578. Alastair and Michael Gove Disagree Agreeably on Brexit and Israel

We had some great questions for this episode of Michael Gove standing in Ferrari 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 express these things in different ways.

There are two big issues that we really disagree about.

One is Brexit and the other is Israel-Garza.

We're going to be discussing those because we've got lots of questions on both.

With Michael, unlike Rory and actual football found, 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 time are wrong 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We seem to all be accepting energy's expensive the systems outdated, but that complacency is costing us.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, stash of 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.

Oh, it's Prime Big Deal days! These deals are so appealing like portable steamers for steaming.

Whoa, did I just sing soprano? I think I'm breaking into song.

I think deals on air friars, vacuum and skincare. I can't stop singing.

Shop new deals every day, this Prime Big Deal days.

Oh, I think that's it. Nope, there's more.

Plug it, smart glasses.

Welcome to the Restless Politics question time with me, Alistair 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.

Simo N, do you think there will be another EU referendum?

Time will tell. Tim from Birmingham, hi, Alistair 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 Labour 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?

For them, if I do think there will 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 to feature 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 will 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 acknowledges that he did done some good.

So normally, so where did he, which bit of the speech did he know that he was more harm than good?

Does not mean that good was done.

Well, I took from it, and you might see 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 Labour government is that it has actually, in its actions, recognised that there are good things from Brexit.

So taking VAT of gas and electricity bills, impossible within the European Union, putting VAT on independent school fees, impossible.

Policy was you support, obviously.

Exactly.

Impossible within the European Union.

No, I think you can always get rid of some of these texts.

You can put different taxation levels on these different things, including VAT.

So either, look, I think that was cock-eyed 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 between somewhere between 6 and 8%, 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.

I know that you were a true believer, and he was just a charlatan.

I released respect for the fact that 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 wood a could a shoulder future,

but the actual factual existence endured by our neighbours and by other countries in the EU.

And as do 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?

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 economy, economies have struggled.

Yes, the European Union is 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 even 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 lead.

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, acknowledged that we don't want to be within the regulatory amput of the EU when it comes to financial services or tech or developing the crops and livestock that will be a part of 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 question more for the historians.

But although I was sort of teasing you and saying, do you think I'm right when I say that you were at least a true believer?

I'm 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 in all 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, maybe we talked about coming made nox essay the right way.

What about the point that she made that one of the big criticisms she had of the government that she was a 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 media aftermath of the referendum victory and that Tories are made didn't really have a proper plan for Brexit.

And a series of decisions were made when Tories was prime minister that put us on the wrong trajectory for those negotiations and for exit.

There are a number of things that Tories had did that I admire her for.

I mean, I don't want to be childish, but I think that the Brexit strategy that was pursued and Tories was a mistake.

But you still 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 was 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 lines 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 hitch 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 are 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 at each other as we have done in the past.

Let me just read you something very interesting for the financial times. This is a survey of voters around Europe, whether they would back the UK's reentry into the European Union.

By the way, I don't think we should talk about rejoining and reentry. 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 stab at 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 Royal Order.

Yes. And least welcoming.

The least welcoming would be France, Spain, Belgium and Greece.

You did better on the welcome with the though welcome. No, you got France, the bottom four, coming the most unwelcoming is Bulgaria, followed by France, followed by Italy, followed by Hungary.

But the figures are all, 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 will 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 7 to what extent was the Netanyahu government culpable for security errors, both before and after.

There are all sorts of other conspiracy theories out there. I'm not endorsing those, but it is the case that there is a very live debate about that.

Just to be honest, the main conspiracy theory being that actually he had been given.

Yeah, exactly. 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, did what 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 vehement 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 was so much to think 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 be internationally unacceptable.

And then for Netanyahu, it seems to me to try to turn that into an electoral strategy.

I just think it's repellent and I just would love and it's not just because I want to hear them being criticized.

It's because I actually 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 disrespectful life, a human life that I find unacceptable.

Well, I don't believe that they're treating people with a disrespectful life. I do think it's the case. It's a war.

And innocent die in war and you can't be indifferent to that. It's horrific for any innocent to die.

But the facts that chilling, but the facts also point out that these really defense force operating in a built up area in Gaza have inflicted fewer civilian casualties than British American forces inflicted in war.

They're the reality of war is horrific, but this was a war that was visited on Israel, not a war that it sold.

In the West Bank, there are problems with some settlers, but again, it's not the case that they are 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.

But 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 honestly don't see how you can make that comparison. We talked in the main episode about France. You have young people protesting and in some cases writing 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 through Iraq. Maybe I should have known the top of my head. But I don't have them. But I do know that 81,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza.

