oh, and from syria is born in a female body, forced into marriage. great. his escape will be the journey of his life. far from home, ali can finally become the person. he's always wanted to be alone, despair badly. oh, in that re credit and we'll go through with it. i was born in berlin, starts july 22nd on d, w. forest johnson recounting his final days of british prime minister in disgrace, but still in office till his replacement was chosen. why did the conservative party acceptable, the lying and the u turns for so long? my guess this week in london is about come, rick, veteran, conservative politician who served us both defense and foreign secretary. no fan of

boris, the politician. i never thought he should have been prime minister in the 1st place . he was the wrong person here. so what happens now to all the former ministers and officials who indulge johnson's booster ism and full school? well, the tory party, clean them out. how much did conservatives really do to help you crane prepare for war and white. all said and done. will the next, british prime minister just be more of the same key questions this week on conflict for america. rifkin, welcome to conflict zone. thank you. you wrote the other day that boris johnson trashed or tried to trash, many of the conventions that protect british liberties and the countries unwritten constitution. and that's a very serious charge if it's true. why do you think it took your party so long to get rid of him? well, i think 1st of all,

i'm not suggesting he thought of it as trashing all the conventions. the problem with bars johnson is he doesn't think through the implications of what he does and sometimes the seriousness of what he does. i don't think he's in moral letting he's a moral. you're letting me off the hook here. i'm not let him off the hook. i'm simply saying you acted an incredibly reckless way because britain, unlike virtually any other country in the world, does not have a written constitution for our system to work at relies and what you just described as the conventions. whereby parliament and ministers except their responsibilities and the system, certain kinds of activity. and he seemed to believe that in his own case because he had such a large majority in parliament, he could get away with that and he found it couldn't. and the party let him get away with it because the writing had been on the wall for some time. hadn't it to ethics advisors resigning one thing? the time is to put him in an odious position. the resignation in june of john penrose, the government's own anti corruptions, are saying. johnson had committed

a fundamental breach of the ministerial code of a party gate. at all these junctures, the conservative party looked away. why? let me, i'm going to answer your question that i have to proceed by saying that my own case, i never thought he should have been prime minister in the 1st place. he was a wrong person here. i'd love to have him at a dinner party. i did not think his remarkable qualities was suited to being prime minister of any country, certainly not united kingdom. and so did a large minority of conservatives. but to come to your question, you have. one thing you didn't mention was it is a very short time since he led the conservative body to a huge majority, far greater them and expected. yes, precisely. but when you were, when you have such a mandate and a new one, even i suggest we would have had that large majority without his leadership. at that time, he caught the public mood. he won large numbers of seats and what are called the red wall area. of the northern parts of england,

which have voted labor for 70 years and suddenly significant numbers, very conservative and conservative m p 's were just because he was a vote when you could look away from all the transgression is and i want to trashing. right? so what i'm saying is it was inevitably again, to be a gradual disillusionment on the part of those who had thought he was a great guy and would make a great prime minister. and but there was a consciousness that removing a prime minister from office and not the general election, but by his own party. the last, well, the last time that happened was teresa met. and the time before that was margaret thatcher said the conservative party does have a tradition, unlike the liver part to other parties in britain. if it comes to a judgment, that prime minister has become a permanent liability rather than an asset. it can get rid of that leader very loosely as it did on this occasion. well, you say very loosely, i would say, well, they took their time over this. perhaps the most damning comment came last november

from lord evans, chairman of the committee on standards in public life, about johnson's attempt to change the disciplinary procedure for m. p. 's. while one of these was under investigation, evan evans called it a very damaging moment for parliament and for public standards. and he gave this unprecedented warning. he said there was a danger that britain could slip into being a corrupt country. again, the conservative party looked away seriously. the blind eye has been staggering. your, your title to put it in those terms. but you're using nice color, full theatrical language to mask the fact that in a democracy and elected prime minister, who has had the confidence, not just a polymer as a whole, but of his party. it is quite an awkward thing to put it mildly to suddenly dump him in the, in the middle of a parliament. and that was a gradual process because his colleagues in cabinet and it was any,

