The Rest Is Politics - 578. Alastair and Michael Gove Disagree Agreeably on Brexit and Israel

Episode Date: October 7, 2026

Will there be another EU referendum, despite Andy Burnham promising not to re-run old Brexit arguments? Will Michael Gove ever criticise Israel's actions in Palestine, and if not, why not? What do the charges against Manchester City tell us about Manchester’s growth since 2008 – and why do questions around a football club present the first serious challenge to Burnham’s premiership?  Join Alastair and former Conservative cabinet minister and arch Brexiteer Michael Gove as they answer all these questions and more in this week's edition of Question Time. __________ Enjoy Rory and Alastair’s interview with Shabana Mahmood by searching ‘Leading’ on Spotify, Apple, or YouTube. Go deeper into the world of The Rest Is Politics by signing up for our free newsletter HERE, featuring exclusive interviews, analysis and weekend reads from Alastair and Rory. Join The Rest Is Politics Plus. Start your free trial at therestispolitics.com to unlock exclusive bonus content – including Rory and Alastair’s miniseries – plus ad-free listening, early access to episodes and live show tickets, exclusive newsletters, discounted book prices, and a private chatroom on Discord. The Rest Is Politics is powered by Fuse Energy. Stop overpaying for energy. Switch at fuseenergy.com/politics and get a free TRIP+ subscription. Sponsored by Lloyds. Move faster with daily global market analysis, the download on tokenisation and how to manage your company's energy transition all from Lloyds Corporate & Institutional Banking. Search Lloyds Corporate. 🌏 Upgrade your online protection with an all-in-one security app! Get an exclusive NordVPN deal + 4 months extra here ➼ nordvpn.com/restispolitics It’s risk free with NordVPN’s 30-day money-back guarantee! __________ Instagram: @restispolitics Twitter: @restispolitics Email: [e-mail] __________ Social Producer: Celine Charles Video Editor: Adam Thornton, Louis Mealing Assistant Producer: Daisy Alston-Horne Producer: Evan Green Exec Producer: Bella Soames Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We had some great questions for this episode with Michael Gove standing in for Rory, and one of my favourites was this one from Oscar. Have Michael Gove and Alistair Campbell ever agreed about anything? Well, we both think Tony Blair was an exceptional Prime Minister, and we both know that Boris Johnson was a charlatan, but we expressed these things in different ways. There are two big issues that we really disagree about. One is Brexit, and the other is Israel-Gaza.

We're going to be discussing those because we've got lots of questions. on both. With Michael, unlike Rory, an actual football fan, we'll also get into Manchester City's troubles too. So plenty of scope for agreeable disagreement. As we ask, will the UK get back into the EU? Will Manchester City get relegated? And will Michael Gove ever, ever criticise Israel? This episode is powered by fuse energy. Most energy companies are counting on you doing absolutely nothing. Not questioning what you're paying, not switching, just letting your tariff a roll on which is costing you hundreds of pounds every year. But the apathy goes deeper than our bills. We've almost given up on energy itself. We seem to all be accepting energy's expensive,

the system's outdated, but that complacency is costing us. Fuse Energy does not accept that because the energy transition is not something that just happens somewhere else. Fuse is building an energy company which is designed to bring down the cost of energy. And right now, its tariffs are up to £100 below the off-gem price cap. So switching isn't just about paying less, it's about expecting more from your energy company and it only takes you three minutes.

Switch to fuse at fuseenergy.com slash politics. Use the code politics and you'll get a free trip plus subscription allowing you to hear all the extraordinary members' content that Alistair and I are now producing for you. Visit fuseenergy.com for full terms and conditions. This episode is brought to you by NordVPN. And I must thank NordVPN because on my grand European tour with Fiona,

I was away from the Hawthorne's for West Bromwich against Burnley, but I managed to watch it. There you go. I actually had a NordVPN thank you. I was in the new Starbucks here in Kreef. And of course, the thing flashed up saying this is an unsecured public network. And I was able to go to my VPN. And it was a little reminder of something we often forget when we're all those cafes and things,

which is actually genuinely people can do all kinds of. of weird cyber attacks and spying if you don't have a virtual private network when you're sitting in that Starbucks. Well, I think are you not really sort of proud of me that I managed to do this? Or should I say Fiona managed to do this? I'm incredibly proud of you. That's a tech transformation. So to get the best discount of your NordVPN plan, go to NordVPN.com slash Restors Politics. That's NordVPN.com slash Restis Politics.

And the link is in the episode description. Welcome to the rest of politics question time with me, Alastair Campbell. And me, Michael Gove. And Michael Gove is standing in for Rory Stewart. And we are going to be talking about the many, many questions we got on these subjects. Brexit, Middle East, Israel Gaza and Israel West Bank, Manchester City. And then we might lighten things up a bit towards the end. But let's just start with these questions on Brexit.

A couple here. Simoen, do you think there will be another EU reference? referendum, time will tell. Tim from Birmingham. Hi, Alastair Michael. Before the leadership challenge, Andy Burnham promised not to rerun the Brexit arguments. Now a few months into the job, he's saying we could go all the way and rejoin. Where does he go from here? If Labor goes into 2029, offering a choice between status quo, customs union, single market, or full membership, which would each of you back? So first of all, yes or no, Michael, do you think we will have another Europe referendum at some point in our lifetime? And secondly, which of those options would you back if we did?

