The Dispatch Podcast - Boris Johnson on U.K. Grooming Gangs and 'Performative Buffoonery'

Episode Date: January 14, 2025

Jamie Weinstein is joined by former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson to discuss his relationship with Donald Trump, the U.K. "grooming gangs," and his new book, Unleashed. The Agenda: —Jeremy Vine: My Boris Johnson Story —Comparing Reagan and Trump —Johnson’s relationship with Trump —Elon Musk and the U.K. —The U.K. grooming gangs —“Superpower of soft power” —Johnson’s alleged deal with Ukraine and Russia —Putin and Zelensky —Johnson on Queen Elizabeth II —Leaders Johnson admires The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. www.ca.com. Did you lock the front door? Check.

Close the garage door? Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts, a secure VPN for a private connection and continuous monitoring for our personal info on the dark web. Uh, I'm looking into it.

Stress less about security. Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit TELUS.com. Total Security to learn more. Conditions apply. Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, author of the new book Unleashed.

We get into all the subjects that you would hope we get into in this hour-long podcast, including questions about the grooming gangs, rape gangs, I would call them in the UK, his time as Prime Minister, Ukraine, foreign policy, and everything in between, including his relationship with Donald Trump. I am recording this as an evacuee from the fires in Los Angeles. Fortunately, I'm fine and my family is fine and just out of safety, but I'm recording it from a hotel room. So if you're watching on YouTube, you might see a different setting.

We also went over a little bit of our allotted time. So last two questions, you might notice, I say I'm going to ask a couple more. Those are cut off when his son comes into the room and tells him it's time to read him a book. And that is very understandable and our fault for going a little over time. but I think you're going to really enjoy this episode. So without further ado, I give you former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. Jamie, it's a great honor to be on your show.

Thank you very much for having me. Even though I went to grad school in London, I actually'm not sure the convention. Is it okay if I did? call you, Mr. Prime Minister. I know in Britain, we have no such honorifics after after we leave office. We're just, we're toenails were the detritus of history. And we don't, we don't, nobody retains their titles. It's a, it's a, it's a, and I think it's quite a weird thing. It's good America, you know, even mayors now who seem to retain their titles after they leave office and,

you know, municipal dog catchers and, you know, it's wonderful. Now, I, I'm, I'm just, uh, but just, call me Boris is fine. Well, I'll try to do that. It's hard for me to do that, considering you a prime minister, but Boris, I want to begin with, I think a topic that I know in other profiles you hate to talk about it. And it's the, the man versus the performative aspect of your character, uh, of your political life. And I want to begin because this is, I'm so excited to bring up this story that, my favorite

story that I read about you that I have never seen you comment on. And I want to know if it gives a lens into the man versus the character. There's a man I'm not familiar with. I think you are named Jeremy Vine at The Spectator. So he wrote, though, an article, Boris, in The Spectator. And it talks about a speech that you and him had together. You were both on a platform for some organization. And you come in three minutes late. He says you come to him and go, what is this event about? It looks like you have no idea what the event is about. You go on, you kind of drop the, take the menu on the back of the menu, write down some notes, go on stage. Even though he told you what the event conference name was,

you act like you don't know what it is still, you had to look and say it was. He says he spoke as if every sentence had only just occurred to him and a new thought came with a surprise. He said the audience loved it. He was totally impressed. Then you brought up a story I never heard of, but it's supposedly famous in Britain of a gentleman named George Brown. And there's three elements of this story. You tell the first one. You tell the second one. And then you get to the third one, the punchline, and all of a sudden you forget it. But the crowd loves it. He couldn't believe it. You know, they just loved it. And he thought this is a great politician. No one can do this. This is amazing. Then he tells a story. 18 months later, he's slated to speak with you at a conference

again. You throw up three minutes before the conference is supposed to speak. You ask, what is this conference about? You go on stage. You don't remember the name. You tell the story about George Brown. You tell the first one. You tell the second one. And you forget the third one again. And the conference loves it. He concludes. He concludes, I realize that those two Boris speeches had mainly posed the fundamental question, the one that concerns most when you listen to about a politician, is this guy for real? Tell me about that story, Boris. Tell me, is this kind of the performative aspect of your job that you know what turns people on and gets them excited? No, I think it's, I think it tragically is just a function of giving

loads of speeches. It's a bit like your tutor at university or, you know, one of your favorite lectures, you know, you sometimes you listen to them and you, and you, and you, and you, and you, or you, you ask them a question and they just go to a whatever their, uh, their favorite anecdote is. And they will, they will always kind of, uh, trip up in the middle and come and make the same, uh, make the same mistakes. I think it's just, it's just the way that the brain is wired. I think, I think it's possible. I mean, I'll tell you the Lord George Brown story, right, if you really want to do, it's a very, it's a very, it's a very, it's a very, it's a very as UK politician. He was foreign secretary. He got drunk a lot. And he, one time he pitched up at a

sororé in a, in a, I think it was, it was in Peru. And he, the band strikes up. This is the story anyway. Lord George Brown spies across the room a creature clad in gorgeous, sinuous scarlet and drunk that he may be. He sachets across the room. and says, Madam Meyer, the honor of this waltz, to which the apparition replies, kind of the three reasons why I can't succeed to your request. The first is that you are drunk. The second, this is not a waltz, but the Peruvian National Anthem. And the third is an eye on the Cardinal Warch Bishop of Lima.