the cabinet ultimately who had that power to remove them. obviously were reluctant to act in such a unilateral way and it would have been surprising if they weren't. so i'm not saying i wouldn't prefer that if they done well. they eventually did 6 months at area. i personally would have preferred that. but then i've already told you i'd prefer to never having been in dynasties in the 1st place. isn't the real problem with the conservative party, the house for too long put its own intellectual fortunes above the interests of the british people. it allowed a prime minister to continue doing hom and lying engaging in what the eminent historian peter hennessy called a bon fire of the decencies should the party been hanging his head and show that it did this again, you're using marvelous, colorful language. and if i was sitting, i just said, if i much on the, i was about to say if i was city where you're sitting, i'm sure i be using the same colorful language, but it actually conceals,

as well as illustrates the nature of democratic politics. and when you have a leader, whether he's a good one or a bad one, in this case, a bad one when he's been elected by the proper democratic processes of the conservative party and then given the something mandate by the electorate. the disposition of margaret thatcher and totally different circumstances that her integrity wasn't a question in her case. but she was deposed by her colleagues and not just the, the party, but the country as a whole was deeply divided about that. it did quite a lot. it had to happen, i was in the cabinet that helped deliver that at that time. and so i didn't regret what we did. but i'm also conscious of the fact you create a trauma which can last and concrete other problems. by if there are still large numbers of people who believe that an unfair thing has happened. so you can't rush to such a judgment. it can only happen gradually and is, and, but do remember compare johnson with trump trumpet last

a national election refused to go now organized, or was involved in a riot at the capital. johnson, with all his terrible faults which i'm not personally tending to trying to conceal . at the end of the day, he went quietly. there were no riots. there was no people marching out of government to protect them. he simply overnight said ok. i'm issuing a statement saying, i'm stepping down, you know, that's how the system ought to work and they did well, if he leaves office tainted, then when the party in the party is painted this way, clear. fudge is from the downing street advisor, wrote in may. the party, conservative body is a wrecking ball. it smashes through parliamentary standards and public trust. it hurtles through all niceties about the truth, actually mattering it crushed through a relationship with europe. she has a point, johnson still insist that he can leave with his head help. of course,

he can't to because he lives in other disgrace, but the party shares some of that was great. you know, what, hold on. i mean, you, again, you're using wonderful colorful language and you're using unqualified superlatives . what is also true, you could have added to your list of the conservative body is that it has enjoyed the conference of the confidence of the british electorate for 32 of the last 50 years. yes, but doesn't it? i didn't know well at this precise moment. i'm not so sure. i think it possibly doesn't. but liberal party, which is the only credible alternative government, doesn't inspire that competence either through such a period where business very fortunate actually is what we don't have is some ultra right wing or left wing party waiting. ready and the eaves to take over. we don't have a mighty la pen and we don't have the fascist or ultra socialist sort of alternatives . so you have a conservative in the labor party as a tool to ent, of governments. at this moment in time i,

tom is doing his best. let me try and be objective. he's a huge improvement on carbon, jeremy carbon who almost destroyed the liberal body. but so far as we can tell is the labor party is not at the moment capable of winning an election by itself and forming a government. so who knows what would happen if we were in the process of choosing a new premise? i want, i want to come onto the major consideration. yes, i want to come to them. but what should happen to all those who lied on johnson's behalf. the enablers, who indulged him and some who still do those who defended him every time, a new scandal, brett, went to the tv studio toward them, giving out the latest version of events, only to watch it crumble and disappear. i should happen to the people because they indulged him, didn't allow me to count him and allow me to say there is no government in the world democratic or authoritarian, where the members of the cabinet except that the prime minister of the president,

whoever it may be it deserves a presumption that he's telling the truth when he says that some accusation has been leveled a good chance of trust. that prison maybe a case because somebody has lied quite often. doesn't mean everything. they say must be a lie now, but you can't give him the benefit of that that you can't give him the benefit. but if he's a bit july, can you? well, it depends on the issue. it depends on the other evidence very time. no, i'm not being kind, i'm trying to be rational and you for one's being very irrational as you perfectly well know. what i'm saying is that a government, the government of the country, the queen's government has to go on. you didn't just set prime ministers as if it's particular those who have just a couple of years ago when a huge majority from the electorate and genuine re election is a serious matter and the government, whoever the goodnight was in margaret thatcher, government for the full period of time,

