No fan of boris. The politician, i never called it should have been Prime Minister in the 1st place. It was the wrong person here. So what happens now to all the former ministers and officials who indulge johnsons booster ism and false will . Will the tory party clean them out . How much did conservatives really do to help you crane prepare for war, armed with all said and done, will the next, british Prime Minister, just be more of the same key question this week, and conflict for american risky and welcome to conflict zone. Thank you. You wrote the other day that Boris Johnson trashed or tried to trash, many of the conventions that protect british liberties and the countries unwritten constitution. And thats a very serious charge if its true. Why do you think it took your party so long to get rid of him . Well, i think 1st of all, im not suggesting he thought of it as trashing all the conventions. The problem with Barnes Johnson is he doesnt think through the implications of what he does and sometimes the seriousness of what he does. I dont think hes in moral letting his moral. Youll let him off the hook here. Im not let him off the hook. Im simply saying you act as an incredibly reckless way because britain, unlike virtually any other country in the world, does not have a written constitution for our system to work and relies. And what you just described as the conventions. Whereby parliament and ministers except their responsibilities and desist from certain kinds of activity. And he seemed to believe that in his own case because he had such a large majority in parliament, he could get away with that and he found it couldnt. And the party let him get away with it because the writing had been on the wall for some time. Hadnt it to ethics advisors resigning one thing . The time is to put him in an odious position. The resignation in june of john penrose, the governments own anti corruptions, are saying. Johnson had committed a fundamental breach of the ministerial code of a party gate. At all these junctures, the conservative party looked away. Why . Let me, im going to answer your question that i have to proceed by saying that my own case, i never thought he should have been Prime Minister in the 1st place. He was the wrong person here. Id love to have him at a dinner party. I did not think his remarkable qualities was suited to being Prime Minister of any country, certainly not United Kingdom. And so did a large minority of conservatives. But to come to your question, you have. One thing you didnt mention was it is a very short time since he led to the conservative body to a huge majority, far greater them on expected and yes, precisely. But when you were, when you have such a mandate and a new one, even i suggest we would have had that large majority without his leadership. At that time, he caught the public mood. He won large numbers of seats and water called the red wall area of the northern parts of england, which voted labor for 70 years. And suddenly a significant number. The conservative and conservative m p s were done just because he was a vote when you could look away from all the transgression is and i want to trashing. All right, so what im saying is it was inevitably again, to be a gradual disillusionment on the part of those who had thought he was a great guy and would make a great Prime Minister. And but there was a consciousness that removing a Prime Minister from office and not as a general election, but by his own party. The last, well, the last time that happened was teresa met. And the time before that was Margaret Thatcher said the conservative party does have a tradition, unlike the labor part to other parties in britain. If it comes to a judgement that Prime Minister has become a permanent liability rather than an asset. It can get rid of that leader very loosely as it did on this occasion. Well, you say very loosely, i would say, well, they took their time over this. Perhaps the most damning comment came last november from lord evans, chairman of the committee on standards in public life news about johnsons attempt to change the Disciplinary Procedure for m. P. s. While one of the was under investigation. Evan evans called it a very damaging moment for parliament and for public standards. And he gave this unprecedented warning. He said there was a danger that britain could slip into being a corrupt country. Again, the conservative party looked away seriously. The blind eye has been staggering. You and your title to put it in those terms, but youre using nice color, full theatrical language to boss the fact that in a democracy and elected Prime Minister who has had the confidence, not just the parliament as a hold of his party. It is quite an awkward thing to put it mildly, too suddenly dump them in the, in the middle of a parliament. And that was a gradual process because his colleagues in cabinet and it was any of the cabinet ultimately who had that power to remove them. Obviously were reluctant to act in such a unilateral way and that would have been surprising if they want. So im not saying i wouldnt prefer that if they done well. The eventually did 6 months at area. I personally would have preferred that. But then ive already told you id prefer to never having been down the street in the 1st place. Isnt the real problem with the conservative party, the house for too long put its own intellectual fortunes above the interests of the british people . It allowed a Prime Minister to continue doing harm and lying, engaging in what the eminent historian Peter Hennessy called upon font of the decencies. Soon the party been hanging his head in shape. But again, youre using marvelous colorful language. And if i was sitting, i just said much on the, i was about to say if i was city where youre sitting, im sure id be using the same colorful language, but it actually conceals, as