461. Question Time: China’s Spy Web, the Tel Aviv Fan Ban, and Japan’s New Thatcher

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. Sign up to The Rest is Politics Plus to enjoy ad-free listening.

Receive a weekly newsletter, join our members' chat room and gain early access to live show tickets. Just go to the RestisPolitics.com.
That's the RestisPolitics.com.

This episode is powered by Fuse Energy. Now more and more drivers are moving to electric as the economic and environmental arguments get much harder to ignore.

And the real benefit of an electric car comes when you can charge affordably at home. Saves time, saves money.

Difference between a late-night queue on the motorway and stepping outside in the morning to a car that's already full. And Fuse makes that shift very, very simple.

It's already the fastest growing energy provider in the UK. They go further, installing affordable smart EV chargers and linking them directly to their smart EV tariff.

Which means the charger in your driveway is synced to the cheapest hours of the day, so every charge costs less. Think of it as having an economist in the garage, but one who finally earns their keep.

Fuse is not just supplying power, they're setting you up properly, charger installed, tariff aligned everything in place switch to fuse today make driving electric cheaper find out more at fuseenergy.com slash politics

this episode is brought to you by spotify portal for backstage but you're wondering what's portal well it's an internal developer portal built to improve developer experience and boost productivity all software components are centralized documentation is automated and easy to maintain new projects and components just a few clicks with your best practices already built in.

Think less friction, more innovation. Ready to double your productivity? Try Spotify portal at backstage.spotify.com.

What are your holiday traditions? Putting up a minimum of six trees? Decorating every room with a different theme? Whatever it is, here's one way to make those traditions extra special.

Start the season with Etsy. On Etsy, you'll discover original pieces from small shops to help you celebrate your way.
Shop Etsy for holiday decor that makes you feel seen. Special starts on Etsy.

Tap the banner to shop now.

Welcome to the Restless Politics Question Time with me, Rory Stewart. And me, Alistair Campbell.

Now, Rory, we've had lots of questions on this over the recent weeks, and we haven't really got into it. Dominic, trip plus Glasgow, does Alistair agree with Chris Philp, Shadow Home Secretary?

The answer is almost certainly no. That Jonathan Powell's job is hanging by a threat.
Definitely, the answer is no.

After the whole China spying debacle, and can we have a classic Rory explainer about the Chinese spying issue? So, Rory, I managed to answer my part of the question in one word. Over to you.

Okay, so what happened here is that somebody called Chris Berry, who's a Brit who was living in Hangzhou in China, became very close.

it seems to an officer from the Chinese security service and began briefing Chai Chi, who's a very senior Politburo member, and writing reports from him, you know, almost 40 reports on what was happening in British politics.

Let me just jump in there. He's almost like the Jonathan Powell of the Chinese government setup.

So we're not talking about, you know, Politburo member, we're talking somebody really serious and heavyweight here. Really senior and heavyweight, and therefore presumably very flattering to the ego.

of this British academic who's writing reports for him.

And the British academic then recruits his friend who is called Cash, Christopher Cash, who is working as a parliamentary assistant for Tom Tugenhart and Alicia Kearns, who are senior Tories.

Tom Tugenhart, who's been chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns' successor, Tugenhart on his way to be the security minister, and they're very focused on China.

Cash starts producing reporting back to Berry that then gets fed into the report to Chai Chi.

And it's pretty straightforward, classic espionage, because it's a case of

somebody in the office of a senior member of parliament passing information to the Chinese government for payment. The case already broke open because

landing at the airport, Barry's bag is opened and thousands of pounds of cash are found inside the bag.

So a case is launched by the Crown Prosecution Service and then the Crown Prosecution Service, to the horror of people like Tom Tugenhart and others, decide not to proceed with the case.

And their argument is that in their interpretation of the 1911 law, they would need to convince the jury that China was a really significant threat to UK national security.

It wouldn't be enough just to say that this guy was spying for the Chinese government, giving them information, have to demonstrate that China was a serious threat to national security, and so they don't proceed with the case.

And the reason that your friend Jonathan Powell is in the mix is that Jonathan Powell held a meeting and a senior civil servant wrote a brief for the Crown Prosecution Service in which he pointed out, in a brief that was pretty clear about the spying that had taken place and what had happened, that

under the new Labour government they were trying to create better economic relations with China. Now, my view on the whole thing is that the Crown Prosecution Service made a big mistake.

And the government should have been clearer in explaining the law here.

Essentially, the Crown Prosecution Service were worried that under the 1911 Acts, and actually, incidentally, now you charge it under a later Act, 2023 Act, where spying for a foreign power full stop is a crime.