and some of the time i disagree strongly watch it was day. if you feel strongly on a particular matter for which you have the departmental responsibility, then you resign. but all the time when the cabinet reaches a decision, that decision will be presented as a unanimous decision of the cabinet. because those who were in a minority are willing to go along with it. so you are telling me that that's what happens in any democratic country at any time. and it couldn't happen otherwise, what governments would be collapsing every 6 months. but you're telling me now that there's no need for clean outside. now, the old official, is there any i mean out of the party if i'm from zack, a light to restore public? well, you're using nice neutral phrases like johnson's acolytes. there are some members of his team who are not my flavor of the month as it were, who i hope on who services i hope will not be required by the new prime minister. and i'm not going to name names in this particular interview because that's not my function and the private citizen and see the need to. but of course i hope the new

prime is to whoever he or she might be. will use the opportunity. and actually the most important thing, i think the new prime is that you do is create a cabinet of all the talents because johnson didn't do that. johnson surrounded himself, some people he'd surrounded himself with were of cabinets, stature. at some franklin, she never been in the cabinet in the 1st place. so malcolm, there's a lot of talk about restoring trust and integrity in government. but already some in your party are writing almost prov, the style, the alternative history of the johnson era. the pretenses that he got all the big cause right, but he patiently didn't duty. of course you're asking me to say what i've already said in public many, many times. of course he got a lot of the decisions in my view bad the wrong. some are right, actually to be fair to them all ukraine. he has provided a degree of leadership of a very impressive kind to me by surprise. and he's been apart from united states,

the leading champion of ukraine and perceived, but ukrainians themselves is one of their friends. but that version is slightly misleading, isn't it? the truth is that for 7 years following russia's invasion of crimea, britain refuse to send weapons. that key if needed, despite the fact that they were asking for them on a regular basis. why don't acknowledge that. so if you wish to move on from what you were previously asking, please acknowledge that what you're doing. you company johnson for what happened in the last 7 years, but for the time that he was fine, so wasn't prime minister and he didn't control the government and i didn't know what internal discussions took place. then. i know, for example, visits become public that ben wallace has defend 60, was logging at an earlier time for more practical help, military helped to be given to the ukrainians. but that wasn't happening either in britain or the united states or in other western countries. this is what a british been on and what is true, and it should be acknowledged, is that before the invasion of crimea, the only 2 western countries that were giving serious military help to ukraine,

where the united states and the united kingdom and they were doing so by, for example, military training, and it wasn't secret, some of that might have been secret. some of it was quite open, the british military personnel with training. how do you think you, chris was able in 6 years, 6 years ago at the time of the crimea as annexation, ukraine's army was about 10000 strong. when putin and visit there was a $120000.00 strong. so they not only had to build up an army, but it was trained in different concepts of warfare to what the old soviet union used to do, and what russia told us, which is why in the 1st few weeks of the vision of ukraine, the ukrainians were able to hold on to give, and putin was humiliated. now that was because british and american military personnel had been actively involved in giving advice to the clinic of advice on instructions to the ukrainian military before the ambition as to how they should operate. and 2nd, by that, if i may, is on cyber,

we all assumed that if there was going to be a russian attack on your credit, the 1st thing they would do in 24 hours would have been to completely neutralize the whole infrastructure in ukraine through hacking and cyber attacks, they were able to do that. why? because we now know that g c h q burton's, the special intelligence agency that deals with these matters was authorized by the british government to give lots of advice to the ukrainians over the last few years . as was happening from others as well on how to deal with high cyber attacks and protect your infrastructure. you talk about what was done before put in actually decided to enjoy that. but it wasn't until june last year that the government agreed to help ukraine rebuild its navy. but by then it was too late. the ships weren't ready for the invasion. you came, sam baset, that him for sake. i said we had to scrap the project was just delay after delay that so i knew that well, in my own personal case, i would have like more practical help to get an earlier that wasn't my public view

