0:00

This is the BBC.

0:20

A

0:30

conversation with rather than

0:32

a newsy interrogation of someone who shapes

0:34

our thinking about what shape theirs.

0:47

And

1:00

it's a sort of plotting genius. Michael Gove, welcome

1:02

back to Political Thinking. Thanks

1:06

Nick. When we last spoke,

1:08

it was back in 2019, just days after, you declared that

1:10

you wanted to draw a vote.

1:14

And you said

1:16

that you wanted to prove to them that they'd made

1:19

the right decision to vote.

1:24

If you movement to get it right. And

1:26

that was how pointing to your young men was so... ...came

1:28

back to you as the missionary. You

1:33

had a great vision both as a member of the Sews.

1:36

And you said that you wanted to prove to them that they'd made the

1:38

right decision.

1:40

What

1:47

did you mean and have you been

1:49

able to prove to them? What

1:52

I meant was a real sense of gratitude

1:54

and also obligation. So

1:57

my parents took a

1:59

gamble and a risk.

1:59

taking me into their lives. I saw my mom

2:02

just last weekend, I was up in Aberdeen, my dad passed away

2:04

almost exactly a year ago, and I was just chatting with

2:07

my mom about the

2:11

decision to adopt. And

2:14

when you're adopting a child, you do not know who you

2:17

are taking into your home. And as

2:21

a result, it is a commitment

2:26

to love and to care for a stranger. And

2:29

that is a huge thing. And

2:31

in my mind, because my mom

2:34

and dad made big sacrifices for me, has

2:36

always been the thought that I should

2:39

try to prove to them that the risks they

2:41

took, the sacrifices they made were not in vain.

2:43

That as well as being a decent

2:47

son, that I could also repay

2:49

that by doing something worthwhile

2:51

with my life. Now, as you

2:53

say, there are lots of people who will have said, well,

2:56

if you really want to do something worthwhile with your life, you would be

2:58

better off being a social worker, rather than being

3:00

a politician and creating the rouse and the controversy

3:03

with which you've been associated. But that

3:06

sense of wanting to give something back, and

3:09

indeed some of the particular themes

3:11

and policies that I chose to get involved in reflected

3:14

that. And as you say, your father

3:16

died relatively recently.

3:18

Was that another moment where

3:20

you reflect maybe in last

3:23

conversations with him, maybe

3:25

as you look back on him, and

3:27

what hope he had for you, and whether

3:30

those have been fulfilled or not? Yes, I

3:33

think everyone who loses a

3:35

parent

3:38

finds it disorientating

3:44

and difficult time because grief comes

3:47

in different ways and it

3:50

takes some time, even though my father

3:52

had been quite ill for a while, really

3:55

to come to terms with it fully. I'm not sure I completely

3:57

have, but directly

3:59

to you. question. One

4:02

of the things I wanted to say to my dad before

4:04

he died was how much I loved him but also I wanted

4:07

to feel that, as

4:09

I say, that he

4:11

could feel that the love that

4:13

he'd invested in me and indeed my sister

4:15

who's also adopted wasn't

4:18

just returned but that we were

4:20

trying to live up to the hopes that he might have invested

4:22

in us. You said in the past that

4:25

perhaps you're impatient, that

4:27

is so visible in politics, you're wrestling

4:29

in homelessness, in politics,

4:33

is connected with being adopted. Is

4:35

that because you have a sense of not

4:38

being totally grounded despite

4:40

the love that your parents obviously gave you? It's

4:43

partly that. It's partly also that when

4:46

I was a shadow education spokesman I came

4:50

across in looking at the statistics one

4:52

school, which I think was in Blackpool, Liverpool, in

4:55

the North West of England, where the

4:57

children there are only 1%

5:02

secured good GCSEs, five good

5:04

GCSEs including English and Maths. I

5:06

thought if my life had been slightly different, if

5:09

I'd been adopted by a different set of parents, I

5:11

might have found myself in that school. I might have found

5:13

myself in a place where, for whatever

5:15

reason, the opportunities that

5:18

I did enjoy were not manifest. The

5:20

key thing in my mind was you only have a limited

5:22

amount of time in politics in government. During

5:25

that time you should try

5:27

to make a difference and

5:30

you should keep in mind who you are trying

5:32

to make a difference for. In my

5:34

mind was the thought of the 11 year

5:37

old me and then the 11 year old entering that school

5:40

and the huge opportunities that I

5:42

had, the limited horizons that 11 year

5:44

old had and the need to crack on in

5:47

order to make the sorts of changes that would give

5:49

that 11 year old a better chance. I

5:51

often think the most revealing question

5:54

in politics is what makes you angry? What

5:57

stirs you? Is it the plight of that 11 year

5:59

old?

5:59

Is that what makes you cross? Inequality.

6:03

Inequality, and you're a conservative. Yes.

6:07

The fundamental thing I think that is wrong is that

6:10

when individuals are denied the opportunity to

6:15

make the most of their lives, to be authors of their own life stories.

6:19

And so the fundamental thing I think

6:21

is that you do need to have

6:23

a society where wealth is created and where

6:25

individuals have the chance to soar

6:27

and their talents can be rewarded. But

6:33

a society that is

6:36

narrowly meritocratic,

6:38

that thinks

6:39

you're rich because you're worth it, is

6:41

not a moral society. You're

6:45

rich, yes, because you work hard, but also because you're fortunate.

