All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 26, 2022 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
45:33
20220926_piers-morgan-uncensored-gbp-at-record-low-greg-nor
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Britain's Tax Gamble Fails 00:15:05
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored market mayhem as the pound tanks against the dollar.
Has Britain's big tax cut gamble failed?
After their momentary truce for mourning, another weekend of revelations on the Royal Rift, is there any road to redemption for Harry and Megan?
And golfing legend Greg Norman opens up exclusively on the biggest rift in world sport.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
The Conservative Party used to be seen as a safe pair of hands for the British economy.
Right now those hands are throwing down cash at a roulette table and it's not their money.
It's yours.
With their massive tax cuts, mostly for the rich, Prime Minister Liz Truss and Chancellor Kwasi Kwateng have taken a reckless gamble with our economy and so far that gamble is failing.
The pound tanked to an all-time record low against the dollar today.
That's not just some kind of psychological blow for the nation or an inconvenience for tourists.
Put simply, it means you will get poorer.
It means the things Britain sells get cheaper, the things we buy get more expensive, including energy, in the middle of an energy crisis.
It means the cost of borrowing rockets too.
At exactly the moment that Liz Trust plans to spend more and less tax and tax less, all by piling up billions in debt, well, you haven't got to be an economist to find all this pretty terrifying.
But plenty of economists do find it terrifying.
What's happening today is nothing less than a massive vote of no confidence in the new Prime Minister from the markets.
It's no wonder there are already rumours swirling among Tories writing letters of no confidence in it.
This all smacks of casino politics.
And this Truss is rolling the dice with our entire British finances.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey, sent out to put out the fire, managed to inflame it by telling us he won't hesitate to raise interest rates in a statement in which he said he was hesitating before doing anything.
Maybe the people supposedly in charge of our economy do have a secret ace up their sleeves.
But right now, I wouldn't bet on it.
Well, joining me now is former newspaper editor Emily Sheffield, journalist and broadcaster Jenny Kleeman, former director, deputy director of the International Monetary Fund, Mohamed Aleri.
Welcome to all of you.
And Mohamed, I really wanted you on the show, so thank you so much for coming because a lot of this is simply too complicated for mere mortals with minuscule brains to get their heads around.
You having the biggest economic brain I've ever encountered.
Put this into perspective.
How worried should we be about what is happening?
We should be worried, and it's for the reasons you've cited.
As of today, the market has lost trust and confidence in the government's policy.
So that's going to mean higher inflation.
That's going to mean higher borrowing costs.
And that's going to mean a higher risk of a recession.
So we should be worried, and the government should be worried.
In relation to this massive tax-cutting plan that they announced several days ago, it just struck me as a bizarre thing to be doing given the current financial crisis to start slashing taxes left, right, and center.
Do sharp-minded economists like you, did it make sense to you?
I think the overwhelming view among economists is two parts of the package were sound.
One was not.
What was sound is structural reform to promote economic growth.
Price stabilization for energy was sound.
What was not sound was the size of the tax cut, the fact that they are totally unfunded and they're coming at a time of global economic volatility.
So the timing and the scale and shape of the tax side is what has caused this turmoil in markets and what's causing damage to our economy.
Watching what's happening to the pound, I mean, I can remember 2007-08, I was in America when it was $2.08, I think, to the pound.
And this morning I wake up and it's 103.
How low can it go?
And how significant is the value of the pound in all this?
So let's start with the second question.
It is significant because we import a lot.
And it's not just weakness against the pound.
We also against the dollar.
We also depreciate it against a Euro.
So everything we import is going to cost us more.
How far can it go?
It'll depend ultimately now on the Bank of England.
The Bank of England is in a lose-lose situation, not of its own making, Piers.
What it should do to calm markets is hike interest rates and hike interest rates aggressively.
We're talking about at least one percentage point in an emergency meeting.
Not wait until November when they next meet, but do it in an emergency fashion.
That's what they should do.
But if they do that, they're going to be contributing, as you rightly said at the beginning, to the higher borrowing cost.
The alternative is to do nothing and just wait, but that risks further market turmoil and the market forcing them later on.
Can any government, and they're very new to this, List Trust and Quasi Quarten, obviously, only just had their jobs for three weeks, can any government actually withstand this failing?
In other words, if this massive gamble, which is what it seems, fails, and say the pound starts crashing down below parity to maybe, I don't know, who knows how far it could go, and the general reaction from markets worldwide is that we are now a complete economic basket case, could a government survive that, do you think?
A British government?
So that's more a political question than an economic question.
Economically, we have the following two choices.
One is to continue with the gamble, hope that somehow the markets will calm down and wait till the growth impulse comes in.
That's a high risk, relatively low return strategy, because I don't think it's going to materialize.
The other one is to recalibrate the package, keep the good parts, and change the timing of the tax cuts.