And this story always, this good story never fails to succeed. Containing as it does, the essential elements of great comedy, drag, gender, religion, and drunk politicians. So it's got everything in it. I guess I got used to telling that story. You can't get away with it anymore. I did tell it once, actually, I told it in, I told it once in Lima, Peru, funnily enough. Wait, wait, it didn't go down particularly well.

But I think the answer to your question is that it's a good gag. And probably what Jeremy Vine heard was me robotically repeating, you know, a performance that had worked well before. But I'm afraid to say, and this is the really terrifying fact, you could probably hear, you're repeating the, over the years in which I made

a virtually identical speech to dozens and dozens of audiences, you'd probably could have heard that gag many, many times, but that's the way of these things. One profile wrote about you, you know, when controversy engulfed him, he emerged unscathed,

in part because of, you know, what some people have called, maybe not nicely performative buffoonery, but the performative aspect is because you were a top student at Eaton. You were at Oxford. And that you, you, the suggestion is that you have this persona that allows you to, you know, look like you're just walksing through and not knowing what you're doing that allows controversy to roll off your shoulder

when it's actually an app. Is that a fair assessment? Of course it's an act, but the key thing is, I mean, everything, we're all, you know, all the world's a stage, right? We're all, you know, we're all trying to get over our message, what's in our heart in the most effective way possible. And I find that the best way to do that is to try to sugar the pill, to leaven the loaf. You've got to keep people amused. I absolutely defend that approach.

And so in the book that I've written, Unleashed, I mean, some people have attacked it, having too many jokes, but you know, you've got to keep, but it's sold a lot of copies. And that's because you've got to keep people reading and you've got to keep people's attention to. And when you're trying to get over some complicated ideas, you've got to have absolutely no embarrassment about using gags, using jokes just to keep people listening. It is, it is by far the most effective tool. Look at Ronald Reagan. Look at some old footage of Ronald Reagan. He's very unlike, I mean, He's like Trump in the sense that, you know, he tries to keep his audience amused. But Ronald Reagan actually tells jokes.

I mean, joke after joke. And I think there's a didactic merit in that. You know, if you want to keep people listening, it's your duty. It's your duty as a politician to try to entertain them as well. And I highly recommend Unleashed. I read the whole thing and we'll get to some more details of the book in a moment.

I think I didn't have a copy to waver that are about viewers but I must have one somewhere. I've seen you reject the comparison to and I think it's right to reject it that you are the British Donald Trump but let me ask you what would you make of the comparison

that you are British Trump meets Newt Gingrich kind of a combination of those two figures in the American scene. Look, I think that I come from a a standpoint. I'm basically a, you know, a libertarian, conservative. I want lower tax. But the thing that

drives me is a frustration about our country at the moment, about the UK. And I think it's got enormous potential. And I think individuals in the UK are got enormous potential. And what I'm trying to say in Unleashed, it's, I'm really trying to get over a message about what we need to do to unleash the potential of the whole of the UK, that's to say, you know, cities, towns, communities across all of the UK, which are not as productive as London and the South East, which could be. And also by unleashing the potential of the UK globally and Brexit's a part of that, that solution. And this is born of just observing other countries. The United States of America is going gangbusters at the moment by comparison with, with,

with Europe, suddenly with the UK. And it has an extraordinary richness and strength across so many of its states. And virtually every state in the USA has a dynamic tech sector, a great university. Do you know what I mean? I mean, it's just got, it's all happening everywhere. And in the UK, for decades and decades and decades after the Second World War, we allowed the wealth and the productivity to be concentrated in London and the Southeast. And actually, we're much more in balance than most other European economies, France, Germany, Italy, their great provincial cities tend to be far more productive

than the second-deer cities of the UK. And so what gets me, and I found as mayor of London, I had great success in getting the whole city to become more prosperous and leveling up, right? So socialists level down, okay? Socialists, the Labour government that's in now, they level debt, they chop off tall poppies, they're Pol Pot, literally, they're happy, they put a 20% tax on education. Well, the only country in Europe now to have a tax, by putting VAT value add a tax on education,

on private education. And, you know, our viewers may not know this, but in England now, in the UK, schools, good schools are closing because of tax put on them by the government. And, you know, of course, you're not going to get any tax yield from a school that's closed, right? The kids that were at that school are going to be educated at the charge of the taxpayer at state schools now. So it's economically stupid, but it's basically driven by resentment of private enterprises, the private sector of private education, and that's what I call, and of the achievements of private schools. And it's driven by chippiness and resentment. And that is leveling down. That's what

socialists do, right? What I want to do and what I believe the country should be, what our country should be doing, is leveling up, giving spreading opportunity everywhere, because there is talent everywhere, right? There is genius everywhere and every part of the UK. And so the mission of politicians in my view is to is to give the opportunities to people throughout the UK. So that's that's the story of the book. That's what that's what Unleashed is is largely about. And you write a lot about leveling up in the book, Unleashed, but you also talk about Donald Trump, who you served with while he was president and you were prime minister. I wonder if you've talked to him since the election and talked about perhaps getting his support.