6:48

And we have an obligation to those who are unfortunate,

6:51

to those who are poorer, to those whose circumstances

6:53

have meant that they haven't had the chance

6:55

to flourish. There'll be people switching

6:58

on, listening to that, and thinking, have I tuned into

7:00

the wrong programme? Is this Michael Gove the conservative?

7:02

The conservative maybe. They have some preconceptions

7:05

about telling me that inequality is at the

7:07

heart of him. Have

7:10

you changed? Because I've noticed that

7:12

as you go through the reforms you're

7:15

doing now as housing and levelling up the

7:17

secretary, you did injustice,

7:19

you did the environment. You

7:22

constantly seem to pick a fight with natural

7:24

conservative supporters. I mean, now

7:27

on housing, you're

7:29

having a row in your own party about whether

7:31

to take on landlords to give

7:33

them fewer powers, to give renters

7:36

more powers. Before we

7:38

get to the party, have

7:40

you shifted in your view about where

7:43

power lies in society and

7:45

the fact that you need in government, the state,

7:48

needs to help the individual a bit more than maybe

7:50

you thought a few years back? I think it has

7:52

evolved while I've been in government, but not hugely, because

7:55

you're right. When I

7:57

was in education, there were lots of people who were upset with what I was doing. argue

8:00

that the results now show that those changes were worthwhile.

8:03

But what drove my approach

8:06

then, when I first entered

8:08

government, was a belief that the education

8:10

system needed to help the most disadvantaged,

8:14

most of all. And some of the changes

8:16

that we brought in with

8:19

my Liberal Democrat colleague and friend David Laws,

8:21

like the pupil premium, were about giving more resource

8:24

to the poorest. But it was also the case that

8:26

my drive

8:29

to make sure that we had higher standards

8:31

for all, even though it involved some

8:33

pretty conservative approaches, a greater

8:35

degree of choice, a greater degree of rigor, was

8:37

driven by social justice imperative,

8:40

which is to defeat what George

8:42

Bush has called the soft bigotry

8:45

of low expectations. And the thing that's enraged

8:47

me is the idea that poorer

8:50

kids should automatically be assumed

8:53

not to have the potential to achieve just as much

8:55

as those who are more fortunate.

8:57

That language,

8:59

the soft bigotry that you talked about,

9:01

the fact you talked and Dominic

9:03

Cummings, who was at your side for a long time in the Education

9:06

Department, talked about what blob resist the exchange,

9:08

the problem with the education unions, the

9:11

row you pick with local education

9:13

authorities. Did

9:17

they fail to understand that in some

9:19

ways you were motivated by the same things

9:21

as them? Or looking

9:23

back now, do you wish you'd, you just

9:25

sounded a bit less revolutionary, a bit

9:27

more like you were ready to work with

9:29

them? I was having a conversation

9:32

a week while back with my friend, Paul

9:34

Marshall, who as well as being

9:36

a very successful businessman

9:39

has also been the sponsor of a number of very

9:41

successful schools. I like that

9:43

and indeed sponsors GB News and Mike, why

9:45

the Daily Teller? Indeed. And

9:48

I said to Paul, I wonder, maybe

9:51

some of the things that we said were just too

9:53

controversial, put too many people's backs up.

9:56

And he said, no, Michael, you needed

9:58

to dramatize. What was

10:00

at stake? And yes,

10:03

there were occasional infelicities and

10:05

occasional misjudgments, but overall,

10:08

you needed to say there's a case for reform. And

10:11

as soon as you say that there's a case for reform in any organization,

10:13

then those people who inhabit it, who've

10:16

been part of it, can't help but

10:18

feel, oh, this is a criticism

10:20

of me. It's a criticism of what I'm allowed

10:23

to happen on my watch. But

10:27

it was not a criticism

10:29

of teachers. I was always

10:32

careful to say that we had, which is true,

10:35

the best generation of teachers ever

10:37

in our schools. And it's thanks to them that changes

10:39

come about. And I'd argue

10:41

now that the best

10:43

advocates for or the best examples of what we

10:46

were seeking to do are those teachers who've

10:48

been working in schools that have had

10:50

a transformative effect. So we're looking

10:52

back in a way that only

10:54

you, maybe Jeremy Hunty, who's been around that capitol

10:57

table for quite a long time as well, can

10:59

do after all these years in

11:01

death. Are you saying,

11:04

as you reflect on all these departments, including education,

11:07

actually you do have to break

11:09

eggs to make the omelets. You couldn't

11:12

have soothed your way to reform

11:14

and education. I

11:17

think it's the case that almost anyone

11:19

who's in any government department for any length

11:22

of time ends up disappointing

11:24

some of the most vocal stakeholders

11:27

or people associated with that department.