Full enough, I don't think there'll be a referendum. What I think Andy Burnham will try to do is to forge a new relationship with the European Union on closer terms and then seek a mandate, probably not necessarily at the next election, but probably at a future election, to take us back in on the basis of a general election result. So I don't think that there will be another referendum. If there were another referendum, I'd vote for the status quo. That is interesting. because that is my ideal position, the one that you've just outlined, and I've written about it in the new world this week, and I've said that I don't think even Andy Burnham will be that bold, but I hope you're right. I hope you're right, because I think that would be the right thing for the country. What do you make of his statement in his speech in Liverpool that Brexit has done more harm than good? It's very hard to dispute that, Michael. It is, I think, challenging, but I will. The interesting thing is that he acknowledged that it did have done some good. So, Normally, which bit of the speech did he acknowledge it was more harm than good does not mean that good was done?

Well, I took from it, and you might say that this is an example of cock-eyed optimism, that he was acknowledging that there was a balance. And one of the things I'd say about the Labor government is that it has actually, in its actions, recognise that there are good things from Brexit. So taking VAT of gas electricity, impossible within the European Union. Putting VAT on independent school fees, impossible. A policy which you support, obviously.

Impossible within the European Union. No, I think you can always get right. Some of these tax, you can put different taxation levels on these different things, including VAT. Look, I think that was cockyed optimism. When he said, more harm than good, let me translate for you, Michael. He was saying it's been a bit of a disaster. And I think he's probably thinking that because of the massive, the huge hit on GDP, which whoever, I know we don't believe in experts, but we're talking somewhere between

six and eight percent, according to the experts. We're talking about a big fall in investment, which is partly being blamed on Brexit. We've seen our exports fall. And you did promise, Michael, you and Boris Johnson, and I know that you were a true believer, and he was just a charlatan, I least received. for the fact you did believe in this. The customs declarations alone, we're now talking about 39.2 million customs declarations, individual forms, which have hit British business, we reckon, by about 7.5 billion a year. So I think it's very, very hard. And then you talk about taking rights

away. We've taken rights away from people, particularly young people. So anyway, I think it's noble of you to keep pretending that there have been some advantages, but you haven't spelled them out very clearly for me. Well, I think the first thing is that the degree of the hit that the UK economy has taken is disputed. There's no such thing as an expert consensus. And also, the best comparison is not necessarily with a would-a-cuda-cuda-should-should-a-should-should-a-should-should-a-fut-a-fut-a-fut- but the actual factual existence endured by our neighbours and by other countries in the EU. Alastair, we both love Germany. It's been the case since 2016 that Britain has grown faster than Germany and about at the same rate as France.

No country is as embedded in the EU or its structures. No country benefits more from or is more restricted by the EU than Germany. So as a test case, how can it be that Brexit is such a disaster? when we've been growing faster than the quintessential EU nation itself? I think, well, first thing to say is I think there is a consensus of expert opinion. It depends what you define as an expert. My definition of an expert is I do think that the big international economic institutions and the Bank of England and some of the bodies that you, I hope,

would respect at least the sort of factual analyses that they do. Yes, the French and German economies have struggled. the European Union, economy as a whole, has struggled. And yes, I would argue that the European Union needs considerable reform as well. But I think one of the reasons why the European Union has struggled is actually because their confidence was hit by our departure. We have suffered as a result, and they have suffered as a result too. But I don't think you can dispute that GDP per capita has fallen because of our leaving European Union. The buggeration for trade has definitely increased and our sense of who and what we are as a country, I think, has been changed in a very,

very negative direction. So I think it's undoubtedly the case that there has been some additional cost that some parts of the economy have endured as a result of leaving. But those costs have been absorbed. The benefits of being outside the EU are growing. Those benefits exist in the realm of data in AI, in areas like gene editing and selective breeding. So in the growth industries of the future, life sciences, tech overall, and indeed in financial services, we've already shown that we outside the EU have the potential to attract investment, which the EU doesn't. And even this government, especially this government's acknowledged that we don't want to be with the regulatory ambit of the EU when it comes to financial services or tech, or developing the

crops and livestock that will be a part of a, you know, a climate transition. All of those things are easier to achieve outside the EU and none of them are things that this government wants to give up or indeed that people in the banking sector or people in the tech sector want to give up as well. When I said earlier, I've always been fascinated by this because I know it's a sort of question more for the historians, but although I was sort of teasing you and saying it, do you think I'm right when I say that you were at least a true believer and probably still are, whereas the guy alongside whom you stood at the time, Boris Johnson, actually was not a true believer and was doing this for other very different

purposes, which met their goal, he became Prime Minister, but the damage along the way has been considerable, both to your party and to the country? I have a number of criticisms of Boris, but I actually do believe that he was a true believer. I think that, of course, he saw a political opportunity because it was likely to be the case that even if the Leave campaign lost, that a majority of Tories, Tory members, Tory voters, would emotionally be attached to the Leave campaign, and that would have been poor position to succeed David Cameron. I'm sure that was a factor in his mind. It may have been the decisive factor, but in his heart, Boris was definitely a lever, absolutely. And what about the point,

may we talk about Kimmy Badenock's essay the right way? What about the point that she made, that one of the big criticism she had of the government, she was the part, was actually that you, we had this referendum and a plan put forward by you and Johnson, etc. To leave the European Union, but there was nothing to back it up, that we left without a plan. Is that a fair criticism? I think that the more precise criticism, I think it's broadly fair, but the more precise criticism is that Boris and I blew ourselves up on the launch pad in the immediate aftermath of the referendum victory, and that Theresa May didn't really have a proper plan.