It basically fell between the cracks of this legislative change from an Official Secrets Act that was long said to be out of date to a National Security Act, which is, as you say, basically says if you're taking bundles of cash for selling secrets to a foreign power, ally or enemy, then that is not wrong.

Yeah, and actually the Official secret set, certainly when I was in government, it didn't matter whether you were spying for the French, the CIA or the Russians. Which did you do, Rory? Exactly.

When you say it didn't matter, what do you mean by that?

What I mean is that you would be prosecuted, right? You were betraying your country.

You were a traitor, regardless of whether it was the Americans, the French, the Israelis, or the Chinese who'd convinced you to pass over secrets.

So I think the Crown Prostitution Service was unbelievably weird and risk averse. Presumably they were worried they would take the case and lose the case.
I don't know why they didn't take that risk.

It's very, very, very odd. And and the government I think is innocent, completely innocent.
I don't think the government's done anything improper in this.

But as I said last week, they've been really bad at explaining it.

They should have been straight out there saying listen, you know and perfect for Kierstahma, I used to be the head of the Crown Prosecution Service.

I know more about this than any single person in Parliament and probably more than anyone in the entire United Kingdom. It's an independent decision.
This isn't like Trump's America.

We're not going around telling prosecutors who to prosecute. They make their own decision and they make a decision on whether they think they're going to win.
And they decided they couldn't win.

Now, and then the question is, does Stalma want to go further than that? and comment and say, well, actually, in my personal view, it's a bit surprising. Maybe that's something that you leak.

You get someone to say informally off the record to a journalist that number 10's a little bit surprised that they didn't proceed with this because actually they would have had a very good case of winning regardless of what was said about china as a national security threat yeah i mean look it's it's it's one of those fiona kept saying that as it was sort of churned out on the news again and again and again with very few new facts being added although then eventually the government published the evidence that had been given by their representative in the case who is jonathan powell's deputy the deputy national security advisor that she said it's this reminds me a bit of the whole westland story back in the do you remember the westland helicopter story it was one of those things yeah It sort of churned on and on and on, and by the end of it, nobody really fully understood what the hell it was about.

And to this day, I can't fully explain it. I'm sure Michael Heseltine could, but I couldn't.
But

I'm glad, by the way, that you think the government is because I just don't, the question is Jonathan's job hanging by a thread. No, it's not, and it certainly shouldn't be.

And what the government published, it strikes me, fits with the narrative that you've just put.

But of course, we're in this very highly politicized world where Chris Philp and Kemi Badenock are determined to prove that the government has somehow done something wrong.

And then in the government's response to that, their line of attack has been, well, this was happening on your watch with your MPs when you were in power under legislation that you failed to change in a timely fashion.

So it's just become a bit of a mess.

Alison, on the communications point, though, why couldn't they have done what I'm suggesting, which if Starmer say I was the head of the Crown Prosecution, so I know more about this than anyone else?

He kind of did that. He kind of did that.
And then where was the quick off-the-record brief to the journalists that would set out on the front page of the Times what the government's position was?

I'm not entirely convinced that you had to do that off the record. I think you could get out.
Look, look, we're going to talk in a minute about the Maccabi Tel Aviv.

The Prime Minister downward, they had no problem intervening in what is actually a process that is meant to be left to independent authorities.

So I don't think there would have been any problem. Look, if this had been on our watch, I think you would absolutely have made sure everybody understood you thought this was the wrong decision.

Now, Stephen Parkinson, the guy who apparently made the decision, who I know from our

government days, he was actually part of the legal team. In fact, this is an element of the story.

I'm surprised that actually they don't have memories, our journalists these days, but he was a member of our legal team in the Hutton inquiry. He was around then.

And he's a very good, very good legal brain, a very good legal mind.

But whether there's something within this that he just felt didn't take it to that place where he could be guaranteed, or whether he felt there was a really good chance of a conviction, I don't know.

I don't know.

One thing that we haven't talked about much is that in the past, of course, there was an attempt to prosecute a parliamentary aide with Russian links who worked for Mike Hancock, who was a Lib Dem MP.

that didn't manage to get through despite the CPS getting the evidence.

And of course, what China's doing here, which is exactly the same as every other major country, including the United Kingdom and the United States and France is doing, is operating in this ambiguous territory of consultancy reports.

And what they're doing is they're allowing people like Berry and Cash to half know that they're spying because they're taking cash to provide reports for a senior Politburo member on what's happening in Parliament, and half convince themselves they're just providing

open source reporting.

And that ambiguous thing is part of the trick of modern spying. It's very tempting.