11:30

So you can't be a long-serving health secretary

11:33

without some grumbles from some elements

11:35

of the medical profession. You don't, Jeremy, would

11:37

agree with that. And you can't be an education

11:39

secretary for any length of time without having

11:42

either upset or disappointed some people

11:44

in the education world. If

11:47

you ask teachers who

11:50

was the

11:53

education secretary who provoked

11:55

them the least, they'll probably refer back to Estelle Morris,

11:57

but Estelle was only there for a very brief period. You

12:00

know, it's a labor education sector

12:02

under Tony Blair for a short period of time. Exactly

12:04

So David Blunkett man who I

12:06

admired disagree with on a lot but admire He

12:08

provoked a negative reaction from from

12:11

many in the world of education as well But what's

12:13

interesting is to say when you talk about the later departments

12:15

you took on we talk about housing now

12:18

You're praised and you were beginning to say you

12:20

thought your views had evolved. Yes

12:23

about capitalism hmm about

12:25

big business Yes, perhaps about

12:27

what role they play in

12:30

perpetuating the thing you say you love it inequality

12:32

Yes, well, I am a

12:34

fundamental believer in in free markets,

12:37

but also I I

12:40

believe are in the argument put forward by the

12:43

Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter that

12:46

Left to their own devices within markets. There's a

12:48

tendency towards monopolies and oligopolies Technical

12:51

terms that basically mean that the big players get bigger

12:53

and they squeeze out the little guy and as well as squeezing

12:55

out The little guy they also have a tendency then

12:58

to behave in a way which doesn't serve the

13:00

consumer the citizen the individual

13:03

So it's far from being anti-capitalist.

13:06

I would argue that I was very pro capitalism

13:09

but to understand capitalism you need to understand

13:12

that tendency that means that you need to see a How

13:15

can we keep things competitive and be

13:17

where you have people who are behaving

13:19

in a way that? essentially

13:22

rigs the system you need to Intervene

13:25

proportionately It's not I'm

13:28

you know a license for the state playing

13:30

a massive role But you do

13:32

need sometimes that proportionate

13:34

action now Taking

13:37

on therefore

13:40

In capitalism takes us to Grenfell

13:42

Tower

13:45

You appear to acknowledge

13:47

hmm Even though the inquiry

13:50

is not finished even though there's more that we need

13:52

to know even though I'm sure you won't want to prejudge

13:54

it That's something

13:56

fundamental went wrong in

13:59

terms of deregulation and

14:01

in terms of companies exploiting

14:03

that deregulation to put safety

14:06

very low on their list of priorities.

14:08

Was that a fault of capitalism

14:10

if you like? I don't think it was a fault inherently

14:13

of capitalism as a system, nor,

14:15

and one has to be

14:17

careful here, is deregulation

14:20

overall a bad thing. You

14:22

have to be vigilant. Too much

14:25

regulation, the wrong sort of regulation,

14:28

impoverishes and indeed can sometimes create

14:32

new risks and new dangers. But you are right. In

14:35

the case of Grenfell, and again

14:37

we mustn't prejudge the inquiry or any criminal investigations

14:39

that follow, but it's pretty clear from

14:41

what we've seen that there were individual

14:44

companies that behaved in a way that was

14:46

beyond reckless. They knew

14:48

the products that they were selling could

14:51

put people's lives at risk and they went ahead

14:53

anyway. It was also the case

14:56

that there was a flawed system of regulation

14:58

and oversight in this country and

15:01

we needed to put it right. I wouldn't say

15:04

that those flaws

15:08

derive from a particular

15:10

ideological starting point, but

15:12

they do need to be put right. But

15:14

the flaws might be ignored from a particular

15:16

ideological viewpoint. In other

15:19

words, it may be that conservatives

15:21

have a tendency to think regulation

15:24

bad, deregulation good,

15:26

companies good, public

15:29

sector involvement bad. Is

15:32

that something the modern conservative party

15:35

has to change? I know

15:37

exactly what you mean, but actually I think that

15:39

the experience

15:42

of government is and

15:44

the experience of the conversations

15:46

I've had with conservative parliamentary colleagues

15:48

is yes, of course we believe

15:51

in the free market. We believe in limiting

15:53

the size of the state, but we also believe that there

15:55

is a role for the state and

15:58

we need to be balanced. Back

16:01

to Grenfell. You

16:04

lived then with your

16:06

children rather close to Grenfell

16:08

Tower. Did that

16:10

proximity,

16:13

the sight of that awful

16:15

smoldering Hulk for so long,

16:18

did that affect you personally? Did it affect

16:21

the family? Yes. My

16:24

son, who's now just started at university, attended

16:28

a school in the borough where

16:32

families were directly affected. The

16:34

head teacher of the school directly

16:37

adjacent to the tower is someone

16:39

with whom I'd worked before

16:42

they entered education. And

16:45

it's a part of London that

16:48

I lived in and know well. But I

16:50

wouldn't for a moment,

16:52

because I

16:53

lived a comfortable life,

16:55

I wouldn't for a moment claim

16:58

to understand any better than anyone else the

17:01

grief of the families concerned.

17:04

And I think that there

17:07

are others, I know Theresa May, for example, who

17:14

have been just as determined to

17:16

make sure that the right lessons are learned and to secure

17:18

justice. So yes, there was that knowledge and that proximity,

17:21

but I don't think it gives me any greater insight

17:23

than others like other

17:27

ministers who dealt with it. Now take one other department you're

17:29

involved in, Justice. You

17:31

refer to prisoners pointless in forced

17:33

idleness. Not many Tory

17:36

Home Secretaries who used to be

17:38

in charge of prisons, Justice Secretaries who've

17:41

argued that before. Have you

17:44

found yourself consciously challenging

17:46

Tory assumptions in

17:49

departments you've gone into?