for Brexit. And a series of decisions were made when Theresa was prime minister that put us on the wrong trajectory for those negotiations and for exit. There are a number of things that Theresa did that I admire her for. I mean, I don't want to be churlish, but I think that the Brexit strategy that was pursued under Theresa was a mistake. But you talk about blowing yourselves up on the launch pad. You, Johnson, Farage, delivered the victory. and then since when we've had chaos and we've had seven prime ministers and he hopefully will last a bit longer

than most of those predecessors. So you have to take some responsibility for the chaos that has followed. Oh, I do. Yeah, I do. So point one, vote leave did have a clear plan for how we could make the most of Brexit and some of those elements of that plan were subsequently implemented.

But in the week after the referendum victory, the problems during that leadership election, I think are well advertised, and I should bear the lion's share of the blame for that, absolutely. And then, I think more broadly, it was the case that within the Conservative Party, Brexit became associated with signing trade deals. And so the mark of Brexit success was racking up a new trade deal with where the hell is done. That was not the principal point of Brexit. The principal point of Brexit was greater regulatory freedom and autonomy. Sovereignty is the romantic element to it, which has a huge appeal to my heart and I think is politically and ideologically important. But the economic element was the capacity to regulate differently.

And this was a benefit that would accrue over time. And I believe that we are seeing those benefits. The difficulty is, and here Boris was very honest, that the down payment right at the beginning, the economic hit that you take as a result of new customs barriers is real, the economic benefits which will accumulate over time are only there if you're savvy enough to steer the right course. And that hasn't always been the case. That's true. Okay. Well, that was moderately agreeable disagreement. We didn't shout to each other as we have done in the past. Let me just read you something very interesting

from the Financial Times, this is a survey of voters around Europe, whether they would back the UK's re-entry into the European Union. By the way, I don't think we should talk about rejoin and re-entry. We should talk about joining something new and bigger that we helped to create. Let me ask you to guess which of the countries in Europe are most welcoming of the idea that we get back in and which are the least welcoming. Have a statement. That about that. The most welcoming, I would think, would be Sweden, Estonia, the Netherlands and Denmark. Well done.

That you got the top four right in the rule order. Well done. Yes. And least welcoming? The least welcoming would be France, Spain, Belgium and Greece. Ah, you did better on the welcome. Well, you've got France. The bottom four,

the most unwelcoming is Bulgaria, followed by France, followed by Italy, followed by Hungary. But the figures are all, I mean, Denmark is top, 75%, Bulgaria is bottom at 54%.

I think that's quite interesting. I think they do feel that we, they have lost as much, well, not as much, but they've lost as well. Now, we've had a question. Next question, Michael, we'll definitely disagree on this one as well.

Gordon Carrera, who presents the rest is classified, along with David McCloskey, he has asked us this question. How do you think the perception of October 7 as an intelligence failure on the part of Netanyahu and his government will impact the upcoming elections in Israel?

And I have another question from somebody called Alistair, as Alistair Campbell is his name, is have you, Michael, Gove ever, ever, ever said anything critical of Israel? So on the first, I think that there are three big issues in the Israeli election. One of them, the dominant one, is what went wrong on October 7th, to what extent was the Netanyahu government culpable for security errors, both before and after? There are all sorts of wild conspiracy theories out there.

I'm not endorsing those, but it is the case that there is a very live debate about that. The main conspiracy theory being that actually he had been given some very, very credible warnings that this was going to happen and he chose not to do much about it. Exactly so. I don't give any credit to that, but I think it's perfectly legitimate as public debate to say, look, were we well enough prepared for any type of assault and in the aftermath, was our response the right one? And that is the key issue. There are also subsidiary issues to do with, whether or not the ultra-Orthodox should serve in the military, and there are broader economic issues as well in the elections.

But on your substantive point, yes, but there are so many people lining up to criticize Israel with such vehemence and an increasing number who are increasingly vehement that I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge criticism of Israel, but I'm not really interested in initiating it, because my view is that Israel, its cause and its population, need friends at the moment, and I'm very, very proud to be one of those. But I would say that for most of my time in media and in politics,

I would have said much of what you just said, but I think there has to come a point where people who support the state of Israel and support the right of Israel to exist, call out what they're doing. And when I was, I watched a thing the other day, it was just an aerial film of Gaza before and after. It's utterly horrific what they've done.

And then you look at what's happening in the West Bank, and you look at the way that the settlers are being encouraged and emboldened to do things which even a few years ago would have been internationally unacceptable. And then for Netanyahu, it seems to me, to try to turn that into an electoral strategy, I just think is repellent. And I just would love, and it's not just because I want to hear them being criticised, because I actually want, I want them to be strong and secure, just as I want the Palestinian people to be able to have a strong and secure place to look all their own. But, you know, you who are somebody who I think does, for all the joke about, you know, don't

believe in experts, I think you do like to look at fact. And I find it incredible that you can't at least say they've gone completely over the top. They are killing people who should not be killed. They are treating people with a disrespect for life, a human life that I find unacceptable. Well, I don't believe that they're treating people with a disrespect for life. I do think it's the case.

