Are Voters Stupid Rory Stewart on Boris Johnson and British Politics Part 2

I was just going to say that exactly. That was my question to you. I mean, Partygate, of course, I mentioned at the beginning, and it's at the back of a background of everything we're thinking and talking about at the moment. So this storm will go on, won't it? I mean, these things, they fly up and then they disappear. Would a Prime Minister Boris Johnson ever resign over lying? I don't think it's impossible to imagine him resigning over anything, ever. I mean, he's never really done that. I mean, he's spent his whole life just sort of getting away with things. Hugo Rifkin wrote this fascinating piece in the Times yesterday where he said that, and I really felt this thing with Boris Johnson, it was an analogy that really appealed to me. He said that it's like being married to a husband who turns up, we're all married to Boris Johnson now, and he turns up and he sits at the breakfast table with a smirk on his face telling a whole series of horrible lies. And either you ignore him, in which case he's won, or you screech at him, in which case he's also won, because then all his mates say, yeah, but no wonder he behaves like that, because he's married to such a screecher. In other words, what he does, and I felt this when I would go and I'd sort of storm into his office in the Far Office to complain about the latest catastrophe. But the reason it works is that what he, I think the reason why it's this type of weird, abusive marital relationship is that he makes you feel that what he's done, that you're overreacting, that what he did was quite trivial. And he does it because he's only thinking about what he's just done. What he refuses to acknowledge is all the things that he's done in the past. And what you're screeching at about the breakfast table is, you lied again, right? You went to another party. And his response is, it's just a party. Come on, leaving party, drink, come on. So you're always being made to oddly feel when you're criticising him as though you're exaggerating, as though we're kind of obsessed and weird. So we end up wasting three, four days saying, did Sue Gray book the meeting with you or not? And when finally, after all the lies and nonsense, they finally admit that actually he requested the meeting, we just sound mad. Why have we spent four days talking about who booked the meeting? I think you said, okay, despite all of this, well, because of all of this, as you said, you're not going to work with him because you clearly don't like the man very much at all. Also, because as you said, you physically cannot, you were thrown out of the party. But I mean, you've sort of dabbled in talking about new parties, you and Alistair. And I know that one of the questions, it's not original for me to ask you, because one of the questions that comes up lots from people who are listening to the podcast is, you know, if there's a new party, why isn't it the Liberal Democrats? Why aren't they the place where people like, because both you and Alistair, I know you said at the podcast to disagree, but you are essentially singing from the same hymn sheet on so much apart from schools, where you went to school and other things. So, but why aren't, why isn't all of that filtering into Liberal Democrat party? It's a mystery, isn't it? Because I think that it's extraordinary. I think British politics has always had a huge energy or momentum towards the centre ground. British politics has always been about moderation and parties have fought in the centre ground. The only reason that Tony Blair won that amazing landslide at 97 is that he moved into the centre. And David Cameron took it back in 2010. So there is this gaping hole in the centre of British politics and there's this party called the Lib Dems. And occasionally they have these very sort of quite charismatic, intelligent, charming leaders like Nick Clegg. I thought he was all those things in 2010. And yet they somehow don't really win. Now that isn't just about the electoral system. There's something about the party, which is odd. They haven't managed to seize that centre ground. And I don't know why it is. When I was running to be mayor of London, there was a moment when there was a conversation about whether I should try to merge with the Lib Dems, my campaign, by running as an independent. The polling suggested that I was on close to 20% as an independent, but that if I merged with the Lib Dems, my polling would go down to 5%. I'd lose three quarters of my support. I'd gain 10,000 street volunteers. I'd gain... Now, I don't know why that was. I mean, maybe that was just a particular moment in the beginning of 2020 when they were at a low point, but it is a continual mystery. I don't know enough about that party to understand what's going on and whether there is a hope for it, whether there is a possibility for it, because it seems like such a good idea. Yeah, I mean, it's not to do with leadership. I mean, when you describe it as this gaping hole, you just think there are all these people like yourselves who are... Why they don't fill it just doesn't make any sense, really. Well, it may be that the public is less interested in that centre ground than we pretend. So maybe that there are a lot of people like me pontificating on about centre ground and how we want to work in centre ground. And maybe actually the public in the end is quite tribal and quite likes the clarity of left against right. And that when you're voting in an election, you want to know what you're getting. And the problem with somebody like me saying, well, I'm going to fix your broadband or I'm going to sort out the left impairment station or I'm going to sort out adult social care is that that's not really what voters want. Voters want to know, are you in favour of immigration or aren't you? Are you going to be tough on crime or not? Are you pro-European or are you