well as illustrates the nature of democratic politics. And when you have a leader, whether hes a good one or a bad one, in this case, a bad one when hes been elected by the proper democratic processes of the conservative party. And then given the something mandate by the electorate. The deposition of Margaret Thatcher and totally different circumstances that her integrity wasnt at christian and her case. But she was deposed by her colleagues and not just to the party, but the country as a whole was deeply divided about that. It did quite a lot. It had to happen, i was in the cabinet that helped deliver that at that time. So i didnt regret what we did. But i also conscious of the fact you create a trauma which can last and can create other problems. By if there are still large numbers of people who believe that an unfair thing has happened. So you can brush the such, it can only happen gradually and is, and, but do remember compare johnson with trump. Trump last a national election, refused to go and organized or was involved in a riot, the capital johnson, with all his terrible faults which im not personally tending to trying to conceal. At the end of the day, he went quietly, there were no riots. There was no people marching out of goblins to protect them. He simply overnight said ok. Im issuing a statement saying im stepping down. You know, thats how the system ought to work and it did well, its he leaves office tainted then when the party in the party is tainted this way. Claire fudge is from the downing street advisor, wrote in may, the party, conservative body is a wrecking ball. It smashes through parliamentary standards and public trust. It hurtles through all niceties about the truth. Actually mattering it crushed through a relationship with europe. She has a point. Johnson still insist that he can leave with his head help calm too, because he leaves another disgrace. But the party shares some of that was great. You know, what, hold on. I mean, you, again, youre using wonderful colorful language and youre using unqualified superlatives. What is also true, you could have added to your list of the conservative body is that it is enjoyed the conference of the confidence of the british electorate for 32 of the last 50 years. Yes, but doesnt it . I didnt know. At this precise moment, im not so sure, i think it possibly doesnt, but labor party, which is the only credible alternative government, doesnt inspire that competence, either aggregate through such a period where what business very fortunate actually is what we dont have is some ultra right wing or Left Wing Party waiting in the, in the ease to take of we dont have a mighty le pen and we dont have the fascist or ultra socialist sort of alternatives. So you have a conservative in the labor party as a tool to ent, of governments. At this moment in time, i guess tom is doing his best. Let me try and be objective. Hes a huge improvement on carbon jeremy carbon who almost destroyed the liberal body. But so far as we can tell, the liberal party is not to at the moment capable of winning an election by itself in forming a government. So who knows what would happen if we were in the process of choosing a new Prime Minister . I want i want to come on to that. Thats going to do a major consideration. Yes, i want to come to them. But what should happen to all those who lied on johnsons behalf, the enablers, who indulged him and some who still do those, who defended him every time. A new scandal bred went to the tv studios toward them, giving out the latest version of events, only to watch it crumble and disappear. I should happen to people because they indulged him, didnt allow me to kept him in par, allow me to say there is no government in the world democratic order for a tarion were the members of the cabinet except that the Prime Minister of the president , whoever it may be, it deserves a presumption that hes telling the truth when he says that some accusation has been leveled again, chunk of a long trash that present the whole case. Because somebody has lived quite often doesnt mean everything. They say must be a lie now, but you cant give him the benefit of that that you cant give him the benefit, but hes a bit july. Can you . Well, it depends on the issue. It depends on the other evidence that very time, no, im not being kind. Im trying to be rational and you for ones being very irrational as you perfectly well know. What im saying is that the government, the government of the country, the queens government, has to go on. You dont just set Prime Ministers as if its particular those who have just a couple of years ago when a huge majority from the electorate and genuine re election is a serious matter and the government, whoevers the goodnight was in Margaret Thatcher. Government for the full period of time. And some of the time i disagree strongly watch it was day. If you feel strongly on a particular matter for which you have the departmental responsibility, then you reside. But all the time when the cabinet reaches a decision, that decision will be presented as a unanimous decision of the cabinet. Because those who were in a minority are willing to go along with it. So you are telling me that thats what happens in any democratic country at any time. And it couldnt happen otherwise, what governments would be collapsing every 6 months. But youre telling me now that theres no need for clean outside. Now, the old official, is there any i mean out of the party if im from zack, a light to restore public . Well, youre using nice neutral phrases like johnsons acolytes. There are some members of his team who are not my flavor of the month as it were, who i hope on who services i hope will not be required by the new Prime Minister. And im not going to name names in this particular interview because thats not my function. Im a private citizen and see the