It's a war and innocents die in war and you can't be indifferent to that. It's horrific for any innocent to die. But the facts, they're chilling, but the facts also point out that the Israeli Defence Force operating in a built-up area in Gaza have inflicted fewer civilian casualties than British or American forces inflicted operating in similar areas in a conflict like Iraq. The reality of war is horrific, but this was a war that was visited on Israel, not a war that it sought. in the West Bank, there are problems with some settlers, but again, it's not the case that they're

either representative of or endorsed by anything like a majority of the Israeli population or even a majority of those Jewish citizens who live in the West Bank. So yes, there's a problem there, but we have a problem with people misbehaving on our streets. The French have a problem with people misbehaving on their streets. The presence of some extremists within your own ranks doesn't invalidate the strength of your democracy overall

just as things going wrong in a war and the commanders on the ground need to be prosecuted if they've allowed that to happen doesn't invalidate the right to defend yourself. I mean, I honestly don't see how you can make that comparison. We talked in the main episode about France, okay? you have young people protesting and in some cases rioting and you have the police putting it down. What's happening in the West Bank is that the security authorities are allowing something which they know to be illegal.

And so that to me is a virtual breakdown of law and order. And also the comparisons with, I don't have the figures for Iraq. Maybe I should have them on the top of my head. I don't have them. But I do know that 81,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. 81,000 and mostly civilians, including 21,000 children, you cannot possibly say that that has been justified by, and even according to their stated goals.

I mean, I know the stated goals of Bengabir and Smotritch are basically say, let's wipe the lot of them out because that's what they think and they are part of the government. But I'm just surprised, Michael, that you've, you know, even now, you've even suggested the IDF should get. the Nobel Peace Prize. I'd rather Donald Trump got it than them, and I think he's utterly unqualified for it as well. Well, the first thing is that Ben Gavir and Smottridge are not representative of mainstream Israeli opinion. They are loud mouths. But they're powerful.

They're powerful. I think the power has been overstated. They're loudbors. They are in the government, obviously. They are ministers. But they're not steering policy. That's one of the reasons why they mouth off in the way that they do. Secondly, on the West Bank, I think there's a distinction and about when people are talking about illegality. So there's obviously a continuing debate about the legality of the settlements. We won't get into that now. But is it the case that there are some particularly younger folk associated with the settler movement that have taken the law into their own hands? Absolutely. Is that wrong completely? Should they be dealt with? Of course. Is it the case that there are some voices in Ben-Gavir and Smot-sch's parties that have a

sneaking regard for them, absolutely. But Israel overall deals with people who break its laws and behave outrageously in a far more effective and proportionate way than any of its neighbours. We should hold Israel to high standards, but of course we're speaking in the run up to an Israeli election in which you've got fierce contestation in which the prime minister could lose and which if he loses, he might actually find himself for separate reasons in court. There is no other country in the Middle East in which you could have an open election in which the prime minister could lose and then could find himself in court afterwards on corruption charges.

So whatever the criticisms that people might level against the state of Israel and how it's conducted itself in this conflict, it remains a robust democracy, one in which the balance of power in this election after votes have been cast may be held by Arab parties. There's no Jewish party that holds the balance of power in other countries. And then on the toughest point of all

about those civilian casualties, the key thing here is that Hamas, and we both know that Hamas does not represent the majority of Palestinian people, but still, Hamas deliberately put civilian lives at risk, while the IDF imperfectly but consistently tries to minimize civilian casualties. And that's the key difference between them.

And that as long as that prevails, then you will find me absolutely on Israel's side. Okay. Just their own figures, the Israeli's own figures, their military data indicates a civilian death rate in Gaza of 83%. They previously claimed it was 50%. They're now at knowledge it's 83%. civilian, rate of civilian casualties in American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

68% and 26% respectively. Now, too high, both of them too high, but I think we are dealing with some different. And also, by the way, Michael, I'm not criticising the state of Israel. I'm criticising the conduct of this government in relation to the way that it is responded to October 7th. And I would always say when we talk about this, that what Hamas did was unspeakable, unforgivable and there are some very, very bad people with a very, very bad ideology. But I think the response has been disproportionate and I think it's one of the reasons why Israel now has so many critics around the world and has lost so many friends. So the first thing is, I've never

doubted that you and Rory are good faith actors in this debate. And everything that you've said that's critical of Netanyahu has also been articulated by people within Israel, Israeli journalists, politicians and activists. So your position sits squarely within Israeli domestic political debate. So I don't doubt both the sincerity and the force of your case. And there are other people whom I like and admire who share it. I just disagree. The second thing is that the figures on casualties and the basis of the calculation was gone into by a House of Lords report

that was produced for the APPG there, maybe up to you, we could include a link to that and to your data for listeners in the newsletter that you send out. They can compare and contrast and draw their own conclusions because it's such an important issue. But the final thing that I would say

is that if I were living in Israel now, I would find it difficult to know. who to vote for because while I am supportive of the state of Israel in its actions to defend itself, I do think that there are all sorts of criticisms that can be directed at Netanyahu and the choices that he's made and that there are other leaders and other parties that might give Israel a better future. But as I say, my general disposition at a time when, and it's so important that I draw distinction between the points that you and others make critical of Israel and what I'm about to say. But when you've got folk like the Green Party leadership

taking the position that they do, in the broad scales, I'm very happy to be on Israel's side. That doesn't mean that I want to undermine or delegitimize criticism of it, but it does mean that in that broader debate, I know where my heart and my head are. Okay. Well, let's take a break. And then when we come back, we'll talk about Manchester City and the continuing controversy surrounding the way that they've been funding themselves. See you soon. The great game, strategic struggle between Britain and Russia. We assess Prime Minister.