anti-European? Are you going to cut taxes or are you going to raise taxes? Are you going to invest in public services or is it all about business? And in a sense, the political parties provide a shortcut for people where they sort of get what they're getting. They don't need to read the manifesto. They don't really need to worry too much about exactly who they are. They sort of have a sense of what they're going to get if Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer gets in. They say they're going to get, but what they actually get is very different. Well, what they actually get is very different. I think that's fascinating. One of the things I noticed there that's fascinating is that, of course, many, many people who voted for Brexit who voted for Brexit because they were concerned about immigration. Many of them actually were concerned about immigration not from Europe, but immigration coming from other parts of the world. Boris Johnson's now coming. And over the last year, the statistics suggest that the immigration from Nigeria, Pakistan, India has gone through the roof. It's quadrupled, replacing labour that had come in from Europe. So it's a very, very interesting question if you were to ask voters in Northern England who are anxious about those issues, whether they feel they've got what they were expecting with Brexit, whether that's what they thought would happen as a result. I mean, that feeds into one of the things slightly that you were talking about what actual practical things can be done to change a system that you don't think works. And one of the things we talked about last time, actually, a few people who've written very good books about ways to change society for the better, one of whom is Ed Miliband, Matt Dancona, there's mention of citizens' assemblies. And I know that you were very passionate about that. People talk about that, and it sounds like a really good idea. So why isn't that happening? So just to explain to people on the call who don't know what a citizens' assembly is, citizens' assembly is a jury. It's selected like a jury randomly from citizens. And you gather, let's say, 100 people together, but randomly selected. So it would be from all parts of the United Kingdom, all different ages, genders, you make it as diverse as you possibly can, but randomly. And you then present them with a problem and you sit them down with experts for many, many days to work through the problem. A classic example in the Republic of Ireland was the issue of abortion. And the amazing thing that happened is that you took a very polarized issue, which, like in the United States, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, very polarized in the public, but you sat the citizens' assembly down and you get into the concrete details. How many days? What's our views on what happens if somebody's raped? And at the end, they produced a proposal, serious proposals, which actually then were put into law. But when I suggested this in Britain, the contempt from my colleagues was extraordinary, and indeed from many voters. I was accused of trying to turn Britain into Venezuela. I was told we already had a citizens' assembly, it was called the House of Commons. And the idea that there could be anything so wrong with the way in which our parties work that a random collection of citizens could work things out was very offensive to people, because I think people are actually very elitist. You know, I had a good friend, John, who kept saying to me, your citizens' assembly idea is so stupid, you don't know how stupid normal people are, right? And all I can say is, that's so weird, because actually the kind of issues you're debating in politics are not, I mean, A, I disagree that normal people are stupid, but B, that they're not primarily issues which require advanced degrees. They're issues like the kind of relationship you want with Europe, or the kind of social care system you want, which connect people's lived experience, where people bring immense years of thought and experience and reflection to bear, and where the process of sitting down in a room with experts gives them a chance to really think and talk these things through. There are so many brilliant questions coming in. Each thing I ask you, I want to go off and talk about for another half hour, but I can't, so I'm going to, before I, I mean, brilliant questions, we've had questions online, there's questions coming in from the audience, and we only have 25 minutes left, but I do really want to, and there's so much we could talk about, I'm just, I want to ask about Ukraine, because there are a couple of things I'd love to hear your thoughts on. I mean, you of all people know, you've worked in sort of all over, as I mentioned at the beginning, and intervention is such a messy issue, which you've seen, and you've seen how it pans out, but do you think we're doing the right thing with regards to Ukraine? Would you advocate doing more? Is the fear of Putin and repercussions justified? I think to be prudent and thoughtful about Putin is completely justified. Russia is, at the end of the day, an enormous country with enormous resources, and it's a highly nationalistic country, and it's one of the most heavily armed nations on earth, and of course it has a big nuclear arsenal. You need to be very, very cautious. Now, what have we learned from Ukraine? We've learned that Russia is much less competent militarily than people thought. Their attack on Kiev was an embarrassing disaster. Their special forces were much less effective than people believed, and the Ukrainians put up an extraordinary fight. Their morale is amazing. They made very, very good use of their equipment. But the tipping point in that fight was the United States, which has produced something like 20 times more supplies than a country like Britain, and twice as much as all the other countries combined. And that has totally transformed the financial and