Instead of the classic thing, which is you suborn a member of your enemy intelligence agency and actually get them carrying out classified documents.

What's happening here is they're not quite getting classified documents. They're reporting sometimes gossip from Tom Tugenhart's office.
Some of that's unreliable.

He's not actually an employee of the government. So maybe that's also feeding into the CPS's calculation.
And that, of course, helps intelligence agencies to use these ambiguities.

Yeah, but if you look at, look at, we've talked a lot about, for example, Russia and China and the way that they're operating in Africa. I mean, you know, when we talked about Progozhin,

it's almost like privatized national security and privatized diplomacy and privatized espionage. And of course, that allows you to sort of just put it at arm's length and it not to be so clear-cut.

Now, I don't know any, I don't know anything beyond what I've

read in the newspapers and heard on the radio and TV about these two guys, but I've read enough to make me think that it would have been a very fascinating and from their perspective, very, very dangerous court case.

And of course, the other thing we shouldn't

step away from, as you said, all countries do it. Some do it bigger and better than others.
And China are absolutely right out there.

As I think I've said to you before, that somebody told me that there are roughly over a million people working for Chinese, essentially for the Chinese security services. I mean, that's

a lot of people. So you said when we first discussed this, you know, why do they care what these Tory backbenchers are thinking? Well, because that's their job.

They probably analyze our discussions, Rory, to see whether they think we've been talking to anybody who knows what's going on. This is your opportunity, Alistair, to come.

You know, have you at any moment taken money from the Chinese or Russian government to promote their cause on this show? That's what we want to do.

There are some things that we shouldn't discuss on this programme, but the answer is no.

Have I ever taken their hospitality in the way that lots of the Brexit people did in the run-up to the Brexit referendum? No. Well, there was this famous thing called caviar diplomas.

When the Azerbaijanis were trying to get people to support them in the Council of Europe, There were these amazing scenes where people would travel back and forth with huge tins of caviar, including this man, Mike Hancock, who, as I said, almost got caught up with his aid work with the Russians, who couldn't tell anyone how many times he'd been, I think, to Russia because he dropped his passport conveniently in the sea.

Wow. I do think, though, Roy, that we shouldn't move away from the bigger picture on this.

You know, we are...

whether we call them an enemy or not, they are seriously trying to disrupt our economics, our politics, our way of life. They are, there's no doubt about that.
China is doing it. Russia is doing it.

Iran is doing it. And of course, this has now got into this really acute diplomatic issue, which we discussed with your very good friend Mike Pompeo

when you were sort of losing your temper with him on our excellent episode of Liedegen. But this is the subject of the embassy.

Do you remember he said, you know, you people are really going to be so stupid as to give the Chinese this massive new super embassy where every single person in there is going to be working for Chinese intelligence.

And so this has already been delayed once. It looks like it's been delayed again.
So the Chinese, they've already paid a quarter of a billion for the premises.

And now this sort of within this context,

Lakir Starmer has said that he's very open to the embassy being opened there.

Others are suggesting that even the application is unlawful if any guarantees were given about not spying on the spies or whatever it might be. This is entirely insane.

Every embassy in the world of every major power is a spy base. All of them.
Doesn't matter where it's put. Doesn't matter how big it is.
They're all spy bases. We've got to grow up.
I mean,

this is, it would be true for, I'm afraid, everybody's embassies. So you would say, just go ahead with the plans.
Just go ahead and build it. Yeah, absolutely.

And the security service needs to make sure there isn't sensitive fiber optic infrastructure passing under the embassy and needs to work out how to run proper counterintelligence operations to protect us from operations run from that embassy.

But it's absurd to suggest the Chinese shouldn't have an embassy because they might be spying from it. That's what the Chinese do and the Russians do, and I dare say quite a lot of our allies do too.

And it's what we do, including on our, I mean, I don't think I'm giving any secrets away here, including on our allies. So there we are.
Here's a question coming in from Charlie from Sheffield.

The Maccabee Tel Aviv Furore is interesting from a left versus right media perspective. The divided framing is as predictable as it is stark.
Goodness gracious me.

It's like amazing postmodern analysis. It's like one of your columns in the Westmoreland Gazette.
Exactly. Exactly.

In one telling, it's about Jewish football fans, violent Brummy Islamists and anti-Semitic policing, banning the Jews.

In the other, it's violently racist Israeli hooligans and the government and media abetting them.

Each relies on a whole different set of evidence, or the same set of evidence interpreted in the opposite way. It's got me thinking that much of what we know of the world must be based on trust.