Say we will look at these tax cuts.
Now, politically, that's very difficult to go back on what you just announced a few days ago, but economically, that's what they would need to do.
Yeah, I mean, I think economically, you're right.
I think politically, that's a suicide note, and that's the problem.
They've dug themselves into an incredibly difficult position.
But my bigger concern is the hole they've dug the country into.
Mohamed, as always, a brilliant overview.
Thank you so much for joining me.
Greatly appreciate it.
Thanks for having me.
Well, we've also got former Conservative Cabinet Minister Anne Whitticomb, who's been listening to this.
And thank you for joining the programme.
Most economists, including our last guest, think this is one hell of a gamble, and it could go horribly wrong.
Well, it's beyond me how it can be a gamble when you're taking a course of action that has already been proven to work.
For example, and this is a solid fact and no economist will dispute it, when Mrs. Thatcher reduced the top rate of tax from 60 to 40, and when far more recently the top rate of tax was reduced from 50 to 45, the amount the exchequer took from that tax bracket actually rose.
So in other words, it's a means of raising money.
Yes, but that wasn't what wasn't what Margaret Thatcher did when the economy was in bad shape.
She did it after she actually put up some taxes and she put windfall taxes on energy companies to get the economy back on track.
Then she slashed income tax.
So in fact, I'm glad you mentioned that because people talk about Liz Truss as the new Thatcher.
I don't think Margaret Thatcher would have ever countenanced taking the action Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwateng have done right now because when she faced a similar economic situation, she didn't do this.
She didn't do this.
Right.
Now, as you said to me, Piers, hang on.
First of all, what I was pointing out was that we have tried on a couple of occasions in the past, and the result has always been the same: that if you reduce the top rate of tax, what you do is, what you do is you produce incentives to take risks, you reduce incentives to go in for tax avoidance schemes, you reduce incentives to go offshore, and you actually get more money in.
And then, can we please look at the other very unpopular measure, which is the cap on the bankers' bonuses.
Now, there is still a cap throughout the EU.
Therefore, without a cap, we become very, very attractive.
And what people forget is that the city, because the city never tells you this, because its PR is lousy, it's worse than the Vatican's.
But the city contributes not billions, not tens of billions, but scores of billions in taxation.
If we can get a thriving, busy city drawing in money, there's one problem with that again, though.
That is going to make money.
It's my turn to say hang on again, because actually the last time we let bankers have unlimited bonuses, we had the biggest financial crash since the Great Depression.
So that didn't work either.
Let me bring in my two other very patient panelists.
Thank you very much indeed for waiting.
Emily, I mean, my gut reaction is this is a complete chaotic situation.
And the most frightening thing about it, I don't think Liz Truss or Kwasi Kwarteng have any idea how this now plays out.
They've unleashed their bomb and now they're waiting to see what happens.
I think, I thought Mohammed was absolutely fascinating because he really is an expert.
What he picked up on is what Quasi has openly said his plan is.
He said, oh, don't worry, the markets will calm down.
It'll all come good in a month.
It's just the city boys having a go.
Well, he's directly contradicting that, saying, no, I really don't think so.
That's unlikely to happen.
And then the thing I've been trying to work out today, why were they so confident the markets were going to like what they were doing?
Because just arrogant.
Rishi Sunak made it very clear, and those clips are zooming around Twitter at the moment.
He made it clear all summer you had to get a grip on inflation.
You couldn't zoom in with lots of tax cuts and a massive spend.
Which, by the way, is what Margaret Thatcher would have done.
Because the market is reacts very badly.
Right, I mean, Jenny, I keep hearing Margaret Thatcher would have she wouldn't have done this.
She did the opposite.
The thing about Margaret Thatcher is she isn't around to say what she did.
Well, we know what she did.
We know what she did.
Very, very different.
And they all claim to be the heir to Margaret Thatcher's.
They want to read that to this nostalgic time when everything was great in the conservation.
What do you make of what's happened of a lot of people?
I think it's a complete disaster.
I think it shows how the lack of thought that's gone into all of this.
It shows that the markets have no faith in the government's economic policy.
And the fact that Chris Phil from the Treasury tweeted on Friday, it's good to see the markets rallying around at the one point when Sterling went up.
That tweet is still up this morning.
Made himself look completely ridiculous.
And it makes the government look ridiculous because they don't even have a grip on commons.
Nobody has said to him, maybe delete that one because this isn't looking good at all.
I mean, for me, it feels like there's a kind of drunk person in charge of driving the car.
Quasi Kwarteng this morning when reporters were following him around.
Yeah, it's embarrassing.
He looked terrified.
They look like they're a very inexperienced government who does not know what they were doing, who are crossing their fingers.
I also think it's a humiliating day for him.
I mean, I really think we should make that clear.
He confidently said the markets will be fine.
