Boris Johnson Defends Covid Record, Says Virus Originated in Wuhan Lab

鲍里斯·约翰逊为其防疫记录辩护，称病毒源自武汉实验室 前首相鲍里斯·约翰逊坚称英国脱欧促成了英国疫苗的快速推广，并坚持认为这场疫情是由中国的实验室泄漏所致。 在这次深入访谈中，前首相鲍里斯·约翰逊回顾了自己的童年、母亲与严重强迫症抗争的经历，以及激烈的兄弟姐妹竞争如何激发了他的个人抱负。他为自己的政治政绩和内阁决策辩护，坚称英国脱欧恢复了国家民主问责制，并助力了英国COVID-19疫苗的快速推广。约翰逊还回应了围绕其首相任期的重大争议，否认自己的公众形象是经过精心策划的人设，驳斥了压制实验室泄漏论的说法，并极力坚称“派对门”聚会并非狂欢派对，而是在空前危机期间被歪曲解读的工作活动。 Boris Johnson否认其标志性的笨拙幽默人设是精心设计的营销策略，称其源于家庭中拒绝沉闷的氛围，并坦言童年时母亲因强迫症长期住院及父母离异，促使他将学业成就作为重建自尊的情绪防御机制。 (18:32) Johnson指出全英人才分布均匀但发展机会失衡，因此将“提升与平衡（Levelling Up）”作为其政治核心诉求；回顾两届伦敦市长任期，他强调针对青少年暴力犯罪的治理成功将伦敦谋杀率削减了50%。 (38:58) 在脱欧公投抉择上，Johnson透露时任首相David Cameron曾以排名前五的内阁职位劝其支持留欧，并发出粗暴政治威胁，这反而坚定了他基于国家民主问责原则领导脱欧阵营的决心。 (60:09) 面对脱欧引发经济损失与贸易摩擦的质疑，Johnson坚称短期阵痛远小于主权独立的长期价值，强调摆脱欧盟繁琐监管让英国得以实现全欧洲最快的新冠疫苗接种及经济复苏。 (67:07) 谈及新冠疫情的源头，Johnson表示自己已不再相信自然溢出假说，确信病毒源于武汉实验室功能获得性研究的意外泄漏。 (80:03)

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson defends his political record and personal motives, arguing that his controversial decisions around Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic were rooted in democratic accountability and practical leadership rather than political cynicism. Childhood Coping Mechanisms and Public Persona (2:53) Johnson attributes his intense drive to a childhood marked by competitive sibling rivalry, 32 household moves in 14 years, and emotional defense mechanisms formed after his mother, Charlotte, was hospitalized for severe OCD and his parents later divorced when he was 14. To counter feelings of low self-esteem, he threw himself into academic achievement and work. He refutes allegations of domestic violence in his family home by stating he had no direct knowledge of such incidents. Addressing claims that his rumpled, bumbling public persona was a calculated political calculation, Johnson describes his style as an organic extension of a family culture obsessed with avoiding dullness. In both his media appearances and his 60-chapter memoir Unleashed, he compares his method to 'digestive biscuits'—sweetening serious political arguments with entertainment to hold public engagement, while denying that his demeanor masks a cynical inner strategy. Eton Privilege and Leveling Up (25:04) Confronted by Bartlett with the fact that roughly 35% of UK prime ministers attended Eton College, Johnson acknowledges that opportunity across the UK remains deeply unequal, but argues that talent and ambition exist equally across every region. Defending his 'Leveling Up' agenda, he points to his mayoral terms in London—where interventions in boroughs like Hackney helped cut the murder rate by 50%—as a template for national regeneration. Johnson argues that government's duty is to supply core infrastructure to unlock private investment, citing the expansion of gigabit broadband from 7% to approximately 70% in three years, alongside backing for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. He also emphasizes educational reform over purely physical building projects, pointing to the introduction of a £30,000 starting salary for teachers and rising UK positions in international PISA rankings, while defending single-word Ofsted ratings to preserve clear transparency for parents. The Brexit Gamble and Cabinet Coercion (60:09) Johnson discloses high-stakes private pressure from David Cameron ahead of the 2016 EU referendum, alleging that Cameron promised him a top-five cabinet role if he backed Remain, but warned he would 'f*** [him] up forever' if he endorsed Leave. Johnson downplays an unpublished draft article arguing for Remain as an intellectual testing exercise, insisting that the fundamental case for Leave was constitutional accountability and escaping an unelected regulatory authority. When pressed on why the Leave campaign had no operational post-referendum government plan, Johnson maintains that campaign groups are not administrations-in-waiting, arguing Cameron's immediate resignation created an unexpected vacuum. Despite Bartlett citing data showing 62% of the public view Brexit as a failure, an estimated 5.5% hit to GDP, and added trade friction, Johnson dismisses negative projections as confirmation bias. He counters that sovereign regulatory freedom enabled the UK to approve and deliver COVID-19 vaccines far faster than EU nations, while noting that technological fixes can resolve ongoing border paperwork. Pandemic Misjudgments and the Lab-Leak Theory (75:58) Reflecting on early 2020, Johnson admits his initial reaction to COVID-19 was clouded by covering historical scares like salmonella, BSE, and bird flu, which led him to assume animal-borne diseases usually resolve themselves and that political overreactions cause worse economic fallout. His view abruptly shifted around March 8, 2020, when the collapse of northern Italy's healthcare system exposed the threat to the NHS. Responding to criticisms regarding lockdown timing, he insists he followed SAGE recommendations to avoid compliance fatigue, while casting doubt on Matt Hancock's assertion that an earlier shutdown would have spared 30,000 lives. Regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2, Johnson states he is now convinced the virus was not a natural spillover from a wet market, but almost certainly an accident stemming from gain-of-function engineering in a Wuhan laboratory. He claims the World Health Organization and global scientific bodies were hesitant to challenge Beijing due to significant Chinese funding across international academic institutions. Lockdown Restrictions, Partygate, and Strategic Regrets (89:51) While asserting that national lockdowns slowed transmission, Johnson acknowledges their immense collateral damage to children's education and calls subsequent regional tiering systems 'bonkers' and practically impossible to administer. Bartlett highlights the contrast between the public strictly observing lockdown rules and reports of social events at 10 Downing Street. Johnson denies that wild raves or dance parties took place, defending events like his June 19, 2020 birthday gathering as brief encounters with everyday colleagues in an intense workplace, despite receiving a police fine. Johnson argues that his chief political mistake during the Partygate fallout was issuing early, blanket apologies. He contends that by apologizing universally before facts were determined, he inadvertently validated exaggerated accounts—such as reports of fistfights and vomiting inside Downing Street—which unfairly tarnished overworked civil servants and entrenched a narrative of hypocrisy. Johnson maintains that political separations are rarely absolute—pointing to his reconciliation with Michael Gove—and leaves the door open to returning to frontline politics only if he believes he can be useful, while defending his sovereign policy choices as sound despite persistent public backlash.

英国前首相鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）在访谈中为其执政时期的重大争议辩护，主张其在推动英国脱欧和应对新冠疫情中的决策均立足于国家主权与民主问责；同时，他将自身兼具幽默与争议的公众形象，追溯为早年应对家庭变故与激烈同胞竞争的心灵防御机制。 家庭动荡、同胞竞争与人设塑造 (2:53) 约翰逊回顾了早年生活对其性格的深远塑造。在14年内搬家32次的动荡环境中，他自幼便与弟妹陷入激烈的“主导权之争”，以此对抗同胞间的竞争压力。10岁时，其母亲因严重强迫症（OCD）住院治疗长达8个月，这一危机迫使四兄妹抱团应对；14岁父母离异时，约翰逊坦言曾直面巨大的情感痛苦，并选择将全部精力投入学业，通过优异成绩来重筑受损的自尊心。对于传记作者提出的家庭暴力指控，约翰逊明确表示自己童年对此毫无所知，并拒绝发表可能令父亲尴尬的言论。 针对外界认为其蓬头垢面、举止笨拙的公众形象纯属精心设计的政治营销，约翰逊予以坚决否认。他将这一风格归结于家庭内部“对沉闷无趣的恐惧”——全家人自幼便被要求通过笑话和表演相互取乐。他将自己的沟通哲学比作“消化饼干”：在严肃的高纤维政治内容（粗粮）外层包裹一层巧克力，以吸引受众持续关注；他坚称那些看似滑稽的公众插曲均属本真流露，绝非刻意编排的政治欺骗。 精英垄断、阶层固化与均等化愿景 (25:04) 面对英国历任57位首相中约35%（20人）毕业于伊顿公学（Eton College）所反映的体制不公，凭借亨利六世国王奖学金就读伊顿的约翰逊承认，英国的机遇分布极不均衡。但他强调，天赋与雄心在全英各地是均匀分布的，这也是其推行“均等化”（Leveling Up）议程的核心基石。他以主政伦敦期间改造哈克尼（Hackney）等贫困城区的经验为例，主张通过打破低期望恶性循环，结合果断的治安治理，在伦敦市长任内成功将谋杀率降低了50%。 在回应国家均等化推进缓慢的质疑时，约翰逊辩护称，政府的核心职能在于通过重大基础设施为私营投资奠定信心。他列举保守党执政期间千兆宽带覆盖率在三年内从7%跃升至约70%，并呼吁持续推进HS2高铁和“北方经济引擎铁路”（Northern Powerhouse Rail）。尽管主持人以亲历利物浦公立学校资源匮乏为例提出严厉批评，约翰逊仍坚称政府提高了新入职教师起薪至3万英镑，并提升了英国在国际PISA排名中的表现，同时主张保留Ofsted单字评估评级以维持对家长的透明度与学校问责标准。 脱欧博弈、主权回归与经济代价交锋 (43:34) 谈及2016年脱欧公投，约翰逊披露了时任首相戴维·卡梅伦（David Cameron）对其发出的利诱与威胁：卡梅伦承诺若其支持留欧将授予内阁前五的重要职位，而在察觉其倾向脱欧后则发出严厉警告，威胁称若支持离开将“永远整垮你”。约翰逊澄清，自己当年撰写的那篇支持留欧的未发表草稿仅是一次智力推演与论点反测。他强调脱欧的核心逻辑在于民主问责——选民必须能够追究并罢免执政者，而欧盟体制无法满足这一点；卡梅伦在公投失败后的立即辞职则打破了政府出台谈判白皮书的预期，直接导致了过渡期的政局动荡。 面对主持人列举的严峻经济数据——包括YouGov民调显示62%的民众认为脱欧失败、欧洲改革中心评估2023年英国GDP缩水5.5%（年损失约400亿英镑）、食品价格上涨6%，以及预算责任办公室（OBR）关于经济长期规模缩水4%的预测，约翰逊全盘拒绝了后悔脱欧的说辞。他指责这些悲观预测充斥着“确认偏误”，强调英国自2016年以来的经济增速超过德意等国，就业人数创历史新高；他更指出摆脱欧洲药品管理局（EMA）监管使英国得以快速推进新冠疫苗接种。对于中小企业面临的边境通关繁琐摩擦，他认为技术方案最终能予以解决，绝不能重回服从欧盟法律帝国的“规则接受者”老路。 疫情误判、病毒溯源与封控政策反思 (78:41) 回顾新冠疫情初期，约翰逊坦承自己犯了经验主义错误。由于过去三十年在记者和政客生涯中经历过疯牛病（BSE）、禽流感、SARS等公共卫生危机，他曾误判新型人畜共患疾病往往会“自行消解”，并认为政客粗暴干预造成的经济社会破坏往往大于疾病本身。直到2020年3月目睹意大利优质医疗系统在激增病例下濒临崩溃，他才意识到英国面临灾难性威胁。他为延迟封控的指责辩护，称政府必须遵循紧急情况科学咨询小组（SAGE）的正式建议，当时科学界主要担忧过早封控会导致公众疲劳而在解封后引发剧烈反弹。 在病毒起源问题上，约翰逊明确表示其观点已发生转变，坚信新冠病毒“几乎肯定是武汉实验室发生功能获得性（gain-of-function）研究事故所致”，而非自然溢出；他认为世界卫生组织及部分科研机构因顾及中国的庞大科研资助而忌惮公开批评北京。此外，约翰逊痛批疫情后期推行的区域“分级封控”（tiering system）在实践中“荒谬绝伦”，直言这种复杂的地域割裂规则无法执行，甚至在回忆录中将其比作公众为了寻求拯救而盲目遵守的古代宗教教条。 派对门争议、道歉策略失误与政治退隐 (96:58) 围绕导致其政权瓦解的“派对门”（Partygate）丑闻，约翰逊坚决否认唐宁街10号曾举办过任何放纵的狂欢派对，声称被拍照的2020年5月15日花园酒会属于工作延伸且地点为其个人住所，而导致其收到警方罚单的生日会也是在内阁会议间隙立于办公桌旁，并未饮酒或切蛋糕。但他承认，政府官员在公众严格遵循隔离政策之际必须“被看到完全遵守规则”。 约翰逊在战术层面反思指出，自己执政末期最大的失误在于过早发表了“可怜兮兮的全面道歉”。这一笼统道歉在事实尚未查清之前，反而在公众心中坐实了所有耸人听闻的指控，进而连累了日夜奋战的公务员团队；而苏·格雷（Sue Gray）调查报告中关于斗殴和呕吐等夸大细节后续亦被证伪。谈及现状，约翰逊表示自己正处于“无可指摘的田园式隐退”，享受写作与绘画；对于未来是否重返政坛，他重申《脱缰》（Unleashed）中的原则：只有在坚信自己真正能发挥作用时，才会考虑重新介入公共事务。 本期访谈展现了鲍里斯·约翰逊一贯的论辩策略：通过诉诸崇高的民主主权与历史大局观，为其在脱欧与疫情应对中的争议决策辩护。然而，他将权威机构不利的经济预测轻描淡写地斥为确认偏误，并在坚持摆脱规则束缚的同时未能消除企业面临的实际行政壁垒，使得其强调的主权红利与公众承受的现实治理代价之间，依然存在未被弥合的深层分歧。