And honestly, when you dive into such diametrically opposite stories about the same same story it does have me doubting whether I can trust those who I'm inclined to trust and it's one occasion on which I'd like to listen to the rest is politics that that means that Charlie trusts us I think well and I'm trust I'm trusting you because I mean famously I'm a great expert on football but try to try to talk us through this firstly just for listeners who aren't familiar with this give us the two sides of this story and then tell us roughly where you come down.

Okay, well this is about a football match that is due to take place.

Israel,

despite not being in Europe, europe it takes part in uefa tournaments and they've been drawn to play against aston villa now as it happens burnley played astonvilla a few weeks ago and i was talking to some of the people at aston villa who said they were really really worried about this game it was going to be very very difficult to police there were lots of questions around it and this was just we were just chatting okay and they were basically saying god i wish this wasn't happening also we should not run away with the idea that maccabi Tel Aviv are a bunch of angels.

Their fans have got quite a reputation. I suspect that some of them were at that Tommy Robinson event that I talked about.

They were also involved in some really serious violence when they played in Amsterdam in this same tournament.

And where Charlie is absolutely right is that that was framed within the Dutch context of Dutch pro-Palestinians went out to attack the Israeli football fans.

The Dutch were more inclined to say this was a bunch of hooligans who were singing songs about killing Arab children, burning Palestinian flags, beating up Muslim taxi drivers, and so on and so forth.

So you've got a football violence situation with a political dimension layered onto it.

You then have this group that is the group that has the job, the public safety group that has the job of deciding whether events are publicly safe.

And this group made the decision that they felt that for this game to be publicly safe, no Maccabi Tele Aviv fans should be allowed to come to the game.

Now, there's lots of people, including, I think, Lisa Nandi yesterday in the Commons, saying that this is kind of unprecedented.

There have been cases before of fans not being allowed to travel and not being allowed to go. Rangers in the Celtic have had periods where there have been no away fans.

Actually, Aston Villa played against Lesia Warsaw, a Polish team, and you've got a real reputation. And because there'd been some trouble at a previous game, that was called off.

Rangers against Napoli was another one that I remember a few years ago where there were no fans allowed to travel. When Paris play Marseille, when Paris Saint-Germain play Marseille,

there is

no away fans are allowed to travel. So it's not unique, but what is unique, of course, is the extra political context.

The minute this announcement came out, all three of the major parties, Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, all three came out straight away and said, this is the wrong decision.

Now, I have to say, my reaction was:

stay out of it. Stay out of it.
You're making it worse. Because,

now, as it happens, Maccabi have now come out and said that even if the decision is reversed, they are not going to accept any tickets.

And they say it's because of the toxic atmosphere that has now been built around this game.

They might also add that Tel Aviv were involved, Maccabi-Tel Aviv were involved in a game in Israel at the weekend, which the police abandoned because of the violence in advance of the game.

So I think we're probably going to end up in the right place.

But we've ended there in the wrong way, in my view. Can I just just question you? I mean, is it really possible for the Prime Minister to stay out of this?

Because if it becomes the big social media issue about anti-Semitism and the Tories are out and Lib Dems are out saying this is the wrong decision and Kirstalma's remaining po-faced and saying, you know, this is a decision for someone else that's nothing to do with me.

Is he not going to be portrayed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems as weak, out of touch? But listen, this goes with the job. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
It's one of those.

But I think that if we have these...

You know, we talked

earlier about this thing about, you know, judgments in court cases. Or let's take another example.
We're going to talk about Prince Andrew in a minute.

Lisa Nandi was interviewed about Prince Andrew and said, you know, the government doesn't get involved in affairs related to the royal family.

Well, point one, the government does from time to time when it has to. But point two, what that is doing there is making the point the government is an actor, not a commentator.
Okay.

Now, I would say in relation to this,

it would be perfectly feasible. not necessarily for the Prime Minister, unless he's asked about it, but for the Home Secretary to say, there are big concerns around this match.
We have a process.

That process has been played out.

I want to satisfy myself that the right decision has been taken in the right way. But subject to that, I will trust the judgment of the people who have made this decision.
Because

otherwise, I think there is a risk that we just inflame this thing even worse. Eventually, what's going to happen with this, this game's going to happen,

we'll probably move on. I suspect if the fans had come,

I think maybe for the wrong reasons, but Tel Aviv have probably made the right decision.

If there had been a substantial turnout of Maccabi fans, I think there would have been a lot of trouble because lots of football hooligans, who's already on social media, football hooligans who are not really,

as they would put it, we're not able to have as many fights as we used to have because these things are now pretty well policed, they'd all have turned up.