They relied on the advice of three economists who said in many articles over the summer, a lot of them printed in The Spectator, markets will be fine with this.
They're wrong.
The markets are not fine with it.
He refused to have the OBR.
The OBR said that if he was doing a mini-budget, they would speed up their process.
He refused that.
And now today, he's not only, he's had to go back, said he's going to explain to the country in November exactly what's happening, what his fiscal policy is.
And he's had to get the OBR.
Right, Anne Woodcombe, I can see you shaking your head furiously, but the reality is the markets have voted with their feet.
They're running a mile from this plan.
The pound is tanking to an all-time record low today.
All-time ever, Anne.
How can you possibly put a positive spin on this?
How can you possibly put a positive spin on this?
That's right.
All-time ever peers, and then it started to recover.
And you carefully don't actually mention that.
Now, I think it's a good question.
Let me be very precise.
Hang on.
No, no, if you want me to be precise, here's what's happened.
One year ago, it touched 140.
This morning, it was 103.
It then went back to 109 and it's come back to 107.
I don't call that a tremendous bounce back, do you?
No, and I didn't say tremendous bounce back.
I said it had started to recover.
I cannot remember a single budget, this was the point I was trying to make, in which the pound either didn't immediately after it rise or immediately after it fall because the markets are always jittery.
And for you to talk about a policy failing on the day after it's been announced is just ludicrous.
This is what time will tell.
And the only thing I do think about this is that Liz Truss doesn't have that time because it's only two years until the next election.
Well, the other point is going to have to be a problem.
The other point she's going to have, I think, Emily Shefford, is that if you look around Europe now, a lot of government changes going on and actually a lot of reaction from the people of countries like Italy and Sweden, other parts of Scandinavia and others, reacting, I think, to a few issues.
One, economic hardship.
Secondly, the ongoing issue of illegal immigration around Europe, which has just not been resolved by anybody and is getting worse, not better.
And also the sense that they feel like no one's listening to them.
And they're gravitating to these more populist leaders, like the new prime minister in Italy.
What do you make of that?
I mean, my issue with it is we keep calling them all far-right.
I'm not sure that this new prime minister in Italy is what I would constitute as far right.
Far right to me means Nazis.
She's not a Nazi.
She's a populist, but she's singing a tune that is resonating with Italian people.
Yes, and her coalition is made up of Berlusconians, Salvini.
Salvini's popularity dropped dramatically, but actually he had risen in popularity when he stopped the immigration votes docking in Italy.
Italy's New Prime Minister 00:02:14
So immigration, I think, is a big issue for Italy.
I think some people might see this government, this coalition, as more right than maybe is fair to say, because I agree with you.
I think they're populist.
I do think they do have some more right policies than we would have here in the UK.
But Salvini and Berlusconi support Putin.
Jenny, I mean, look, on the left, they always immediately call everybody who opposes them or who wins an election like this far right.
They're all far right, they're all fascists, they're all Nazis.
It's ridiculous hyperbole in most cases.
I actually don't think it helps at all.
But secondly, there's this whole undercurrent of the kind of ultra-woke ideology dragging the left to extreme places on a lot of issues where most people don't sit.
And there's a repudiation of that going on around Europe.
I think, yes, if you look at what's happened in Sweden, if you look at what's happened in Poland and other countries, there is certainly a failure of social democratic parties to make an impact.
I don't know whether or not this is a kind of reaction to wokeism.
I think it's part of it, along with economic hardship and a failure to deal with immigration, which I'm afraid has become an issue.
It doesn't make you racist to say there is a problem with immigration.
The problem is that.
There are millions of people moving across Europe.
It has to be dealt with.
But nobody has a solution at the moment that works.
And this is...
And all of the left, though, doesn't it?
No, no, but on the leaders' side they do.
And the problem is that the parties that are in control at the moment, certainly, you know, this win in Italy today, it's very easy to say what you're against, but then they haven't really proved what they're for and what their policies are.
Well, she said she's, well, this is this woman, Georgia Maloney, she said she's for family.
She's a Catholic in a predominantly Catholic country.
Well, what she means is she's back to old-fashioned conservative values, I think.
When I see her, and Whittaker, when you see Georgia Maloney in Italy, Anne, do you see a traditional conservative or do you see someone on the far right?
Well, it might be an effort to be traditional, but all I would say is this, and this isn't sarcastic, it's just a genuine comment.
Governments in Italy don't last more than five minutes.
They really don't, and that's a serious comment.
And what I would like to see in Italy is a bit of stability.
Yeah.
I mean, there's one bit of good news.
Cricket Laws and Sports Washing 00:02:45
The Royal Air Force has announced tonight that mistakes were made with their recruitment process.
This came after the service prioritised hiring ethnic minority and female candidates over white men to hit impossible diversity targets.
They've now admitted this was a strategic failure, which is good because it was.