## Background 该视频由YouTube频道“The Diary Of A CEO”（主持人史蒂文·巴特利特 Steven Bartlett）于2024年10月10日发布。视频简介指出，作为英国第55任首相（2019至2022年在任），鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）曾领导英国渡过上世纪三大历史性危机，是英国现代史上最具争议的政治人物之一；本期节目围绕其回忆录《Unleashed》（不受束缚）展开，全面揭秘其执政风波与个人心路历程。 ## TL;DR 访谈深度复盘了鲍里斯·约翰逊从童年家庭创伤到步入权力中枢的完整人生。约翰逊首次坦白母亲因严重强迫症入院长达八个月及父母离异对他少年心理防御机制的塑造，将高强度工作视作重建自尊的避难所。针对脱欧风波，他独家披露了时任首相戴维·卡梅伦在公投前对其许诺高官拉拢与政治毁灭威胁的博弈细节，并坚决为收回主权辩护。在新冠疫情与导致其下台的“派对门”丑闻上，他推测病毒极可能来自实验室泄漏，痛陈分级防控的荒谬代价，并反思自己当年过早发表“全面道歉”是背叛团队且加深公众误解的重大公关败笔。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话充满高密度的思想交锋与剑拔弩张的质询张力，主持人巴特利特以扎实的经济数据、权威调查报告与受害者亲历视角不断向约翰逊正面发难，毫不回避阶级特权、失信争议与派对门等敏感痛点。约翰逊则在标志性的机智幽默、自嘲防守与顽强辩护之间自如切换，试图用通俗的比喻化解尖锐攻势。但在触及已故母亲的患病经历与派对门对唐宁街无辜幕僚带来的伤害时，语调中流露出罕见的防御性与情感波澜，使整期节目呈现出政治法庭辩论与深度人性剖白交织的沉重底色。 ## Bulletin - [59:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3545s) 前英国首相鲍里斯·约翰逊披露，时任首相戴维·卡梅伦在脱欧公投前曾开出内阁前五的核心要职诱导其支持留欧，并发出若倒向脱欧派将“彻底毁掉你”的政治威胁。 - [01:18:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4721s) 约翰逊明确表示新冠病毒“几乎可以肯定是一起实验室事故”，推测当时科研人员正在进行功能增益（gain-of-function）实验并尝试人工改造病毒，不幸发生泄漏。 - [01:07:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4027s) 面对权威数据关于脱欧导致英国 GDP 萎缩 5.5% 及 62% 民众视其为失败的质疑，约翰逊坚决回应“绝不后悔”，强调脱欧赋予的监管自主权让英国得以在疫苗接种与解除防疫封控上领先欧洲。 - [01:44:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6257s) 针对“派对门”丑闻，约翰逊反思最大的公关败笔是初期发表了笼统的“全面道歉”，导致外界默认所有离奇指控属实，客观上伤害了日夜抗疫的唐宁街公务员团队。 ## Key takeaways - [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=605s) 童年时期母亲因重度强迫症住院8个月以及14岁时父母离异，促使约翰逊建立起将高强度工作和学术竞争作为疗愈自尊的“自我防卫”心理机制。 - [21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1303s) 约翰逊坚决否认蓬头垢面的滑稽外形是精心计算的政治营销，称其标志性的幽默风格自幼年与兄弟姐妹相处时便已形成，并非后天伪装。 - [25:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1504s) 指出英国历任57位首相中有约20位出自伊顿公学，反映出全英“天赋均等但机会极其不均”，这也成为他日后力推“地方均衡发展”（Leveling Up）的核心执政逻辑。 - [38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2338s) 担任伦敦市长期间将青少年持刀与黑帮暴力作为施政重心，通过强力警务部署在任内将伦敦谋杀率大幅削减了50%。 - [45:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2710s) 解释公投前夕写下的未发表“亲欧草稿”纯粹是理清思路的利弊对照练习，他最终投身脱欧阵营的核心驱动力是夺回国家立法自主与民主问责权。 - [54:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3261s) 坚决反驳脱欧阵营缺乏后备方案的批评，认为全民公投并非大选，制定后续谈判预案与执行公投结果是当时在任卡梅伦政府不可推卸的宪政责任。 - [59:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3545s) 披露卡梅伦曾以“内阁前五职位”作为拉拢筹码，并在劝阻无效后厉声威胁将彻底终结其政治生涯，最终其子女的建议促成了他公开站队脱欧的决心。 - [01:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3663s) 指出英国政界难以吸引商界领袖等顶级行政人才，主因在于当前的舆论与社交媒体环境极度暴戾和恶化，导致外部贤能主动避险以防遭遇人身攻击。 - [01:07:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4027s) 坚信脱欧赋予了英国不可替代的战术自主权，英国正是凭借摆脱布鲁塞尔监管束缚，才实现了新冠疫苗接种和经济复苏解封（Freedom Day）上的率先抢跑。 - [01:15:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4544s) 坦承在疫情暴发之初自以为熟悉人畜共患病而产生轻敌心态，过往经验曾误导他认为新型病毒通常会自然平息或被夸大其词。 - [01:18:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4721s) 断言新冠病毒源自实验室事故而非海鲜市场自然产生，并指出西方部分科学家早期因担心得罪资助科研合作的中方而不敢公开追责溯源。 - [01:21:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4917s) 为英国初期封锁决策辩护，强调内阁严格遵循科学咨询小组（SAGE）指导，防止在缺乏流行病学依据的情况下过早将全国人口关停而引发“封锁疲劳”。 - [01:29:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=5360s) 批评2020年秋季推行的地区分级防控体系（tiering system）执行效果极其荒谬，行政边界的不公划分使落地操作演化为引发民怨的噩梦。 - [01:38:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=5904s) 澄清“派对门”罚单真相，否认曾参与任何有音乐、跳舞或蛋糕的狂欢聚会，强调自己仅因站在内阁会议室办公桌旁与幕僚短暂停留而被罚款。 - [01:41:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6060s) 反思唐宁街公关失误，指出领导层不仅应遵守防疫规则，更应“被公众看到在严格守规”；初期草率的全面道歉不仅未能平息怒火，反倒把无辜的抗疫幕僚推向舆论绞刑架。 - [01:47:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6461s) 正面澄清私生活传闻，确认自己育有8个孩子，并否认了与被任命为上议院议员的夏洛特·欧文存在任何亲戚或情人关系的流言。 - [01:49:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6588s) 谈及政治成功路上的人际代价，承认与迈克尔·戈夫在2016年党首竞选中曾发生严重决裂，但强调2019年依然重新起用戈夫入阁，证明政治决裂并非不可弥合。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=0s) 访谈前瞻：政治丑闻、脱欧秘辛与病毒起源 访谈以一段充满张力的快节奏集锦拉开序幕，直接切入鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）政治生涯中最具争议的一系列核心事件。针对导致其下台的“派对门”（Partygate）丑闻，主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）言辞犀利地质问，身为领导者理应以身作则，唐宁街10号在普通民众无法出席亲人葬礼的严格管控期，为何竟会出现有酒精、音乐和蛋糕的聚会。约翰逊辩解称，将那些工作聚会描绘成“故意违规的狂欢派对”完全是颠倒黑白，但也坦承这类聚会本就不该发生，并为此表达了歉意。 随后，话题转向英国脱欧的政治内幕与博弈。约翰逊披露了时任首相戴维·卡梅伦（David Cameron）在公投前对他赤裸裸的威胁与拉拢：卡梅伦直言，如果约翰逊胆敢支持脱欧派，自己将彻底毁掉他的政治前途；反之，若支持留欧，则可直接获封内阁排名前五的显赫要职。巴特利特追问这是否意味着腐败和分赃，约翰逊苦涩地承认“自古以来的政治或许皆是如此”。此外，集锦还透露了约翰逊对新冠疫情的惊人判断，他表示病毒“几乎可以肯定是一场实验室事故”，因为当时科研人员正在研究病毒工程与基因编辑，不幸发生了差错；约翰逊甚至用“荒唐”（bonkers）来形容自己任内推行的分级封锁措施对儿童造成的惨重伤害。最后，预告触及了他童年深处的家庭创伤——母亲因精神疾病入院、家庭暴力传闻以及14岁时父母离异带给他的冲击。 --- ### [02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=140s) 播客常态互动：订阅支持承诺 巴特利特在正式对话前插入了一段与观众的简短交流。他透露后台数据显示，高达53%的忠实听众尚未订阅该频道。他诚恳呼吁听众点击免费订阅按钮，并承诺自己与团队将全力倾听反馈、邀请听众期盼的嘉宾，以此作为回报，持续提升节目的制作质量。 --- ### [02:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=174s) 早期岁月：兄弟姐妹的激烈竞争与家庭流动 正式对话始于巴特利特对约翰逊成长背景的探寻。当被问及若要理解今日的鲍里斯必须先了解他童年的哪些特质时，约翰逊回顾了自己那段充满活力但也极其喧嚣的早期家庭生活。他指出，人生的关键转折发生在他出生仅18个月后——妹妹雷切尔·约翰逊（Rachel Johnson）呱呱坠地。从那一刻起，为了在兄弟姐妹中维持所谓的“主导地位”，一场旷日持久的生存博弈便拉开了帷幕。 约翰逊分析道，四个孩子之间持续不断、极其激烈的良性竞争与对抗，深刻塑造了他的性格底色。然而，这种好胜心理在家庭内部也伴随着自我嘲弄，大家彼此心知肚明却又互相讥讽，常常戏谑地称对方“小宝宝就是想赢”，在竞争的同时又刻意贬抑竞争本身。当巴特利特追问他在10岁前面对父亲常年忙碌、14年内搬家多达32次的颠沛生活时有何切身感受时，约翰逊坦言当时只觉得充满乐趣。他为父母辩护称，母亲是画家，父亲是作家且身兼数职，虽然事务极其繁杂，但双亲在四个孩子身上倾注了大量的心血与关爱，绝非缺乏陪伴的冷漠家庭。 --- ### [05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=320s) 幼年病痛：切除腺样体与“分泌性中耳炎” 童年时期的约翰逊在身体健康上也经历了一段波折。针对外界流传他幼年曾因“胶耳”（分泌性中耳炎，Glue Ear）导致听力受损的说法，约翰逊给出了更为具体的医疗细节。他回忆自己在圣巴多罗买医院（St Bartholomew's Hospital，常称 St Barts）度过了相当漫长的时光，不仅饱受扁桃体炎和腺样体肥大的折磨，还接受了腺样体与扁桃体切除手术。 谈及当年的听力障碍，约翰逊展现了标志性的幽默与调侃。他笑称自己如今的听力完全正常、毫无残疾痕迹，甚至在回想时怀疑，那场所谓的“耳聋”会不会只是自己当年为了躲避母亲追问、避免正面交锋而耍弄的一场“狡黠的掩护手段”。巴特利特打趣地反问一个8岁男童是否真有如此深的心机，约翰逊则笑着回应，自己当时或许并没有那么精明，但确实借此逃避了不少不想面对的对话。 --- ### [06:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=375s) 母亲夏洛特：严重的强迫症与八个月的离别 话题随后转向约翰逊生命中至关重要的女性——他的母亲夏洛特（Charlotte Johnson Wahl）。约翰逊将自己的回忆录《Unleashed》扉页献给了已故的母亲。巴特利特指出，夏洛特不仅是一位才华横溢的艺术家，用画笔记录孩子与生活，但她的一生也饱受严重强迫症（OCD）的折磨，并在约翰逊10岁左右被送往精神专科医院住院治疗了长达八个月之久。 约翰逊追忆了那段艰难的日子。母亲长达数月的缺席让四个孩子不得不紧密团结在一起，形成了极强的群体凝聚力与抱团取暖的本能。他回忆起母亲洗手时的强迫症状：反复清洗双手后，却因为害怕关水龙头会再次弄脏双手而陷入无休止的心理拉锯。尽管母亲后来完全克服并走出了心理阴影，但她余生一直因当年缺席孩子的成长八个月而深感自责与内疚。约翰逊对此极为动容，他坚定地表示母亲的自责是完全不公允的，在那种极端困境下母亲已经做到了极致，作为子女绝不可能要求更多。至于当年为何住院，约翰逊推测是父母共同商议后认为专业治疗是最佳出路，彼时家中则依靠父亲以及一系列出色的互惠生（Au Pairs）和保姆维持日常运转。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 幼年家庭危机与应对机制 accDescr: 展示母亲患病住院后，家庭结构的变动与孩子们形成的心理防护机制。 subgraph 家庭变故 A["母亲夏洛特患严重强迫症 (OCD)"] --> B["入住精神病院治疗8个月 (鲍里斯时年10岁)"] end subgraph 应对与照料 B --> C["父亲维持家庭运转"] B --> D["雇佣互惠生 (Au Pairs) 与保姆日常照料"] B --> E["四名兄弟姐妹高度凝聚抱团"] end subgraph 心理印记 E --> F["形成自我防卫机制 (Self-Defense)"] F --> G["塑造日后应对政治创伤与压力的情感外壳"] end ``` --- ### [10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=605s) 创伤印记：少年时期的“自我防卫”机制 巴特利特进一步引用了夏洛特生前受访时的一段论述：母亲认为，10岁时经历母亲入院长达八个月的别离，加之14岁时父母正式离婚的双重打击，恰好发生在青春期自我意识萌芽的关键节点，这种剧烈的震荡迫使约翰逊发展出了一套坚固的“自我防卫”（self-defense）心理机制来抵御痛苦。 面对巴特利特的心理剖析，约翰逊没有回避，坦率承认在经历类似境遇的孩子身上，发展出某种情感防御壳层几乎是不可避免的经典心理反应。虽然在懵懂的少年时期他自己并未自觉意识到这种防护机制的存在，但成年后回望，确有其事。尽管如此，约翰逊依然极力维护父母的形象，坚称无论生活如何动荡，双亲从未将他们弃之不顾，他们始终是极其卓越且深爱孩子的父母。 - **家庭动态数据**：约翰逊在14岁前随父母搬家多达32次； - **母亲住院周期**：夏洛特在约翰逊10岁时因强迫症入住精神病院接受治疗约8个月； - **核心论点**：兄弟姐妹间的竞争文化与母亲患病离家带来的创伤，共同促成了约翰逊早年“自我防卫”心理机制的建立，并为其日后在政坛展现的顽强与防御姿态埋下了伏笔。 ### [11:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=706s) 自我防御机制与将工作视为疗愈 当史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问其母亲为何形容他具有“自我防御”倾向，以及这种防御如何在行为中体现时，鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）坦言家庭的变故确实带来了不可否认的痛苦。在探讨应对这种情绪创伤的方式时，鲍里斯分享了自己应对所有情感痛苦的“最佳疗法”——将自己彻底埋首于工作之中。他认为，情感痛苦的核心往往在于自尊心受挫；当父母分居或离婚时，孩子们不可避免地会产生一种潜意识的荒谬认知，觉得“如果你们要分开，那你们肯定没有那么爱我们”，进而归咎于自身，认为是自己做错了什么或存在某种缺陷。 为了抵御这种自尊受损带来的刺痛，学术学业和竞争成为了鲍里斯天然的避难所与心理防线。他解释道，投身于学业竞争不仅为他重建自尊提供了出口，也成为了一种极其有效的心理转移与镇痛剂。尽管心理学对此或许有不同的理论解释，但对他而言，高强度的工作既是注意力的分散，也是对抗内在脆弱感的坚固铠甲。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 鲍里斯·约翰逊的心理防御机制图解 accDescr: 展示童年家庭破裂如何引发自尊危机，并最终通过工作与学术竞争完成心理代偿的过程。 subgraph Trauma["情感冲击与危机"] A["父母婚姻破裂与家庭变故"] --> B["儿童内疚投射<br/>认为自身存在过错"] B --> C["自尊心严重受挫"] end subgraph Coping["代偿与防御机制"] C --> D["寻找自尊重建渠道"] D --> E["学术学业与竞争"] E --> F["工作狂式的情感转移与心理疗愈"] end ``` ### [13:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=821s) 父母的离异与家庭暴力的传闻 谈到父母当年为何正式离婚，鲍里斯解释称，从表面形式上来看，母亲夏洛特（Charlotte）只是决定去开启一段全新的人生，随后也遇到了非常棒的伴侣。然而，这段婚姻最奇特的地方在于，即便分道扬镳，父母双方在离婚后依然对彼此保留着极其深厚的温情与爱意。在孩子们看来，他们并非处于残酷的战争状态，即便过去有过激烈的争吵与冲突，但两人之间始终存在着清晰可见的情感残余。孩子们当年的理性解释是：彼此依然相爱，但在现实生活中确实已无法继续共同生活下去。 随后，史蒂文直截了当地提出了传闻中的敏感话题，指出传记中有记载称鲍里斯童年时家中曾存在家庭暴力。对此，鲍里斯的态度显得克制且警惕。他将这些指控归结为“某位传记作者在书里写的东西”，并明确声明自己作为孩子对此“没有任何直接了解”。鲍里斯拒绝深入讨论这一细节，表示自己既不想对已故母亲的记忆表现出不敬，也绝对不希望说出任何会让父亲斯坦利（Stanley Johnson）感到痛苦或难堪的话。 ### [15:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=957s) 萨默塞特的机车棚：童年裂痕与自尊的火炉 父母在大学相识相爱，这段感情的破裂对几个孩子来说无疑是一记重击。鲍里斯清晰地回忆起父母向孩子们宣布离婚决定的那一天：当时一家人身处萨默塞特郡（Somerset），父亲叫上所有孩子走到靠近机车棚（engine shed）的大门旁，就在那里正式告知了他们这个悲伤的消息。听到消息的瞬间，年幼的鲍里斯感到十分愤怒，甚至当场质问父亲：“那你们当初为什么要生下我们？” 史蒂文敏锐地注意到，当鲍里斯叙述这一幕时，脸上的微表情仿佛瞬间将他拉回了数十年前的萨默塞特乡间。鲍里斯虽然笑称自己其实也是后来听旁人转述才记起自己当时说了这句话，但他并未否认那种刻骨铭心的感受。他承认，孩子总是倾向于将家庭的破裂揽到自己身上，因此在内心深处及时为自尊“添柴加火”至关重要： - “你必须不断给自己的自尊炉膛添煤，把自己重新撑起来，而工作就是我当年的应对方式。” - 鲍里斯强调不要过度渲染当年的悲剧色彩，因为父母在此后的漫长岁月里一直对彼此表现得极其友善与体贴。 ### [18:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1112s) 公众形象与幽默策略：“裹着巧克力的消化饼干” 话题转向鲍里斯那极具辨识度的公众形象与喜剧气质。鲍里斯早年因频繁做客 BBC 著名讽刺脱口秀《我有新闻告诉你》（*Have I Got News for You*）而名声大噪，史蒂文调侃称，BBC 如今大概对当年亲手“释放了这个怪物”怀有某种企业级的内疚感。史蒂文坦白道，自己14岁第一次在电视上看到鲍里斯时，甚至一度以为他是英国恶搞喜剧《Bo' Selecta!》里的特型模仿角色，后来才震惊地发现他竟然是一位正经的政治家。史蒂文援引脱口秀演员吉米·卡尔（Jimmy Carr）的名言问道：“如果遇到一个幽默或搞笑的人，别问他是否抑郁，问问他在试图逗乐哪位父母，或博取谁的欢心。” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 《Unleashed》图书结构设计逻辑 accDescr: 展示鲍里斯如何通过巧克力糖衣包裹消化饼干麦胚的方式平衡政治论述与娱乐性。 subgraph BookDesign["《Unleashed》全书60章结构"] G["严肃政治观点与论据<br/>(麦胚粗粮 / Pabulum)"] H["趣味轶事与喜剧笔触<br/>(巧克力涂层 / Sugar)"] G --- H --> I["引人入胜的阅读体验<br/>让读者欲罢不能"] end ``` 鲍里斯对此做出了外交式的化解，他指出幽默在政治和写作中是一种极其有效的沟通工具。在谈到自己的回忆录《Unleashed》时，他用“麦维他巧克力消化饼干”做了一个生动的比喻： - 政治与政策往往枯燥复杂，必须学会“给药丸裹上糖衣”（sugar the pill）。 - 全书共60个章节，每一章都像是一块扎实的麦胚粗粮饼干，但外层必须浇筑上一层诱人的巧克力糖衣。 - 读者唯有通过这种轻快有趣的方式，才能一口气顺畅地读完整包饼干，同时吸收关于脱欧收回国家控制权、中东局势以及过去15年英国政坛的复杂政治逻辑。 ### [21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1303s) 精心设计的营销还是真实本性？ 拥有15年营销从业经验的史蒂文进一步发起逼问：鲍里斯那标志性的“看似滑稽古怪、蓬头垢面”的公众形象，究竟是一套经过精密计算的现代政治营销策略，还是纯粹的本性流露？有与鲍里斯亲近的人曾透露，私底下的他其实是一个相当喜静、甚至略带孤僻的人。史蒂文指出，鲍里斯作为当代最成功的选举赢家之一，这种非典型的政治人物风格显然极其有效，这是否源于深思熟虑的包装？ 鲍里斯对此坚决予以否认，坚称自己从未刻意改变过性格： - 在私下生活中，他的日子非常充实且简单，热爱画画、大量阅读、写作，以及和孩子们打闹嬉戏，“一点点小事就能让幸福溢满心头”。 - 针对外界所谓的“防御性喜剧人格”，鲍里斯反驳道，从孩提时代与兄弟姐妹相处开始，他身上就始终保持着这种旺盛的精力和特有的言行风格，老朋友都知道他几十年来未曾改变，这并非后天计算出来的公关伪装。 ### [23:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1399s) 家庭幽默、公众人设与橄榄球赛上的“撞倒儿童” 约翰逊回忆起自己的童年生活，提到家中兄弟姐妹之间充斥着一种“对无趣或沉默的恐惧”——大家必须想方设法逗乐彼此，保持谈话的生动有趣。当史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）打趣称约翰逊的兄弟姐妹似乎不如他搞笑时，约翰逊立刻抗议这是个“极具争议的评价”，并极力推荐主持人邀请他的弟弟利奥（Leo）或乔（Joe）上节目，称他们童年最大的乐趣就是互相逗趣，同时也努力给父母带去欢笑，家里经常上演猜字谜（charades）、戴着圣诞面具表演戏剧等自编自演的节目。 史蒂芬随即援引了前工党党魁杰里米·科尔宾（Jeremy Corbyn）对约翰逊的一句辛辣评价：“鲍里斯是一个深思熟虑、精明过人的人，却生活在一个与其本质完全相反的公众人设之中。”他直截了当地问约翰逊这是否属实。约翰逊笑着否认，称某种程度上自己倒希望这是真的。史蒂芬接着指出，网络上流传最广的约翰逊视频往往充满滑稽色彩，比如他在日本打街头橄榄球时直接撞翻了一名儿童。约翰逊则半开玩笑地辩解说，那纯粹是一场意外碰撞，并坚称“那个日本孩子看起来可能比实际年龄要大得多”，以此化解外界认为他在刻意扮演“小丑式”政客的质疑。 --- ### [25:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1504s) 伊顿公学、阶级壁垒与“天赋均等但机会不均” 话题转向约翰逊 13 岁入读的伊顿公学（Eton College）。史蒂芬列出了一组触目惊心的数据：在英国历任 57 位首相中，约有 20 位毕业于伊顿公学，比例高达近 35%。史蒂芬直言，这一所学校输出如此多最高权力的执掌者，说明英国的体制显然“出了问题，天平被暗中动了手脚”。约翰逊对此表示理解，并指出这正是他在新书《放飞自我》（*Unleashed*）中探讨的核心主题之一——“平衡发展”（Leveling Up，或译“提升各地水平”）。 约翰逊解释称，自己当年是凭借奖学金考入伊顿的（受惠于亨利六世的遗泽基金）。在校期间，他产生了一种强烈的震惊与顿悟：一方面，许多来自英国显赫贵族家族的子弟在学业上毫无激情与灵气；另一方面，来自全国各地普通家庭的学生却展现出非凡的天赋与才华。年幼的约翰逊由此得出一个深刻的结论： > “雄心、活力、天赋与才能在全英国的人口中是均匀分布的，但机会却完全不是。” 约翰逊指出，与法国、德国、意大利甚至美国相比，英国的经济与权力过度向伦敦及英格兰东南部倾斜，造成了巨大的潜力浪费。当他担任伦敦市长（在任八年）时，核心政绩之一就是全力提升长期被认为陷入恶性循环的内伦敦贫困行政区（如哈克尼区 Hackney），打破这种阶层锁死。他强调，不论是保守党还是工党执政，公共政策的核心任务都必须是消除这种地域与阶层的桎梏。 --- ### [28:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1733s) 保守党政府的“平衡发展”成效与基础设施之争 当史蒂芬尖锐质问保守党政府在过去十年里是否在“平衡发展”上做出了足够成效时，约翰逊坦承：“显然不够，因为推进的速度远远不够快。”不过，他依然为自己任期内推行的多项硬核措施辩护： - **千兆宽带网络普及**：在短短三年内将英国千兆宽带覆盖率从 7% 提升至近 70%。 - **重大交通基建**：坚定推动英国二号高速铁路（HS2）和“北方经济引擎铁路”（Northern Powerhouse Rail）。 约翰逊认为，交通基础设施是实现机会平等的伟大调节器，叫停这些大工程是严重的战略失误，而自己从政的强项恰恰在于“雷厉风行地推动重大项目落地”。 史蒂芬再次回到伊顿公学占首相名额三分之一的事实，追问这是否证明英国社会的掌权者一开始就享有不公的特权优势。约翰逊承认这一现象的存在，并指出政治家在此面临着根本的哲学路线抉择：是像波尔布特那样对顶尖精英机构发起文化清洗与攻击，还是像美国那样通过普及机会来激发底层活力？他强调，美国的经济增速长期显著优于欧洲，正因为美国人拥有更强的自我实现意识，英国绝不能让国民沦为自身出身与出生地的囚徒。 --- ### [32:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1944s) 底层学校的恶性循环与僵化的教育体制 为了佐证英国底层机会的匮乏，史蒂芬分享了自己在保守党执政期间暗访利物浦一所英国教育标准局（Ofsted）评级极差的公立中学的亲身经历。他亲眼目睹一名女教师为了维持教学，不得不气喘吁吁地在两个教室之间来回奔跑，同时给两个班级上课。在与该校校长的深谈中，史蒂芬看清了公立教育体制内部残酷的商业化运作逻辑： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 公立学校资源恶性循环流程图 accDescr: 展示成绩排名、招生人数、拨款与教学条件之间形成的闭环恶性循环 subgraph Evaluation ["评估与选择"] A["统一考试评级 (Ofsted 排行榜)"] --> B["家长根据排名择校"] end subgraph Finance ["资金与资源"] B --> C["学校招生人数波动"] C --> D["政府按人头核拨教育资金"] end subgraph Operation ["教学困境"] D -->|"资金短缺"| E["削减师资/教师一人兼两班"] E --> F["强迫学生刷分应试/抹杀偏科特长"] F --> A end ``` 史蒂芬以自身经历痛批这种体制的荒谬： - **体制逼迫学校追求应试指标**：为了在学校排行榜上保住排名，校方不顾学生的兴趣与专长，强迫所有学生修读容易冲高等级的特定科目（如拼凑 12 门 A* 至 C 等级的成绩）。 - **扼杀个性与实际才能**：史蒂芬当时已经在校外经营自己的商业项目，但在课堂上却被强制推着塑料婴儿模型完成“卫生与社会关怀”课的作业。 - **特异神经多样性群体的被边缘化**：史蒂芬因课堂枯燥频频打瞌睡而被送进隔离关押室（exclusion unit），直到很久以后才确诊患有注意缺陷与多动障碍（ADHD）。现行教育系统将不能在各科平均下注的学生统统判定为失败者，使本就缺乏资源的底层孩子彻底失去了改变命运的可能。 ### [34:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2055s) 英国教育资源分配与保守党教育改革争议 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）向鲍里斯·约翰逊提出关于英国阶层流动与教育不公的尖锐质疑。他提到自己曾参访一所资金匮乏的学校，亲眼目睹一名女教师因为入学学生数量减少、经费削减，不得不自掏腰包为班级购买足球和铅笔；学校师资严重短缺，教师因过度操劳接连病倒。巴特利特认为，教育是赋予年轻人公平竞争机会、让他们未来能够成为首相或企业高管最根本的“源头环节”，但保守党执政的十余年间，教育不平等显然未能得到彻底解决。 面对这番抨击，鲍里斯试图为保守党政府的政绩辩护。他首先表达了对教师群体的崇高敬意，坦言自己年轻时也曾尝试当过老师，深知这是一项“极其困难且要求极高的工作”。鲍里斯强调，自他在 2019 年出任首相以来，政府向教育预算注入了大量资金，将新入职教师的起薪提升至至少 30,000 英镑，并大幅增加了对继续教育学院（FE colleges）的投资。他指出，在保守党执政期间，英国在国际学生评估项目（PISA）的阅读和数学排行榜上名次明显上升，学术标准与学校质量的提升是无可争辩的事实，包括全英范围内的学院制学校计划（Academy program）也功不可没。 鲍里斯进一步阐述了他对“地方均衡发展”（Leveling Up）的核心逻辑：通过提升各地区的学校与技能培训质量，让企业相信当地拥有值得投资的人才库，进而撬动私营部门的资本投入，彻底打破衰败的恶性循环，建立类似当年伦敦学校改革那样的“正向反馈机制”。针对当下英国舆论对教育督导体制的争议，鲍里斯也直言不讳地表达了担忧：虽然很多人反感英国教育标准局（Ofsted）简单粗暴的“单字评级”（one-word gradings），但父母有权清楚知道一所学校是否能真正兑现教学成果。 - **教师起薪保障**：鲍里斯政府将新教师起薪门槛提升至 30,000 英镑。 - **国际教育排名**：英国在 PISA 阅读与数学榜单上的名次在保守党执政期显著提高。 - **均衡发展机制**：主张通过国家教育与职业技能投资来吸引私营企业投资，而非单纯依赖公共基建。 --- ### [38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2338s) 从媒体名嘴到伦敦市长：狠抓青年暴力与谋杀率减半 巴特利特随后梳理了鲍里斯丰富且充满波折的早期职业生涯：从牛津大学毕业，进入管理咨询公司仅工作一周便离职（鲍里斯自嘲“自己根本不是当管理顾问的料”），随后投身新闻业成为专栏作家，并作为嘉宾频繁亮相英国知名讽刺时事节目《我有新闻告诉你》（*Have I Got News for You*）；之后他出任《观察家》（*The Spectator*）杂志主编，并当选下议院议员，最终于 2008 年正式竞选伦敦市长。 回忆起 2008 年对阵工党籍时任市长肯·利文斯通（Ken Livingstone）的选战，鲍里斯表示自己起初并没有十足胜算，甚至博彩公司在很长一段时间内都未将他列为头号热门。他坦言自己过去其实很欣赏利文斯通在改善空气质量等环保政策上的开创性举措，但利文斯通在执政八年后已显露疲态。鲍里斯认为利文斯通忽视了伦敦日益严峻的治安问题，因此他将竞选重点全力押注在打击青少年持刀行凶与黑帮暴力上。 在当选伦敦市长后，鲍里斯与副市长基特·马特豪斯（Kit Malthouse）、斯蒂芬·格林哈尔格（Stephen Greenhalgh）以及先后两任伦敦警察厅总监保罗·史蒂文森（Sir Paul Stephenson）和伯纳德·霍根-豪（Bernard Hogan-Howe）紧密合作，全面整顿治安。鲍里斯回忆，当时自己每晚都会因为担心发生命案而夜不能寐，每一位受害青少年的离世和与其父母的沟通都让他承受了巨大的心理重压。由于他们曾向选民立下军令状，“如果不解决就无路可退”，在严密的警务部署下，他在任期间伦敦的谋杀率最终被削减了整整 50%。 --- ### [41:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2513s) 执政时期的三大历史危机与脱欧公投的民意悬念 巴特利特指出，鲍里斯在 52 岁时与迈克尔·戈夫（Michael Gove）共同领导了英国脱欧运动（Vote Leave），而在随后出任首相期间，他几乎前所未有地在同一任期内迎面撞上了三大百年一遇的国家级危机：悬而未决的脱欧泥潭、席卷全球的 COVID-19 疫情，以及俄乌战争的爆发。当被问及是否希望当年抓到的是一副“不同的牌”时，鲍里斯坚决予以否认，称直面重大危机本就是身为首相的职责所在。他甚至辩护道，正是因为实现了脱欧带来的国家独立与监管自主，英国才能在疫情暴发时彻底摆脱欧盟官僚体系的束缚，以远超任何欧洲邻国的速度展开全国疫苗接种。 谈及 2016 年脱欧公投时的胜选预期，鲍里斯用生动的对比描绘了当时英国社会深层的撕裂：只要他走出伦敦大都市、前往英国其他地区，就能切身感受到汹涌的脱欧民意，觉得“天哪，大家真的会投脱欧”；但只要一回到伦敦市区，或是前往苏格兰圣安德鲁斯大学参加女儿的毕业典礼，周围的氛围就完全偏向留欧派，让人觉得脱欧毫无希望。尽管当时主流民调普遍预测留欧派会获胜，但鲍里斯深感脱欧选民的投票热情更加强烈。 最终，脱欧阵营赢得了 1740 万张选票，创下了英国历史上任何单一政治主张所获得支持票数的最高纪录。这不仅超出了许多建制派人士的预判，也正式拉开了英国现代政治史上最为剧烈的震荡大幕。巴特利特敏锐地指出，在公投前夕的公开文章和私下文字中，鲍里斯直到最后一刻似乎都在“留欧”与“脱欧”之间剧烈摇摆，为下一段关于那封著名的“秘密留欧信”的拷问埋下了伏笔。 ### [45:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2710s) 未发表的“留欧”文章与内心的摇摆 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）将话题切入到鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）政治生涯中最受争议的关键时刻之一——那篇他在做出脱欧决定前夕写下的未发表文章。在决定投身脱欧运动之前，鲍里斯在思想上陷入过极其剧烈的挣扎。支持留欧的理由主要关乎英国对欧洲其他国家的责任感、成为一个友善合作的伙伴，以及避免显得冷漠和敌对。史蒂芬当场念出了那篇未公开发表的文章节选： > “想想英国，想想欧盟其他国家，想想未来，想想我们的子孙后代渴望在其他欧洲国家生活、工作、做生意、结交朋友，乃至寻觅伴侣。我喜欢‘自由’这个词，也喜欢‘恢复民主’的构想，但弊端究竟是什么？在此我们必须坦诚：首先是对苏格兰的担忧，仅由英格兰主导的脱欧选票可能导致联合王国的分裂；其次是普京因素，我们绝不希望做任何鼓励这位俄罗斯领导人继续赤膊耀武扬威的事情，无论是在中东还是在任何地方；此外还有全方位的地缘战略焦虑，英国是一个伟大的国家、一股全球向善的力量，深度参与欧盟对世界和欧洲无疑是一件大好事；最后，这是一个就在我们家门口的市场，随时等待着英国企业去开拓，相比于进入该市场的巨大收益，欧盟会费显得微不足道。我们为何要如此执意背弃它？难道我们的政策不该像对待蛋糕一样吗——既想拥有它，又想吃掉它（pro-having it and pro-eating it），既亲欧洲，又面向世界。” 史蒂芬指出，鲍里斯在回忆录《Unleashed》中对那个做决定的夜晚有着极其生动而纠结的描写，但一旦他走出书房踏上竞选大巴，所有的细微权衡（nuance）瞬间荡然无存，变成了非黑即白的口号。鲍里斯对此解释称，留欧的核心理由确实在于“不显得孤立与敌视”，但加入欧盟绝非像加入一个规则固定的普通俱乐部那么简单；欧盟的终极目标是打造一个拥有单一货币、统一议会的“欧洲合众国”。英国如果错过2016年这次公投，将永远失去拥有国家民主独立的机会。鲍里斯澄清，那篇被外界大做文章的亲欧草稿，纯粹是他在写完脱欧文章后，为了理清思路、进行利弊对照而特意写给自己看的“反方论点仿作（pastiche）”。归根结底，留在欧盟意味着英国的民主自主权将不断被侵蚀。鲍里斯强调，任何一位民选政客都必须能明确回答选民两个最根本的问题：“是谁赋予了你管辖我的权力？我又该如何将你罢免？”而在官僚主导的欧盟体制下，选民根本无法罢免那些制定规则的掌权者。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 鲍里斯·约翰逊决定支持脱欧的思考权衡 accDescr: 展示鲍里斯权衡留欧与脱欧论点后最终选择追求主权独立的思考过程。 subgraph CounterArg ["留欧论据（未发表文章）"] A["欧洲合作与地缘稳定\n防范普京等外部威胁"] B["青年世代在欧生活/工作权益"] C["家门口的庞大单一市场"] D["防止苏格兰独立与联邦解体"] end subgraph LeaveChoice ["脱欧论据（决定性因素）"] E["夺回民主问责权\n回答'谁在统治我们/如何罢免'"] F["摆脱‘欧洲合众国’集权化轨道"] G["重获国家立法与监管完全自由"] end CounterArg -->|思想演练与利弊权衡| LeaveChoice LeaveChoice --> H["最终投身脱欧阵营 (Vote Leave)"] ``` ### [49:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2953s) 曼联换帅比喻与脱欧背后的“宏观蓝图”质疑 史蒂芬用自己支持的足球队提出了尖锐质疑：“这就好比我现在支持的曼彻斯特联队正处于低谷，微信群里的朋友们纷纷嚷嚷着‘必须解雇主教练’。但我总是问他们：解雇之后呢？谁来接替？很多球迷只图一时痛快喊换帅，却根本没有后续规划。你在书里写得明明白白，虽然你极力主张离开欧盟，但你对脱欧之后究竟该怎么走完全没有清晰方案。” 鲍里斯反驳称，脱欧的核心诉求是“夺回控制权（Take Back Control）”，让公众重新拥有决定自身命运的民主权利。他将目光投向宏观经济数据，指出从2008年往后的十余年间，欧盟的经济增长率长期低迷，科技创新能力被美国远远甩在身后。布鲁塞尔出台了极其庞杂的监管法规体系，但并未能转化为切实的经济成果。史蒂芬随即追问：“这究竟是欧盟做错了，还是单纯因为美国在创新方面做得太极致？”鲍里斯认为两者兼而有之，但他特别强调，美国人哪怕在任何极小的领域，都绝不可能出让自己的国家主权；北约（NATO）虽然是多国结盟，但那是各方联合以形成超越个体的力量，且美国牢牢占据主导地位，绝非像欧盟那样不断制定英国议会无权修改的庞杂法律。面对艰难的选择，他坚信必须让英国在立法层面重获自由。 ### [52:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3164s) 跳伞隐喻、监管自由与疫苗接种的现实例证 史蒂芬进一步用跳伞来比喻这种未知的风险：“如果我在半空中割断降落伞的绳索，我确实获得了彻底的‘自由’，但如果没有滑翔伞在下面接住我，我就会陷入致命危险。那些宏大的情绪化词汇——自由、夺回控制权——听起来固然激动人心，但跳出飞机后的具体计划究竟是什么？” 鲍里斯完全颠覆了这一比喻的角度。他辩称，事实恰恰相反，正是因为英国摆脱了欧盟的束缚，才得以比其他任何国家更快地给自己装备上降落伞，从而以最快速度逃离那架“正在起火的飞机”并安全着陆。 - **监管自由的实证：新冠疫苗研发与审批**：鲍里斯指出，英国在脱欧后恢复了独立的监管权限，英国药品和保健品监管局（MHRA）能够自主迅速行动，不必等待布鲁塞尔繁冗的集体审批流程。 - **接种进度领先全欧**：到2021年3月，英国已完成45%成年人口的疫苗接种，80岁以上高危群体的接种率接近100%。在疫情早期每天有近千人病亡的严峻形势下，这种完全独立自主的监管决策挽救了数以万计英国老年人与弱势群体的生命。 ### [54:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3261s) 为何脱欧阵营没有后备执政方案？ 谈到脱欧公投刚结束时的混乱局面，史蒂芬直言，公众最愤怒的地方在于：作为脱欧阵营的领袖，鲍里斯似乎完全割裂了“推动决定”与“为决定负责规划”之间的关联，甚至在书中对别人要求他拿出具体方案表现得十分气愤。史蒂芬现场朗读了《Unleashed》中的原话： > “在那场竞选中，我们——我和迈克尔·戈夫（Michael Gove）——从始至终从未讨论过建立一个未来的脱欧派政府，因为我们根本无法想象自己需要去执掌政府。当时政府公开声明的政策是负责落实公投结果。这是一场全民公投，不是一场大选！我们没有制定政府执政方案，也没有制定谈判计划，因为那根本不是我们的职责！公投随后的几天确实陷入了彻底的混乱，但把责任全推到我们头上，简直令人怒不可遏！宣布脱欧方案是当时在任政府的职责，启动脱欧谈判也是政府的法定责任。” 鲍里斯坚定地重申，在2016年公投时，竞选团队的角色是在民主原则上赢得辩论，说服公众收回国家主权；当时以戴维·卡梅伦（David Cameron）为首的英国政府明确向全体国民承诺，无论公投结果如何，政府都会负责到底并予以执行。因此，要求一个体制外的公投游说阵营去越俎代庖、制定一整套跨部门的国家谈判与执政方案，在宪政逻辑和实际操作上都是不合理的。 ### [55:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3341s) 脱欧公投的体制逻辑与政府规划之争 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）与鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）就英国脱欧公投后为何没有现成预案展开了激烈交锋。约翰逊指出，公众对公投的性质存在根本误解：当一国政府决定就某项议题举行全民公决时，并不意味着一旦投票结果违背内阁偏好，政府就该立刻撂挑子走人。他列举欧洲先例，例如法国总统弗朗索瓦·密特朗（François Mitterrand）就《马斯特里赫特条约》（Maastricht Treaty）等议题举行公投，欧洲多国领导人都曾在涉欧公投中失利，但他们并未辞职或从政坛彻底消失。 