Tottenham Robinson would have worked his crowd up. He was already doing in Israel.
He's walking around with a Tel Aviv, a Maccabi Tel Aviv shirt,

you know, in Israel. So I just think that we've ended up in the right place, but I think we made a few missteps on the way.
Thank you for that, Alistair.

Time for a break, and after the break, we'll be back to talk about Prince Andrew and the new Japanese Prime Minister.

This episode is brought to you by Google. Now, there's a problem for students today.
It's not finding the information you need, it's being buried beneath it.

And Google is trying to help cut through that noise.

They're offering a free one-year subscription to the Google AI Pro Plan for UK students, with unlimited chat and image uploads for study and exam prep plus two terabytes of storage.

So think of it as a learning companion that will be with you from the start of your student days to the end. It's a new feature in Gemini, Google's AI Assessant, which is called Guided Learning.

Instead of just providing answers, Guided Learning creates a back and forth, asking follow-on questions for a more interactive and deeper learning experience.

So as a student, you get taught the process, you don't just get handed the result.

And to help students learn the ethics of how to use AI tools like Gemini, Google is offering free training in universities across the country.

It's one of the ways that Google's AI is fueling the UK's transformation and economic growth. Find out more about the free ProPlan for students at gemini.google forward slash students.

Offers apply to eligible students. 18 plus terms apply.

This episode is brought to you by our old friend Nord VPN. November, the month of deals, discounts, digital danger.
As you hunt for bargains, someone else might be hunting your data.

And NordVPN keeps your browsing serene. As prices fall and firewalls fail, your data stays secure.
One tap and everything is encrypted.

Whether you're using public Wi-Fi with a password from the coalition years like Clegg 2010 or a cafe whose cyber security amounts to an illegible word on a blackboard, Nord's threat protection probe blocks malicious links and scans downloads.

And it's not just privacy. Nord keeps things honest.

Airliners and retailers quietly change costs based on your location, but with NordVPN, your shopping in the real world is not one shaped by algorithms. And one account protects up to 10 devices.

That's your phones, your laptops, even your smart TV, and your family thrown in. Or install it on your router so the whole house is covered automatically.

To get the best discount on your Nord VPN plan, head to NordVPN.com slash Restis Politics. You'll also get four extra months free on the two-year plan plus a 30-day money-back guarantee.

The links in the episode description.

Welcome back to the Restless Politics Question Time. Now the next question is brought to you by Fuse Energy.

And Fuse, we talk about them a lot, they've just reached a milestone, their first ever self-built solar farm.

Netly central, it is now live and that is proof that clean power does not need to cost the earth. And while Westminster argues about wind farms, solar has quietly been winning.

Panels are going up on homes, schools, warehouses, and actually on fields and entire neighborhoods. So we have a question from Elise Bentley.
Are we really in the middle of a British solar boom?

And what does that mean for our energy future? Controversialists.

First thing, of course, is solar has been an incredible success story technologically.

The price of solar came down, some of it to do with technical innovation, a lot of it just to do with business practices.

Incredible story of thousands of Chinese companies competing on the margins and on production techniques, which took a lot of innovation done in Germany and now means that China dominates the manufacture of almost all solar panels in the world.

Problem in Britain, of course, is the sun don't shine quite as much in Britain as it does in Texas, and the economics of it are a little bit different in Britain.

I imagine many of us would be aware that China is installing huge amounts of renewable energy, but that second or third in the world in solar installation is the United States.

And in places like Texas, they're installing it because it just makes economic sense. It's not something that's fully reliant on subsidies and backups.

They're just generating power because the sun is shining and it's really working. Over to you, Alistair.
I agree with you that Texas, the sun shines a bit more maybe in Walthamstowe.

But I was in Walthamstowe recently at their wonderful new theatre, the Soho Theatre and in Walthamstow there's this scheme there with people have got together and they've turned their rooftops into a shared solar network they're finding it's cutting the bills it's cutting carbon and it's also shaping that sense of you know we're in this together which of course helps to build trust and you know the I don't know if you know this as well Rory the UK's biggest solar farm was just approved in Lincolnshire and that was that's going to power around 300,000 homes and of course Lincolnshire, very much part of the kind of you know Brexit territory in a way, reformy in some of its politics and reform very much against all this kind of renewable stuff.

But I think the more that people see that it is there, part of our life, part of pretty much every developed modern country now and reducing bills and cutting carbon emissions, it's a good thing. Yes.

Final point though, we need to also think about land use. because of course the solar panels have to go somewhere and at big scale they go often on agricultural fields taking land out of production.

People are pointing out, I think, that currently, I think it's only about 1% of the British land mass is covered with solar panels.