and i'm not going to pretend otherwise. but you know, it's a pretty controversial question because ukraine is not a member of nato. and for the provision of military assistance to a country that might be involved in a war, in the short to medium term, is a very complex question. not just funny because they were involved in the war in east of the country by russia. yes, of course. couldn't have been having the 2014, yes, but that's become a prison conflict. and i was talking about a new, more of the kind that we have expense. so the united states and the united kingdom might have responded to ukraine's need slower than ukrainians would have light, but they responded them side quicker than france or germany or any other nato countries. any other country in the world and ukrainians of acknowledge that. let's talk if we may about boys johnson's unusual relations. let's put it that way with russia and russians in 2018 months after the russians use nava. chuck to try and

kill survey script in salisbury. johnson flew to italy minus his security detail in his officials and attended a party at which he met a former k g b oligarchy. alexander levied, if no details of those discussions were ever made public. and it took 4 years for the prime minister act actually confirm that the meeting had taken place in lack of accountability. acceptable foreign secretary. no, no you. what do you read into that? there was nothing that i didn't already know that johnson had, has a long history of being reckless of doing things without accepting the implications of them. and of course, is foreign secretary, if he was going abroad and meeting people of that kind, the foreign office should have been aware of that present protection apart from any other reason. so these are all reasons why quite a number of us never thought he was suitable to be prime minister in the 1st place . sat is that was not the view of the majority of parliamentarians or the public

who gave him power at the last general election. was he soft on russia in your opinion? to parliamentary inquiries in 20182020. when he was prime minister caught the sanctions to be imposed on russian oligarchs, they were largely ignored. i wasn't involved in government, so i didn't know the details of what went on at that time. so i'm not going to offer a judgment on why that was not done because i didn't know is one of the reasons that he may have gone soft on russia. the fact that so much russian money was pouring into the, the tory party coffers at the time. and so far as the get a lot of russia, well, you talk of russian money as if it's coming from the kremlin. and you know perfectly well, it isn't perfectly well. it's very different just where it's from the festival. i'm not going to get into the details of this part because i don't know the detail and partly because i think you're on pretty tricky ground here. first of all, the law is you can in the accept the political divisions from british citizens that

i happen to be a number of people, not just russians, but of other nationalities who have acquired citizenship. who are living law biting so far as we know, lives in the united kingdom, and some of them of the native to the conservative body. you cannot describe that as russian money which to your viewers will sound as if it's a kitten. bribing. british, british political party that's complete rubbish and unit that we will. it is you were chair of the intelligence and security committee, 2010 to 2015, which gets to ask questions. the public don't get to, to get on time to get on to the public. johnson refuse multiple efforts by him piece to investigate whether russia had interfered with the brakes. it referendum. the government said a retrospective assessment of the referendum is not necessary. how could johnson have known that when he didn't even ask the security to find out? sure, i make an additional point to what you just said. the intelligence and security committee can it's free to investigate any subject wishes. it does not need the

prime minister's permission to do so. and it says permission to publish its report . well that was, it was long delayed. yes, that's a separate point. but the actual report itself and the investigation, if it was felt by the all party intelligence and security committee, i showed it for 5 years and we give it additional new pause. parliament gave it sort of buzz needed so that it was not dependent on the prime minister of the day as to whether i could make investigations of this kind. so the presumption of your question is just not counted. let's look at the contests to replace boris johnson moment 3 candles left as we speak. i know that later on today, the going to be just to all of them. but johnson appointees whoever wins will it just be more of the same? what i hope not. and i have no reason to believe it because they are very different, but i do mean the very different from each other. all 3 of them are very different

from johnson soon that martin to trust. there has knew that i'm aware of been any type of public criticism of remotely of a kind that correctly addressed itself to barnes johnson. and over the last couple of weeks, if there was anything new to discovered about them, then that i suspect would have been on the headlines of every newspaper in britain . but there nothing there was. we must assume that they have all 3 of them. have a history of public service of integrity, and i'm more in favor of some than others that's in this that's a progression of personal preference, but their integrity has not been a major issue that i'm aware of. the to debate so far. have revealed very little about from huge animosity between the various candidates so much so that the contestants pulled out of the debate. there will be one between the, the final 2. this is the party very much at war with itself,