With high confidence, it was Russian. Holding the Russians accountable is World War III. They took down a British passenger jet containing 350 people. Man in the Kremlin is playing, Alex. Got to ask yourself, you want to play. or not? You're the Prime Minister. You've done

nothing! We would need to understand the policy context. All the relevant context will be structured as a framework today and disseminated into an operation order or Fraggo. A Fraggo that says to kill the president of Russia.

Yes. News from Goulhanger. Who is going to be able to pull this off? You're my soldier, are you? Sergeant Tom McDuff, Duffy. An audio drama journey like no other. Men like Duffy, they are our most valuable weapons. Devised as a technically rigorous, geopolitical action thriller.

We have two times friendly key. Where Britain plays its strongest hand. He's the best. Against its strongest foe. Bear Hunt. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the Restis Politics Question Time with me Michael Gove. And me, Alice to Kemp.

Campbell. And Justine from Manchester is one of many people who has asked us about Manchester City. Justine's question goes as follows. Andy Burnham's Man City comments were treated as a gaff, but weren't they just an honest account of how modern Manchester was built? Courting Abu Dhabi money and big foreign investment is a core part of Manchesterism. If that model depends on not asking awkward questions about where the money comes from, what does that mean for Burnham's vision for the country. I guess that gets to the heart of whether there is now a political and a diplomatic angle to this as well as just the sporting angle. I think there is. So I don't blame Andy Burnham. The role of the UAE in Manchester's economic success and in Mancities footballing success predates

him becoming the mayor of Greater Manchester. But it is the case that you can't tell the story of Manchester's success without the Emirati element within it. And it does raise some difficult questions, not so much for Andy Burnham, but more broadly about how Manchester grew over the course of the last decade, decade and a half. I do think it's wrong to welcome a Gulf investment, in particular, I think of all of the Gulf states, the UAE, is one of the most admirable. You know, it's a, in relative terms, However, for football fans overall, it's clearly the case that the Premier League have found that the relationship between state financing and the rules of the game have led to Man City securing an unfair advantage overall. And because of that, it will raise profound questions about the role of the Emirates in funding Manchester's success. But I don't think anyone's found, even though the rules.

rules of the premiership may have been broken. I don't think anyone's found anything else to suggest that Emirati investment has somehow been, you know, so far as we know, dodgy in Manchester itself. I mean, partly because Rory has a bit of a blind spot about football, we're all allowed our blind spots. I have blind spots too. This is the first time we've actually talked about the Manchester City situation on the podcast. So maybe just briefly, if I go through what this report said and what the main accusations were. Essentially, the first issue is one of sham contracts and disguising the funding that's going to the club. So they use this disguised funding scheme essentially to inflate, artificially inflate their commercial revenues by well over £800,000,

fake sponsorship contracts with companies that were based in Abu Dhabi, where the money was actually being paid by the Abu Dhabi United Group. And this violates the rules against direct owner equity injection. Okay. The next thing was concealing the true financial state, misstated accounts, misleading auditors, artificially inflating revenues and lowering true operating expenses by almost a billion, hidden compensation and salary schemes, and then 35 of the 115 charges were about non-cooperation and failure to be open and honest. So serious, serious stuff. And of course, massive consequences because, I mean, my team, as you know, is Burnley. And we were involved. in a dispute with Everton, we got relegated and Everton had broken rules way, way less serious than

this. Yes. And we ended up, I think it was getting, we got 35 million pound in compensation because we get relegated. And the argument was we might not have got relegated if Everton, who came just outside the relegation zone, etc. So every club in the Premier League could argue that they have lost money as a result of this. The questions now, do Manchester City get relegated?

Do they get kicked out of the league? Do they get told they can't buy any new players for 10 years? I don't know if you know this, Michael. Manchester City are currently 5 to 1 to win the Premier League and 13 to 8 to get relegated from the Premier League, which is a pretty extraordinary thing. And so this is a huge story that's going to run and run, particularly now as they've appealed.

And the appeal could last the entirety of the season. So they might end up winning the Premier League with virtually every other club thinking, well, you didn't deserve to win the ones that you've won, let alone this one. You're absolutely right. There's a sort of double jeopardy here in that it's not just Manchester City's sporting achievements that have been tarnished. There's hard cash as well because the position in which you finish in the Premier League and indeed whether or not you stay in the Premier League determines how much cash you get in the next season. And we're talking gazillions here because of the success of,

the Premier League. And again, this is part of it, that money invested in teams like Manchester City have attracted international talent. They've led to the regeneration of parts of Manchester. And it's also the case that there are other clubs like Newcastle that have benefited from Saudi investment. So it's undeniable the case that the success of the Premier League has been a honeypot. But because of that, those who are perceived or in Manchester City's case, accused of having garnered an unfair advantage are not just getting extra silverware, they're getting extra dollars to a remarkable extent. So it becomes a very intense competition with lawyers inevitably being engaged by the other teams. And also there's a parable here as well.