约翰逊进一步反驳道，设想如果当时他和迈克尔·戈夫（Michael Gove）等脱欧派阵营直接以“胜选后接管政权、组建下一届政府”为口号去拉票，公众必然会猛烈抨击这纯粹是政治野心家为了升官发财而进行的权力夺取，而非纯粹讨论脱离还是留在欧盟的议题。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 英国脱欧公投的预期与责任分歧 accDescr: 对比鲍里斯·约翰逊对政府职责的预期与公众视角的“悬崖跳跃”隐喻 subgraph BorisLogic["约翰逊的宪政逻辑"] A["举行公投决策"] --> B["留欧派政府留任主导"] B --> C["出台白皮书与后续谈判方案"] D["脱欧派若自立预案并争权"] --> E["将被指责为谋求私利的政变"] end subgraph PublicMetaphor["史蒂文的公众隐喻"] F["站在悬崖边缘"] --> G["戴维·卡梅伦说：切勿跳下"] F --> H["鲍里斯·约翰逊说：勇敢跳下"] H --> I["公众以为鲍里斯身背降落伞"] I -.-> J["现实：鲍里斯指望戴维拉开降落伞，戴维却直接辞职"] end ``` 史蒂文站在普通民众的立场提出尖锐质疑：带领阵营冲锋陷阵的人，理应比常人多看两步，预见到结果带来的现实影响。约翰逊解释称，他原本指望政府会出具一份详尽的白皮书，罗列脱欧后的谈判路径和国家选择。史蒂文随即用了一个生动的悬崖隐喻进行反击：公众好比站在悬崖边，左边是卡梅伦，右边是鲍里斯。卡梅伦说“这是悬崖，千万别跳”，而鲍里斯却高喊“跳吧”；普通人自然以为鲍里斯胸有成竹、懂得如何求生，结果跳下去才发现，鲍里斯自己根本没有降落伞，甚至指望劝大家别跳的卡梅伦来拉开伞包。面对卡梅伦在公投揭晓后火速宣布辞职，约翰逊坦言随后陷入了一段极其混乱的时期，群龙无首，不得不仓促商讨到底由谁来接掌大局。 --- ### [59:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3545s) 卡梅伦的政治诱惑与“彻底毁掉你”的威胁 话题转向卡梅伦得知约翰逊可能倒向脱欧派时的激烈反应。约翰逊在回忆录中生动披露了当时的拉拢与决裂过程。卡梅伦曾当面开出极为诱人的筹码，承诺只要约翰逊公开支持留欧，就能在内阁中获得“前五的核心职位”（Top five job）。然而，约翰逊长年在专栏文章中抨击欧盟缺乏民主问责机制，他感到违心支持留欧在道义和逻辑上根本无法自洽。 当约翰逊试探性地向卡梅伦坦白自己正考虑加入脱欧阵营时，卡梅伦直接打断他，厉声说道：“这不是写文章，这关乎国家的未来！”约翰逊回应他也深知国家未来的重要性，但依然倾向脱欧。见劝说无效，卡梅伦随即抛出狠话，语气极其严厉地威胁道：“如果你敢支持脱欧，我将永远彻底地毁掉你（I will fuck you up forever）。” 当晚，约翰逊骑着自行车从市政厅办公室回到家中，与家人孩子商量此事。其中一个孩子听完后直截了当地说，既然卡梅伦都放出这种狠话了，那父亲根本别无选择，只能坚定支持脱欧。约翰逊感慨，将这些内幕写进书里，是为了向公众展示政客在做出原则决断时，顶着多么巨大的威胁，而选择一条安稳、妥协的退路是多么有诱惑力。 - **内阁核心职位许诺**：卡梅伦承诺只要支持留欧即可入席内阁前五（Top 5，通常被猜测为国防大臣、卫生大臣等枢要职位）。 - **言语威胁**：卡梅伦发出了“I will fuck you up forever”的个人政治前途封杀令。 - **家庭商议**：约翰逊骑自行车下班回家后与子女探讨，子女的建议促成了他公开支持脱欧的最终决心。 --- ### [01:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3663s) 官位酬庸是腐败吗？跨界从政的体制困境与网暴阴影 针对卡梅伦以“前五职位”换取政治站位的行为，史蒂文直言不讳地质疑这是否属于政治贿赂或腐败，认为这种分发国家重任的方式在企业界不可想象。约翰逊为卡梅伦稍作辩护，解释当时卡梅伦并未明确指认是哪个具体官职，但他也承认在政坛轻易许诺职位往往是巨大的错误，因为觊觎职位的追随者总是远远多于实际可供分配的差缺，最好的做法其实是守口如瓶。 史蒂文接着追问英国官僚制度的荒谬之处：大臣们在没有任何行业专业背景的情况下就被任命为部门首长（例如马特·汉考克出任卫生大臣，玛格丽特·撒切尔曾任教育大臣）。不仅如此，英国政坛充斥着伊顿公学等精英名校的“老同学俱乐部”（Old Boys' Club）色彩，35%的精英垄断高位并通过人情交易分发职位，导致真正懂业务的人才根本无法进入权力中枢。 约翰逊承认吸引顶尖行政管理人才进入政界是一大世界性难题。他提到许多优秀的商界领袖试图从政，最终往往折戟沉沙、难以适应，且这一现象在工党和保守党内部同样存在。他认为商业人才难以在政界施展身手的原因错综复杂，而当前最严峻的壁垒在于公共舆论环境的极端恶化： 1. **网络暴力的恶性蔓延**：社交媒体变得极度刻薄与暴戾，对政治人物甚至严肃的新闻记者构成了沉重的心理压迫。 2. **舆论对中立者的围攻**：媒体人哪怕只是秉公提问，只要被认为偏袒某方或审问不够狠辣，就会在网上遭受毁灭性的谩骂。 3. **人才的政治避险心理**：对于多数在外部世界能过上体面、优渥生活的专业管理者而言，从政意味着必须主动投身于无休止的人身攻击和精神折磨之中，这直接阻断了大量贤能之士投身公共服务的意愿。 ### [01:05:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3942s) 政治圈的帮派文化与生存法则 史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）单刀直入地发问，政坛是否本质上就是一个“拉扯好友上位、充满兄弟会风气（Boys' club）的地方”。鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）并未矢口否认，而是带着几分无奈承认：“我很遗憾地告诉你，史蒂文，我认为从古至今政治一直都是这样。”他坦言政治历来充满派系倾轧（factional），这种现象令人遗憾但确为现实。不过在他看来，政治生态终究存在一套淘汰机制——最终能够真正胜出并获得持久成功的，永远是那些能够“把民众想要做的事情切实办成”的人。 史蒂文顺势追问，这种体制是否天然会吸引那些意志极其坚定、甘愿承受常人难以忍受的磨难去促成目标的强权人物。约翰逊打趣道，史蒂文的话听起来像是在精准引用自己书里的原话或描摹自己的人格画像。但他严肃地指出，置身于那样的修罗场中，一个人确实必须拥有“非常厚的脸皮”（a pretty thick skin）。在盘根错节的权力规则之下，唯有真正具备强悍推进力、能排除万难交出结果的人，才能在重压下存活并交付成果。 --- ### [01:07:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4027s) 面对脱欧严酷数据：民意逆转与经济代价的交锋 史蒂文转向脱欧（Brexit）话题，当面罗列了一连串沉重的权威统计数据，向约翰逊发起正面质询： - **民调与舆论转向**：根据 YouGov 民调，62% 的英国受访者认为脱欧更像是一场失败，仅有 9% 视其为成功；46% 的民众支持在十年内举行第二次公投重返欧盟，反对者仅占 36%。 - **宏观经济损失**：按英国实际总增加值（GVA）估算，由于脱离欧盟单一市场，2023 年英国经济规模缩水了约 1,400 亿英镑；预计到 2035 年，脱欧将导致英国经济产值蒸发 3,000 亿英镑。 - **智库研究**：欧洲改革中心（Center for European Reform, CER）2023 年报告指出，相较于留欧情景，截至 2023 年年中英国 GDP 萎缩了 5.5%，相当于每年约 400 亿英镑的经济损失。 - **商业与民生压力**：约 33% 的英国小企业反映繁冗的海关官僚手续导致对欧贸易严重受阻；伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）测算，脱欧导致 2020 年至 2023 年间英国食品价格额外上涨了 6%。 史蒂文直接逼问：“面对这一切，你后悔脱欧吗？”约翰逊毫不犹豫地回应：“完全不后悔，绝不（Not at all）。”约翰逊展开反击，指出自 2016 年以来，英国的整体经济增速实际上超过了德国和法国，更显著超越了意大利，而这些国家全都是欧盟核心成员国。他辩称，史蒂文援引的这些推算数据在新冠疫情造成的剧烈冲击面前完全被“矮化”了。 约翰逊强调，即便承认脱欧带来了一些摩擦，但它也创造了不可替代的战略自主机遇。他举出的最大实证是疫情防控：由于摆脱了欧盟规章束缚，英国在 2021 年 7 月便率先全面解除防疫封控（Freedom Day），从而在 G7 集团中实现了最强劲、最快速的经济反弹。约翰逊坚信，若非借由“脱欧红利与自由”，英国绝不可能实现这番抢跑。 --- ### [01:10:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4221s) 商业逻辑下的“取舍”逼问与脱欧辩护 史蒂文继续从商业经营的本质切入，直言商业世界中“一切皆有取舍（everything is a trade-off）”。他追问约翰逊：为了你口中所谓的主权红利，英国普通老百姓和小企业在现实中究竟付出了什么代价？约翰逊在承认与回避之间反复拉锯，承认欧洲邻国在某些过渡环节上的执行手段存在“不必要的官僚作风”，且部分小企业确实遭遇了繁琐文书工作的困扰。但他坚称这些不过是暂时的阵痛，未来完全可以通过技术方案解决，绝不能因此重返那个“法律层层重叠、规章愈发严密的欧洲法律帝国”。 史蒂文没有放松，连续追问普通人是否在短期内切实承受了变穷的代价。约翰逊转而抨击当初公投前主流建制派的末日预言： - 当年留欧派警告公投离开将导致数百万人失业并被迫推出紧急加税预算； - 但在他离任首相时，英国失业率处于 50 年来的历史低位； - 相比疫情前，英国有薪就业人数净增加了 62 万人。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 脱欧影响的争论焦点 accDescr: 对比史蒂文提出的经济损失与数据，同鲍里斯·约翰逊坚持的自主权反弹辩护。 subgraph Critique ["史蒂文提出的质疑数据"] A["62% 民众视脱欧为失败"] B["小企业面临跨国贸易文书壁垒"] C["CER 与 OBR 预测长期 GDP 显著受损"] end subgraph Defense ["鲍里斯·约翰逊的反驳与辩护"] D["主权回归：不当欧洲法规的被动接受者"] E["战术优势：率先解除疫情封控、疫苗抢跑"] F["就业表现：离任时失业率创 50 年新低"] end Critique -.->|"权衡与代价"| Defense ``` 约翰逊指责外界如今所有的负面归因都是“确认偏误”（Confirmation bias），认定若人们老老实实做正确的事，英国长远必然会更富有。他还借机警告基尔·斯塔默（Keir Starmer）领导的工党政府，抨击其试图重新与欧盟保持规则一致的企图，称那将让英国沦为被动的“规则接受者”（rules takers），是一个彻头彻尾的巨大错误。 --- ### [01:14:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4453s) 世纪风暴初现：初识新冠病毒与马特·汉考克的任命 谈话切入约翰逊执政期的另一大巨变——新冠疫情大流行。史蒂文指出，从约翰逊的回忆录《释放》（*Unleashed*）中看，在 2019 年末至 2020 年初病毒开始全球蔓延时，英国政府高层似乎完全没有意识到这场灾难的严重性。史蒂文询问，他究竟是哪一天第一次听说这种来自中国的致命病毒。 约翰逊回忆，确切日期已模糊，大约是 2019 年底或 2020 年初的某一天。当时他正穿过英国下议院的中央大厅，时任卫生大臣马特·汉考克（Matt Hancock）走上前来神情严肃地对他说：“我很担心这个……来自中国的病毒。” 史蒂文当场提出质疑：面对这种百年一遇的全球公共卫生灾难，马特·汉考克真的是主持大局的最佳人选吗？约翰逊坦率地为当年的阁员进行辩护，坚称汉考克当时表现极其充沛有力（energetic），工作做得非常出色。史蒂文再次追问“他真的是*最好*的人选吗”，约翰逊坚持表示，即便事后从后见之明来看，汉考克身上也具备了当时最需要的特质——不知疲倦的行动力与直面现实的务实态度，毕竟在疫情暴发之初，全世界对面前的未知巨兽一无所知。 ### [01:15:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4544s) 对人畜共患病的轻敌与过往经验的误导 在疫情暴发之初，外界对这种新型疾病的致死率、传染性以及传播途径几乎一无所知。主持人援引了鲍里斯·约翰逊在自传《Unleashed》（不受束缚）中的坦白：当时的问题并非他对人畜共患病（zoonotic diseases）一无所知，恰恰相反，问题在于他“自以为对它们了如指掌”。从事新闻报道与政坛打拼三十余年，约翰逊自认见惯了 SARS 和埃博拉病毒，并据此得出了两个结论：第一，这类新型人畜共患传染病通常会自然平息；第二，政客为了阻止疫情蔓延而采取的激进行动往往带来更大的毁灭性破坏，预防措施在某些方面的危害反而大过疾病本身。因此，当卫生大臣马特·汉考克（Matt Hancock）初次向他提起一种可能来自蝙蝠、或将在全英蔓延的新型冠状病毒时，约翰逊的本能反应是“这套说辞我早就听过了”，感叹当时真是“太缺乏先见之明”。 约翰逊坦承这段自白真实还原了他当时的心态。他详细回顾了自己经历过的历次恐慌：当年鸡蛋沙门氏菌恐慌导致数以百万计的雏鸡被无谓宰杀；疯牛病（牛海绵状脑病）危机导致英国大批奶牛被扑杀，农民生计彻底被毁；在他担任伦敦市长期间，禽流感警报拉响，市政府紧急储备了大量达菲（Tamiflu），事后却证明纯属虚惊；随后 SARS 与埃博拉疫情同样来去匆匆。以往的规律似乎总是如此：科学家和官僚出于对亚洲等地人畜共患病的理性担忧而严阵以待、陷入焦虑，但最终疫情神秘消失，英国本土几乎毫发无损。在被问及是否也曾以为新冠病毒会像当年的猪流感一样过去时，约翰逊表示，自己虽无法预知未来，但这正是当时绝大多数人面对疫情消息时的真实心理背景。 ### [01:18:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4721s) 与中国的沟通及病毒“实验室泄漏”推测 进入2020年2月，约翰逊曾与中国领导人通电话。当时英国甚至还在向中方运送防护物资予以支援。回忆起那次通话，约翰逊表示具体细节已有些模糊，他记得自己对中方控制疫情的举措表示祝贺，同时也对华南海鲜市场等活禽海鲜市场（wet markets）的卫生隐患表达了担忧，因为当时官方通报的说法是病毒在武汉市场自发产生。约翰逊直言，作为大国元首，对方显然不愿接受任何暗示中国存在过失的说法，这种反应可以理解。但约翰逊随即明确指出：“我现在认为那个说法是不对的。我现在认为这几乎肯定是一起实验室事故，是那个实验室出了差错的结果。” 当主持人追问为何这从最初所谓的“阴谋论”变成了如今被广泛接受的推论、武汉的实验室为何要摆弄这种病毒时，约翰逊推测这并非生物武器，而是科学研究中的严重事故。科学探索的本质是不断拓宽人类认知的边界，研究人员当时正在探索病毒的功能增益（gain-of-function）实验并尝试对其进行人工改造，不幸的是中途出现了泄漏纰漏。约翰逊透露，在与唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）通话时，特朗普也坚决认为中国难辞其咎。针对世界卫生组织（WHO）及部分科学界人士早期在溯源问题上的犹豫不决，约翰逊分析称，由于中国深度资助并参与了大量国际学术科研合作，许多西方科学家当时非常害怕“惹恼（cheesing off）中方”，因而在表态上格外谨慎小心、不敢直接追责。 ### [01:21:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4917s) 意大利的惨状与英国封锁决策的迟缓争议 大约在2020年3月8日前后，意大利急剧恶化的疫情形势打破了英国政府原有的平静预期。电视和社交媒体上充斥着意大利医院走廊挤满推车病患、病床告罄的骇人画面。约翰逊透露，这对他来说是一个关键的警醒时刻。他深知意大利的公共医疗体系非常优秀——他回忆起多年前全家在意大利度假时，一个孩子不慎落入泳池，意大利急救系统（Pronto Soccorso）的反应速度和救治水准高得不可思议；他意识到，如果连如此高水准的意大利医疗体系都在冲击下近乎崩溃，而英国的人口老龄化程度与意大利不相上下，那么一旦病毒蔓延至英国，后果将不堪设想。从3月初至3月23日宣布全面封锁期间，唐宁街采取了一系列不断加码的防御措施。 然而，主持人当场拿出欧洲各国的对比数据提出尖锐质询：图表显示，在记录到第三例死亡病例之后，英国在关闭学校、停业闭市以及取消大型活动方面，做出果断封锁决策的天数明显慢于绝大多数欧洲邻国，显现出一种因信息混乱带来的迟疑与政策瘫痪。约翰逊对此进行了辩护： - **疫情曲线的先后差异**：欧洲大陆国家的感染曲线走在英国前面，意大利更早进入危机高潮，英国无法在尚未获得本国科学依据前就凭空下达严苛命令。 - **不可逾越科学顾问体系**：约翰逊强调，面对如此史无前例且严酷专断（draconian）的封锁法令，政府决不能抢在科学建议出台之前擅自推行，内阁当时坚定遵循紧急情况科学咨询小组（SAGE）的专家指导。 - **防范公众过早产生“封锁疲劳”**：SAGE 的科学家在学校停课等问题上曾长期权衡弊端，当时的科学论点认为，如果过早实施极限制裁，公众很可能会过早失去耐心、破坏依从性，反而导致真正高峰来临时防控彻底失效。 ### [01:26:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=5173s) 封锁决策与科学建议的权衡 鲍里斯·约翰逊深入回顾了英国实施封锁政策背后的科学困境与艰难博弈。在疫情暴发初期，科学界内部对于封锁时机存在激烈争论：一方面，如果过早采取封锁措施，后续民众解封后极可能出现疫情大幅反弹（"bounce back"），而这一现象在后来的大流行过程中也确实反复上演；另一方面，科学界在口罩使用等关键措施上也存在分歧，难以给出一锤定音的统一方向。针对前卫生大臣马特·汉考克（Matt Hancock）声称“如果提前封锁本可挽救3万条生命”的说法，约翰逊明确表示自己无法确证，但他强调，在当时过早下令封锁不仅超出了科学建议的范畴，更等于在没有流行病学建议支持的情况下，轻率地将“全英国人口关进监狱”。 关于封锁本身是否真正起效，约翰逊在回应其回忆录《Unleashed》中的质疑时表达了审慎态度。他承认封锁确实在压制病毒传播和拉平感染曲线上起到了作用，但从流行病学和后续独立调查（Covid Inquiry）的角度来看，很难界定究竟多少效果源于封锁本身，多少只是病毒传播自身自然抛物线规律（natural parabola）的结果。然而，封锁带来的代价极其沉重，特别是对学龄儿童人生前途造成的严重伤害。尽管反对声音至今不绝，约翰逊依然坚信政府当时的选择是正确的，并期待官方调查能证实这一决断的合理性。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 封锁决策的两难困境 accDescr: 展示过早封锁的反弹风险与延迟封锁的政治科学考量 A["疫情暴发初期决策"] --> B{"过早封锁风险"} B -->|"措施过早解除"| C["疫情强力反弹 (Bounce Back)"] B -->|"缺乏科学顾问推荐"| D["超前于科学建议\n关停全国人口"] A --> E{"封锁利弊考量"} E -->|"压低感染曲线"| F["延缓病毒传播"] E -->|"次生灾害"| G["严重损害儿童教育与前途"] ``` --- ### [01:29:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=5360s) 荒唐的分级防控与重回封锁的至暗时刻 在谈及2020年夏末至秋季推出的地区分级防控体系（tiering system）时，主持人引用约翰逊书中的话，直指该系统荒谬至极（"bonkers"）。约翰逊解释称，当时莱斯特（Leicester）或英格兰西北部地区的病例居高不下，而西南部的康沃尔（Cornwall）几乎没有病例，如果因为博尔顿（Bolton）的疫情蔓延而强令康沃尔关闭酒吧，在常理上显得极不公平。因此，分区分级在理论初衷上是合理的，但落地执行却变成了一场噩梦：行政边界极难划定，往往街道的一侧处于高风险管控，另一侧却相安无事，导致系统变得极其严苛且招致强烈民怨。 主持人引述了《Unleashed》中一段令人震惊的描写：约翰逊在书中质疑“公众为何如此狂热地渴望这些规则”，甚至将人们遵守繁琐细则比作“利未记式的宗教狂热仪式”（Leviticus-like），似乎人们遵从规条只是为了在科学尚无良策时寻求内心的救赎。当被问及作为一国首相在这段时期的心理重负时，约翰逊坦言，自己习惯于推动积极正向的工程向前迈进，而日复一日地使用极其粗暴的手段封锁国家，让他在精神上备受折磨。直到2020年底疫苗问世曙光初现，他的心情才彻底好转。回顾整场危机，除了自己感染新冠重病住院之外，他认为最难熬的一天就是在2020年底不得不放弃分级防控的希望、再次宣布全国进入全面封锁。 - **分级防控的边界难题**：试图根据局部感染率精准隔离特定区域（如莱斯特与康沃尔的巨大差异），但因行政边界划分不公而迅速引发公众反弹。 - **公众心理的反思**：将繁琐严苛的防疫规则比作宗教式仪式，反映出公众在科学未能及时提供解决方案时的焦虑与顺从。 - **首相的心理转折点**：2020年底重新下令全国封锁是最艰难的时刻，而疫苗研发成功则是彻底扭转情绪的希望节点。 --- ### [01:32:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=5579s) 母亲离世的人间悲痛与派对门舆论风暴的开端 在2021年9月13日，英国仍在应对疫情余波与经济复苏的关键当口，约翰逊的母亲夏洛特（Charlotte Johnson Wahl）不幸离世。