81,000 and a majority 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 Ben Givir and Smotrasch are basically to 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 you've even suggested the idea the idea of should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

I'd rather Donald Trump got it than them. And I think he's actually uncollified for it as well.

Well, the first thing is that Ben Givir and Smotrasch are not representative of mainstream Israeli opinion. They are loudmouths.

But they're powerful. They're powerful.

I think the powers we never say to their liars. They are in the government, obviously, the ominousters. But they're not steering policy.

That's one of the reasons why they might have off in the way that they do. Secondly, on the West Bank, I think there's a distinction and these about, you know, 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 the Rasam particularly younger focus associated with the settler movement that have taken a law into their hands?

Absolutely. Is that wrong? Completely. Should they be dealt with? Of course. Is it the case that the Rasam voices in Ben Givir and Smotrasch as 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 proportional way than any of its neighbors.

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.

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.

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 puts civilian lives at risk while the idea of 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 and their military data indicates a civilian death rate and Gaza of 83% they previously claimed it was 50% they're now at Norwich is 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 criticizing the State of Israel. And then criticizing the conduct of this government in relation to the way that it responded to a percent.

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 is really done.

It's politicians and activists. So your position sits squarely within is really 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 it and my 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 do your data for listeners in the newsletter that you send out they can compare and contrast and draw the ring 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 in the broad scales, I'm very happy to be on Israel 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.

How about a latte? Maybe dark roast vanilla caramel blueberry. You could get them to agree on one flavor or give everyone what they want.

With curing, there's over 500 cake cup pop varieties of fresh flavorful coffee. No effort, no grind, no settle.

Great coffee without the ground. Curric.

Where some see heroes and other see egos, Bloomberg sees the era of billionaire athletes.

A fad to some, the future of money to others. We see crypto's trillion dollar swings.

The end of jobs or the end of human struggle. We see the endless funds fueling the AI hype.

While others follow the noise, we follow the money. Learn more at Bloomberg.com.

Welcome back to the rest of politics question time with me Michael Gove and me, Alistair 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 all good 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 UE in Manchester's economic success and in man city's 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 golf investment. In particular, I think of all of the golf states the UE is one of the most admirable.

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 of the Premier ship 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, doggie in Manchester itself.

I mean, partly because Rory has a bit of a blind spot about football, we're 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 some of 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 million pound 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.

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 are 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 five to one to win the Premier League and 13 to eight to get relegated for the Premier League, which is a extraordinary thing.

And so I, it's a, it's a huge, this is a huge story that's going to run and run, particularly now as they've appealed.

And they could, 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 won let alone this one.

You are absolutely right. There's a sort of double jeopardy here in that it's not just Manchester City's sporting achievements that have been tolernished.

It's hard to 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 that 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 gone at 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 in never to be 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 geopolitical ranges and Celtic.

But Rangers were guilty of some very dodgy financial dealings.

And they were down a couple of weeks. 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 molly cheap.

If you break the fundamental rules of the game, then there will be retribution. And I 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, in which and 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 A.I. thing. I shouldn't laugh at A.I. because I think it's a menace to the world. But Erling Harlan channeling David Brent as he lists all these extraordinary places that he might be happy to go to play football and bracket all made and head, etc.

Yes. I'm going to say I'm conf- I find that one different part of this I find very difficult is that Howard Bernstein who died not long ago and Richard Lease who are both- we've talked about the many times on the podcast. That's who giants in local government.

I do sort of pause for thought when I hear Richard Lease say he's with Manchester City on this now. 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 haven't fully understood was the extent to which large parts of Manchester are now actually owned by Abu Dhabi.

Yeah. 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 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 criticized 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 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 quite right Richard Leeson and Harry 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 and 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 Reese Morgan.

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 out 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 trusted him now I have to say I watched a fair chunk of it.

I find Tucker Carlson pretty repulsive.

I did have a bit of a run in myself with Jacob Reese Morgan 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 very feeling very confident about his arguments but there we are.

But my sense is that Jacob Reese Morgan 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 sort of relatively mainstream Republican figure.

He was a supporter of George W. Bush and his whole demeanor 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 Cochland who was a part of that trad calf 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 Carlson 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 you can imagine such a thing even worse, are reviving demons.

But they are raising dark forces from America's buried soul. And the same thing is happening in the UK as well.

Well not least not least with I would argue with GB news.

Well of which Jacob Reese Morgues a prominent player. So I did think I must say I thought he I mean I thought he really came back at Tucker Carlson.

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 you can see that even Jacob was thinking.

Oh quite 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 defense of Jacob and more broadly is that GB news and I know that you don't like most of the content I can understand why.