military position of Ukraine in that fight against Russia. The question now is, what now happens? You've got an angry Putin sitting in eastern Ukraine in Donbass. And for very understandable reasons, we want to say they must leave every last square inch of Ukrainian territory. They must leave Crimea as well. But how? Because it is going to be very, very difficult now to dislodge Russia. And so long as Russia remains antagonistic, aggressive, and sitting on the eastern border of Ukraine, they will be able to totally disrupt any potential future for Ukraine. It needs internal security in order to get its economy going again, get its trade going again, get its prosperity going again. And that, in the end, can only come out of some kind of peace settlement with Russia. So do you think... You've probably seen Henry Kissinger's comments today making the news. Have you seen his comments? No, I've missed them. What did he say today? He said that the wise thing would be for Ukraine to come to some sort of agreement and relinquish territory to Russia. Do you think that that is... Is that right? I think there has to be an agreement between Ukraine and Russia. I'm not sure it would have to include them formally relinquishing territory. There are peace agreements which are perfectly possible between countries where you say, your occupation of my territory is entirely illegal. I completely refuse to recognise it. But hostilities cease. And there are many examples of that around the world. I think formally ceding territory to Russia would be too much to ask. I'm going to bring in some questions and then if I can sneak some of my own back in if there's time. But as I say, I feel I must do this. I mean, coming back to something that I was asking you before, it's the same sort of question, but I want to ask it in this articulated the way this person has, which is the question of whether politics is so vitriolic, it just isn't going to ever encourage fresh faces to enter. I think people will always want to enter. And I mean, I'm obviously contacted all the time by very idealistic young people who want to go into politics. I just caution anyone on the show who's about to go into politics to be serious about the kind of organisation it is and how difficult it is to change and what it would feel like to work in it. If you can imagine the very, very worst company or institution, the very worst boss you've ever had, a completely toxic atmosphere that has developed over hundreds of years. And imagine you coming to me and saying, if you were unlucky enough to work in that kind of organisation, and I said to you, but you've got a moral responsibility to stay in it and change it, you might be tempted to say, you haven't really worked in this, you don't understand quite how bad it is. It's a very, very, very weird way of running things. And so I don't know what we do. I think we have to stop voting for monsters would be a beginning. That's quite extreme. You mean it makes, but yes. Okay, I'm going to move on to the next question. But note to producer to clip that one up. It's a similar question, I suppose, whether moving abroad has changed your idea of politics here in the UK of UK politics. Yeah, I mean, I think certainly living abroad gives me an incredible sense of how lucky we are. And, you know, I'm living in countries where things don't work, where countries are on the verge of conflict, where there is immense corruption, where basic things like planning simply don't operate. And, of course, in many of the countries, I was with a woman who was living on $6 a month, looking after three grandchildren who were literally starving. So we are incredibly lucky, incredibly lucky to live in a peaceful, largely healthy society that doesn't find itself in conflict, whose institutions remain steady, where our economy continues to grow more slowly than I'd like it continues to grow. I just think that we shouldn't take it for granted. If I'm being particularly critical at the moment, it's that I feel how precious and how worried I am about the ways in which bad performance in politics can erode all those things, because I have worked a lot of my life in countries where, eventually, people give up on their governments and they just don't believe the word they say, and they become utterly cynical and they think they're totally corrupt. And when that happens, you're in real trouble. It's very, very difficult to rebuild a functioning country if people completely give up on the idea of their policies. I think this is a brilliant question. Do you think it's wrong that we expect politicians to be relatable, like know about Wagatha Christie and wear jeans? Should politicians represent the people or should they be experts? Who cares if they watch Love Island? It's a really interesting question. And of course, in the end, the only way of answering that is what people want to vote for. And the truth is that being relatable does matter, has always mattered. People want somebody who, it's not just about Love Island or Wagatha Christie, it's about being able to show empathy, being able to show emotion, seeming to understand. I mean, I made the mistake in my early career when I was trying to stand for Penrith and the Border for my constituency of trying to emphasise that I thought I had, as I was in an interview with my skills for being a minister, languages that I spoke, skills that I had, as though what they were doing was sort of employing somebody. In the way that they would employ someone to run a business. But that isn't really what people want from a politician. People often want something which is sometimes a listener, sometimes a mascot, sometimes a symbol, sometimes a campaigner. The actual business of running a government department, which is what I care most about, am I running things efficiently? Am I making things better? Is only one and perhaps quite a small part of what people look for in their politicians.