17:51

And is that another go of recommendation for

17:54

success in ministerial life? I

17:56

think in ministerial

17:58

life, you You should definitely

18:01

stop from position or principle, but you should also

18:03

look at the evidence. So all of us have

18:05

a starting point, a set of instincts

18:08

about most issues, those of us in politics,

18:10

those of us in the country. But

18:12

then you look at the evidence of what is working and what is not working.

18:15

So I absolutely believe in

18:19

energetic and determined policing. I

18:22

absolutely believe that you must deal not

18:24

just with the worst crimes, but with antisocial

18:26

behavior. You have a right to live in peace.

18:29

But once you've caught the bad guys,

18:32

once they're incarcerated, you have a duty

18:35

to try to prevent them offending again.

18:38

And in many cases, these guys are

18:40

people who've done bad things, but

18:42

they're not inherently bad and

18:44

unredeemable. So you don't excuse

18:47

the actions, but you do look for

18:49

what Winston Churchill called the treasure in the heart of every

18:51

man. You do try to find

18:54

out how it is that they can be reformed.

18:56

Now, for some people, that

18:59

won't happen. But I think

19:01

the overwhelming majority of people who do end up in the criminal

19:03

justice system are capable of being redeemed.

19:06

Just a fortnight ago, there's a president of my

19:08

constituency, Alex Chalk, the current justice

19:10

secretary came with me to talk to a group

19:12

of people who'd done pretty horrific things when

19:14

they were younger. They were now thoughtful and

19:17

reflective. Again, I can't see

19:19

into their hearts, but you can

19:21

see how the right sort of prison treatment with

19:24

education and work and

19:27

hope can turn lives around so

19:29

that individuals who brought misery to others can

19:32

actually be an asset. We're hearing in this conversation

19:34

the kind of passion, the energy that

19:37

you bring to jobs, one of the reasons that you

19:39

have survived in so many cabinets for

19:42

so long. I want to

19:44

take you back even before the conservatives

19:47

got into power in 2010, when you and your friend

19:51

David Cameron were talking about how

19:53

to get into power, how to change the Tory

19:55

Party. He talked about modernising,

19:57

he talked about detoxifying.

20:00

the Tory brand, when you look around

20:03

at the state of politics

20:05

now, do

20:07

you wonder at the dramatic

20:10

change to a much more toxified

20:14

political system? Well then,

20:16

there was then. I think the critical

20:18

thing is 2008 and the financial crash. I

20:23

think for a variety of reasons that and

20:25

some other incidents that followed it like the

20:28

expenses crisis and so on. You're

20:31

not saying Brexit and I know people shouting at the radio

20:33

to say Brexit. Oh no, I think the thing is that Brexit

20:36

followed on from the profound

20:39

upheavals that the events

20:41

of 2008 brought about. The

20:46

first phase of David Cameron's leadership was

20:49

about optimism, let's on try and rule the day. Then

20:53

in the period following 2008 before 2010, we recognized that we needed to prepare

20:59

the country for some tough times,

21:02

what became known as austerity. It

21:04

was also the case and then

21:06

that was,

21:07

I would argue, I think most people fairly would argue,

21:10

a consequence of what happened in 2008. You can

21:12

argue of course about whether or not our approach was right.

21:14

Everyone recognized that there needed

21:17

to be changed there. Subsequent to that, yes,

21:19

you're right. There'd been a number of wrenching political

21:21

events, which I think often have their roots in that

21:23

period, including Brexit, including

21:27

the lockdown and the huge

21:30

costs that imposed on society, which

21:33

have had an impact. There's

21:35

something else as well. It's wrong for politicians

21:37

to blame the media, but social

21:39

media has

21:42

meant that we're in a situation a bit like

21:45

the first couple of decades of

21:47

the 18th century when you had an explosion

21:49

and pamphleteering and printing, you had a

21:52

period where you had what was called the rage

21:55

of party. It's

21:57

not historically unprecedented when

21:59

you have a... a big media change and wrenching

22:02

political change to have a slightly

22:04

more, what's the word, heated

22:09

political culture. Toxic, many people say.

22:12

So it's the economy's stupid, partly.

22:14

It's social media's stupid, partly.

22:17

It may be about the end of American hegemony,

22:20

which is leading to more conflict around

22:22

the world, which brings us to where

22:25

we find ourselves now. Many

22:28

people see this terrible conflict in the Middle

22:30

East, which is breaking so many hearts

22:33

back at home as part

22:35

of that dramatic global

22:37

change. Do

22:40

you feel as community-second

22:42

comfortable when the Home Secretary

22:44

labels thousands who are worried about what's happening

22:47

in Gaza as hate marches? Well,

22:49

I think, as you know, the

22:52

whole question of extremism is one that I've taken an interest

22:54

in even before I became a member of parliament. And I

22:57

wrote a book, which in itself is quite controversial at

22:59

the time, about this. The

23:02

Home Secretary is right to draw attention to the fact that anti-Semitism,

23:07

the oldest hatred, which as

23:10

John the sex reminded us, mutates

23:12

over time, has a hold

23:15

on parts

23:17

of society in a way

23:19

that, as we can now see, has

23:22

meant that people in the Jewish community feel more

23:24

exposed, more at risk, more

23:27

concerned than at any time since the

23:29

aftermath of the Second World War. So it is a profound

23:32

cause of concern. And anti-Semitism

23:35

is a form of hate. Now,

23:38

it requires care, I think, and

23:40

thought in recognizing the distinction

23:43

between a perfectly legitimate

23:46

criticism of Israel and its

23:48

government. And then when that criticism,

23:50

and there are very thoughtful and scholarly

23:53

analyses of how you draw that distinction, when

23:55

that criticism moves into something

23:57

that is anti-Semitic, and when you're talking about Israel.