for another run for prime minister oh well no no look i mean i i certainly talked to him a few times and i i'm i'm very very friendly with with don't trump and you know i got a lot of respect for um what he's what he's doing and frankly i'm i'm kind of a bit of an outlier in in european politics in the sense that i i kind of view his election with um the stirrings of optimism you know i think come on i think there are some things here that can be unblocked. You know, you look at what's happening in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, I think that's, that's just I think I look back at, at, at his time in in, in government when I was foreign secretary and then when I was prime minister, you know, he, he, he was much, much better on a lot of the

key dossiers than the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, he was He was good on Ukraine, actually. He gave the Ukrainians' weapons. He gave them the javelin-launched missiles. He was good on Iran. He was good on Syria. And he was good on the economy. So, you know, I'm positive.

And, you know, I hope to be coming to the inauguration in a few days' time and to see him in person. What do you talk to him about post-election? Does he ask you for advice on foreign policy? What is usually the conversations about? I think probably I ought to respect the privacy of the conversations and not to go into the details. But, you know, I'm sure it's pretty predictable stuff. We can congratulate him, obviously, on his outstanding success.

And I think that, let's face it, a lot of people spend a lot of time and effort trying to prevent him. for even getting on the ballot, right? You know, a lot of that lawfare was about trying to stop him getting on the ballot. And I think what they failed to see all those lefties who were doing that was they were really behaving in the same way as autocrats and tyrants around the world who's trying to stop their, you know, who use bogus legal processes to jail their opponents or keep them from standing for election, right? There are plenty of African countries, plenty of countries in Latin America, around the world, where that kind of thing happens. And in those countries, we say it's despicable and wrong. And yet somehow, you know, the liberal organs of opinion asked us to believe that, you know, it was all, you know, magnificent and above board. I think a lot of these cases were wholly vexatious and actually helped propel him back to power.

Maybe It's Mabelene is such an iconic piece of music. Hit the track. Everyone in the studio that I worked on this jingle with all had like childhood stories or memories. Yeah, we're around either watching these commercials on TV or sitting with our moms while they were doing their makeup and it became really personal for us. Maybe it's Mabelene.

Maybe it's Mabelaine. This episode is brought to you by Mewmue Mew. Introducing Mutein, the new feminine fragrance by the iconic fashion house. Mutein captures the youthful, unconventional essence of the Miu Mewu girl, brought to life by a gourmand, intimate and enveloping scent of wild strawberry and brown sugar accords. Mutein is not a statement, but a knowing glance, a sweet rebellion, lighthearted and laced with wit, a gesture made for oneself, discover the new fragrance, Mutine, now available in Canada.

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style.

It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.

What do you make of what seems like a very serious proposal to at least negotiate Greenland to become part of the United States, potentially invade? He hasn't taken that off the table. What do you make it with that? I mean, look, I mean, sadly, I think it was a mistake. I would say this, too. I think that it would be a great mistake for the United States to consider using any kind of force against Greenland because Greenland is a member of NATO and it's not a member of the EU but it is a member of NATO and therefore were the United States were forced to be used to take Greenland then a state of of war would exist between the United States and the United Kingdom for the first time since, I don't know, 1812 or so. And that would not be an ideal situation. So I did.

If you were prime minister, would you, would you enact? I think it's, was it article five of NATO if the United States. I think everybody, everybody would. I mean, you know, it's just nuts. But it's not going to happen, right. So I don't think the president led that for a second. I don't think he meant to, I don't think he meant to say that the US would. And he doesn't need to.

I mean, the fascinating thing about what's really happening in Greenland is that the United States is already so very close to achieving its objectives anyway. And if you listen to what the Greenlanders are themselves saying, there are only 56,000 of them. And as far as I understand the matter, they welcome close relations with the United States. And, you know, far be it from me to suggest a course of action to Donald, but to the president, elect. you know, if with only 56,000 citizens of Greenland, it would be extremely cheap to, you know, if you gave each Greenlander a million dollars, right? You know, that, you'd have an absolute steal and you'd have one of the biggest purchases since Texas and, you know, and wholly, strategically and economically justified. So, you know, and you could also, you could write out a big check

for Denmark as well. I don't think they should be, that would be fine. Clearly they're saying no right now, but money talks. And what I'm trying to say here, James, I think this is something that is quite sensible to think about. At the very least, you could imagine a sort of condominium between Denmark and the United States, like Andorra or wherever. You could have some sort of joint rule. But, you know, the, you look at the map, look at what's happening to the world, look at the Arctic. I can see the logic of what the president is safe. Of course, it's for the Greenlanders to decide, and they should be able to decide. They decided to leave the EU, don't forget, right? In 1988, we're 87. I believe the EU. And, you know, there's a big