In the Scottish premiership, as you know, Scottish football for a long time is essentially a Geoply between Rangers and Celtic. But Rangers were guilty of some very dodgy financial dealings. And they were chucked down a couple of leagues. Exactly. They were thrown out to the Scottish Premier League, put into the bottom league, essentially in Scottish football. They fought their way back up. But it was a lesson to them, and indeed to Scottish football overall, but be ever so mighty. If you break the fundamental rules of the game, then there will be retribution. And I say, suspect that almost everyone who is not a Manchester City fan would say that whether or not they should be stripped of past titles, they should certainly be relegated at the end of this

season. Well, and because they're such a top club, nobody's ever thought they'd get relegated. It means that players like Erling Harlan, I don't think Erling Harlan has a relegation escape clause in his contract. There's a very funny AI thing. I shouldn't laugh at AI because I think it's a menace to the world, but of Erling Harland channeling David Brent as he lists all these extraordinary places that he be happy to go to play football in bracken all maidenhead, etc. I'm going to say, I'm confused. I find that one different part of this I find very difficult is that Howard Bernstein, who died not long ago and Richard Lees, who are both, we've talked about the many times on the podcast, they're absolutely giants in local government.

And I do sort of pause for thought when I hear Richard Lease say, you know, he's with Manchester City on this. And I must give a shout out to David Collins on the Sunday Times, who's been reporting on this issue for years. And a lot of what limited knowledge I have comes from reading his stuff. And what I hadn't fully understood was the extent to which large parts of Manchester are now actually owned by Abu Dhabi. and that this joint venture that they had called Manchester Life. And they did get decent deals on the land, 990-year leases. And Richard would argue that the land was derelict Brownfield site. Nobody else had the money to develop.

And this was a way to get growth going. And indeed, growth was going. But of course, now that Andy is the prime minister, and I think you're being very fair in saying that this happened, as it were, not directly on his watch. But it was interesting that he got criticised for coming out and saying, I hope that Abu Dhabi doesn't get pushed out of Manchester because people at the time were just seeing this as a football issue

and if Manchester City cheated, as you say, they should be punished. But obviously what Andy Burnham knows is the deeper economic link between Manchester and Abu Dhabi. The success of Manchester has been built to a significant extent on its capacity to attract investment from abroad. And you're quite right, Richard Leicester to Howard Bernstein, who led Manchester, did a very, very good job in that regard. That achievement now looks like being tarnished,

but it's made a real beneficial difference to the citizens of Manchester. Yeah. Now, a question here from Gary in Swindon. First of all, before I ask it, Michael, have you seen any clips or the whole thing in the interview between Tucker Carlson and your friend, Jacob Rees-Mogg? I have seen clips. I haven't seen the whole thing.

Okay. And the question is this. 20 years ago, somebody expressing views like Carlson's would have been laughed now, of mainstream political discourse as a heretic. How does someone go from being a mainstream broadcaster to promoting conspiracy theories, historical revisionism and obvious misinformation, while retaining an enormous audience that apparently trusts him? Now, I have to say, I watched a fair chunk of it. I find Tucker Carson pretty repulsive. I did have a bit of a run

in myself with Jacob Rees-Mogg recently when we did a 10th anniversary event with Michelle Hussein at Bloomberg about Brexit, and he really went on the attack, which said to me, Michael, he wasn't feeling very confident about his arguments, but there we are. But my sense is that Jacob Rees-Mogg got the better of Tucker Carlson by some considerable distance. I think that's completely correct. One of the interesting things about Tucker Carlson is that he started out as a relatively mainstream Republican figure. You know, he was the support of George W. Bush, and his whole demeanour is very preppy American establishment. And when you see him, you assume that he would be, you know, one of those sort of, you know, East Coast, George Bush, Republican figures. But what he's

peddling, what he's increasingly peddling, is the sort of republicanism that America had in the 1930s and which we thought that the Second World War had extinguished. So it's not just isolationist. it's isolationist with a tinge of admiration for fascism. And when you had that with Charles Lindbergh before the Second World War, and also there was a very famous radio broadcaster in the 1930s in America called Father Cochlin, who was a part of that trad-cath, anti-Semitic tradition. The feeling was that that was extinguished by the experience of the Second World War

and the experience of the Cold War. But anti-Semitism is a light sleeper. Tucker Conn has started trafficking in that. But more than that, he's linked it to a variety of other conspiracy theories. And one of the trends of our time which is worrying, which you've lighted on Alistair, is the way in which a toxic mix of low economic growth, increasing identity politics, rampant social media has created scope for people to monetize conspiracy theories and prejudices. Now, I'd argue that there are people on the left as well, like Hassan Piker in America,

who are operating in the opposite pool. So I don't think it's just a problem on the right. But it's undeniably the case that Tucker Carlson and also this guy called Nick Fuentes, who's, if you can imagine such a thing, even worse, are reviving demons. They are raising dark forces from America's burglades. soul, and the same thing is happening in the UK as well. Well, not least, not least with, I would argue, with GB News, of which Jacob Rees-Mogg is a prominent player.