It was a nonsensical way to go about recruiting people to fight in war.
One final thing before I let you go, Pak.
Cricket.
Not probably your number one subject, but really it's not about cricket.
I want to show you something that happened between the England women's team and the Indian women's team.
It was a crucial stage of the game at Lourdes, the home of cricket, my favourite sporting venue in the world.
And England had one wicket left, so they had two batsmen left.
They were chasing down a score, they were doing well, and then the Indian bowler did this.
And look at this again in slow motion.
The rule is if a batsman's out of their crease, which is that area with the white line between that and the stumps, they're out of their crease.
A bowler is technically allowed to do that.
But if you watch it in real slow motion, her bat was still down there when that Indian bowler went into delivery stride.
And I'm sorry, that's just not cricket.
And what I mean by that is you can have laws, and the law was changed recently to allow that kind of run out.
But there are two types of cricketer now in the world.
There are the type that think that's acceptable way to win a match.
And there are the types like me and actually most right-minded cricket fans and players who think that that is a complete disgrace.
And I say, shame on the Indian women's team.
You shouldn't have done that.
Win it fair and square.
You know, when you get home tonight, you'll be looking in the mirror, all of you, and thinking, why did we do that?
At least I hope you are.
Anyway.
Do you have anything to say, ladies?
I think, you know, cricket is all about honour, and maybe we're living in an age where you actually just need laws and rules.
It's a very strange game, cricket, to someone like me, that you could rub the ball, but only in a certain way.
I don't know what it is.
It's all about the ball rubbing.
But that's Pizza.
Can I ask, if this was reversed, Britain had won by doing that?
No, I wouldn't like it.
No, I've got.
I'm talking about this.
It's called man-cadding.
And it goes back to when an Indian player called Mankad did it actually in a game.
I've never liked it.
I think it's a kind of...
If someone had pulled that stunt when I was playing in the East Sussex League for my team Newark, if someone had pulled that stunt, punches would have been thrown.
So you can get away with it, but I think they should put under the laws you're allowed to punch people that are doing it.
It's a very strange game.
They came to laws.
It's not sportsmanship.
It's not cricket.
Anyway, thank you to my panel.
Jenny, you're going to stay, I think, aren't you?
Talk about sports washing, ironically.
Golf Players Demand Fair Play 00:15:26
Still ahead tonight, Harry Megan and the Palace Insiders, who know what really happened.
Look at those bombshell revelations from various books, including that Megan apparently thought she was going to become the Beyoncé of the UK.
And pigs will be flying over the studio.
Also tonight, our exclusive interview with the man behind the most bitter split in world sport, golfing legend Greg Norman, the CEO of the Saudi-backed Live Golf Tour, talks to me exclusively tonight.
Talking about the Bears Morgan Centre, in a moment we'll be discussing whether there's any way back for Harry and Megan.
First, the biggest split in world sport right now involves a Saudi-funded Live Golf Tour, which in the words of Rory McElroy has ripped golf apart.
The Saudi Tour has lured a series of superstars with massive pay packets and has taken heavy criticism for supposedly whitewashing the image of the Saudi Arabian government.
Well, Greg Norman, the all-time golfing legend, is the boss of Live Tour.
And I spoke to him and began by asking how this almighty split can be resolved.
Well, I think over a period of time it will resolve itself, Piers.
There's no question about it.
Look, let's just clarify this split.
I think this split or this animosity has only come from one side of the ledger, quite honestly.
So what we've done is just put another competitive platform for the independent contractors, which is us, which we've always been, I believe, independent contractors, have a choice and have a right to go somewhere else and play the game of golf.
We tried to reach out with the European Tour.
We tried to reach out with the PGA Tour.
We wanted to integrate ourselves within their systems to show that what we have is additive to the sport of golf.
But they made the decision, not us.
When you hear someone like Rory McElroy, he's one of the top players in the world right now, without any question, and a very, you know, passionate and eloquent defender of the PGA Tour.
When you hear how scathing he is about what you're doing, what's your message to him?
Well, my message is, Rory, you're an independent contractor.
You have the right to make your decision.
Remember, Rory started on the European tour.
Then Rory decided to leave the European Tour to go play where all the money is, where I went to play to the PGA Tour.
Why did we do that, Piers?
We did that because that was the only option we had as players.
Hey, Rory, happy days.
Do what he wants to do.
You know, if he's comfortable over there doing that, he's an independent contractor.
He can.
If Rory wants to go to the Middle East and get appearance money to play in tournaments, happy days.
Go play in those, Rory.
That's your choice.
Don't begrudge the other players for making the decision.
It's just a shame that people have taken this stance when if you look back over a period of time, they've pretty much done the same thing themselves.
Do you think that it's about morality or money?
And the reason I ask that is I actually wrote a column for the New York Post about what I thought was the hypocrisy about a lot of the sports washing debate in the sense that the Saudis already have a Formula One Grand Prix.