当主持人问及这双重打击带来的个人痛苦时，约翰逊试图克制情绪，称生老病死是“全人类共同的命运”，大流行期间全英国无数家庭都承受着失去至亲的巨大痛苦。他回忆道，得知母亲去世的消息时自己正乘车前往伦敦，母亲多年来一直饱受帕金森病及多种并发症的折磨，尽管一年前曾有过一次严重险情，从医学角度讲并非完全出人意料，但这依然给整个家族带来了深切的悲伤。 面对主持人关于他是否真正消化了悲痛、是否擅长处理内心深处情感的追问，约翰逊坦承自己确实深陷哀思并至今想念母亲，但在首相的岗位上，海量国家事务不断向他汇聚，除了硬着头皮承担责任、把工作做完，别无他选。主持人随即切入这正是公众对“派对门”（Partygate）丑闻感到无比愤怒的核心所在：当全英国无数民众为了遵守防疫规则，在亲人离世时只能隔着屏幕独自痛哭哀悼时，唐宁街内部的聚会风波在公众视觉形象（Optics）上形成了难以弥合的情感撕裂。 - **失去亲人的时刻**：夏洛特·约翰逊·瓦尔在长期与帕金森综合征抗争后于2021年9月13日逝世，约翰逊在奔赴伦敦的途中获悉噩耗。 - **权力顶层的决策压力**：身为首相，所有关键事务均“向顶端汇聚”（funneled upwards），个人的哀思被迫让位于国家层面的连续运转。 - **舆论痛点的引爆点**：普通家庭因遵守政府法令被迫与临终亲人生离死别，与唐宁街随后被爆出的违规社交聚集形成了刺眼的心理对照。 ### [01:37:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=5837s) 派对门阴影与休·格雷调查的争议 当全英国的普通民众因为严苛的疫情隔离规定而无法探视临终亲人、甚至无法正常参加亲属葬礼时，唐宁街 10 号哪怕只是传出一星半点正在举办“狂欢派对”（rave）的风声，都会成为最令人出离愤怒的事情。鲍里斯·约翰逊坦言，自己在回忆录《Unleashed》中详尽记录了这一切，回想起来内心深感痛苦与绝望。他完全理解公众为何会如此怒火中烧，并承认自己在应对接踵而至的爆料与事实澄清时“全盘处理失当”。 但在自我反省的同时，他也对当权时的关键决策提出了质疑，特别是为何当时会委托高级公务员休·格雷（Sue Gray）主持对派对门事件的内部调查。约翰逊回忆道，当时官员们向他担保格雷是“政治上绝对中立且极度恪守廉洁的典范”，然而从后来的政治走向来看，这两项评价如今在他眼中都显得与事实严重不符。 --- ### [01:38:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=5904s) 奶酪红酒照、生日罚单与“不存在的蛋糕” 斯蒂芬·巴特利特在现场拿出一张被泄露到媒体上的关键照片，指出在派对门时期总共被指控发生了 17 场违规聚会。他提到约翰逊因在生日当天与同事举杯饮酒而收到警方罚单，但约翰逊随即情绪激动地当场打断并坚决否认。约翰逊澄清，外界所传的“举着酒杯与同事欢聚”或“参加助手的离职酒会”全都是以讹传讹。他实际收到伦敦大都会警察局定额罚款通知单（FPN）的唯一原因，是在两次会议之间的间隙，走进了内阁会议室并站在自己的办公桌旁，当时现场有几名幕僚，而这些人本来就是他一整天工作中时刻碰面的人员。 约翰逊愤怒地指出，外界盛传他开派对甚至切了蛋糕，但事实是现场不仅没有任何蛋糕，他甚至“连蛋糕的影子都没见到”。他将这场所谓的聚会形容为“全英国最阴沉低落的场合”（the most lugubrious event），坚称称其为“派对”完全是对事实的扭曲。 斯蒂芬随后念出记录的具体日期与冰冷伤亡数据进行对质： - **2020年5月15日**：英国单日新冠死亡约 349 人。约翰逊被拍到与妻子凯莉（Carrie Johnson）以及工作人员围坐在唐宁街 10 号花园的桌旁享用红酒与奶酪。约翰逊反驳称那栋建筑本身就是他的合法居所，那座花园是他日常生活的私人空间，且大都会警察局经调查后明确裁定该场景并未构成任何违法行为，因为当时在户外办公是降低感染风险的合规手段。 - **2020年5月20日**：英国单日死亡 38 人，唐宁街花园举行了“自带酒水”（BYOB）聚会。约翰逊承认自己到场了约 25 分钟（外界指控为 30 分钟）。 - **2020年6月19日**：约翰逊的生日聚会风波，最终导致他在 2022 年 4 月 12 日公开宣布接受警方开出的 50 英镑罚单。 约翰逊无奈地感叹，普通民众早已先入为主地认定唐宁街内部在肆意跳舞狂欢、喝得酩酊大醉，因此现实中的任何合理解释在公众面前都已经无济于事。 --- ### [01:41:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6060s) 极致的表率与“被看见在守规”的惨痛教训 斯蒂芬从公共管理和商业逻辑的角度向约翰逊施压，强调权力核心的本质在于“以身作则”（lead by example）。他直言，唐宁街 10 号所做的一切必须成为守规的“极致示范”（extreme demonstration of the perfect example），因为处于首相的位置，哪怕只是打个喷嚏都会遭到舆论的猛烈围攻。斯蒂芬坦承，当自己的朋友连祖母的葬礼都无法出席，却在报纸上看到唐宁街人员开怀畅饮、看似过得极其快活的照片时，那种冲击是无法被原谅的，约翰逊绝不应该允许这种场面发生。 面对这番质问，约翰逊表示赞同部分批评。他解释称，唐宁街的建筑空间极其狭促，团队日以继夜、24 小时连轴转应对国家危机，在物理上要保持完美的社交距离是根本不可能实现的。但他承认自己在领导上犯下的最大过失，是没有提早向全体员工发出最高警报。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 派对门舆论发酵与应对失误逻辑 accDescr: 展示了从高压办公环境到全面道歉导致的舆论失控全过程 subgraph Reality["唐宁街真实状况"] A["高负荷全天候运转"] --> B["狭小空间难保社交距离"] B --> C["偶发工作间歇/送别举杯"] end subgraph Leadership["领导层应对策略"] C --> D["缺乏事前禁令与舆论警惕"] D --> E["发表低三下四的'全面道歉'"] end subgraph Consequence["舆情失控后果"] E --> F["外界默认所有恶劣传闻属实"] F --> G["严重伤害奋战抗疫的无辜幕僚"] end ``` 他反思道，自己当时应该严肃告诫每一个人：“外面有无数双眼睛正盯着我们、想要抓住我们的把柄；为了上帝的缘故，我们不仅必须遵守规则，更要**被公众看到在严格遵守规则**（be seen to be obeying the rules）。”然而在当时的政治氛围中，内部已有不少对他怀有敌意的人，导致事态最终滑向失控。 --- ### [01:43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6200s) 战时禁酒假说与虚假指控的交锋 两人的辩论随后升级为关于“特殊时期唐宁街是否应全面禁绝社交”的激烈交锋。约翰逊辩解称，在长达近两年的时间里，同事们在高压环境下并肩战斗，当有人即将离职离开团队时，大家举起杯子向其致意是人之常情，除非在一开始就下达彻底的“禁酒令”。斯蒂芬立即反问：“难道你不应该彻底禁酒吗？” 约翰逊反讽道：“如果我们在 1940 年就下令在唐宁街 10 号禁酒，我们恐怕根本赢不了第二次世界大战！”斯蒂芬则坚持认为，大流行期间首相官邸必须树立最极端的克制标杆，应当全面禁止唐宁街的一切聚会，特别是“带有酒精、音乐和蛋糕的聚会”。 约翰逊对“音乐与蛋糕”的说法表现出极大的抗拒与厌烦，他再次澄清自己从未参加过任何带有音乐或跳舞的活动，那些都是外界编造的无稽之谈。即便这类行为可能在官邸的某些角落发生过，也绝对没有发生在他出席的场合。 --- ### [01:44:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6257s) “全面道歉”的战略溃败与幕僚的委屈 谈及整场危机中最致命的公关与政治败笔，约翰逊指出，自己犯下最严重的错误是在丑闻爆发之初就发表了不加辨别的“全面道歉”（blanket apology）。斯蒂芬追问他如今是否还在道歉，约翰逊明确划分了界限：他愿意为了在自己任期内发生的工作人员违规行为承担最终领导责任并致歉，但他绝不会为了所谓“醉酒呕吐”或“大打出手”等离奇指控道歉，因为事实证明这些指控全属子虚乌有。 斯蒂芬引述了《Unleashed》书中的原话，约翰逊在书中痛斥自己当时发表了“可悲且低三下四的道歉”（pathetic and groveling apologies），这让唐宁街看起来比实际情况要罪恶得多。约翰逊对此深表认同，并进一步阐明其内在逻辑： - 普遍性的笼统道歉让外界产生了错觉，以为后续媒体或政敌抛出的任何荒谬指控都是被首相本人“默认属实”的。 - 甚至在休·格雷最初的调查报告中，也曾载入关于“暴力肢体冲突和呕吐”的情节，但随后由于查无实据，格雷不得不将这些内容删除。 - 这种过早且卑微的道歉，客观上背叛了唐宁街那些日夜奋战的公务员团队。他们为了解决极其复杂的国家难题付出了巨大牺牲，取得的成就有目共睹，却因为首相一揽子的盲目认错而背负了不公正的恶名。 斯蒂芬引用书中第 75 页的坦白指出，约翰逊自己也写明本应写信给全体幕僚强调合规与形象的极其重要性。约翰逊最后感叹，道歉固然是美德，但提前对莫须有的罪名全盘买单，最终不仅无法平息公众的怒火，反倒把那些真正努力工作的无辜下属推向了舆论的绞刑架。 ### [01:46:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6413s) 反思派对门风波与维护幕僚团队 鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）进一步反思了“派对门”（Partygate）发酵时的应对策略。他坦言，当时过早道歉给人一种“默认并全盘接受外界所有批评”的错觉，而在事后看来，这并不是明智的做法。他认为当时应该保持冷静，耐心等待调查结论出来，在查明事实真相后，再针对真正发生的问题做出道歉，而不是在舆论围剿下匆忙买单。 与此同时，约翰逊再次坚定地为唐宁街的官员和公务员团队辩护。他强调，那些幕僚在新冠危机期间夜以继日地连轴转，为制定与落实国家抗疫政策倾尽全力，表现极其卓越。他不希望外界的争议抹杀这些工作人员付出的巨大心血。约翰逊同时打趣道，原以为这次采访只有一小时，没想到斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）竟耐心地同他聊了将近两个半小时，展现了极大的包容与耐力。 ### [01:47:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6461s) 私生活传言：到底有几个孩子与夏洛特·欧文的真相 访谈进入快问快答与私人问题阶段。斯蒂芬直截了当地问起外界一直津津乐道的话题：“你到底有几个孩子？为什么这会成为一个众说纷纭的谜团？”约翰逊表现得有些困惑，反问公众为什么对此如此执迷，并明确给出了官方公开答案：“我有八个孩子，这是公开记录的事实。” 斯蒂芬接着提起朋友托他求证的八卦，直接询问曾被任命为上议院议员的夏洛特·欧文（Charlotte Owen）：“你和她是亲戚吗？或者她曾是你的情人吗？”约翰逊断然予以否认，表示两者皆非。他直言关于她的情况在回忆录《释放》（*Unleashed*）中写得清清楚楚，并称赞夏洛特·欧文是一位极其有能力、工作出色的政策顾问，外界那些猎奇的流言纯属捕风捉影。 ### [01:48:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6495s) 未来规划与对特朗普的评价 当被问及未来是否还会重返政坛时，约翰逊用幽默的修辞形容自己目前过着“无可指摘的乡野隐居生活”（"blameless rustic obscurity"）。他指出，自己在《释放》中写过，一个人只有在确信自己能真正派上用场时才该涉足政治；眼下他非常享受乡村生活，平日画画、写写东西，手头也有诸多事务要忙。 斯蒂芬紧接着抛出一个尖锐问题：“特朗普还是卡玛拉·哈里斯？你必须二选一，不能骑墙。”约翰逊搬出了宪政准则，称包括卸任在内的所有英国首相都有宪制义务，即不论美国选民选出谁，都必须与美国总统保持良好关系。斯蒂芬不依不饶地追问：“那谁更有利于阻止世界上的战争？”约翰逊委婉回应，提醒人们不要对特朗普的外交政策抱有过度的反感与偏见。他指出，特朗普在任期内确实做过一些强硬决策，对外展示了美国的力量与决心，但他点到为止，拒绝进一步做二选一的政治表态。 ### [01:49:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6588s) 传统提问：成功路上失去了谁？与迈克尔·戈夫的恩怨 进入《CEO日记》标志性的压轴环节，上一位受访嘉宾在未预知提问对象的情况下留下了一个问题：“成功往往伴随着代价，其中之一便是沿途失去的关系。在你追求成功的道路上，你失去了哪段关系或哪个人？” 面对这个尖锐问题，约翰逊起初试图在哲学层面化解。他认为随着人生阅历的增长，人会发现很多看似不可挽回的决裂最终都会雨过天晴，老朋友依然能够重归于好。因此，他拒绝将任何关系的“破裂”（rupture）视为终结，强调在自己的生命中没有真正“失去”谁。在斯蒂芬的一再坚持与追问下（“从未有人回避过这个问题，请说出一个名字”），约翰逊终于正面提到了迈克尔·戈夫（Michael Gove）： - 约翰逊承认在2016年脱欧公投后的党首竞选中，两人之间确实发生了严重的政治决裂（戈夫撤回对约翰逊的支持并自行参选）。 - 但他随即调侃称，自己带着“英勇的乐观主义”（"heroic optimism"），在2019年组阁时依然将戈夫重新召入内阁担任要职，证明彼此的关系并非不可愈合。 ### [01:51:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6680s) 专访收尾与对话卡牌彩蛋 斯蒂芬在尾声向约翰逊致谢，盛赞其回忆录《释放》（*Unleashed*）文笔引人入胜，详尽复盘了过去数年英国政坛的风云激荡与个人生涯。约翰逊则笑着确认全书包含索引与致谢在内长达772页。 - 约翰逊风趣地询问斯蒂芬：“采访超时有没有奖品？这该不会打破了采访时长纪录吧？” - 斯蒂芬笑着透露，《CEO日记》平时的专访通常都在两到四小时左右，两个半小时实属常态。 - 节目在最后介绍了由往期嘉宾提问集结而成的《CEO日记》对话卡牌（Conversation Cards: Second Edition），卡牌背后附带二维码，可扫码观看往期嘉宾作答时的真实原片片段。 ## Notable quotes > [25:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=1504s) 雄心、活力、天赋与才能在全英国的人口中是均匀分布的，但机会却完全不是。 — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 > [15:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=957s) 你必须不断给自己的自尊炉膛添煤，把自己重新撑起来，而工作就是我当年的应对方式。 — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 > [45:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2710s) 难道我们的政策不该像对待蛋糕一样吗——既想拥有它，又想吃掉它，既亲欧洲，又面向世界。 — 鲍里斯·约翰逊（未发表文章节选） > [45:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=2710s) 是谁赋予了你管辖我的权力？我又该如何将你罢免？ — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 > [54:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3261s) 在那场竞选中，我们——我和迈克尔·戈夫——从始至终从未讨论过建立一个未来的脱欧派政府，因为我们根本无法想象自己需要去执掌政府。当时政府公开声明的政策是负责落实公投结果。这是一场全民公投，不是一场大选！ — 鲍里斯·约翰逊（引自《Unleashed》） > [59:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3545s) 如果你敢支持脱欧，我将永远彻底地毁掉你（I will fuck you up forever）。 — 戴维·卡梅伦 > [01:05:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=3942s) 我很遗憾地告诉你，史蒂文，我认为从古至今政治一直都是这样。 — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 > [01:18:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=4721s) 我现在认为那个说法是不对的。我现在认为这几乎肯定是一起实验室事故，是那个实验室出了差错的结果。 — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 > [01:43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6200s) 如果我们在 1940 年就下令在唐宁街 10 号禁酒，我们恐怕根本赢不了第二次世界大战！ — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 > [01:41:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6060s) 外面有无数双眼睛正盯着我们、想要抓住我们的把柄；为了上帝的缘故，我们不仅必须遵守规则，更要被公众看到在严格遵守规则。 — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 > [01:47:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc&t=6461s) 我有八个孩子，这是公开记录的事实。 — 鲍里斯·约翰逊 ## Mentioned 鲍里斯·约翰逊 (Boris Johnson), 史蒂文·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 戴维·卡梅伦 (David Cameron), 夏洛特·约翰逊·瓦尔 (Charlotte Johnson Wahl), 斯坦利·约翰逊 (Stanley Johnson), 雷切尔·约翰逊 (Rachel Johnson), 利奥·约翰逊 (Leo Johnson), 乔·约翰逊 (Joe Johnson), 迈克尔·戈夫 (Michael Gove), 马特·汉考克 (Matt Hancock), 基特·马特豪斯 (Kit Malthouse), 斯蒂芬·格林哈尔格 (Stephen Greenhalgh), 肯·利文斯通 (Ken Livingstone), 保罗·史蒂文森 (Sir Paul Stephenson), 伯纳德·霍根-豪 (Bernard Hogan-Howe), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris), 基尔·斯塔默 (Keir Starmer), 休·格雷 (Sue Gray), 凯莉·约翰逊 (Carrie Johnson), 夏洛特·欧文 (Charlotte Owen), 弗朗索瓦·密特朗 (François Mitterrand), 杰里米·科尔宾 (Jeremy Corbyn), 吉米·卡尔 (Jimmy Carr), 《Unleashed》, 《我有新闻告诉你》(Have I Got News for You), 《观察家》(The Spectator), 《Bo' Selecta!》, 伊顿公学 (Eton College), 牛津大学 (Oxford University), 圣巴多罗买医院 (St Bartholomew's Hospital), 唐宁街10号 (10 Downing Street), 英国脱欧运动 (Vote Leave), 英国教育标准局 (Ofsted), 紧急情况科学咨询小组 (SAGE), 英国药品和保健品监管局 (MHRA), 欧洲改革中心 (Center for European Reform, CER), 伦敦政治经济学院 (LSE), YouGov, 英国二号高速铁路 (HS2), 北方经济引擎铁路 (Northern Powerhouse Rail), 世界卫生组织 (WHO), 北约 (NATO) ## Video description Boris Johnson is the former UK Prime Minister, serving from 2019 to 2022. He was the 55th Prime Minister, led through 3 of the biggest crises of the last century, and is one of the most controversial characters in the history of the United Kingdom. Boris Johnson is now ‘unleashed’. 00:00 Intro 02:53 What Do We Need To Understand About Your Early Years 05:20 Glue Ear Making You Deaf 06:15 Your Mother Charlotte 08:55 Why Was Your Mother Sent To A Psychiatric Ward 11:46 Why Did Your Mother Say You Were "Self Defending" 13:41 Why Did Your Parents Divorce? 