So, but I did think, I must say, I thought he, I mean, I thought he really came back at Tucker Carlson. Well, I mean, Carlson was saying the most ridiculous things, including some factually stupid things like the Russian economy is bigger than the UK economy. But when he got on to, you know, what was the point of Britain getting involved in the war, in the Second World War. It was kind of, you could see that even Jacob was thinking,

I wonder if I should agree to this conversation. Yeah. So there's a legitimate scholarly debate for some people who revisionist historians who question whether or not every aspect of Britain's policy in the 1930s and 1940s was right. That's fair enough. But when you get into the Carlson Territory, it's beyond that. It's a sneaking regard for Hitler. It's David Irving.

type territory. But the one thing I have to do, and I have to say this, I think, both out of defence of Jacob and more broadly, is that G.B. News, and I know that you don't like most of the content, I can understand why, does draw a line. And there are people who have crossed that line who have been thrown off G.B. News. The difference with Tucker Carlson is he hasn't just crossed that line. He's trampled over that line with glee. And I think that this is something, which is it's as much an issue for me and people like me as it is for anyone else, which is, if you are on the right, how do you ensure that in your commitment to free speech, that you welcome challenge, but you also police a boundary so that when people are trafficking in conspiracyism or when they are recycling prejudice, that you say, okay, we know what you are, you are no longer welcome, on our platform or in our broad team. You know, I'm very anti-censorship,

but I also think that there's a responsibility to say that if your title or your studio carries with any sort of prestige or status or reach that you should say, no, you're out if people cross certain lines. Okay. Well, listen, that leads me on to a couple of questions. We have a lot of questions that were about you, Michael, and The Spectator. Oh, yeah. James asks whether Michael feels any responsibility, along with the rest of the right-wing media for Jason Arde's death.

And Ed asks, why is the spectator trying to rehabilitate Enoch Powell? Very good questions. Tough questions for you. Again, we still don't know all the circumstances surrounding Jason Arde's death. But I think it's absolutely legitimate to have a debate about whether or not this was a story that was blown out of all proportion. because that has ramifications for how people in universities and more broadly see themselves. I don't think that the media should feel responsibility for Jason Arde's death. I think, and here I am making a tentative judgment, that for Jason Ardei, it wasn't so much

the media coverage from the right-wing press. It was more the sense that within those people who'd hitherto been supportive of him, that there was a withdrawal of support that may. have, may have contributed to a sense that friends and allies and those upon whom he had relied were less constant. That may have contributed to some of his feelings. What about the, maybe the lesser accusation, which I think I would make, that the story took on a tone and a volume that was utterly disproportionate, and that only happened that way because people on the right, want to say that if a black person gets on, it's because they're black and it's the whole

DEI debate that we've seen become so toxic in the United States. And that the left, I would agree with you, parts of the left wing media got way, way, way caught up in that, whereas actually I think they should have been challenging the response more than just sort of diving into it themselves. I think it's fair to ask tough questions and compel people to examine what the impact of their coverage might be on wider society. Within that, I would say two things. There are other people of color in education, Catherine Berbel Singh, who've also been attacked on the other side because of their views. So someone like Catherine has been very vigorously attacked by people on the political left, sometimes in terms that I would consider to be beyond uncivilrous.

So there are risks, I think you are right in being out there in a debate at the moment where identity politics overall has become a stronger force in our conversation. But I also think that quite a lot of the Ardei criticism wasn't directed at Ardei himself. It was directed at Cambridge. And in particular, there was questioning of the quality of his work and the reason why Cambridge were vaunting and giving luster to his work when it was, and it seems so graceless of me, to mention this when the poor guy is dead, but when his work wasn't necessarily of the standard you'd expect of someone who was a professor in the Department of Education. But when we discussed this, Roy and I discussed at the time, we had a long list of people of whom the same

and worse could be said, of whom there was no media furori whatsoever. And the other thing, you mentioned Catherine Berbilsing, who actually gets a, she gets a shout-out in Kemi-Va-Nox's essay that we talked about. Because she, is one of those people who has a lot of media and political protectors on the right. This guy had no media and political protectors anywhere. And then the other thing I would say is the, I compare and contrast the coverage of him with the coverage, say, of James Orr, another Cambridge University associate professor who was exposed in that film about Farage and funding as a absolute charlatan, sort of playing.

in plain sight to my mind, political corruption. And yet, does anybody who's listening or watching this really know who I'm even talking about? Because it got next to no coverage. They all know about Jason Ardei, and they knew about it before his death. Well, the thing about Jason Adi is that you're right that towards the end, some of those who had been his supporters and champions, were silent. But he did have, right until the moment of his death being reported, some very articulate and prominent political and media champions.