But as a former DEFRA minister, I can assure you 1% is actually quite a lot, given the pressure on British land.

How much of it is in the uplands, how much of it is under forestry, how much of it isn't actually accessible for food production. So

that and a lot of communities slightly horrified at what used to be natural landscape becoming fields of solar panels, which has created created other questions, which has been really interesting.

We talked about this with Australia and Singapore, but there's also been a conversation between North Africa and Britain about whether you can have transmission lines taking it from, for example, the Sahara Desert right into Britain, or whether actually local generation makes much more sense because of problems with transmission.

Well, there was this, this was this project in Morocco to get their solar power creating energy for Devon, but that's been paused, seen as too complicated, too costly.

But listen, that sort of stuff is going to be happening and it's going to develop as we go.

So that is what Fuse Energy's first solar farm, Netley Central, represents collaboration, efficiency and cleaner power built together. Switch to Fuse and help build Britain's clean energy future.

Go to fuseenergy.com slash politics and use the code politics. And if you're on a fixed tariff by the 7th of November, you will be in with a chance to win two tickets to our live show in November.

Now, Rory, we've got a question here from Stephan Cannon from Brighton.

Having seen that it's apparently news that Prince Andrew has, quotes, put his duty to his family and country first by giving up his royal titles.

Without knowing much about royal life, please can you explain what this means in his actual life? Does it have any real life implications?

Or are there real implications of this that a commoner might understand? I.e., does it have any financial impact on his life? Come on, Rory, you're our royal expert. I love it, the royal commentator.

Well, I think firstly, absolutely needless to say, I

and you, Alistair, are completely horrified by Epstein, what he did, the suffering of underage girls who are in horrendous manipulative relationships.

Prince Andrew denies all wrongdoing, but the allegations in the book made by Virginia Giffrey, who of course is no longer alive, are that he

raped her on separate occasions. And it's out of this that this question is coming.
So to turn now to the question of titles, it's incredibly important to members of the royal family these things,

which it is quite difficult to understand, but it really matters within the family that you are His Royal Highness, that you're addressed as Prince.

And being a Knight of the Garter, which he's also left, is a really big thing. I mean, Knight of the Garter,

tiny number of people going all the way back to

King Edward in the Middle Ages, founding this order of Knights. So,

look, I mean,

you're particularly Alice as someone who would never want, as you keep pointing out, to be a sir or lord anyway.

But if you're somebody who wants to be a sir or lord, being a prince and a knight of the garter is a pretty big deal.

And of course, more than symbolically, for Prince Andrew, it's a very profound personal disgrace, I'm afraid, because it means that he's no longer accepted as

a prince when his brother's the king.

And it's a really symbolic sign that he's stepped back from the royal family. And on the money side, yeah, he no longer is receiving public money.
And so he's going to be...

His brother may, I don't know how he's going to be funded. He gets a small pension.

He may get some support from friends and family, but the taxpayer is no longer going to be supporting him. Yeah.
I mean, there's a few things

I'd be...

I mean, the political element of this, I guess, with the rest is politics, is this debate about whether you need a parliamentary bill passed in order to remove these titles formally.

Because he can still call himself Prince Andrew, which sounds pretty absurd. You can't call yourself the Duke of this or the Duke of that.

He's still allowed to call himself Prince Andrew as things stand.

But he said he won't, right? So the whole thing's a bit theoretical, isn't it? No,

he said he won't be HRH and he's given up the Duke of York and all that, but he can still be a prince. This is why I find the whole thing so absurd.

I'll tell you something else that really struck me, and I could be wrong about this.

I mean, obviously, when we talk about the victims the victims are the people that were abused, they're the women who were trafficked for Epstein and by Ghelane Maxwell and it's clearly on a scale that is just revolting and anybody who gets too close to it, you know, you kind of get what you deserve.

And I would put Prince Andrew into that category because at various stages I have found his self-defense deeply unconvincing.

I think to pay somebody off with a massive multi-million pound payoff for somebody you claim you never met, I just found that whole thing very, very baffling.

So he's probably ended up where he was always going to end up, provided the facts come through. But if you think about this,

this goes to maybe the difference in culture between Britain and America, which maybe reflects better on the UK than it does on America. If you think about the people beyond the sexual victims,

who have,

if you like, paid a price or a price in terms of their public standing and humiliation. Epstein, he's dead.
He took his own life. But the three that I have in mind are Ghillaine Maxwell

in jail, Peter Mandelson, resigned as ambassador in Washington, and Prince Andrew, now completely sort of eviscerated out of public life in the UK. They're all Brits.