They own a Premier League football club, Newcastle.
They stage all the big boxing bouts.
And that none of that gets anything like the kind of opprobrium that you guys have had for setting up a Saudi-sponsored golf tour.
And I don't understand what the distinction is.
I don't also understand how the PGA, if they're being honest with themselves, could say that they themselves never do business with regimes which wouldn't hold up to much human rights scrutiny.
So I see a hypocrisy there.
What's your view about that?
Look, Piers, you hit the nail on the head.
Hypocrisy, the hypocrisy coming out of this is so deafening, it's ridiculous.
Because you're right, the PGA Tour has title sponsors that... have a great relationship and working relationship for a commercial opportunity with the Saudi government, with PIF.
So I don't understand why it is that way.
Sadly, I got an idea because we're the monopolists.
I mean, we're going in challenging the monopolists, which is the PGA Tour.
It's been the one place to play golf for the last 53 years.
All we've done is come in and shown another opportunity, another additive opportunity for the players to make their decision.
Oh my gosh, I would have loved to have that decision.
And I've given these players within LIVE the opportunity to grow their wealth and give them the opportunity to go other places to play.
The argument against what you're doing, as you know, is that you're just throwing huge amounts of cash at the top players, many of whom are taking it, that the format of what you do is not as good as the PGA because you don't have a cut system.
There's no kind of losing, if you like.
There's just equal, you know, different degrees of winning.
And also that at the moment, you're not getting many people watching this, that the streams aren't getting much traction.
You think you're going to rise above the sport washing debate to do what you want to do?
Well, 100%, Piers, 100%.
Look, going back to the money issue, right?
We've been the leader.
You take LIVE out of the equation.
The PGA Tour would never have reacted the way they've reacted.
Liv comes along, then all of a sudden all this money pops out of nowhere, out of their reserve.
How do you think the players feel that are either on Liv or have been decades and decades in the game of golf, even me included, saying, why didn't I have the right to play for this money?
If you've had this in reserve all this period of time, for it just all of a sudden pop up out of nowhere because of Liv, you've got to ask a lot of questions about that.
Okay, on the morality point, I've seen a lot of your players, some handle it pretty well when they get asked about this, others have not handled it so well.
Some have been completely buried, like Phil Nicholson, which I think has been incredibly unfair, actually.
And I'm sad to see a legend of the game like him be pilloried in the way that he has.
But there are obviously legitimate questions about the Saudi regime, about the murder of the journalist Khashoggi and so on.
Are you free, because of your association with the Saudi government in this way, are you free to be critical of their human rights records and so on?
Look, I mean, Piers, what happened with Khashoggi is reprehensible.
But what we're doing now is with golf and the game of golf.
What we're doing is showing golf is a force for good across the world, across all platforms.
There's going to be questions, no question about it.
But we are a commercial entity.
We're investing into the game of golf.
We're growing the game of golf.
And I'll say this, Piers, I've been involved with the game of golf for 45 years.
In that 45 years, I have never seen another entity willing to step up to this to date and give us $2 billion to invest into the game of golf.
But again, coming back to my position as a fan, I love playing golf.
I'm a ropey 16 handicapper, but I love the sport and everything about it.
What I really am struggling with...
You only have to give me eight aside?
Yeah, exactly.
And I've loved watching you play over the years.
What I'm sad about right now is, you know, you look at the major tournaments, for example.
If your live golfers are not allowed to get ranking points and then they can't qualify for the majors, they cease to be, in my view, proper majors.
If you were predicting what you think is going to happen here, where will we be in a year or two years' time?
I look, I ultimately believe there will be some merging of the powers to be to sitting down, having conversation.
We don't want it right now because we've tried.
And going back to what you were saying before, we didn't create this turmoil.
We just came in with another opportunity for the ecosystem within the ecosystem for the players, for the fans.
So we didn't really start this big fight.
We didn't create this animosity.
And with the majors, quite honestly, Piers, they should be Switzerland, right?
If I'm a major, I want to have the best of the best in my field.
They're the four Super Bowls.
They're the four FA Cups.
They're the four, whatever you want to call them, that should always remain up there, Switzerland, away from anybody.
For them to be dragged into this quagmire, there's going to be a lot of questions to be needed to be asked about that.
But they should be apart from that.
And if you're a broadcaster of any of the four majors, you should be saying to them, we want the Live players in there because 26 out of the top 100 players right now today are live players.
There's 22 other tour events in this world that get OWGR points.
And I can tell you this, 21 of those 22 are far inferior than what the Live Tour is all.
You know, it reminds me.
So why are we being targeted?
You've been snubbed up at the Open.
They wouldn't let you go to the Champions Dinner, which I thought was actually very churlish.
As a great golfing champion, a great sporting champion, how are you dealing with that kind of vitriol, the kind of disenfranchisement from the sport and the official bodies that you were once so welcomed by?