24:00

As the world's only Jewish state you

24:02

are using anti-Semitic tropes and and

24:05

arguments So I think the homosexual was right to not

24:07

answer the fact that there were people have been

24:10

people on those marches Who have

24:12

said hateful things? It's also

24:14

the case and I don't think this is facile balance. It's

24:16

true it is also the case that

24:19

there are people who have historically

24:22

been attached to the plight of the Palestinian

24:24

people and Nobody can

24:26

feel indifferent to a civilian

24:29

death. So they're not all hate marches. Well

24:31

again I'll

24:33

take that as a no. I know I think I think I think the key

24:36

thing is that And

24:40

this is a related thing I

24:42

can't know the motivation of every individual who's going on the

24:44

on those marches But there are some people

24:46

on those marches who are undoubtedly saying

24:51

hateful things so my advice to

24:53

anyone would be you know

24:57

These marches are not the best way of

25:00

making sure that we can move

25:02

towards peace and deal effectively

25:04

with hate you mentioned a book you wrote. Yes

25:07

in the aftermath of 7-7

25:09

the terrible terrorist attacks in

25:11

London bombs on the London Underground

25:14

bombs on a bus You

25:16

wrote then nowhere has moral clarity

25:18

been more lacking in British state policy

25:21

over the last 10 to 15 years Than

25:23

in our approach to the Islamist

25:26

threat. Yes what others may prefer the

25:28

phrase is like extremism hmm to

25:30

Islamist Is that

25:32

still true? I? Think

25:35

it is an area where we haven't done as we should I

25:37

should say that the Prime

25:39

Minister who articulated They

25:41

scale the problem best was

25:43

David Cameron. That's not to say that other prime

25:45

ministers haven't also felt the need to

25:47

act appropriately against

25:50

this danger one of the particular

25:53

Concerns that I have and indeed the way

25:55

in which you phrase the question very wisely

25:58

reflects this is that people

26:00

that are confused by certain

26:02

terms.

26:03

Islamism is not Islam.