movement for independence in Greenland or quite a strong urge for independence. I think they may, they might well be incentivized by a couple of million bucks ahead. You know, or a million. I mean, that's not to be sneezed at if your agreement, they're living in Newark. One of our section of questions before we get deep into the book. It's because Elon Musk has been becoming kind of a major figure, I think, in British politics over the last few weeks. First, have you ever met Elon Musk? I've talked to him quite a lot. I've had some conversations with him, but I don't think we've met his brother Kimball, funny enough, when I was mayor of London, but I've never met Elon. I've talked to him, and we have a good, fredically relationship over electronic means. What do you make of retweets he's

been making in tweets about Pakistani grooming gangs, rape gangs, I would call them in London. How serious a problem is that? I think he's got every right to have his views. And I think there's a, you know, I think there's a certain amount of hysteria again in the, in the liberal media about this. You know, he reads stuff. He's appalled by it. And he's right. I mean, what happened with the Pakistani grooming gangs in so many times in the UK was appalled. You know, perhaps it does indeed deserve a deeper investigation. I mean, I think one of the interesting things is the particular, you know, news of the Oldham story, I think it was Oldham, was where a councillor, it all started off again recently because a counselor and Oldham said, you know, he would back the Labour council leaders there if they agreed to another inquiry, I think, into, into, the issue and that that's how it all it all got going again i mean this was i was primacy for three

three years or so and this was all very quiescent i don't mean it never came up when i was is it still going is it still going on this is the issue i i don't know but if it is then then it certainly deserves investigation and i think to your point uh Elon musk has every right to ventilate these issues, turn over the big flat rocks, see what's underneath. And you know, this is a very, very smart guy. I mean, you know, I do, I want to, I do not for the life of me understand how this guy has the bandwidth to solve complicated engineering problems to do with getting rockets into space and making electric vehicles, not catch fire, and, and, you know, understand the intricacies of British domestic politics as well. I mean, this guy, he must have a space, he's got a total

spacebrain. But why not? Why not? How does it harm our democracy? I think it's a compliment. I think it's a huge compliment to the little old U of K, to the little old us, that Elon, you know, orbiting the planet wherever he is, green lighting his gigantic deals for going to Mars, all the things he's thinking about. I think it's a huge compliment to the UK that he regards us and what happens in UK politics are so important. I happen to think that he is right. And if you listen to what Elon says, he says, well, the UK is important because it's the mother country of the whole Anglosphere and it's the origins, you know, whether our listeners in the United States country of my birth like this point or not, the UK, Britain was the intellectual progenitor of many of the

Anglo-Saxon ideas of freedom on which the United States. States is founded. It is the, it is the, we were the original colonial power after all. And, you know, we've left our mark around the world for good or real. And so Elon's point is, what happens in the UK matters to the world. And I think that's true. And I think it's, frankly, a good thing for Britain that you have somebody who is clearly a commercial genius, but also one of the greatest innovators of our time, taking the time and the trouble to focus on us. It's a compliment. But Boris, if this is, the reports are true, and I've seen numbers that are astounding if they're true. On the winning games. Yes. How did the UK come from a society that rule the world,

ruled every corner of the world to a society that is afraid to speak up against children being raped because they would be accused to being racist. Well, of course, the way we moved from being a society that ruled the world

to a society with this particular type of problem is, of course, that the empire brought its children home, as it were, and over the last century or more, you've particularly since the Second World War, you've seen quite very considerable immigration into the UK. And, you know, it's no particular secret that some communities have had different success,

different attitudes towards integration than others. And clearly, I mean, I'm not a great expert on this, as I say, didn't really come up during my time. The whole issue was quiescent. But clearly, there are, there has been, there are, and there may well still, be a culture by which males of Pakistani origin have a particularly brutal, racist, and disdainful attitude towards young white girls. But Boris, I'm asking more about British culture. Why is it now that they, according to these reports, we're afraid to speak up about

their children being raped because they would create discord in communities or be called racist. I mean, well, that's for said. I mean, if that is true, then that is what is, that is exactly what needs to come out. And I think the problem, the problem is that any, although there have been multiple inquiries about this, any, any attempt now to stop a big national inquiry into this will be read by people who's, you know, the parents, the families of the girls whose lives have been ruined by this will be read as an attempt to frustrate a legitimate investigation for precisely that reason, for reasons of political correctness, because you're worried about stereotyping certain immigrant groups or whatever. And that is the

That is the trap. So we obviously need to have this natural inquiry. What can I just to respond to what was written in the free press? I don't know if you're familiar with the free press in the U.S. It's becoming a very budding organization, started by Barry Weiss. Dominic Green, who I think writes for The Spectator, wrote in the free press on this subject. The conservatives were not much better talking about the inquiries into this. Speaking of you, he said in 2019, shortly before it became conservative leader and prime minister,

Boris Johnson, complained that money spent investigating historic. child abuse crimes, was money spaffed up a wall? Hang on, that's a, well, there's two takely different things. But let me just finish this end, so, because there's two parts of it. In 2020, Johnson's home office suppressed the Conservatives' own research on grooming gangs, releasing it, they said, was not in the national interest. Sorry, sorry, that's, that's total. So, you've got, whoever wrote that piece, I don't know what they're talking about.