isn't net invited party come over seriously demand. whenever you have any democratic party, an open competition to choose a new leader who if you're in government will become the prime minister. all president, depending which country we're talking about. of course, that's a democracy actually. if they pretend to the agreed with each other all the time, you'd be saying to me, the system a bunch of clones, there's nothing you can't tell one from the other all say exactly the same thing when you that would be your criticism and such as what we are seeing is a democracy at work. and of course, within a major political party like the, just a concert by the same applies in the labor party or any other major party. you have a broad church. i was not a fetch, right when i was in the midst of such as cabinet, the number of things i disagreed with, that's normal. and you tried not to wash your dirty linen, the public as it were. but in the, if you're actually standing for office,

the public are entitled to know what are not just things you share in common with your colleagues. but what are the differences you'd into the european research group in the, in the broad church description. of course they are, they are all conservators, they take the breakfast orthodoxy that nobody is allowed to challenge without being at all what you say, no does load challenges being set on there, but as entitled as your i am to criticize people, they disagree with the big lie as a bracket, his mom no hold on the. ready i'm going to, i'm not a supporter of the european search grew up because the people you're referring to, but they have exactly the same political right. as any other political animal, any other member of parliament, any other member of the public? did i said even the journalist, to condemn views, they disapprove of and to criticize people who are arguing for things they think would be against the national interest, strong with that for crying out loud, this is what democracy is about. nobody ever told you that perhaps the future for

this party, democratic, democratic or divided into wings. hard rights pushing breaks it. awning, let getting rid of all the criticism out there. let me think of one thing about bricks. it that has worked. what i was gonna say, i know i'm asking you, can you think of one thing about brett? yes. that was well. yeah, yes. one of the countries come down believe that yes. okay. what exactly are you working? i'm talking about. we're talking about bricks that i say, yes, right. is that what i'm saying to you? i don't think you would challenge setting up private that you might choose to for the purpose of this interview. there is that for a number of years for about 10 years, britain was deeply divided including the referendum itself and whether but, and families were divided, them communities were divided. and there was a lot of agro about that and let me finish my answer. and it was dominating the british political scene at the expense of almost anything else. no, it, if it could be resolved, that had to be resolved. and if it was resolved by

a large majority or whatever majority, it was the same. we were gonna stay and then hopefully it will come down as well. but the important thing is that the issue has gone off the boil. mister for raj, god bless him. has disappeared, nobody is remotely interested in him or his body because the issue itself is not dominating british politics. so margaret, can we have to disappear thanks very much indeed for being a regular basis. with with

ah, with trees into surgery, ah, thousands of women and india are having the rooms with many of them work in the country, sugar cane fields. the activists, melisha talker,

interviews affected women. and to discover the reasons why her findings a shocking india hysterectomy scandal. with 15 minutes on dw innovation, bring it on new ideas on conventions. what drive the economy, the engine that social progress. but do they really make our lives easier? and if this what our future will look like, oh, made in 2 minutes on the d. w. with a has no limit. love is for everybody.

love is live. i love matter and that's my new podcast. i'm evelyn char, mom and i really think we need to talk about all the topics that more divides and deny that this i have invited many deer and well known guests. and i would like to invite you to an in, oh, lattice contrasts of ambitions of inequality. 75 years ago, mahatma gandhi peacefully led the country to independence, full of ideals. what is the remainder of his vision? what's the status of human rights and social justice in what's called the world's largest democracy? we see the ahead. it is the pulpit tour unleash on violet

pass. and rig. imagine these teachings for relevance to gandhi's legacy store to august 6th on b, w. ah, ah, this is d w. news live from berlin, europe. wait to see if vladimir putin switches the gas taps back on scheduled maintenance for the crucial north train one pipeline and today. but the russian president signals he could cub deliveries. father.