26:06

Islamism is a particular

26:08

ideology and its relation to Islam is

26:10

the relation of Marxism to socialism or

26:13

fascism to patriotism. It

26:16

takes a particular

26:18

set of principles and turns them in

26:20

to a totalitarian ideology. And

26:23

you can see that there are thinkers, Saikatub,

26:25

Hassan Al-Bana, Maldudi, who

26:28

are the godparents

26:32

of this ideology. My book was

26:34

an attempt to explain that and I think it has

26:36

been the case, notwithstanding the

26:38

very good efforts of very many ministers that

26:41

there is still more that we need to do in

26:44

order to give comfort to and

26:46

to support the

26:49

overwhelming majority of British Muslims to recognise

26:51

that Islam is a force for good

26:54

and at the same time to

26:56

look at what the

26:58

nature of the extremist

27:01

narrative is and how it

27:03

is conveyed and how people are radicalised. The

27:06

point of your book, I think, let's stress it was

27:08

written a very long time ago now, was

27:10

that institutions have allowed themselves

27:13

to be captured by

27:16

a sort of thinking that means they don't confront

27:18

Islamic extremism. Is that true now

27:20

of the police? No, I

27:22

think the police have a very good understanding

27:25

of some of these challenges. I think that that understanding

27:28

doesn't exist across politics, but

27:34

I know that there are people in the police service

27:36

who have a very keen

27:39

understanding of it. And in fact, when

27:42

I was Education Secretary, there

27:45

was a very distinguished Met Officer, Peter Clark,

27:47

who I worked with in order to deal with

27:49

the threat of Islamism. In Birmingham,

27:52

and I think that the knowledge

27:54

of those who operate in the counter-terrorism

27:57

area and in other community-facing

27:59

areas, areas in the police is excellent. You

28:02

know the reason I ask you. We're doing this

28:04

interview on a day when the Home Secretary has

28:06

invited huge criticism, even

28:09

it seems from 10 Downing Street, for an article that

28:11

she's written in the Times in which

28:14

she accuses the

28:16

police, in particular the Metropolitan Police, of

28:19

having a double standard when it comes

28:21

to protest. Being tough on

28:23

what she calls right-wingers and nationalists

28:26

and football hooligans, and

28:28

not being tough at all when people who promote

28:30

hate, anti-Jewish hate

28:33

in particular, does she speak

28:35

for the government? Does she speak for you? I'm a friend

28:38

of mine and one of the

28:42

things I know is that being a Home Secretary, having

28:44

seen a number of other friends do the job, is

28:46

a tough and pressurized job. I would

28:49

not want to second-guess a ministerial colleague

28:52

who's in that tough position. But

28:54

do you agree with her? Well again, I

28:58

would not want to interpolate myself

29:01

into that conversation. I'm

29:04

not going to criticize Suella because it's a really

29:06

tough

29:07

job. There's

29:08

a lot weighing and

29:10

I know I've seen up close Suella working

29:13

incredibly hard and also incredibly

29:15

constructively with

29:17

the police in order to deal with these

29:19

challenges. And Suella, like

29:21

me and like many others, is deeply concerned

29:24

about what may happen if a

29:28

march goes ahead on Armistice Day and the

29:31

police feel

29:35

that they can and you know they

29:37

are operationally independent, they conduct

29:39

an assessment of the security, they feel that it can

29:42

go ahead, we have to respect

29:45

the professional judgment of the police. But the

29:47

fear is what just before we move on? Well

29:49

I think again I don't want

29:51

to put ideas into anyone's head but there

29:54

are certainly there are public order questions

29:57

that are raised by this

29:59

March. And it would

30:01

be wrong for me to go into sort of operational detail But

30:04

crudely there's a fear that there'll be

30:06

people who go to the streets thinking they're British Patriots

30:08

and they want to take on others who see themselves of

30:10

supporting the people in Gaza There's been a

30:12

lot of reporting about some of the risks. I

30:14

don't want to add to the speculation but

30:17

as community secretary How

30:20

anxious are you? about

30:23

the fear that you say British

30:25

Jews have and Also

30:28

the deep trauma that

30:30

many British Muslims are going through well profoundly

30:33

Um a little while ago. There was a very

30:35

moving speech in the House of Lords by my friend

30:37

David Wilson very distinguished lawyer And

30:39

he was talking about his daughter Who

30:41

felt that she couldn't go into?

30:43

London

30:44

on a Saturday night to see her friends because

30:48

of the atmosphere the intimidating atmosphere

30:50

as a young Jewish woman as a young Jewish woman and

30:53

And

30:54

Her experience is the experience of almost

30:56

everyone that I've talked to within the Jewish community

30:59

fear

31:00

The sense that there are parts of our major cities that

31:02

are no-go zones There are Jewish

31:04

students in all safe one or two universities

31:06

who feel that they have to conceal every aspect of their identity

31:09

to avoid Prejudice and intimidation

31:12

the rise and anti-semitic hate instance

31:14

has been unprecedented and phenomenal It

31:16

is also the case and you are quite right that

31:19

there are some people um Probably

31:22

mostly associated with the extreme nationalist

31:25

right Who are also?