need to. But of course i hope the new prime is to whoever he or she might be. Will use the opportunity and actually that, but the most important thing, i think the new prime is that you do is create a cabinet of all the talents because johnson didnt do that. Johnson surrounded himself, some people hed surrounded himself with were of cabinets, stature. At some franklin, she never been in the cabinet in the 1st place. So malcolm, theres a lot of talk about restoring trust and integrity in government, but already some in your party writing almost prov, the style, the alternative history of the johnson era. The pretenses that he got all the big cause right, but he patiently didnt duty. Of course, youre asking me to say what ive already said in public many, many times. Of course he got a lot of decisions in my view bad the wrong some are right. Actually to be fair to them all ukraine. He has provided a degree of leadership of a very impressive kind to me by surprise. And hes been apart from United States, the leading champion of ukraine and perceived, but ukrainians themselves is one of that as a friend. But that version is slightly misleading, isnt it . The truth is that for 7 years following russias invasion of crimea, britain refuse to send weapons that key if needed, despite the fact that they were asking for them on a regular basis. Why dont acknowledge that . So if you wish to move on from what you were previously asking, please acknowledge that what youre doing. You Company Johnson for what happened in the last 7 years, but for the time that he was fine. But he wasnt Prime Minister and he didnt control the government and i didnt know what internal discussions took place then. I know, for example, visits become public that ben wallace has defend 60, was logging at an earlier time, but more practical help. Military helped to be given to the ukrainians, but that wasnt happening either in britain or the United States or in other western countries. This is what a british been on and what is true. And it should be acknowledged. Is that before the invasion of crimea, the only 2 western countries that were giving serious military help to ukraine when the United States and the United Kingdom. And they were doing so by, for example, military training. And it wasnt secret. Some of that might have been secret. Some of it was quite open, the British Military personnel with training. How do you think you, chris was able in 6 years, 6 years ago at the time of the crimea as annexation, ukraines army was about 10000 strong. When kitten and visit there was a 120000. 00 strong. So they not only had to build up an army, but it was trained in different concepts of warfare to what the Old Soviet Union used to do and what russia told us. Which is why in the 1st few weeks of the vision of ukraine, the ukrainians were able to hold on to give. And putin was humiliated. Now that was because british and American Military personnel had been actively involved in giving advice, could they can they give advice on instructions to the Ukrainian Military before the ambition as to how they should operate. And 2nd, by that, if i may, is on cyber, we all assume that if that was going to be a russian attack on your credit, the 1st thing they would do in 24 hours would have been to completely neutralize the whole infrastructure in ukraine through hacking and Cyber Attacks, they werent able to do that. Why . Because we now know that g c h q burtons, the special Intelligence Agency that deals with these matters was authorized by the British Government to give lots of advice to the ukrainians over the last few years. As was happening from others as well on how to deal with high Cyber Attacks and protect your infrastructure. You talk about what was done before put in actually decided to enjoy that. But it wasnt until june last year that the government agreed to help ukraine rebuild. Its navy, but by then it was too late. The ships were ready for the invasion ukraine. Bassett, that him for sake. I said we had to scrap the project, was just delay after delay that. So i knew that, well, in my own personal case, i would have like more practical help to get an earlier that wasnt my public view and im not going to pretend otherwise. But you know, its a pretty controversial question because ukraine is not a member of nato. And for the provision of military assistance to a country that might be involved in a war, in the short to medium term, is a very complex question. Not just for the night because they were involved in the war in east of the country by russia. Yes, of course. Couldnt have been having the 2014, yes, but thats become a prison conflict. And i was talking about a new, more of the kind that we have expense. So the United States and the United Kingdom might have responded to ukraines need slower than the ukrainians would have liked, but they responded them side quicker than france or germany or any other nato countries. Any other country in the world and ukrainians of acknowledge that. Lets talk if we may about johnsons unusual relations. Lets put it that way with russia and russians in 2018 a month after the russians use nava. Chuck to try and kill survey script in salisbury. Johnson flew to italy minus his security detail in his officials and attended a party at which he met a former k g b oligarchy. Alexander levied, if no details of those discussions were ever made public. And it took 4 years for the Prime Minister act actually confirm that the meeting had taken place. Is the lack of accountability, acceptable foreign secretary . No, no, yes. What do you read into that . There was nothing that i didnt already know that johnson has a long history of being reckless of doing things without accepting the implications of them. And of course, as foreign secretary, if he was going abroad and meeting people of that kind, the Foreign Offic