15:10 Was There Physical Violence In The Household? 15:57 What Did Your Parents Teach You About Marriage And Love 18:32 Is Your Public Persona A Marketing Strategy? 25:04 The Imbalance Of The UK's Class System 28:53 Has The Conservative Government Done Enough To Level The UK? 38:58 Boris' Career Rundown 39:28 Did You Expect To Win The London Mayorship? 41:53 You Had 3 Significant Country Events, Do You Wish It Was Different? 43:34 Did You Think You Were Going To Win The Brexit Vote? 45:46 Your Secret Pro-Remain Letter 49:50 You Had No Plan After Brexit 01:00:09 Did David Cameron React Badly When You Said You Were Going To Leave? 01:02:01 How Does Someone Get A High-Level Job Without Having Done It Before? 01:04:07 If You're In Politics, You Need To Be Okay With Public Attacks 01:05:38 Is Politics All About Bringing Your Friends Up With You? 01:07:07 Do You Regret Brexit? 01:10:21 What Have The Downsides Of Brexit Been? 01:14:13 When Was The First Time You Heard About This Virus? 01:18:41 When Did You Call China To Address Covid 01:20:03 The Virus Was Actually Created In A Lab 01:21:05 Call Trump To Talk About Covid 01:21:57 Lockdowns 01:27:46 Were The Lockdowns Even Worth It 01:29:20 The Tiering System Was Bonkers 01:31:14 Was There A Mental Toll On You? 01:32:59 The Impact Of The Death Of Your Mother 01:36:58 Party Gate 01:47:41 How Many Children Do You Have? 01:48:05 Charlotte Owen 01:48:15 What Happens Next For Boris Johnson 01:49:52 Last Guest Question You can purchase Boris’ book, ‘Unleashed’, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/C9fcSpmAyNb  🌟 Get access to exclusive Diary of a CEO content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGq-a57w-aPwyi3pW7XLiHw/join You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb  Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb  Sponsors: PerfectTed - https://www.perfectted.com with code DIARY40 for 40% off [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bL24eHvwoc)

[25:04] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 雄心、活力、天赋与才能在全英国的人口中是均匀分布的，但机会却完全不是。 [15:57] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 你必须不断给自己的自尊炉膛添煤，把自己重新撑起来，而工作就是我当年的应对方式。 [45:10] 鲍里斯·约翰逊（未发表文章节选）: 难道我们的政策不该像对待蛋糕一样吗——既想拥有它，又想吃掉它，既亲欧洲，又面向世界。 [45:10] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 是谁赋予了你管辖我的权力？我又该如何将你罢免？ [54:21] 鲍里斯·约翰逊（引自《Unleashed》）: 在那场竞选中，我们——我和迈克尔·戈夫——从始至终从未讨论过建立一个未来的脱欧派政府，因为我们根本无法想象自己需要去执掌政府。当时政府公开声明的政策是负责落实公投结果。这是一场全民公投，不是一场大选！ [59:05] 戴维·卡梅伦: 如果你敢支持脱欧，我将永远彻底地毁掉你（I will fuck you up forever）。 [65:42] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 我很遗憾地告诉你，史蒂文，我认为从古至今政治一直都是这样。 [78:41] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 我现在认为那个说法是不对的。我现在认为这几乎肯定是一起实验室事故，是那个实验室出了差错的结果。 [103:20] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 如果我们在 1940 年就下令在唐宁街 10 号禁酒，我们恐怕根本赢不了第二次世界大战！ [101:00] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 外面有无数双眼睛正盯着我们、想要抓住我们的把柄；为了上帝的缘故，我们不仅必须遵守规则，更要被公众看到在严格遵守规则。 [107:41] 鲍里斯·约翰逊: 我有八个孩子，这是公开记录的事实。

[0:00] Boris Johnson: Sorry, but to say it was a party is a complete travesty. [0:00] David Cameron: If you come out and support leave, I will [f***] you up forever [13:41] Boris Johnson: What I can tell you is I have no direct knowledge of what he said... I don't want to say anything that would cause pain or embarrassment to my father, so... what I can say is I had as a child no direct knowledge of it myself. [15:57] Boris Johnson: So why did you have us then? [38:58] Boris Johnson: I wasn't really cut out for management consulting [45:46] Boris Johnson: Who put you in authority over me, and how can I remove you from office? [60:09] David Cameron: I will f*** you up forever. [75:58] Boris Johnson: I felt I knew my SARS and my Ebola so to speak... I concluded two things: first, that these novel zoonotic plagues tend to sort themselves out, and second, that the greater risk of destruction... was attempts to stop them by politicians. [78:41] Boris Johnson: I think it almost certainly was a lab accident or it was as a result of something that went wrong in that lab... They were looking at engineering these viruses, gain-of-function... and sadly something went wrong. [89:51] Boris Johnson: The real question I suppose is why on Earth the public so avidly craved these rules and why they were so willing to have their doings circumscribed in such a rabbinical detail... In their complexity, they were also like a kind of religion—detailed rituals you just obeyed Leviticus-like in the hope of salvation, because science was slow to help us. [96:58] Boris Johnson: To say it was a party is a complete travesty. It was about the most lugubrious event... It consisted of people who were part of my normal working life. [101:04] Boris Johnson: The problem with leading with a blanket apology was that it then meant that absolutely any allegation... people assumed, 'Well, that must be what happened.'

[0:00] do you really think I was deliberately [0:01] partti and breaking the rules but it's [0:03] all about leading by example ISM sorry [0:05] but to say it was a party is a complete [0:08] travesty seeing that photo when one of [0:10] my friends can go to their grandmother's [0:11] funeral is the most enraging thing I [0:14] think all Gatherings should have been [0:15] Bann at number 10 because I think what [0:17] do you mean Gatherings Gatherings with [0:18] alcohol and music and Cake you should [0:21] never have allowed that to happen I [0:24] apologize for that Johnson the former [0:27] prime minister of the UK whose Reign [0:29] included brexit Co and the Ukraine war [0:31] he's one of the world's most famous [0:33] politicians on this point of brexit how [0:35] did David Cameron react when you said [0:36] you're going to vote leave he said if [0:38] you come out and support leave I will [0:40] you up forever but if you support remain [0:43] you can have a top five job in the [0:44] cabinet but is that not a bit corrupt [0:46] and is that how the jobs are dished out [0:47] in the government at the moment look I'm [0:49] sad to say that this probably been the [0:51] way politics has been since the dawn of [0:53] time and then this letter you wrote [0:54] about the decision to leave or stay [0:56] within the EU which was unpublished you [0:58] seemed torn so do do you regret brexit [1:02] well the next big thing was the pandemic [1:05] there was a lot of stuff we we didn't [1:06] know I I think almost certainly was a [1:09] lab accident they they were looking at [1:11] engineering viruses and ways that they [1:13] could manipulate it sadly something went [1:15] wrong when you talk about lockdowns you [1:17] refer to them as Bonkers which is [1:19] strange hearing it from the guy that put [1:20] the rules in place well did the benefits [1:23] of lockdown outweigh the very very [1:26] severe Damage Done to kids what do you [1:28] think the answer to that question is [1:29] honestly I think I just wanted to ask a [1:31] few more things Trump or camalo who's [1:33] the best for international relations how [1:34] many kids do you have Charlotte Owen [1:36] you're not related to you and then you [1:38] have quite a distinct Persona people [1:39] describe you as being a buffoon when I [1:41] first saw you I thought you were a [1:42] parody from Bose selector is it [1:44] calculated well to get people's interest [1:46] in politics you got a sugar the pill but [1:48] also your mother said you had certain [1:50] mechanisms to cope with pain because [1:52] your mother is sent to a psychiatric [1:54] facility when you were 10 I read There [1:56] was physical violence in the house and [1:57] then at 14 your parents get divorced yes [2:00] we were in Somerset my father told us [2:03] and I was look I was cross and said you [2:05] know so so why did you have us [2:08] then you [2:10] know [2:17] [Music] [2:20] um this has always blown my mind a [2:22] little bit 53% of you that listen to the [2:25] show regularly haven't yet subscribed to [2:27] the show so could I ask you for a favor [2:29] before we start if you like the show and [2:31] you like what we do here and you want to [2:32] support us the free simple way that you [2:34] can do just that is by hitting the [2:35] Subscribe button and my commitment to [2:37] you is if you do that then I'll do [2:39] everything in my power me and my team to [2:40] make sure that this show is better for [2:42] you every single week we'll listen to [2:44] your feedback we'll find the guests that [2:45] you want me to speak to and we'll [2:47] continue to do what we do thank you so [2:50] [Music] [2:52] much [2:54] Boris Ste what do I need to understand [2:58] about your earliest years to understand [3:01] the man that you are today I think [3:04] the key [3:07] thing is [3:10] my [3:12] wonderful happy very kind of paginating [3:17] childhood um in the company of my [3:20] siblings the key fact was that after a [3:25] 18 months of existence my sister Rachel [3:28] was born and ever after it was just a [3:32] constant struggle to [3:36] keep the the pretense of Primacy with my [3:40] with my siblings but I think it's it is [3:43] probably true to say that [3:48] healthy [3:50] incessant [3:53] sibling interaction competition whatever [3:56] you want to call it [3:57] rivalry um definitely played a part in [4:00] my formation and we used to make fun of [4:02] it too we used to think it was rather [4:05] pathetic we all knew that there was a [4:07] culture of trying to win