Because when I said money was being spaffed up the wall on a historic child abuse investigate, or historic investigations into child abusers. That was a particular reference to an absolutely disastrous series of investigations into guys like Leon Britton, former Home Secretary, Dwin Bramall, former chief of the defense staff. There was a particular guy who made a series of allegations against members of the British establishment of one kind or not

the retired generals former politicians, people like that and what happened then was that the police and this goes to your point about the political bias adherent in the whole thing

what happened was that they latched because they hadn't really done enough on the grooming gangs and they were nervous about the racist implications have seemed to go too hard on our place. And suddenly, they had this guy who was pointing the finger at the great white defendant, pointing the finger at Leon Britain and Dwin

Brown, and these people of seemingly unimpeachable retitude. And the police piled in. And what you had was an officer from, I think, Thames Valley police said that the, These allegations were, I quote, credible and true. They were nothing of the kind. They were completely false. And the guy who made them up was proved to be a complete liar. And the guy who backed him in parliament, a guy called Labor MP called Tom Watson,

had to eat his words and apologize. The whole thing was absolutely disgusting and wrong. And that was what I was talking about. And of course, for reasons of political correctness, and in order to, you know, to create sort of false equivalence, it suited, it suited the, I think my gut is it suited the police to go after these old generals or what have you when there was no case against them, when what they should have been doing was probably rounding up these grooming gangs. So that was more right. That's the point out that's making you about don't spack more money up the wall on Leon Britain. Honestly, that guy, you know, he went to his grey, Leon Britain, with people thinking that he'd done things when he apt, when he had not, and there was not a shred of evidence against him. It was a complete disgrace. One last question on this, because many people on Twitter are seeing what Elon is tweeting in their feeds. Some of it are discovering these things for the first time. On one hand, we're seeing people who covered up grooming gangs or They didn't want to speak out. On the other hand, we're seeing people arrested in the UK for going on social media and saying something that's, you know, someone considers nasty under, I forget what law they have of the Section 127 of the Communications Act.

Isn't, you know, and they're baffled about the UK they loved and known, the Winston, the Churchill, I'm a Churchillite as well. I know you are, you wrote a book on it. They're baffled that this is what, what the UK is now. is this what in the UK is now where people are not speaking up against grooming gangs but getting arrested from making nasty posts on social media? I think that what happened was that a few people were certainly, you know, got some pretty heavy sentences just for saying some incautious things on Twitter. And there's a thing you can get, you can do now, I think called a non-crime hate

incident where if you say something on Twitter, and this happened to a journalist called Alison Pearson, she tweeted or retweeted something, some image from a anti-Israeli demonstration or something. The law came down very heavily on her, and the police came around to see her. And it is certainly true that people are being, you know, a lot of people have been imprisoned. for what they've said on Twitter or, you know, there have been more, you know, several, as far as I know, several people have been in prison for what they've said on Twitter.

And I think they are being too heavy-handed. And, you know, I wasn't in court to hear the cases. It's hard for me to judge. But, you know, there was one case of a mother who had no previous convictions for anything, who'd simply, you know, in a fit of rage, send something intemperate on Twitter. I don't think she had any previous record of insight or anything else like that.

And she bang, she went into prison, you know, even though she was a mother with children. And she deleted it almost immediately afterwards, right? And, you know, you've got, at the same time, you've got Stama letting out of prison, people who think of it did a very serious offences. And so, yeah, I can see why that people looking from abroad think what the hell is going on. And I can understand why they feel there's an imbalance. And I can understand why they think, you know, something's going on. And it does make it more difficult for people like me to argue that the UK's is a land of free expression and liberty when you have things like this.

And also, it makes it easier for people like Vladimir Putin or whoever to say, you know, to point the finger at us. say, too quopque, you know, you say that we lock up journalists, well, look at, look at what you do. Alison Pearson gets a knock on the door just for retweeting something. You say that we have no free speech in Russia. Look at what you do. And you said, you know, we're, we're sawing off the branch we're sitting on. We're shooting ourselves in the foot. And it's, the balance is wrong at the moment. But what I think, you know, one of the reasons I'm optimistic about the Trump presidency is that I think that the public is starting to turn against all this and I think that not just in the US but in the UK too

I think there's an impatience for you know a more robust honest approach and you know and an impatience with wokeery and an impatience with the cancel culture and we've shut people up the whole time and I think that's going to be a I mean, I made it wrong, but that's what I'm breaking. So that's a good and healthy thing. In the book, I was particularly fascinated by your foreign policy section.