And he had been a significant media presence. He'd guest editor to the Today program on Radio 4. He'd been awarded a book contract by a reputable publisher. Indeed, his memoirs are still available out there, and aspects of his story are undeniably affecting. So I don't think it was the case that Jason Arde was a lone figure, who for much of his career, was unsupported by a media or political sort of scaffolding, that was all there. It crumbled towards the end. More broadly, I think it's the

case that James Orr's future has been placed in the spotlight both by Cambridge University and by others, including his own party reform as a result of the allegations that have been made against him. And I think that we'll have to wait to see how that plays out. But I think that, to go back to the original question. The spectators' coverage and the coverage of other newspapers of the affair was driven to an extent by concern about what was happening in a higher education institutions. And one of the pieces that I wrote under my name, which is linked to the RDA affair, was less about Jason RDA and more about the person, Hillary Kremlin, who's the professor who's in charge of the education department. And my criticisms of how we're not personal,

they were about what's going on in her name, within her department, when it comes to the training of the next generation of teachers. And I'm very happy to stand by that critique. And indeed, if Hillary Kremlin wants to write for the spectator or appear on our baby podcast quite right, then brilliant. Maybe we could interview her on leading together if Rory's on holiday again in the future. You can't keep taking holidays like this, Michael.

We have to get a grip of this conservative work ethic. And what about the rehabilitation of Enoch Powell? Is that a good thing? So I don't think that we're actively seeking to rehabilitate Enoch Powell, but I think it is the case that people are interested in the influence of political thinkers from the 60s, 70s and 80s. And two things. One, my friend and rival, Tom McTague, who's the editor of the New Statesman, wrote a very, very good book about Britain's relationship with Europe called Between the Waves. And in it, he takes Powell very seriously. And he's unsparing in his criticism of what he sees as Powell's opportunism and nativism.

But he's also very interested in Powell's ideas. What we did at The Spectator was run a piece by Simon Heffer, whose original biography of Powell, like the Roman, was published more than a decade ago. It's been reprinted. And Simon reflected on Powell's legacy. It wasn't an uncritical reflection, though on the whole, Simon thinks that Powell was more sinned against than sinning. And I think that trying to airbrush figures from history is a mistake. And as time passes, we can have a genuinely rounded view of their legacy.

That doesn't necessarily mean, and it mustn't mean, being negligent about their errors. And to be fair, overall, Simon does make the point that there was, even though Powell presented in as a fearless truth teller, there were disingenuous elements to his character, and the speech that got him fired from the shadow cabinet was one which he knew was going to be incendiary, even though at the time he pretended to some of those around him that he was surprised by the vehemence of the reaction. So yes, Powell was disingenuous, and he did pretend to being above base calculations in politics and a fearless truth teller when in fact he was, you know, thinking about how he could position himself for a future leadership challenge. We've seen all that before.

And I think it's one of the things that both of us recognize that all politicians are a mix. So there is no politician who is without ego or vanity. And in the same way, almost all politicians, maybe exceptions to this, even the most Machiavellian at least have some elizabeth. element of a desire to improve the public realm somewhere in their character. Okay. Well, listen, we've covered a lot of ground, Michael, in both in the main episode and now in the Q&A. Thank you for standing in for Rory.

We do like to give our readers of the newsletter a few book recommendations. You've just given one by Simon Evansville. What are you reading at the moment? What do you take to Birmingham with you? Well, one thing that I do recommend is Johnny Mercer's memoirs. Oh, I read it. It's terrific. I just read them over the weekend, and Johnny was a colleague. He's very honest about the challenges he faced.

And as you read it, you recognize he's got a formidable sense of humor. He's a man of principle. He can be an infuriating colleague, but he's also someone who politics was stronger for. So I've enjoyed that. And then also, I'm just started a new history by a guy called Douglas Smith, who's written about Rasputin and the Russians in the past. He's written a book about Vienna called A City Without Jews, which is about what happens with the Nazi takeover of Austria.

And it's based around the experience of one particular family. And it's the best sort of history, because it combines both a big and timely theme. with close personal detail about the experience of individuals with whom you can identify. Excellent. Good. Well, I've just finished because we've got him, I don't think it's out yet in the UK, but we've got Michael Lewis coming on the podcast quite soon, and he's written this extraordinary book about Doge, and in particular focusing on the people who tried, and in the most cases failed to stand up to Doge. And I'm now halfway through this absolutely beautiful book by somebody called Sophia Smith Gala,

who is actually a goalhanger mentee. And it's called How to Kill a Language. And it's absolutely beautiful. It's really about the loss of languages that we're facing around the world. And she's got this word linguicide. Oh, yes. So it's a wonderful, are you a Gaelic speaker at all? I'm not a Gaelic speaker, but I did in the House of Lords the other day,

joined forces with Catherine McLeod, the Labour Baroness. in order to put pressure on the government to properly fund Gallic. And when I was in government, we set up something called the Islands Forum, which was explicitly there to support the island communities in Scotland and also in Wales. And part of that was making sure that we could have funding for the Gallic College in Lewis, which teaches in the Gallic language, Gallic medium. and I'm a very strong supporter of Gallic, of Welsh, of Indigenous languages, because I think that they are, they're just as much part of our culture as soaring cathedrals or Parcell, and we've got to do everything we can to keep them alive. And some of the finest poetry of the 20th century was written in Gallic.

Absolutely. Well, that's very good, Michael, that you were using your time in the House of Lords for good. For once. Unlike when you were playing such a central role in, in putting an end to the assisted dying bill. But it's my podcast, I will have the final word. You're not coming back on that one. Thank you very, very much for both episodes.

I've thoroughly enjoyed both of them. Thanks very much, Alastus. See you soon. See you soon.