so we used to [4:11] say oh little baby wants to win and so [4:14] we were kind of we competed but we [4:17] also deprecated the the competition at [4:22] that age um say before the age of 10 how [4:25] does that manifest in terms of a feeling [4:27] because you can in hindsight say okay I [4:29] was competitive but how did it feel you [4:31] know CU you it felt like fun but but [4:34] this idea that Rachel came along and [4:35] then you were vying for attention and [4:36] competition with her how did how does [4:39] that feel when you're under the age of [4:40] 10 because your your your father at [4:42] least was very very busy as a man so I'm [4:44] presuming he wasn't necessarily so [4:47] present um I was reading you moved house [4:50] 32 times in 14 years yeah but that okay [4:53] I mean he was [4:56] um but really I think I you know I speak [4:59] for all of my siblings now when I say [5:01] that you really couldn't have had a more [5:04] loving caring you know they they both of [5:06] them I mean you they're both very busy [5:08] both my mother and father mother was [5:11] painter um my father yeah writer did a [5:15] huge number of things but they did [5:17] invest a lot of time in US I mean really [5:20] a lot it sounded like you had a rough [5:22] sort of first 10 years of life because [5:24] you also had glue ear which is uh which [5:26] made you deaf a little yes well I don't [5:28] know I think we need to look very care [5:31] the I I definitely had adenoids and I [5:36] had tonsilitis and I spent a lot of time [5:39] in s Barts and had my adenoids out my T [5:43] and everything like that and I did have [5:45] glue here but it but my my my [5:48] deafness there's no trace of it now [5:51] particularly and I kind of wonder [5:53] whether it was in fact [5:56] a a a cunning means to avoid my mother's [6:00] questions and I I think look I mean I [6:03] don't know it may be that I wasn't as [6:05] deaf as as all that you know what I mean [6:07] would you ever do that if your mother [6:08] was asking you something you didn't [6:09] actually want to engage and I don't [6:11] think I'm that coming you what I mean [6:13] not at8 years [6:14] old your mother Charlotte um she had [6:17] four children you were the oldest of [6:18] those four [6:21] um she seems to be a really important [6:23] character in your life In fact when I [6:24] opened up the first couple of pages of [6:25] the book you you dedicate the book in [6:27] memory of of Charlotte your mother I do [6:30] she was an artist she had many paint [6:32] paintings of of of her children but also [6:35] other things I saw some of those [6:36] paintings I did some research on those [6:37] paintings um but one of the sort of [6:40] really pivotal moments in her OT [6:41] bringing is that she suffered from [6:43] obsessive compulsive disorder she did [6:45] yeah you're what 10 years old when your [6:48] mother is an uh put as an impatient in a [6:52] Psy psychiatric hospital and you're [6:55] apart for eight months something like [6:58] that yes what what impact does that have [7:00] on you in terms of [7:03] shaping shaping the Boris that we know [7:06] today if [7:07] any I mean I remember it all very very [7:10] well [7:11] and it's hard to say exactly what impact [7:14] it it had on me but I think [7:18] what certainly happened was that all [7:21] four of us all four of the children that [7:24] um that my mother had we definitely [7:30] kind of coagulated as a as a group [7:33] because it was a tough time there were [7:35] well there were aspects of that were [7:37] were tough because you know she she [7:39] wasn't always there and so I think it [7:41] did breed a certain kind of group [7:46] solidarity and she always kind of blamed [7:51] herself for not being there for the8 [7:55] months whatever period it was and I I [7:57] remember feeling very strongly that that [8:00] was unfair and on and that [8:03] she actually you know did an amazing job [8:07] and you know you couldn't you couldn't [8:09] have asked for more did you notice her [8:12] anything unusual about her behavior [8:13] before she was yes so the OCD thing is [8:15] absolutely right she did have that and [8:18] you know it was it was very difficult [8:19] and I'm sure people who are watching [8:22] this know exactly what it is but she [8:24] lots of [8:25] different patterns of behavior one of [8:28] the one of them was was about ESS so so [8:31] so the so the she she wash her [8:35] hands and then um she she would realize [8:39] in order to turn the tap off she'd have [8:41] to touch the the the foret the spiger [8:44] and and and she didn't want to do that [8:45] because that would make her hands dirty [8:47] again she thought but you know this is a [8:49] very well-known symptom and she and she [8:52] totally got over it I she totally got [8:54] over it she got through it why was she [8:57] sent to a psychiatric facility [9:02] um well I guess because she's I [9:08] think that's a JT good question I don't [9:11] know really know the answer I think I [9:12] think [9:14] she [9:15] probably said that she thought she could [9:19] benefit [9:20] from [9:23] therapy [9:25] and that's what she and my father [9:27] decided to was a best way forward but I [9:30] I I honestly don't know the answer to [9:32] that and who looked after you while she [9:34] was in that facility at 10 years old [9:38] well my father was there and we had uh a [9:42] wonderful series of opair girls and [9:44] nannies and and so on and so forth and [9:46] at 14 years old they they were all great [9:48] too but you know I don't I don't you [9:50] know I don't want to give the impression [9:53] which would not be fair that my mother [9:55] kind of um was [9:59] absent for long periods or wasn't a a [10:02] presence in our lives because she really [10:04] was it was more her words I saw her [10:06] doing an interview where she was talking [10:07] about um her belief that you had certain [10:11] mechanisms to cope with the pain of her [10:13] going to the facility for eight months [10:15] but then also the divorce when you were [10:16] 14 I thought those ages that sort of [10:20] puberty age where you're figuring [10:22] yourself [10:23] out to get such a jolt of bad news is [10:28] yeah I think that's I mean classically [10:32] yes and look I'm not going to I think [10:36] you're on to it you you know there's [10:38] there's there was an element of of [10:40] self-defense that then that you know [10:43] many kids in in my our position then [10:47] develop um but I do insist that they [10:53] both remained remarkable parents we know [10:56] it wasn't like we were suddenly cut a [10:57] drift but by either of them on the [10:59] contrary [11:02] self-defense well yeah I don't know I [11:05] mean I'm quoting her on on me by the way [11:07] so I'm quoting I'm quoting you qu [11:09] quoting her um you there so you yeah but [11:12] I mean you know I don't it didn't it [11:14] didn't occur to me at the time yeah I [11:16] don't think it can for a 14-year-old but [11:18] in hindsight as an as a man you go okay [11:20] that was I create a p know but I mean [11:23] but [11:24] maybe I I've got nothing else to compare [11:26] it to right um you know you're growing [11:29] up anyway you're becoming more [11:30] self-reliant you got to do things to [11:33] yourself um so I think so go back to [11:36] where it was with my my brothers and [11:39] sisters I think certainly you know it [11:42] was another thing that drove us all [11:45] together why self-defense and how did [11:47] that self-defense manifest in terms of [11:50] behavior I [11:54] just I'd be the worst type of um what [11:57] let me think well how did I how did I [12:00] how how did my self-defense manifest I [12:02] suppose I [12:05] became yes unquestionably it was [12:08] painful so how did I protect myself [12:11] against that well one obvious thing to [12:16] do which I suppose we all do and I think [12:19] I found the best therapy for every type [12:22] of pain emotional [12:24] pain is to try to Lose Yourself in your [12:29] work emotional pain is is about a lot [12:35] about it's about self-esteem so so like [12:37] with when when when parents split up um [12:41] you know the shock is well you you can't [12:44] love us that much but if you're doing [12:46] this right that's the that's the what [12:48] it's all about which is not true of [12:50] course but that's what the children [12:51] that's what children feel they feel it's [12:54] their failure there's something wrong [12:55] with [12:57] them and that's not true but that's how [13:00] kids feel I suppose to protect myself [13:03] against that like I had a natural Avenue [13:08] for to build up [13:10] my self-esteem and that was academic [13:14] work um that kind of thing but again you [13:18] know another I suppose another type of [13:20] of competition and it I'm it is a good [13:24] therapy work is a work is a is a great [13:28] reliever or distraction [13:32] well depends on your sort of theory of [13:34] psychology but [13:37] um I think it [13:39] both both why did they divorce do you [13:43] know I think formerly speaking what had [13:46] happened was that um you know my mother [13:49] has simply decided she wanted to make [13:51] another life and and she you know she [13:53] she found someone wonderful and and all [13:56] all the rest of it um [13:59] but I think that my father um [14:06] and and [14:10] mother the weird thing about their [14:12] divorce was that they both continued to [14:16] be