31:29

Engaging in anti-muslim hatred

31:31

as well and we've seen a spike in instance there And

31:33

it is also the case that within Britain's

31:36

Muslim communities. I think it's important

31:38

to think about it in plural terms Um,

31:41

there is a natural sympathy for what's

31:43

happening in Palestine, but also

31:46

um

31:48

They're British citizens. What they

31:50

want to see is a healthy

31:52

plural British society And

31:55

again, I think it's critically important that while

31:57

all of us maybe because of diaspora

31:59

background connections might have

32:02

affections for or an interest in other

32:04

parts of the world and our hearts might

32:06

go out when we see tragedies being enacted

32:09

there. The other thing is we're

32:11

British citizens and we should be thinking about

32:13

how we can make sure that Britain is a safe

32:15

and a warm home for everyone and at

32:17

the moment the people who are most

32:20

fearful are a Jewish community and it is

32:22

an ironclad rule of history

32:25

that if a Jewish community

32:27

feels unsafe that that

32:29

is a warning sign to a

32:31

country like nothing else. There

32:35

is a lot on your plate at the moment housing

32:37

reforms you've talked in communities

32:39

about what you're trying to do about anti-Jewish

32:42

hatred there's also a book

32:44

out called the plot oh yes have

32:46

you read Nadine Dorris's book? I

32:49

haven't yet no. When

32:51

it came to behind the scenes manipulating

32:54

and maneuvering all roads lead back to

32:56

Michael Gove writes your former

32:58

cabinet colleague because he binds

33:01

all the dark arts people together

33:05

It makes me sound a bit like

33:07

Severus Snape. No, Nadine was a

33:17

town minister as health minister during the pandemic

33:20

she's a great job as culture secretary she was one

33:22

of the people most committed to leveling up there's

33:24

a butt coming no and and therefore

33:28

she's

33:29

got every right now

33:31

to

33:32

to speak her mind and

33:35

I haven't yet read the book and so I won't pass

33:37

comment on it until you actually said she

33:39

was a great fiction writer because she is

33:42

well known other than to people

33:44

who heard her on this political broadcast

33:46

a best-selling author I think she's still three million books

33:48

yeah no no she I won't pass

33:50

comment on the book it's fiction I won't

33:52

put on the book until I read

33:55

it I may not even after that all

33:57

I would say is yeah that Brexit,

36:01

education reforms, and Boris

36:03

Johnson. So let me not disappoint. I'm

36:06

saying, when you told the country it wasn't fit

36:08

to be Prime Minister in 2016 because you cannot

36:11

provide the leadership or build the team for

36:13

the task ahead, do you think you've been

36:15

proved spectacularly right? I

36:17

think I'll leave it to historians to form

36:19

a judgement. The truth is, I

36:22

liked working with and

36:24

for Boris. Of

36:27

course he's a polarizing character

36:29

in terms of political conversation now. I

36:32

prefer to think of the good that he did,

36:35

his personal warmth and generosity, and

36:37

also the fact that on

36:39

Covid in general, and the vaccine in particular,

36:42

in response to aggression in Ukraine, he

36:44

had a drive and a passion to

36:47

do the right thing. He had flaws,

36:49

but overall, I think that an

36:53

attempt to either paint

36:56

Boris as somehow irredeemably

36:59

bad, or to elevate

37:01

him to martyr

37:03

status doesn't do justice to the complexity of politics. The

37:06

puzzle, and it's the only puzzle that I want to

37:08

put to you, is this. That

37:13

Sarah Vine, who was your wife, well-known

37:15

Daily Mail columnist, wrote that

37:18

you at the time praised

37:20

the way Boris Johnson was handling the

37:22

Covid crisis. Rigorous, decisive, on

37:24

top of his brief, says Gove apparently

37:27

at the time. And she would

37:29

have known more than anybody that he'd been privately

37:31

sometimes highly critical of Boris Johnson. Yet

37:34

what we're hearing at the Covid inquiry

37:36

is civil servant of

37:38

a civil servant, adviser after adviser,

37:41

describing in the most brutal

37:43

terms as indecisive.

37:47

I'm about to use it, and I think I will use the word mad,

37:50

suggesting that he should inject himself with

37:52

Covid live on television. How

37:55

is your description of him consistent

37:58

with what we hear? Well, I'll have a chance. evidence

38:00

to the Covid inquiry in due course, already

38:03

given some evidence about some things. And

38:05

you'll stick to that view. Oh yeah, yeah. Boris' style

38:08

of government, style of operating

38:11

is very, very different from most people's. He will

38:14

rehearse

38:15

different signs of an argument before coming down

38:17

on one side. That's the way he does things. So

38:20

in other words, forgive me for interrupting, but the famous two

38:22

columns, the leave and remain king, this

38:24

is a modus operandi. It wasn't that he couldn't make his

38:26

mind up on Brexit. No, no, absolutely.

38:28

That is what he does. And thesis

38:31

and antithesis.

38:34

And also Boris will

38:37

sometimes say things in

38:39

the heat of the moment, which are expostulations

38:42

of an extreme position, which

38:45

are there in a way

38:48

to hold up to the like the logic

38:50

of a particular thing and then say, no, that's preposterous or

38:52

that's ridiculous and so on. And

38:56

it's difficult. To do justice

38:58

to it because you can take in abstract

39:01

a throwaway phrase here or

39:03

a mad idea

39:06

there and say that defines the man.

39:09

Actually, he was a Catherine

39:11

wheel

39:12

and sparks

39:14

through.

39:15

But it was also the case that

39:18

I saw him. The vaccine

39:22

task force would not have been created without him. We would not

39:24

have had the fastest rollout without his

39:26

leadership. I do believe

39:29

that at the very early stages of the pandemic,

39:32

you know, we'll have the opportunity to look at

39:34

it in the inquiry. A number

39:36

of things went wrong.

39:37

But

39:39

I think that after and

39:41

we collectively as a government didn't

39:43

rise to the equation quickly enough.

39:46

But after that, I do think that

39:48

he showed, you know, formidable

39:50

qualities. How painful is all

39:53

this personally? Boris Johnson, you

39:56

fell out with spectacularly when you said he shouldn't run

39:58

for leader and ran against him. him. You're

40:01

then in his cabinet, you're then the one who goes

40:04

to see him and says, it's

40:06

over. How painful

40:08

is a conversation like that? All

40:12

of the

40:15

conversations you have in politics when they

40:18

touch closely on

40:21

friendships, on the collegiate, on the personal

40:24

are difficult.

40:26

But you shouldn't ask for sympathy because

40:29

nobody forces you to go into politics. We're

40:32

all volunteers, not conscripts. And also

40:34

in politics, you sometimes, you know,

40:37

a prime minister, good

40:39

thing probably for the country that I've never been one, but a prime

40:41

minister sometimes has to harden their heart and say

40:43

to a friend, I'm afraid I'm going

40:45

to have to let you go from government. And

40:48

the prime minister might have

40:50

regard and affection for that individual. But what

40:53

they've got to do is to think, as long as I'm

40:55

doing this job, what's in the best interest of the

40:57

country? But you've had to do it more than once with Boris Johnson,

40:59

you fell out of spectacular with David Cameron because

41:02

you disagreed with him about whether Britain's future was

41:05

in the EU. As you take

41:07

a chance to reflect over

41:10

these 13 years and more, do you

41:13

sometimes worry that the personal price paid by

41:15

friends, by family is just too high

41:17

for politics? Yeah, I

41:19

think it is a very high price. But again, I'd

41:22

say two things. The first is

41:25

I am not asking

41:27

for and don't deserve anyone's sympathy. I

41:30

must take responsibility for all of my decisions.

