandate, which is going to make air travel much greener and cleaner.

So there is a thing called sustainable aviation fuel.

It is made partly from leftover chip fat.

I know.

And partly from other...

The smell of chip fat when you burn it.

Do planes now.

Sorry.

This is not irrelevant.

They smell delicious.

Right, lovely.

But you can make them from waste doors.

You could also make them from captured carbon, which is not really an industry yet.

It's very much in its infancy.

The government has decreed, they're a big fan of a slowly slowly ratcheting mandate, which they've got one with electric cars, they've got one with heat pumps, and now they have this with jet fuel, where this year 2% of the jet fuel sold will have to be SAF, which is much lower in emissions.

It's about 70% lower.

You know, it's a good thing.

But the amount that exists,

there aren't enough chippies gathering up there.

the leftover oil.

That won't quite work.

I mean, there are various other things that might be promising technologies.

There's a thing called power to liquid, which is where you use renewable electricity, you use that to separate carbon from the air, you know, you sequester carbon from the air, and you use it to split water.

And then you can create a hydrocarbon, you refine it, you've got jet fuel.

That relies on renewable electricity being very, very cheap, which is another problem of this country, which is that power is not cheap, partly due to the fact that power is set by gas.

So Reese is wrong that it's a no-brainer and it's really easy to do.

I'm trying to find green reasons to pursue a policy which is essentially essentially and historically not green.

All I'm saying to you is: is it possible for a political party, the Labour Party in this case, to find a version, a narrative of this that isn't bonfire of the regulations, let's throw all the red tape up and Grenfell burns down?

I mean, in the public mind, throwing away the normal checks and balances for projects is not a good idea.

Can there be a position between that and the sense of nothing can ever get built?

Why does HS two take 300 years?

I mean, the answer might be, in my view, that it's a terrible idea and utterly pointless, and was done before anyone had invented Zoom.

Where is this middle ground to be built over?

I think the premise of green growth, quote unquote, is not a mad one.

And I think there is a sort of sense that we can't carry on as we are.

We can't carry on not building reservoirs.

You know, we have to be able to clear away some of these regulations.

The number of legal reviews, which Starmer has said he's going to slash from three to one, that feels broadly sensible.

And I think Labour are probably positioning themselves against the Green Party with their very much build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.

And the kind of degrowth agenda that they've kind of.

And the degrowthers,

who I think their argument is, will actually.

You should fly less, you should drive less,

you should stay at home and not.

Yeah, which I think is electoral poison, unfortunately.

But I think you're right.

The thing that Labour have sort of set themselves up against is what economists call the vetocracy, which is the idea that we've now live in these quite stable societies, they're trending older, people have got assets, and actually what they mostly want is things not really to change very much.

And so you do, as you say, with the judicial reviews, one guy can hold up a

you know an infrastructure project for two years while the court data is available, and by which point the investors don't want to do it anymore.

There is definitely something I think everybody agrees that something is wrong.

Plus also for a left wing party, saying right-wing things is often very good in electoral terms because people think, oh, well, if you're even if you agree it, then it must be quite sensible.

Yeah, and I think the idea of a lawyer calling for a reduction in the number of judicial reviews

and revolutionary, yeah.

Some of the more interesting people on the right, who are the kind of growth people, will say, sorry, growth people

the mole people, but but they're saying that actually the one thing we should really do is think about directly incentivizing people to say yes to local projects.

Because at the moment, there is no reason.

Like, I have a go against NIMBY's, but what you're mostly talking about is: do you want a new housing estate that will cause initially strain on your local GP surgery or transport links?

So, there should be a direct and concrete offer, whether it's reduced council tax, whether it's here are the services, like the menu services you'll get in return, here's the bumps your train service you'll get if we build all this stuff.

We need to start

putting more water in.

Right, exactly.

How did they get the NHS to pass all the GPs?

They stuffed their mouths with gold.

We need to be going around bits of England and stuffing some gold into people's mouths because it will eventually pay off I hope and this is the thing with energy prices too yeah it's it's a bit mad that Scotland generates a lot of wind power and then there's kind of one corridor down the middle of the country there's one cable there's one little pipe for it to get down to a bit where a lot more of it is used and often that means you just have to turn off large chunks of the wind estate that's daft you know so if you have cheaper pricing in scotland maybe you'll get more industry going to Scotland there's a debate about that because obviously people who actually build the stuff want to have reliable prices for a long time and it's probably quite important to get the stuff built as well so the interconnectivity is exercising old Sparky as we speak.

Yeah, so what no one can say obviously is whether any of this is going to work and you know we're four non-economists in this room.

Matt, producer Matt, do you have an economics degree?

No.

Five?

Five non-economists in this room.

I worked as an economist at the Bank of England for

oh no I didn't.

Sorry.

And I think to set you up on that there'll be several publications who will say on their front pages tomorrow

as we're speaking, it won't work.

They'll be quite happy to.

That does seem to be the narrative at the moment.

And then maybe those publications will lobby for a really big thing we could do to improve growth, which would be to remove tariffs and regulations with trading with Europe.

I'm sure, in fact, they'll be lobbying for that because that is a huge lever you could pull and also a massive third rail that you should not touch on any account.

But, you know, even Reeves has said, oh, I might be interested in, you know, working on some kind of tariff-free trading scheme with Europe.

So, you know, Ramona, Ramona.

rejoiners, they're now called.

Yeah.

I can't live through Brexit again, please.

This is Brett Entry.

So that is completely different.

And the next thing to watch out for, I suppose, on this is the 26th of March when the Office for Budget Responsibility is going to deliver a bit of a state of the nation report, which won't say things are going terrifically and the economy is going to grow 5%.

But I think that all lends Reeves a bit of power to say, we have to do this.

We have to rip off the plaster.

So that's the next thing to look out for.

And underneath the plaster is Liz Truss's face.

Horrifying.

Okay, that's it for this episode of page 94.

Thank you very much for listening.

We'll be back again in a fortnight.

Until then, go and buy the magazine at private-night.co.uk or at your local newsstand.

Thanks very much to Helen, Adam, and Ian and to Matt Hill of Rethink Audio for producing.

Bye for now.

This is Bethany Frankl from Just Be with Bethany Frankl.

Here's my summer tip: don't overthink your dogs' meals.

My pups love Just Fresh from Just Food for Dogs, complete, balanced, fresh, shelf-stable meals that go everywhere from New York City to weekends in the Hamptons.

I mean, you can have real food ready to go for your pup anywhere.

No cooler, no hassle, just grab and go.

I've seen the difference.

Healthier coats, more energy, tails wagging at mealtime.

Biggie and smalls love it, and I'm all about stuff that just makes sense when life is busy.

Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% 50% off your first order right now.

No code needed.

Sucks.

The new musical has made Tony award-winning history on Broadway.

We demand to be home.

Winner, best score.

We demand to be seen.

Winner, best book.

We demand to be quality.

It's a theatrical masterpiece that's thrilling, inspiring, dazzlingly entertaining, and unquestionably the most emotionally stirring musical this season.

Suffs.

Playing the Orpheum Theater, October 22nd through November 9th.

Tickets at BroadwaySF.com.

You're juggling a lot.

Full-time job, side hustle, maybe a family.

And now you're thinking about grad school?

That's not crazy.

That's ambitious.

At American Public University, we respect the hustle and we're built for it.

Our flexible online master's programs are made for real life because big dreams deserve a real path.

Learn more about APU's 40-plus career-relevant master's degrees and certificates at apu.apus.edu.

APU, built for the hustle.