I can't think of, I mean, there may be other Americans involved in this that have been similarly punished, but when you see that list of all the people who were on the island, all the people who were on his private jet, all the people who were sending the sort of, you know, smarmy emails and what have you, none of the Americans seem to have paid a price at all.

It's extraordinary. I'm not, by the way, defending anything that they did.
No, no, no, no, no.

I mean, I'm also, of course, also sad because what it's meant is the king's doing an incredible journey this week.

Just as we're speaking, he's flying to the Vatican and he's going to be the first English monarch to pray with the Pope since Henry VIII.

And, of course, he's the head of the Church of England.

So it's a really interesting, important spiritual moment where he's going to be made a confrata, which means he's have a position within the Catholic Church, and the Pope will be given a similar position potentially within the English Church.

He was also yesterday in Manchester at the synagogue visiting with a rabbi, showing his support for the Jewish community. So all this stuff that the king is doing,

and all the, I think, the really good stuff he did to try to support the values we all care about during the Trump visit is getting pushed aside by the questions of Prince Andrew and the increasingly frenetic media reporting.

I mean, essentially the newspapers over the last couple of days, at least up here in Scotland, are so dominated by this story and not looking at so many other important things in the world.

Yeah, but I think maybe that's a consequence of, first under the Queen and then subsequently under Charles, of the royal family not having obeyed the first rule of crisis management,

get to the facts quickly.

And I think what they've done, and this emerged most graphically in a way, in this revelation, I think in this new book that's posthumously been written by Virginia Guffray, the best known of the victims, if you like, of this sex trafficking of young girls.

And this is the revelation that Prince Andrew asked his personal protection officer to, quote, dig dirt.

and said in this an email to the Queen's deputy press secretary, I hear she's got a criminal record, I've got her security number and date of birth. Can we sort of find out? Kind of thing.
And

I've felt at every stage of this, because you say there's sort of, you know,

lots of media reporting now. There have been plenty of previous moments, not least the interview that he did with Emily Maitlis when he said he revealed he doesn't sweat.

So there have been big moments in this story, but I think this, in a sense, has become a tipping point.

Now, tipping points usually come at the end of a process, which if you'd gripped it properly in the first place

maybe wouldn't have happened had such a catastrophic impact that's right and it's something you've talked about a lot with strategic communications because it's something that you found when labor ministers were in scandals

in fact you've talked about a number of them i think the welsh secretary peter mandelson keith vaz and various others that moment where you have to say

what did you actually do and try to work out whether the person's being honest with you or lying or concealing something and of course their tendency often will be to lie and try to conceal.

And the tendency of a family will be to take the side of the person within the family.

And actually, what I thought was a very revealing moment recently was at, I think it was at the funeral of the Duchess of Kent, where you could see

Prince Andrew trying to talk to Prince William on the steps of the church, and William was absolutely having nothing to do with him. And that said to me,

in his mind, he'd already got to the point where they've now got to. And look, I don't know what goes on in these circles, but

from what I hear, it was as much Prince William as the king who was basically saying,

we've got to get this guy out of our out of our lives, effectively, because they are a public family. That's their role.

But I think it's going to, this book, I've not read it, but the bits I've heard about being discussed and, I mean, it really does feel that this is the end for him.

It's very disturbing. But your point also is if you look at Virginia Jefferies' family being interviewed,

yes, they're talking about Prince Andrew, but they really want people to focus on the other abusers.

They're trying to say, look, this is a way of casting light on the much, much bigger issue of all these other people involved.

in

horrible things. Just to cement that point in relation to the United States, so there's Trump.
Trump was very, very, very close to Epstein.

Trump is now talking, he's still sort of mumbling away about the possibility of pardoning Ghillaine Maxwell.

So there is something strange that it's stuff that we consider to be completely unacceptable, they say they consider to be completely unacceptable.

And yet

they don't really seem to have paid a price for what we have seen as an utterly corrosive relationship. Right, final question, Alistair.

What's your thoughts on Japan's new Prime Minister, who's being referred to as the Iron Lady?

Should this be seen as a warning or what's to come? Well, she's been referred to as the Iron Lady because she likes to call herself the Iron Lady.

And yet again, when she was sworn in yesterday, she was wearing a blue suit,

the same colour as the blue suit she wore when she won the leadership election. Look, she's a very interesting person.

When we talked about her briefly, when she took over the party, this is is the Liberal Democrats who have the LDP who have been in charge for pretty much non-stop for 70 years.

And

we made this reference to her being, you know, somebody who tries to model herself to some extent on Margaret Thatcher. And I can't remember if I forwarded it to you, Rory.