41:32

The second thing though is even

41:37

as individuals take decisions about what they think is in the countries

41:40

or the national interest,

41:45

politicians are human beings. So

41:48

it's not about me, but I think about others

41:51

who've been through the mill. And I think

41:53

in particular about the unsympathetic

41:57

and monsored abuse that is sometimes hurled at

41:59

people. I don't want to think back to the time when I was a

42:01

journalist, when I was doing a bit of abuse-hurling myself.

42:04

And I think, yeah,

42:06

vigorous debate is a really good thing. But

42:09

sometimes, just sometimes, you should think about

42:11

the human being behind it. And do

42:13

you have moments, manipulative they call you,

42:15

manoeuvring and jackal and hide? And, you know,

42:17

it's often said behind this great courtesy

42:19

and civilised conversation, public is

42:22

this schema. I

42:24

mean, do you have moments, you know, bottle

42:26

of whiskey at home, where you think, what

42:29

is it about me? Why do I alienate

42:32

people in the way that I appear to do? My

42:34

friends and those who've worked with me know

42:37

who I am,

42:38

and that's enough.

42:40

And knowing who you are, they

42:42

may wonder what you will do after politics.

42:45

And there's a chance that that will come relatively

42:48

soon if the electorate decides that way, or indeed

42:50

if you do. Now, we

42:52

all enjoyed seeing the

42:54

video of Michael Gove dancing on a nightclub

42:57

floor in Aberdeen. So does

42:59

Strictly beckon? I

43:02

don't think

43:04

that I could ever come close to emulating

43:07

Christian Guru Murthy or Ed Balls or any of the

43:10

other top Strictly stars. So, no.

43:13

So not Strictly. Now, it was always said, because you

43:15

got to quite a high level in the times that

43:17

you might be editor of the times, but I think I've

43:19

just spotted your next opportunity, given that you were

43:21

meeting with Paul Marshall, the next potential

43:24

owner of the Telegraph, editor of the Telegraph Appeal.

43:27

No. The Telegraph is a very

43:30

good editor at the moment. I'm very

43:32

keen to carry on as a

43:34

minister for as long as she'll have me and to carry

43:36

on as an MP as long as the people in Surrey

43:38

Heath will have me. That's what

43:41

it says on the sheet. Final question,

43:43

then. People who

43:45

served almost as long as you in

43:48

senior ministerial posts, in Margaret Thatcher's governments,

43:51

in Tony Blair's governments, I

43:53

think could say they changed

43:55

Britain for good. I don't

43:58

mean good in the sense of... People

44:00

would judge that, but they changed

44:02

it forever. Can

44:05

you, despite all this turbulence,

44:07

despite all this political upheaval

44:10

and change, can

44:12

you look in the mirror and think, yeah,

44:15

we did a bit of that despite all that mess? Yes,

44:19

and I think that the

44:21

reforms that we made to education, it was a collective

44:24

effort, and the changes

44:26

that we made at DEFRA, and I hope some

44:28

of what we're doing on housing now will endure.

44:31

Michael Gove,

44:32

thank you for joining me on Political Thinking. Thank

44:34

you, Nick, thank you.

44:36

Love or loathe,

44:38

Michael Gove, you simply can't

44:40

ignore them if you're interested in bringing

44:42

about political change, in

44:45

working out how politicians

44:47

can make the Whitehall machine work

44:49

to produce the change that they believe

44:52

in. I wouldn't be surprised if quite

44:54

a few academics want to study what

44:56

worked and what didn't for

44:58

Gove, and if they do write

45:00

a book about that, I suspect

45:03

that those who dream of being in power

45:05

under a Labour government

45:07

will be studied mighty carefully.

45:09

Thanks for listening to this edition of Political

45:11

Thinking. The producer is

45:13

Daniel Kramer, the editor

45:16

is Jonathan Brunert, and the studio

45:18

manager for this programme, and

45:21

indeed for almost every year I've been

45:23

at the BBC, he's been here

45:25

for 38 of them, and this is his last

45:28

programme, is Richard Townsend,

45:31

who's one of those people who remind you it's

45:34

not the gobs in front of the microphone

45:37

that always make a difference.

45:39

It's the people who make these

45:41

programmes sing. Richard,

45:44

thank you.

45:45

And if I may, at the

45:48

end of one podcast, give a little

45:50

plug to another. Try the

45:52

new Today podcast. Amal

45:55

Rajan and me reflecting

45:58

on the week's news.

45:59

This week,

46:01

look here at Suella Braviman

46:03

and her battle with the police, with

46:06

a former senior police

46:08

officer.

46:13

Hi, I'm Sean Keveny and I'm back

46:15

with a new series of Your Place or Mine

46:17

from BBC Radio 4, the travel

46:20

show that's going nowhere. I'm

46:23

a cop at Hornburg, me. For each show, he sees

46:26

another remarkable guest try to persuade

46:28

me off my sofa and into the big white

46:30

world. It is warm, it

46:32

is warm but you just don't wear

46:35

a lot of clothes and you just find a banana tree that's

46:37

wafting. Happy days.

46:39

But will I make it out of the front door? Lots

46:42

of smiles from people.

46:44

I don't know if you're against that. Find

46:47

out by listening to Your Place or Mine with Sean

46:49

Keveny on BBC Signs.