It does draw a line and there are people who have crossed that line who've been thrown off GB 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 aboundary so that when people are trafficking in conspiracism 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.

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 it 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 are 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 Arda's death.

And Ed asks why is the spectator trying to rehabilitate Enoch power?

Very good questions. Tough questions for you.

Again, we still didn't know all the circumstances surrounding Jason Arda'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 are more broadly see themselves.

I don't think that the media should fuel responsibility for Jason Arda's death. I think and here I am making a tentative judgment that for Jason Arda 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.

Well 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 the 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 is going to be a lot of work.

The DEI debate that we've seen becomes a 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 themselves.

I think it's fair to ask tough questions and 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 Burble saying who've also been attacked on the other side because of their views so someone like Catherine has been very vigorous the attack by people on the political left sometimes in terms that I would consider to be beyond unshivalrous so there are risks I think you are right in being out there in a debate at the moment where identity politics overall.

It has become a stronger force in our conversation but I also think that quite a lot of the R.D. criticism wasn't directed at R.D. 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 lustre to his work when it was and it seemed so graceless of me to mention this when the poor guy is dead.

But when his work wasn't necessarily of the standard you expect of someone who was a professor in the Department of Education.

When we discussed this R.I. 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 if you really whatsoever.

And the other thing you mentioned Catherine Burball saying who actually gets a shout out in Kenmie Vade Knox 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.C. and contrast the coverage of him with the coverage say of James or another Cambridge University associate professor who was exposed in that film about forage and funding as a absolute charlatan.

This sort of plain 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 nice to no coverage they all know about Jason Arday and then you about it before his death.

Well, the thing that you said is that you're right that towards the end some of those who had been his voters and champions were silent but he did have right until the moment of his death being reported some some very articulate and prominent political and media champions and he had been a significant media presence he guest edited the today program on radio for he'd been awarded a book contract by reputable publisher indeed his members are still available out.

There's still available out there and you know his aspects of his story are undeniably affecting so I don't think it was the case that Jason Arday was a alone figure who for much of his career was unsupported by a media or political sort of scaffolding that was all there it it crumbled towards the end well broadly I think it's the case that James or his future has been placed in a spotlight both by Cambridge University and by others including his own party.

The party reform as a result of the the allegations that have been made against him and I think that will 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 that I wrote under my name which is linked to the RDA fair was less about Jason Arday and more about the purge.

I think that's the person Hillary Kremlin who's the professor who's in charge of the education department and my criticisms of how are 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 it 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 like we have to get a grip of this conservative work ethic and what about what about the rehabilitation of e-naught power is that a good thing so I don't think there were actively seeking to rehabilitate e-naught power but I think it is the case that people are interested in the influence of political thinkers from the 60s 70s and 80s and the two things one.

My friend and rival Tom McTayck 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 who's 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 things that Powell was more sinned against than sinning and I think that trying to airbrush figures from history is a necessity.

But I think that's 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 himself as a fearless truth teller the word 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 was not able to do anything.

He pretended to some of those around him that he was surprised by the the vehement of the reaction. So yes Powell was disingenuous and he did pretend to being above base calculations and 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 may be exceptions to this even the most macchi of alien at least have some element of a desire to improve the public realm somewhere in their character.

Okay well listen we've 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 for a while we do like to give our readers of the newsletter a few book recommendations you've just given one my Simon ever what what else what are you reading and what do you what do you take to Birmingham with you.

Well one thing that I do recommend is Johnny Mercer's memos I read it 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 firm in all 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 going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going to say I'm going

to say I'm just started a new history by a guy called Douglas Smith who's written about Rasputine and the Russians and the POST 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-Gayler, who is actually a goal hanger 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 got this word, lingua-side. Oh, yes. So it's a wonderful,

are you a Gallex speaker at all? I'm not a Gallex speaker, but I did in the House of Lords,

the other day, join forces with Catherine McLeod, the Labour Baroness, in order to put pressure

on the government to properly fund Gallex, and when I was in government, we set up something called

the island's 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 Gallex

College in Lewis, which teaches in the Gallex language, Gallex medium, and I'm a very strong

supporter of Gallex, of Welsh, of Indigenous languages, because I think that they are,

they're just as much part of our culture as Soaring Cathedrals or Parcel, 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 Gallex. 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 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, Alistair. See you soon. See you soon.

Ryan Reynolds here from Midmobile, the message for everyone paying Big Wireless way too much.

Please, for the love of everything goodness world, stop. With Mid, you can get premium wireless for

just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying no judgments, but that's weird. Okay, one judgment.

Anyway, give it a try at Midmobile.com slash switch.

Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required,

intro rate for three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra,

see full terms at Midmobile.com.