How are you on a personal level dealing with that?
To be honest with you, Piers, at times my heat shield gets a little bit weak because I am a human being.
I've done a lot for the game of golf.
I was number one player in the world for six years.
I've done things in the game of golf.
I've promoted the game of golf.
I've grown the game of golf globally.
What happened in the RNA was a petty, cheap, childish shot, be honest with you.
And if you can't rise above it all, shame on you.
Because if you are under pressure from other people exerting pressure on you, shame on you.
For you not to sit down and have a discussion and to understand what the live business model is and to see how it sits within the ecosystem, shame on you.
Have you lost personal friends in the golf world as a result of all this?
100% I have.
Yep.
But if they, look, if they want to judge me on lack of information and lack of what's out there, they're the ones with the small mind.
I'm lucky to have these magnificent people behind me.
I'm lucky to have an investor willing to invest into the game of golf like they are investing.
Golf is lucky to have this.
And it's so...
What people say, they say, do you have any moral line about any of this at all?
In the sense that I think some of your players were asked at a press conference, what if Vladimir Putin wanted to set up a golf tour, would you allow that to happen?
Would you want to be involved in that?
In other words, is there a moral line that Greg Norman wouldn't cross.
My moral line is: I believe in the product.
My moral line is: I've been a big, staunch promoter of growing the game of golf on a global basis.
My moral line is: golf is the force for good.
So, I am so proud to be in this role, Piers.
I really am, because my whole life, somebody asked me a question the other day, Greg, do you think this is going to affect your legacy?
And I said to him, you know what?
Maybe my legacy on the golf course is not my legacy.
Maybe my true legacy is what we're doing with Live for the game of golf and giving this opportunity to collegiate players, to eventually to women, to the guys we have today to be a true competitor to show that you are additive to the system and our product is speaking for itself.
And final question, Greg.
I'm going to be playing the St Andrews Old Course and Kings Barnes and Carnusty in the Alfred Dunhill Links.
You've obviously been very successful on these courses.
In particular, I had a bit of a meltdown on the 17th, the famous Roadhole of the Old Course last year, live on Sky, where I hit, I think, room 416 with my t-shirt.
Can you just give me a little bit of advice with your old player hat on for how I should play the roadhole?
Well, next time you hit room 416, try and put it through that window and go exit the other window.
That tells me you're hitting the golf ball hard and long.
Greg Norman, thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Piers.
Well, we're going to debate what Greg Norman was talking about there, because actually it goes wider than golf.
It's really about world sport and this whole issue of sports wash.
We'll be joined by legendary boxing promoter Frank Warren to discuss the hypocrisy or otherwise of it all.
And you'll have the latest on Tyson Fury's potential showdown with Anthony Joshua.
At least I hope he will.
Horses night, revelation to Harry and Megan were so diabolical to work for that ex-staff call themselves the Sussex Survivors Club.
Is there any way back to royal life for all these Sussexes?
Well, welcome back.
Before we get into the debate about the Greg Norman interview that we just heard, this is the cover of the new European newspaper, which I think pretty well sums up my views about what's been going on the last three days.
That is literally trickle-down economics.
A little bit nearluckle, but I like it.
Before the break, we heard my exclusive interview with the boss of Saudi-funded golf tool, Greg Norman, who described the hypocrisy of his critics as Deafony.
Well, joining me now is Jenny Kleeman again.
I'm legendary boxing promoter Frank Warren, who's recently been in talks with the Saudis to stage potentially Tyson Fury's next fight.
Well, Frank, great to talk to you.
What is your view about all this?
Because the Saudis' tentacles in sport go a long way now, whether it's football clubs, whether it's golf, whether it's boxing, Formula One.
And the allegation constantly put up there is that this is morally wrong.
And yet I see sport doing business with all sorts of dodgy regimes all the time that aren't Saudi Arabian.
What do you think?
Good evening, Piers.
What do I think about it?
24th of May this year, the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he hosted the Emir of Qatar, sorry, of Qatar.
And they invested 10 billion in this country.
10 billion.
And the Prime Minister said it showed a vote of confidence in Britain.
The trade deal, energy deal, and defence deal.
Boris went to Saudi when the energy crisis started and asked them to produce more oil.
He went there on behalf of Britain.
So the mixed messages going out, I find ridiculous.
It's okay for the government to deal with them.
It's okay for the government to sell arms to them.
And yet we in sport shouldn't be doing it.
So, you know, where do we go with this?
Our own government are doing this.
And do you think, Frank, do you think the, when you listen to Great Norman there, do you think the splitting golf really is about money more than morality?
That the PGA Tour, the big tour don't want to lose their best players to the very cash-rich live tour.
And do you think inevitably there'll be a deal and they'll have to come together?
I don't know.
