This article is an on-site version of our Inside Politics newsletter. Subscribers can sign up here to get the newsletter delivered every weekday. If you’re not a subscriber, you can still receive the newsletter free for 30 days
Good morning.
Some thoughts on the four neglected questions in the row over the collapse of the alleged China spying case.
Inside Politics is edited by Georgina Quach. Follow Stephen on Bluesky and X, and Georgina on Bluesky. Read the previous edition of the newsletter here. Please send gossip, thoughts and feedback to insidepolitics@ft.com
Enduring China dilemma
The row over the collapse of the China spying case essentially breaks down to four questions. First, did the Crown Prosecution Service have enough evidence to bring a case, and should Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, have brought one? Parkinson himself is increasingly at the centre of the row, and is the subject of an enjoyable Guardian profile that reveals, among other things, that he once described Keir Starmer as an “average DPP”.
Candidly, I think that question is one for lawyers to advise on and ministers to decide on. It is important only because if you think the answer is “yes”, then the rest of the row becomes irrelevant. If the answer is “no”, then the question becomes about the government and its actions. The other three more important questions are about government policy.
The first of those is “should the government have the power to override the CPS?” The answer to that one is a flat “no”, as far I am concerned. Ministers shouldn’t be telling prosecutors who they should or shouldn’t bring cases against. No one involved in this row thinks they should as far as I am aware, but most of the political argument has been somewhere around this pointless process question because it is easier for Conservative frontbenchers, many of whom are implicated in the last government’s China policy, to attack Starmer’s handling of the process rather than the policy. It is easier, too, for Labour ministers to defend the process than to articulate the government’s stance.
The second question is “was the summary of the Conservative government’s position towards China put forward in the witness statements released by the Labour government accurate and sufficiently detailed?” The answer here is “yes”. That the statement reiterated Labour’s “three Cs” policy on China does not change this. Labour’s policy that it must co-operate with China, compete with China, and “challenge [China] where we must, including on issues of national security” is functionally identical to Rishi Sunak’s (aka the last government’s) position on China.
The third question is “should the government’s China policy change, and what would it even look like for that to happen?” It is a question that no one is really asking in Westminster. There has been a lot of opposition bluster about how the Labour government should have done something differently (that “something” is only ever nebulously defined), which allows the government to respond with bluster of its own that this is all the result of the last government’s China policy (Labour has never admitted in plain language that there is no difference between its China policy and that of the last government).
There are lots of reasons why these questions are being neglected. The biggest, I think, is that when you consider the options facing the last Conservative government and the current Labour one, and consider the actual policy costs involved in a new China policy, it is hard for anyone to set out an alternative course of action that Rishi Sunak, or Keir Starmer for that matter, could have pursued that would have made Westminster’s Sinosceptics any happier.
Now try this
I’m on the News Quiz on Radio 4 tonight! I will be listening nervously before we have friends round for dinner.
However you spend it, have a lovely weekend.
Top stories today
Unhappy relations | China’s furore following the publication of the witness statements splashes in the FT today: Beijing has condemned the evidence, denouncing “British politicians’ attempts to smear and defame China”. It came after the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, said he was “frustrated” by the collapse of the prosecution of two men accused of spying on MPs in his first public remarks about the affair.
Another clash unfolding | Keir Starmer has led a chorus of political condemnation over the decision to ban fans of Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a Europa League football match in Birmingham next month.
Birthday bash | London mayor Sadiq Khan has celebrated his 55th birthday on board a luxurious superyacht owned by a billionaire sports magnate who controls Fulham FC football club, based in the capital.
Taxi boat tactics | The leader of the UK’s fight against small-boat migration has blamed the failure to reduce arrivals on smugglers’ adoption of new tactics that have increased significantly the number of people in each boat.
Friday I’m in luck | Gilts have staged a strong rally, driving down the UK government’s borrowing costs as chancellor Rachel Reeves looks for tax rises and spending cuts in next month’s Budget.