You call the UK a superpower of soft power in contrast to being maybe a superpower of hard power anymore. Do you feel that there are, you know, in some of the examples you give in the book about having to pay the Iranians in order to release a hostage, does being a superpower of soft power as opposed to hard power have consequences for Britain, world. And I wonder what those consequences of not being a superpower of hard power have for the future. Well, don't you get, we're still a P5 nuclear power and, you know, probably more heavy lift than the rest of Europe put together. We're, you know, we can't, we, we, we're the second biggest military player in, in NATO. We have a, we have a, we have a, we spend more of our GDP on the fence than most of the European countries. We're not, we're not an inconsiderable hard power, uh, a country. And where, you know, British troops are an active service or, you know, in many

places around the world. So, you know, I wouldn't, I wouldn't entirely agree with your assertion that, you know, we wouldn't pull the skin off of a rice pudding anymore. It's number two on when it comes to paying for hostages to get out of, out of Iran, you know, I did remind you, the U.S. has a long and illustrious history of this. Obama paid billions to get U.S. hostages out of Iran. We didn't actually pay or what we did was we unfroze some money that was Iranian. You said in the book it was a clever trick that you took credit for coming out. with a way so that it was a payment but not seen as a payment right it was it was it was iranian i mean the history of bringing a new new readers you got to read unleashed but the the the what really

happened was that um the in 1979 when the shah was overthrown um he he was overfran just after he'd done a huge tank deal with the united kingdom and we we sold them 400 million quid's worth of tanks. The Shah paid us the money, but then we didn't sell, we didn't actually send the tanks until after he'd been overthrown, at which point the regime of the Ayatollahs was, of course, sanctioned by everybody. And so we kept the money, but also the tanks, which are there, I think we were, afraid, then, in classic British fashion, we sold the same camel twice. And I think various other countries then bought some of those tanks, including, I fear, the Iraqis. But never mind. So the 400 million pounds from Iran was sitting in an escrow account.

Churchill did exactly the same thing, by the way, in 1914 with some Turkish warships. We were making some warships for Turkey. Warbro, they paid them. They paid us for the warships. They were war broke out. We didn't actually send them the warships. Check it out. He did exactly the same thing. Anyway, it was Iranian money. We just got into a situation where the only way to get this poor woman out of jail in Tehran, and it was, you know, the fault lay entirely with the Iranians, you know, what they were doing was absolutely nauseating. She had done nothing wrong. She was a totally innocent person, but the only way to get her out, I'm afraid, was to settle out debt, which unquestionably we owed to Tehran. So, you know, I would argue in my defense that that

was a reasonable thing to do, given the way things were. I mean, there wasn't, there wasn't she was a, and there were several other hostages we released at the, at the same time. But, you know, I think that, again, where I, where I agreed very much with, with Trump was in taking a stronger line on Iran. And I think that when you, when you look at what he did with, with Kassim Soleimani and the head of the IRC, I think you could argue that that very much paid off. and that was the right approach. And I think if you look at what the stated way Iran now, you look at the way Iran's being forced to retreat in Syria,

the end of Assad, I think definitely you could say that taking a top line with Iran is the right approach. Let me just push you just a little bit back on the Iranian. I agree with you that some Democrats' presidential Obama, Biden, to the lighter touch with Iran, gave them money back in various ways. I guess one is, did you worry that? by paying them off or doing this trick that it would put a greater target on British people to be hostage again because they would again seek money. And B, that money would go to Hezbollah.

And let me just add a C to that. In light of what Israel has done to Iran, it kind of decimated them and now putting them on their knees, should the West, should the United States and Britain, took a tougher line against Iran from the beginning and stood up to what was, you know, what is a relatively weak power and said, you can't take our citizens. Yes, but I mean, everybody, you have to go back to, to the, 1979,

and the Jimmy Carter, you know, God, rest of Seoul, who did try to use force to get hostages out of Iran. And I said, think of it. I mean, of course I thought of what military options were available to us, but they weren't very good. And I'm just going to be honest with you,

you know, it certainly wasn't something that, seemed practical, you know, either to us or to the US. So, you know, our alternatives were limited. But generally, what you've got to, I think there is a case for being much tougher with Iran and really pushing back. And, you know, we've got to face it, one of the consequences of what we did in the last 20, 30 years, 20 years in the Middle East. has been greatly to, you know, irrationally, to strengthen Iran.

Iran has been emboldened and empowered across the, you know, in, in Syria and Yemen, Lebanon. It's been, it's been a, it's been a disaster. And as we can see now, pushing back works. I mean, what Israel has been doing is, is thoroughly effective and should be encouraged, I think. During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, lease a 2026 XE90 plug-in hybrid from $599 biweekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event. Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com.