I mean, it is about money.
You know, I'll be very honest.
You know, most sportsmen, not so much with golf, but most sportsmen, certainly boxers, have a very short career.
Boycott Saudi Arabia Business 00:02:51
So using Tyson hypothetically, if he was to be offered to fight, say, 10 million in this country and he was offered 30 to fight there, I mean, who's to stop him doing that?
You know, they've hosted, you've said they hosted those various events, Formula One, et cetera.
WWE regularly runs shows there.
The Italian and Spanish Super Cups have been host staged there on a couple of occasions.
And then I think about the other investments that Saudi have made in other companies like EA, Nintendo, Walt Disney, Uber, and Facebook.
So I don't get any of this.
I think a lot of the people.
Let me bring in Jenny.
I mean, you're shaking your head here.
I mean, I saw this week a tweet from James Cleverly thanking Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, for his help in getting British hostages out of Russian hands in Ukraine.
How is it that we can have the Foreign Secretary thanking this guy if he's such a pariah that we're not allowed to have a golf tour sponsored by it?
Because we as a country are unfortunately dependent on Saudi Arabia.
They buy our arms.
We depend on them financially in a way that I wish we didn't.
When it comes to sports, there is a choice.
We don't need this investment from Saudi Arabia.
It's not like Saudi Arabia desperately cares about boxing or about golf.
What they want is to co-opt some of the goodwill we feel about sport to make themselves look better.
And if you look at, for example, Russia over the past five, ten years, the Sochi Winter Olympics, Formula One, all sorts of giant sporting events that took place there and we turned the other way because at that time we were thinking, oh, maybe Putin isn't doing it.
Is your position that we should stop having anything to do in a sporting context with any country that has a bad human rights record?
I think a country...
Because you do realize, if that's your position, that will pretty much wipe out most major sports in the world from continuing at their same commercial levels.
I think that sport has to rise above it and it shouldn't necessarily be about money.
When you're talking about the money, no sport in Saudi, no sport in China?
Yes.
No World Cup in Qatar.
Yes, I would say that too.
Nothing in Russia.
I mean, what you're doing, you're basically saying, right, anywhere whose regimes we don't approve of, there should be no sport.
Which I would put this to you.
After we illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, should people have boycotted British sport?
I'm not saying it's people whose regimes, countries, the regimes we don't agree with, but you're saying countries with an appalling human rights record where people who oppose the government are murdered, where gay people are murdered.
Perhaps we should say, no, we are not going to let you burnish your image by using.
Even if our governments continue to do billions of pounds of people.
I think we should not vote for governments that continue to do billions of pounds of business.
I'd love to see the Labour Party never do any business with the Saudis, particularly on oil.
Let's go back to Frank.
Royal Family Internal Fight 00:06:41
Frank, I can't let you go without asking you, Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua.
There was a 5pm deadline.
Tyson's gone off on one, basically saying, that's it, it's off.
I think there's still wriggle room.
Is there still wriggle room?
Well, Tyson's adamant.
He gave that deadline on Friday and again repeated it Saturday and I think even yesterday and he said enough is enough.
They've had the contract for over 10 days.
We've had conversations today with the other side but Tyson's had enough of it.
So, you know, that's it.
I mean he's the guy, he's the champion.
He's the guy that matters and he makes the decision and that's his decision at the moment.
Do you think it's over?
Look, personally, the only way it could happen now, if they signed the contract and they haven't even sent back the contract with any amendments on it.
So, you know, 10 days on, you thought we'd had something backing up by now.
And there was positive talks today.
But it's just, you know, Tyson's Tyson.
You know, he feels he's given AJ a tremendous opportunity to get two losses.
My money.
I'm paying 40%.
My bet is on this fight happening.
And I've got another bet if it does happen with Tyson Fury, which he made on this show live, which if he does get back in the ring, I get a million pounds off him.
So I have a vested interest in this fight happening.
Well, it's probably your fault.
It's your fault it's not going on.
He can't afford to.
Frank, brilliant to have you on the show.
Thank you very much, mate.
Much appreciated.
Jenny, great to see you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Well, coming next, of course, there have been more damaging revelations all weekend about Megan and Harry.
And the big question, I guess, remains now, can they ever rejoin the royal family?
The firm.
We'll be live next with author Tom Bauer and Royalty Kate, Katie Nicoll.
Well, welcome back.
It's been another packed weekend of royal revelations.
And as usual, they weren't very flattering for the Duke and Duchess of Netflix on Palace Insider claimed publicity shine Megan wanted to be the Beyoncé of the UK when she married Harry.
She reportedly moaned she couldn't believe she wasn't getting paid for meeting the public on a royal tour of Australia and apparently the pair were apparently so awful to work for that ex-staff called themselves the Sussex Survivors Club.
That's according to a new book by the Times royal correspondent Valentine Lowe.
