i, michelle tucker, interviews affected women and discoveries to reasons why her findings a shockey india hysterectomy scanned in 45 minutes on d. w. a. sheet up to date. don't miss our highlights. the d w program online. d, w dot com highlights. forrest johnson, the counting 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 you turns for so long? my guess this week in london is malcolm rifkin, 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 false will, will the tory party clean them out? how much do conservatives really do to help you crane prepare for war? i'm due at all said and done. will the next british prime minister just be more of the same key questions this week, and conflict for america? welcome to conflicts own thank you wrote the other day that paris 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 morrow. i think 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. it relies on what you've just described as the conventions whereby parliament and ministers accept 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 of 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 the 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 what one thing you didn't mention was it is a very short time since he led the conservative party to a huge majority, far greater them and expected and yes, precisely. but when you were, when you have such a mandate and a new one, even i suggest we would have had that large majority without his leadership. at that time, he caught the public mood. he won large numbers of seats and what are called the red wall area. the, the northern parts of england,

which 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 transgressions and they want to trashing rights. they want to 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. 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 labor 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 f. m. p y. 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. his blind eye has been staggering, entitled to put it in those terms. but you're using nice cover, full theatrical language to mask the fact that in a democracy and elected prime minister, who has had the confidence, not just the parliament 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 that would be surprising if they one. so i'm not saying i wouldn't prefer that if they done well. they eventually did 6 months or a year or there. i personally would have preferred that. but then i've already told you i'd prefer to never having been in dentistry in the 1st place. isn't the real problem with the conservative party the house for too long put its own electro fortunes above the interests of the british people. it allowed the prime minister to continue doing harm and lying, engaging in what the eminent historian peter hennessy called upon fond of the decencies. soon the party been hanging his head in shape. but again, you're using marvelous colorful language. and if i was sitting, i just very much on the i was about and say if i was city where you're sitting, i'm sure i'd be using the same colorful language, but it actually conceals,

as well as illustrates the nature of democratic politics. when you have a leader, whether it'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 deposition of margaret thatcher and totally different circumstances that her integrity wasn't christian and her case. but she was deposed by her colleagues and not just to the party, but the country as a whole was deeply divided about that. it did quite a lot. it had to happen, i was in the cabinet that helped deliver that at that time. so i 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. trump last a national election, refused to go and organized or was involved in a riot, the capital johnson, with all his terrible faults which i'm not personally tending to try and conceal. at the end of the day, he went quietly. there were no riots. there was no people marching out of goblins to protect them. he simply overnight said ok. i'm issuing a statement saying i'm stepping down. you know, that's how the system ought to work, and it did well, if he leaves office tainted, then when the party in the party is tainted. this way. claire fogies 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 insists that he can leave with his head help calm too,

because he leaves the not a disgrace. but the coffee 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 labor 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 in the, in the eaves to take over, we don't have money, le pen, and we don't have the fascist or ultra socialist sort of the alternatives. so you have a conservative and labor party as a tool to ent,

of governments. at this moment in time, i guess tom is doing his best. let me try and be objective. he's a huge improvement on carbon jeremy carbon who almost destroyed the liberal body. but so far as we can tell, the liberal party is not to at the moment capable of winning an election by itself in forming a government. so who knows what would happen if we were in the process of choosing a new prime minister? i want, i want to come on to that. that's going to major consideration. yes, i want a couple of them. but, 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 breath went to the tv studios toward them, giving out the latest version of events, only to watch it crumble and disappear. i should happen to people because they indulged him. didn't often allow me to kept him in par. allow me to say there is no government in the world democratic or authoritarian. were 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 again, chunk of the trash that present 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 these are the bits july. can you? well, it depends on the issue. it depends on the other evidence being very tight. 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 a for genuine re election is a serious matter. and the government, whoever's the goodnight was in margaret thatcher. government for the full period of

her time. and some of the time i disagree strongly in what she 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 willing to go along with it. so you're telling me that that's what happens in any democratic country at any time. and it couldn't happen, otherwise the government's would be collapsing every 6 months. but you're telling me now that there's no need for a clean outside, never be 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, 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 see the need to. but of course,

i hope the new prime is to whoever he or she might be, will use the opportunity. and actually that the most important thing, i think the new prime minister should do is create a cabinet of all the talents. because johnson didn't do that. johnson surrounded himself, some people he surrounded himself with were of cabinets, stature, at some friendly, you 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. a writing almost prior to style, the alternative history of the johnson era, the pretenses that he got all the big cause right. but he patiently didn't duty. you're asking me to say what i've already said in public many, many times. of course, he got a lot of decisions in my view about the wrong summer, right? actually to be fair to them all ukraine. he has provided a degree of leadership of a very impressive kind of to me by surprise. and he's been apart from united states

. the leading champion of ukraine and perceived by ukrainians themselves is one of the closest friends, but that the version is slightly misleading, isn't it? the truth is that for 7 years following russia's invasion of crimea, britain refused to send weapons. that key if needed, despite the fact that they were asking for them on a regular basis. why don't acknowledge it so if you wish to move on from what you've previously asking, please acknowledge that's what you're doing. you company johnson for what happened in the last 7 years, but the time that he was fine and he 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. the ban wallace says defend 60 was arguing at the narrative 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 went on and what is true, and it should be knowledge is that before the invasion of crimea, the only 2 western countries that we're giving serious military help to ukraine,

whether 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 that british military personnel were training. how do you think ukraine was able in 6 years, 6 years ago, at the time of the crimea, as an exception, ukraine's army was about 10000 strong. when puting the bid, there was 120000 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 peace was humiliated. now that was because british and american military personnel had been actively involved in giving advice, could they give advice on instructions to the ukrainian military before the ambition as to how they should operate. and 2nd, by that, if i may, is on cyber,

we all assume that if that was going to be a russian attack when you're creating 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 weren't 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. 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 from basset 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 liked 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 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 in the united kingdom might have responded to ukraine's mid slower the ukrainians would have light, but they responded them side quicker than france or germany or any other nato country or 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 circ. a 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 ali got alexander level with no details of those discussions were ever made public. and it took for years for the prime minister act actually confirm that the meeting had taken place in lack of accountability. acceptable foreign secretary? no, no. yes. what do you read into that? there was nothing that i didn't already know that johnson has a long history of being reckless of doing things without accepting the implications of them. and of course, his 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 reasons. so these are all reasons why quite a number of us never thought he was suitable to be prime minister in the 1st place . said 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, called for 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 simply don't know is one of the reasons that he may have gone soft on rush of 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 dilemma. hold on just a hole where it's from look 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 and political divisions from british citizens,

that i happen to be a number of people, not just russians, but of the other nationalities who have acquired british citizenship, who are living, law abiding. suppose 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 people, british political parties, that's complete rubbish and unit that we well 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 have to get time to get on to the public. johnson refuse multiple efforts, bye, and peace to investigate whether russia had interfered with the blacks. 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, the all party intelligence and security committee, i showed it for 5 years and we give it additional new pause. parliament give 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 valid. 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, the 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 are nothing was there. we must assume that they have all 3 of them. have a history of public service of integrity, and i'm more favorite of some than others listeners. that's a question 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 3rd debate over the will be one between the, the final 2. this is

a party very much at war with itself isn't with bided party. come of seriously, 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 democracy. actually. if they pretended they agreed with each other all the time, you'd be saying to me, the system a bunch of clones, there's nothing to 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 the concert by the same applies in the labor party or any other major party. you have a broad church. i was not a factor, 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 in 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 include 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 on what you say. no does load challenges being set on there, but as entitled, as you are, i am to criticize people. they disagree with the big lie. is that bracket his mom? no hold on. the 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 need of a journalist to condemn views they disapprove of and to criticize people who are arguing for things they think would be against a national interest from what had for crying out loud for democracies about nobody ever told you that for the future, for this party, democratic,

democratic or divided into wings, hard rights pushing bricks. it's awning that getting rid of all the criticism out there that you think of one thing about bricks. it that has worked well i was ever made. i know that i'm asking you, can you think of one thing about brett? yes, there's was. yeah, yes. the countries come down really? that yes you 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 there 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 brit 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 to 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. mr. 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. thanks very much indeed for being a. thank you that ah, [000:00:00;00]

with ah! with who trained into surgery with thousands of women in india, having the rooms with many of them work in the country,

sugar cane fields. the activists to militia talker interviews affected women and discovers the reasons why her findings a shocking india is direct to misconduct. with 15 minutes on dw, no cost on the loose again in sardinia. a huge swarm has overrun until nella paused. tom, money of hard work destroyed and we just a few hours. the farmer is desperately looking for ways to deal with the locus play . one, unfold. focus on europe. 90 minutes on d w. oh .

hello guys. this is the 77 percent. the platform with issues and share ideas. you know, on this channel we are not afraid to dedicate young people clearly have the solution. good future loans to the 77 percent every weekend on d w. ah, go mike, and how can miss passionate hatred of the people be explained? your tongue or a history of anti semitism is a history of stigmatization and exclusion of religious and political power. struggles in the christian christianity wants to come from it. that is why christianity use the figure of the gym as a deter. it's

a history of slander of hatred and violence. a 3rd of our people were exterminated $6000000.00 jews, like microbes to be annihilated or even 77 years after the holocaust hatred towards jews is still pervasive. history of anti semitism this week on d. w. b. ah, this is d. w needs live from berlin. europe wait to see if vladimir putin switches the gas tough back on scheduled maintenance for the crucial north spring one