Summer's here, and you can now get almost anything you need for your sunny days delivered with Uber Eats. What do we mean by Almost? Well, you can't get a well-groom lawn delivered, but you can get a chicken parmesan delivered. A cabana? That's a no. But a banana? That's a yes. A nice tan? Sorry, nope. But a box fan? Happily yes. A day of

sunshine? No. A box of fine wines? Yes. Uber Eats can definitely get you that. Get almost, almost anything delivered with Uber Eats. Order now. Alcohol and select markets. Product availability may vary by Regency App for details. Let me ask you about Ukraine, which you were a strong defender of and are a strong defender of.

I know you respond to it in the book, but it's out there in a lot of forums, this concept that you help scuttle a deal to end the war. Let me just lay it out there and you can explain how you believe that's not true. It's total crap. It's just, it's just, it's absolute fantasy. So, but the allegation is that Russia and Ukraine were in. in early talks for a deal that would end the war. End the war in what way?

They would keep the Donbass region, which they took in Crimea. Ukraine would renounce NATO. So what the Russians were asking for was it, or Ukraine would abandon a novel prospect of having any kind of destiny in the West would become a vassal state, would be controlled, his military would effectively be controlled by Russia, that Russia would keep. It's very substantial territorial gains. And don't forget, at the time that I was alleged to have urged them to do this, do a deal, Russia had far more of Ukraine than it currently possesses.

It would have been catastrophic for Ukraine. And there was no way that any Ukrainian leader, let alone Vladimir Zelensky, could have accepted such an agreement. it would have been the end of Ukraine as an independent country and it certainly would be the end of the political end or whoever did that deal with Putin and you know but leaving all that aside I didn't argue either way for the Ukrainians to do a deal or not to do a deal they were never going to do a deal they wanted their own country They wanted freedom. They wanted independence. And when a country wants freedom and independence,

you've got a pretty unstoppable force, as we discovered in 1776, you know, with you guys. This thing will only end in one way. And Putin has just totally miscalculated. Of course, you know, it suits him to peddle all sorts of propaganda about deals that Ukraine could have done. And it suits people. people in the West who are tired of supporting Ukraine to say that there's some truth in this. But the reality is this thing will never be sorted until we recognize Ukraine's right to freedom and independence. And we've done it at several times in the past. We recognized them in 1991.

2008, NATO said that they should join the NATO. alliance, but we've never made good on these promises. And it's been that fatal ambiguity that has encouraged Putin to attack. I just, just for American policymakers, you know, this thing can't be fixed by some Camp David Star Land for Peace Deal. That's not the issue. It's not about territory, right? I think people, people think, oh, well, just as you were saying, give Putin the Donbass and Crimea and I didn't say that I was just saying that's the allegation I was a no I know I know I know I know I know I know you're not but that's what that's what people you know was um that's not how it that's that that won't fix the the problem because

what you will have is round one to Putin right uh so he gets he he he has he holds what he what he has he hangs on to what he's conquered by violence and uh and a criminal aggression, but he also has the possibility for unlimited further violence and further manipulation of Ukraine, further destabilization and aggression. Therefore, the only way to fix this thing is to make a statement about destiny. It's not about territory, it's about destiny. It's not about territory, it's about destiny. We've got to say that Ukraine is part of the Western Club, and that means the EU, but it also means NATO. And we've said it before, it turned out we didn't mean it. We've got to mean it this time. The only way to fix this thing is to say

that, I can imagine a solution that says, well, we'll have a C-SPIRE, if it only, if all the parts of Ukraine that are currently controlled by the Ukrainians are guaranteed by Western defense guarantees, whether the Americans are involved or not, and we do not in any way prejudice the Ukrainian claimed that their entire territory. I mean, maybe you could get some sort of deal like that, but it would have to involve a promise of security and Western-backed security for Ukraine. Otherwise, it's worthless. And we will achieve nothing. And this thing will just go on and on and on. Putin and the Russians will continue to attack that country. And, you know, Donald Trump is right to highlight the hundreds of thousands of people who've died and

appalling casualties and suffering that are going on on both sides. The only way to fix that is to have clarity about what Ukraine is. If you say that Ukraine is part of a Russian, a Russian, sphere of influence or you fail to sort out the destiny of Ukraine, then you're consigning that country to decades of conflict and suffering. And you're making the West look weak all around the periphery of the former Soviet Union. You have got, got to be clear with the world about what Ukraine is, and it's part of, I mean, it's part of the West, it's part of NATO. What do you say to those many around Donald Trump, not all, but some, who are afraid that by doing that, you might actually engage in the hot war with Russia.

But, Jamie, you said you're solving these guys, these guys, the paper tiger. He couldn't even, he couldn't even, he couldn't even keep Basharales. He got beaten in Syria by a bunch of bashy bazooks from Aleppo, you know. I mean, he can't even win in Ukraine. They haven't even taken Pachrosk yet, right? The Ukrainians have taken a huge chunk of cusk. I mean, give me a break. These guys, he's relying on North Korean genisceries to come and do his soldier.

He's a total paper tiger. He is very, very apprehensive. Look, I mean, I think Donald Trump, the reason I'm optimistic about this whole situation is I think Donald Trump has the calm and the decisiveness to sort this out. and I don't think he will want the West to be humiliated by Putin by surrendering Ukraine and I don't think he will want America to be humiliating the bubble. He won't want Donald Trump to be humiliated by surrendering Ukraine. This is not going to happen.

Will you say something about, you've met Vladimir Zelensky, a lot of people in the U.S. You know, it baffles me that, you know, you can have a different position on Ukraine, but it seems that Zelensky is a pretty brave figure. A lot of people call him corrupt. negative. It baffles you about my position on Ukraine? No, no, no, no. It baffles me that some in the U.S.

call Zelensky some type of bad figure. Yeah, yeah. What is your impressions of Zelensky? So, look, I just think, you know, I got on very well with him. I think, look, I think we ought to be serious about Ukraine. Ukraine does have a problem with corruption and has historically for decades.

I don't think it's as bad as Russia, but it needs to improve. Wait, Lindsay himself is corrupt? No, no, I have no evidence for that, whatever. No, no, no. I think what's the difference between Russia and Ukraine? Russia is run by a guy who genuinely shoots his opponents and sends them to gulags.

Ukraine, and who knows the outcome of elections long in advance because he fixes them. Ukraine is run by a guy. He used to be the voice of Paddington, the Bear, in the Ukrainian. the inversion of the movie. And, and, you know, who came to power totally democratically going on TV, pretending to play the piano with his genitals. You know, what type of, what type of government do I prefer? I obviously prefer Ukraine. I think it's, it's, I can relate to it.

It's a freedom, you know, Ukraine produces a lot of freedom-loving, eccentric people. It produces, you know, Eurovision, song winners, a song contest winners and, you know, champion boxers and God knows what. Look, Ukraine has the merit of being a free, you know, and I guess it has a problem with corruption, though, you know, I think in some ways it's getting better.

But it's basically a free democratic country. And Russia is not. Russia really is a tyranny. One more question for you to respond to. Then I'll go to my closing questions, which I think you'll find fun. I haven't seen you respond to this. You speak very movingly of the queen in your book.

In fact, one of the best parts of Unleashed, I think, is the stories you tell of the queen and the leaders that she knew and some of the stories that she has about them and reminding you names of long ago, you know, African leaders that she met. But there was a report that on her deathbed with a group of family and trusted personal aids gathered around her. Despite your fondness for her, she reportedly said, at least I won't have that idiot organizing my funeral now and said that you have to talk. Totally fake news. Big news, no, no. I think that she, she knew, she knew we've known perfectly well, the Prime Minister doesn't organise anybody, she know, that's not done by the Prime Minister.

It's done by the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, that's a, that's a, a made-up thing. But, you know, it's, it's absolutely true that, you know, we had a, you know, it was one of the greatest privileges of my job or any premise's job to see the queen and to get a benefit of her of her wisdom every week and it was a sort of therapy it was kind of like you know cut price psychos not I had never had psychotherapy but I imagine what you know it was it was brilliant because she you know there was nothing so appalling or no confession so so so embarrassing that you didn't feel you could you could tell the queen and she you know she she she was like it was I'd be able to

to tell your favorite grandmother things you'd never dare tell your own parents. And, you know, and she was very, very wise. And, you know, she had views about other foreign leaders, which she had a question me. I'm far too discreet to tell you what they were. But, you know, she, what she could do was locate any problem in its historical context. And so, like, on Ukraine, for instance, I think just a couple of days before she died, I saw her. And I was complaining about how, how difficult it was to persuade the Indians to take our view of Ukraine. And she immediately said, ah, yes, I remember back in the 50s, Johan Nairu told me,

your majesty you must understand that India will always side with Russia some things just are they never change and she said I you know and she and she and she told me that as a way of which has a large element of historical truth and sadly for for Indian defense procurement industry she relies on use of his Russian weapons but but but she she told me that as a way of consoling me and, you know, trying to put things in their historical context. And, you know, she knew every U.S. president since Eisenhower. She'd made every French president since Charles to go. And it was, it was just wonderful to have the benefit of her wisdom.

Let me close on these, Boris, more philosophical questions. I think I know the answer to the first one. What historic leader do you most admire? Well, I've got a great admiration for Pericles of Athens, one of my heroes of my youth, whose speech on democracy I ran when I was very young, well, the speech that Thucydides puts into his mouth on the difference between a democracy and an oligarchy, pretty wonderful speech, which I really recommend to everybody about how we believe, we believe that anybody should be able to achieve what they want. we have a system that encourages everybody a talent. It's a beautiful, beautiful speech. And

you know, could be made by a great US president today. Look, I mean, it's no secret. I'm a fan of Winston Churchill, as you are. And I think that he did the right thing. His greatest achievement was really the same as Vladimir Zelensky's achievement, which was to get the US involved and keep the US involved. That is the key thing. I'll leave it there for our network. I've got to read a book. Absolutely. Forrest Johnson, thank you for joining the discussion.

James, and all of them meet you. Nice to see you. Thanks for having you on your show. You know,