Joining me now is Vanity Fair royal editor Katie Nicol and royal biographer Tom Bauer.
Well, this is the A-team, if ever there was one, to take us to the end.
So, Tom, so many new revelations, but they all basically boiled down to one question.
Is there any way back for these two?
Absolutely not.
Definitely.
No, I mean, I don't think they want to come back either.
I mean, they've made their mark.
I don't think she does, but do you think he might?
I think he'll follow her.
I think there's no evidence that they're not a pair tied at the hip.
And I just don't believe.
I think the question now is just how hard the book will be.
I think November, Harry's book, I think it's out for November because it ties in with the Crown's, the Crown on Netflix.
I think Netflix documentaries will come out as well.
They're amazing.
It'll be explosive.
I mean, if there's more stuff in there, Katie, attacking Charles, Camilla, the monarchy, I don't think, I mean, the British public are not going to have it.
I just think they're going to be thinking, really?
I don't think that's the best thing.
The Queen's died and we're still yapping away, you two?
I don't think the Americans will have it either, of his.
I mean, you know, obviously I write for Fantasy Fair.
I'm very tapped in with that international audience.
And actually, Tom and I were just talking that, you know, after the Oprah interview, there was a lot of support for the Sussexes, to the point that...
Because people believe that.
Well, exactly.
And to the point, a bit of a kickback against our royal family.
But now, everything I'm getting on my Instagram feed on my Twitter for all my Vanity Fair readers is if they go back now and literally chuck the royals under a bus again, they can't do that.
And I think that's because we've seen the new king be so welcoming those olive branches, mentioning them in their speech.
You know, whether or not they're going to get the titles, we've yet to see.
In my book, I say that, you know, great book, by the way, the new royals.
Sources close to Charles say he's willing to give these titles, which are rightfully theirs, Prince and Princess.
But it comes with a caveat, they have to prove that they can be trusted.
And as Tom says, you know, we're going to have documentaries and everything in the autobiography.
And it is, Tom, isn't it?
It's a kind of law of diminishing returns.
If they keep just moaning about two, three years ago and the experience they had, at some point, there's nothing left to say.
But there's nothing else for them to do.
That's the problem.
And I think that the ultimate will be he will not make the children prince and princess, and then he'll say we're taking away the Sussex titles.
Yeah.
Which I would think would be churlish.
Last time I paid him your programme, I said so.
But I think if they publish the book the way if they're going to keep trashing the royal family and the monarchy, they shouldn't have the titles.
If you want to go and be celebrities and make your money that way, fine.
You can't do it with royal titles.
I don't think.
No, you can't.
And I think we've seen Charles is quite...
Titles matter to him, right?
I mean, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh wanted Edward to have the Duke of Edinburgh title, but he hasn't got it yet.
Now, we were told by the palace that the matter of titles would be addressed after the official royal mourning period is over.
Well, it's over now.
So let's wait and see what happens.
But, you know, Charles is very aware that he's riding on this tide of popularity at the moment.
There's a lot of sympathy.
There's a lot of goodwill to the royal family.
But that won't be forever.
He's got a lot of work to do in a short amount of time.
And I think he needs to protect the branches.
He just, you know what?
He just doesn't need the headache, Charles.
He's got so many other things.
He's got things to worry, though.
That's the problem.
The honeymoon has been amazing.
I mean, the man who I, when I wrote Rebel Prince four years ago, said he'd have a very difficult problem becoming king, that has proved to be inaccurate in the sense that he'd had a honeymoon.
He changed after the book came out and he's done very well.
But he's got a huge number of problems now, not just Harry.
There's Andrew.
I'm sure there'll be more revelations about Epstein.
He's got the problem of the Union.
He's got the problem of the Commonwealth.
He's got the problem of the palaces, financial, vast problems.
And the one thing he doesn't need is Harry and Meghan sniping from.
Especially if, as is rumoured, Harry targets Camilla, who's now the Queen consort, blaming her for the breakup of his parents' marriage and regurgitating all that stuff.
Of course, that could be very damaging.
Yes, it could be.
Especially with the new series of the Crown coming out.
Well, with every luring colour.
I was just about to mention the Crown because, interestingly, and I put this in the book, the last series actually, Camilla watched with a large glass of red wine.
I think Charles gave up after a couple of episodes because it was getting a bit too close to the bone.
Harry Targets Camilla Again 00:00:26
Well, this new series is going to be very close to the bone.
And of course, for the king who wants to shed that 90s, very hard.
It's going to be fascinating.
I'm sure we'll be talking again.
Thank you both for coming in.
Really appreciate it.
Well, tomorrow night, my one-on-one exclusive interview with Jordan Peterson, one of the most fascinating and controversial people in the world right now.
You won't want to miss this.
That's one-on-one for the hour tomorrow night.
Well, that's it from me.
Keep it uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection