Britain's Man In Jerusalem Has A Problem At Home Jonathan Powell has spent this month trying to keep Britain's consulate in Jerusalem open. Israel closed it in retaliation after Ed Miliband banned imports from illegal West Bank settlements, and relations between the two countries now sit at their lowest point in decades. Powell, as national security adviser, has become Britain's chief interlocutor in trying to repair that relationship. His wife, meanwhile, has spent this week being investigated by the Metropolitan Police. Sarah Helm wrote on X that she stood with "authors who support Palestine and Palestine Action," a group proscribed as a terrorist organisation since 2025, after protesters allegedly caused £7 million of damage at RAF Brize Norton. More than 3,000 people have been arrested for expressing support for it. Her post has prompted a formal assessment by Scotland Yard. Helm's views on Israel did not begin this week. She has called Gaza a "strange surreal prison" where Palestinians were "imprisoned without charge." She has asked why occupied Palestinians lack the right to resist their occupier when Ukrainians are celebrated for resisting Russia. In 2024 she called for an international force to "drive out Israel's genocidal army" from Gaza. None of this is new information. All of it predates her husband's appointment as the man now representing Britain's interests in Jerusalem. That timeline matters more than her tweet does. Nobody needs to question Helm's right to hold these views, deeply held and publicly stated over years, to ask a separate question: whether anyone in government considered what it meant to place her husband at the centre of Britain's most delicate Israel negotiations in a generation, with his own household this openly aligned against Israel's position on the war. Diplomacy runs on perceived neutrality as much as substance. Israel does not need evidence that Helm's views shaped British policy to conclude that the man negotiating with them sits considerably closer to the other side of the argument than comfort allows. This is the same gap that has defined Powell's tenure from the start. He ran a secret backchannel to a proscribed terrorist group in Syria before his appointment, undisclosed until journalists found it. He held meetings with PLA-linked Chinese officials through his private charity, undisclosed until Parliament tried and failed to ask about them. His developed vetting status has never been confirmed, despite his predecessor's failed vetting triggering the defining scandal of this government. Each time, the pattern is identical. Something relevant to his judgement or his position existed, and nobody weighed it before he was trusted with the brief it touched. Campaign Against Antisemitism has called on Powell to denounce his wife's rhetoric publicly if he wishes to continue in post. That may be the wrong remedy for the wrong problem. Helm is entitled to her opinions regardless of who she married, and demanding a public renunciation from a spouse sets an uncomfortable precedent. The real failure sits with Downing Street, which appears to have handed its most sensitive Israel brief to a man whose household's views on the conflict were already a matter of public record, without pausing to ask whether that was wise. Powell remains in post. The consulate talks continue. Nobody in government has explained why a national security adviser whose wife has spent years comparing Israel's war conduct to an illegal occupation was considered the right person to represent Britain's interests in Jerusalem at the most sensitive moment in that relationship for a generation. The real question here has nothing to do with Sarah Helm. It is whether anyone in Downing Street does due diligence at all. "Campaign Against Antisemitism has called on Powell to denounce his wife's rhetoric publicly if he wishes to continue in post."

The BBC's New Poll Tax: Pay Up, Even If You Never Watch It Lisa Nandy is weighing a plan to extend the BBC licence fee to households that watch only streaming services. Reports suggest the charge could fall on viewers of Netflix, Amazon and Disney+, while the streaming giants themselves would pay nothing. The household could face a bill of £180 a year. The details remain unsettled. The licence fee was once a charge for receiving television broadcasts. Watch live television or open iPlayer and you owe it. The link between payment and product was thin. Under the proposal, a Netflix-only household could owe the BBC for a service it does not run. Those families include many younger viewers. Many have abandoned traditional television. The BBC had 23.3 million licences in force this year, down 539,000 in twelve months and almost two million in five years. Viewers are voting with their remotes. The government's proposed answer is to close the exit. The timing is remarkable. Last November, Tim Davie, the director-general, and Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News, resigned following the controversy over Panorama's edit of Donald Trump's speech. The footage gave the impression that Trump had urged supporters to storm the Capitol. Separately, Ofcom ruled that the documentary Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone materially misled viewers by failing to disclose that its child narrator's father held a position in the Hamas-run government. A corporation facing serious questions about editorial accuracy is now seeking a wider base of compulsory payers. Matt Brittin, the current director-general, wants BBC content on Netflix, YouTube, TikTok, Spotify and Instagram. News above all. He wants to reach audiences everywhere. The BBC would appear on every platform, and under the proposed funding model, the bill could follow viewers there. The television industry proposed something different. In 2025, campaigners led by director Peter Kosminsky called for a 5 per cent levy on the UK subscription revenues of streaming giants, with proceeds supporting British drama. A Commons committee backed it. Mr Kosminsky argued that the public should not bear the consequences of the American streamers' business model. A household levy leaves the companies untouched and sends the bill to the viewer. Enforcement raises its own problem. Watching live television without a licence is currently an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Ministers have considered alternatives to criminal enforcement. A universal household levy could be collected through council tax or utility bills without monitoring viewing habits. But a charge linked specifically to streaming subscriptions raises different questions. Who establishes liability, what information must be shared, and what happens when households refuse to pay? Ministers owe the public answers. Then there is the question of local journalism. Reports suggest it could benefit from the additional funding. Local news has suffered, and the concern is fair. But who decides which titles qualify? If ministers decide, the press risks dependence on government. If the BBC decides, local publishers risk dependence on their largest publicly funded rival. Both demand scrutiny. A better answer exists. The BBC provides radio, news, education and other public services, and its defenders argue that these justify collective funding. That does not put compulsory payment beyond challenge. Let the BBC charge those who want its output, while making separate provision for clearly defined public services. Subscription built Netflix an audience of millions. A broadcaster confident in its product should be prepared to face the same test. Ms Nandy is expected to publish her White Paper before Christmas. She should remember how the last household levy ended. Extending compulsory payment to people who have chosen not to watch the BBC risks creating a poll tax for the streaming age. Ministers know how that story finished.