I got an email from somebody who is a politics lecturer in Tokyo who said, I wouldn't fall for the Margaret Thatcher thing. She's much more Liz Truss.

So

I don't know that much about her. She's been around for a long, long time.

She's a devotee of Shinzo Abe, the prime minister who was assassinated. Pretty right-wing.
She's said to be more to the right of him.

She's quite a colorful character.

She's a drummer, by which I mean she plays the drums.

She performed for a while

in a rock band.

She's got very very conservative views in relation to family one of her she says that one of her first big challenges is going to be getting getting on with trump because coincidentally trump is making a visit to japan in the in the very very near future so like every leader she's kind of having to work out uh how to handle that but you know look Japan the pictures of her yesterday in the in the Japanese parliament was a bit like it did remind me of Margaret Thatcher when she first came along.

It was a woman in blue surrounded by men.

And so it's quite a thing. It's a very, very male-dominated politics in Japan.
And the LDP has always been very, very male-dominated. So I think that is quite a historic thing.

Yes, very much, though, on the ultra-conservative wing.

I mean, in some of the touchstone cultural issues in Japanese politics, for example, visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, which is a shrine which includes Japanese war criminals, very much one of the people that visits the shrine and was caught up in controversies

with quite far-right books, quite far-right figures. And she's very Japan-first.
I mean, quite strong views on immigration, thinks there should be limits on tourism. And, you know, she's right out

on the Japan-first side of things. So we'll see.
And as you say, it's a very male-dominated society, so it's an amazing breakthrough.

But of course, not totally unknown, because, of course, Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh coming out of a pretty male-dominated Muslim society,

becoming a leader. And we've had other examples from Margaret Thatcher to Indira Gandhi, but now it's Japan stepping up.
The one country yet to get there, of course, the United States of America.

Ah, indeed. Well, they were nearly there.
And if they had been, you'd have been a lot richer than you are now.

Just

on the male domination.

She wrote a memoir a while back, and within it, she said that when she first came along, people started to realize that Abe was quite keen on her. He made her a minister.
she was a rising star.

And she suddenly noticed that a lot of the meetings at which policy was being discussed were being conducted in saunas.

Oh, for goodness sake. The ministers would head off to saunas, to which, of course, she couldn't attend because these were men-only.

And then also, there were lots of men-only social clubs that suddenly matters of state were being discussed in. So

she's overcome a lot, there's no doubt about that.

So we'll see how she gets on. And I think the first meeting with Trump will be

very, very interesting to watch. Very good.
Well thank you Alistair and I think that's all we have time for today and look forward to seeing you again next week. See you soon.
Take care. Bye.
Bye-bye.

Alistair Campbell here. Now we've just released a series on one of the most controversial and consequential people of the past 50 years, Rupert Murdoch.

I think you can argue that he is the most consequential figure of the second half of the 20th century. He holds power longer than anyone else in our time.
And it's meaningful power.

It's phenomenal power. Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
This is where he becomes not just a newspaper owner, he becomes a major newsmaker.

Fuck Dacre, publish.

There is always a premium on bringing him gossip. I don't know what you mean by down market and up market.
That is so English class-ridden snobbery when you talk like that.

How you get it doesn't make any difference. Actually, to be perfectly honest, whether it's true or not doesn't make much difference.
There is a massive, massive scandal brewing.

This was industrial, illegal activity. And that, I think, is what really cuts through to the public and thinks you people are really, really bad.
I would just like to say one sentence.

This is the most humble day of my life.

There is no Donald Trump without Fox News. His dream was always to elect a president of the United States.
The bitter irony is that that turned out to be Donald Trump, a man he detests.

He is conquering the world. There's nothing less than this methodical, step-by-step progress to take over

everything.

To hear more, sign up at the restispolitics.com.

Hi, it's David from The Rest is Classified here with a very special message for listeners of The Rest is Politics.

We've just released a two-part series on the pager attacks that were carried out by Israel's foreign intelligence service, Basad, against Hezbollah in the aftermath of October 7th.

Now, for a political and military organization like Hezbollah, command and control is absolutely everything. And the Israelis had tried to destroy the group and ultimately failed.

But in the low-level conflict that the two sides were engaged in post-October 7th, Israel was facing the prospect of a two-front war and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to take critical action.

As Hezbollah grew increasingly paranoid, they turned to the Pager as a secure alternative, but what they bought instead was a lethal Mossad plot.

Within days, Hezbollah's command was wiped out when the Israelis assassinated its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

To hear the full episode, you can listen to the rest is classified wherever you get your podcast as we break down this incredible geopolitical gamble and all the spycraft behind the explosive attacks that permanently shifted the balance of power in the Middle East.