very strongly affectionate towards [14:19] each other [14:22] and you know I'm again I'm not trying to [14:24] minimize [14:26] the psychological importance of any of [14:28] this stuff for us as as [14:32] kids but that was immensely fortifying [14:35] because it was so obvious that it wasn't [14:38] like they were at War I mean you know [14:40] they had a big bus stops but it was we [14:45] felt that there was a [14:47] real residue of of love and affection [14:50] between them even if even if it was I [14:51] mean I think the way the way we [14:52] explained it to ourselves was that there [14:56] was still a residue of love and [14:57] affection but that it was just [14:59] practically impossible for them to to [15:02] continue and so that was that was how we [15:05] rationalized it and um they both found [15:07] other people and and and were very happy [15:10] you you say Bust ups that from [15:13] everything that I've read There was [15:15] physical violence in the household when [15:16] you were [15:17] younger yeah well this is this is [15:19] something that um has been alleged by uh [15:23] sadly by one of my biographers um so [15:27] sort of pomping to say one of my [15:28] biographers um some guy wrote a book um [15:32] and put that stuff in you know what I [15:35] can tell you is I have no direct [15:36] knowledge of of what he said um I don't [15:39] want to get into it because I don't want [15:42] to be disrespectful to my mother's [15:44] memory and I I certainly don't want to [15:47] say anything that would cause pain or [15:51] embarrassment to my father so but I can [15:53] what I can say is I had as a child no [15:56] direct knowledge of it myself what did [15:58] um their relationship teach you that [16:00] marriage and love [16:03] was [16:04] they they they so they met at [16:07] University um they clearly loved each [16:10] other and I think if you ask my siblings [16:13] they'll they'll they'll tell you [16:15] that so that you know it was upsetting [16:18] when when they split up because do you [16:21] remember the day they told you they yeah [16:22] yeah I do I do I do I do it was it was [16:24] uh we were we were in we were in [16:27] Somerset and my father said that we all [16:30] had to go and and up by the the the gate [16:34] towards the engine shed so he went and [16:37] stood by the gate towards the engine [16:38] shed and and we were told this you know [16:41] sad news what did he say I don't [16:45] remember exactly I don't remember [16:46] exactly but I was look I was cross and [16:50] and and said you know so so why did you [16:52] have us then because I thought [16:54] well you [16:56] know um [17:04] as you know I [17:08] think it is upsetting [17:12] and kids do take you know kids take it [17:16] upon themselves right and so they do [17:18] they do think that there must be some [17:21] fault or mistake in that in [17:23] themselves and that isn't that isn't [17:25] true I mean you know you [17:29] it's very important for kids not to [17:31] blame themselves for for these things [17:32] and I think [17:34] that it's you know back to the point I [17:36] was making earlier on with you [17:39] um I [17:42] think you know you do need [17:46] to feed the [17:50] the your [17:52] self-esteem and you need to get yourself [17:55] back up again and so work was my it was [17:59] my way of doing it I I could see the um [18:02] the emotion in your face when you talk [18:03] about that moment as if you were [18:04] teleported back to that moment for a [18:06] second [18:08] yeah yeah I mean it may look I the the [18:12] actual the truth is I'm I'm now told in [18:14] retrospect that that is what I said I [18:16] don't personally remember it you [18:18] remember how it [18:19] feels yeah but look I mean yes but I [18:22] really wouldn't want to over egg it [18:26] because my parents were incred kind to [18:31] each other after that you know when you [18:33] do this and you throw the the coal in [18:35] the air I was just stoking the fness of [18:37] my of my self-esteem yeah yeah you um [18:40] you have quite a distinct Persona you're [18:42] I mean much of where you sort of first [18:44] came to public knowledge was on the TV [18:45] show have I got news for you yeah I know [18:47] I think the BBC very they live in [18:49] permanent state of horror about what [18:51] they did that because you know I think [18:52] that's one of the reasons that that they [18:54] I think they they have a terrible sense [18:55] of corporate guilt that they Unleashed [18:57] this thing [18:59] is is there a link between your persona [19:02] comedic kind of you know people often [19:04] describe you as being a bit of a buffoon [19:06] I actually thought you were a this is [19:08] just being honest because I feel like [19:10] it's important to be honest to someone [19:11] if you've said it behind their back but [19:13] I when I first saw you on the screen I [19:14] was a very young man I must have been I [19:17] don't know 14 and I thought you were a [19:20] parody from Bo selector like I thought I [19:23] thought you were I thought it was a [19:24] parody but then I came to learn you know [19:27] when you did the London May thing ET [19:28] that you were a politician and who you [19:30] were and where you'd come from but the [19:31] out the out external person is very [19:33] atypical of a politician right and your [19:36] general comedic sense that shows up in [19:38] the book a lot um you were very comedic [19:41] on have I got news how I have I got news [19:43] for you um is that at all linked when [19:47] when did that behavior show up because [19:50] there was two points of reference that I [19:51] was mulling one is things your sister [19:53] said about where you sort of learned [19:55] that comedy was a useful device um and [19:58] the second one is something Jimmy Carr [20:00] actually said to me he said to me that [20:01] um he goes if you ever meet anyone [20:03] comedic or a comedian don't ask them if [20:05] they're depressed ask them which one of [20:07] their parents they were trying to cheer [20:09] up or win favor from and I I wondered if [20:12] all yeah and I think I don't know I I [20:14] think that um one of the things I've [20:17] tried to do in politics is to get people [20:20] interested and one of the things I'm [20:23] trying to do and Unleashed which is [20:24] unquestionably a a mixture there's a lot [20:28] of serious argument in it but also I'm [20:31] trying to tell the story in as readable [20:33] a way as possible and you have to you [20:37] have to [20:39] use you got to Sugar the pill you've got [20:42] to so it's like it's like a it's like a [20:44] packet of uh of digestive biscuits MH um [20:47] if you've got to have so each of the [20:49] chapters uh has a uh some solid you know [20:53] wheat germ pabulum but it's covered with [20:56] some a little layer of chocolate did you [20:59] so say you you go down you go down the [21:02] packet compulsively and each of those 60 [21:04] chapters I think there are 60 chapters [21:06] in that book is designed to give you a [21:09] bit of both so are you the pill that was [21:11] sugared you sugared yourself no well I [21:14] it's well I know there are it's the fact [21:17] of the great things that I think that we [21:19] did we know we took back control of our [21:21] of our country we we had a we we went [21:24] for a type of Independence that people [21:27] thought was impossible no I'm [21:30] spefic complicated arguments about um [21:34] Middle East about as a as a as a guide [21:37] to the last 15 years in in politics I [21:41] think it's it's pretty useful but I mean [21:43] I worked in marketing for about 15 years [21:45] so I find it quite fascinating that [21:47] right now in the world it seems that [21:48] there's a certain type of atypical [21:50] personality that's breaking through and [21:51] being [21:52] resident is your persona [21:56] a carefully constructed marketing [21:59] strategy or is because someone someone [22:03] that knows you referred to as a bit of a [22:04] loner in private and a quite quiet [22:05] person yeah no no I I live I so I'm very [22:08] I have a wonderful life um I I spend my [22:11] time I I do a lot of painting um I I do [22:17] a lot of reading and writing um I mck [22:21] around mck around with my kids it [22:23] doesn't take much to you know my cup to [22:26] run over with with with happiness but [22:28] you know all this stuff [22:29] like yeah but I know but that's I've got [22:32] I've always had a lot of energy but I've [22:35] always had a lot you understand that [22:36] that's part of your persona right well [22:38] am I supposed to do about that but I'm [22:40] trying to understand is it calculated is [22:41] it something that you've you've thought [22:43] about and you understand is effective [22:46] because they describe you as being one [22:47] of the best sort of election winners of [22:51] our of our time I think what people will [22:54] I don't know I mean what people will [22:56] also say is that um [22:59] I haven't really [23:00] changed I mean you know going back to [23:02] your earlier earlier line of question I [23:04] can see where you're going with this [23:06] you're saying as part of the strategy [23:08] for defense do we adopt comedic Persona [23:11] or or or whatever was um I don't think [23:15] that was I think it was just with my [23:17] brothers and sisters in our family there [23:19] was a kind of horror of of you know [23:22] being dull or not saying anything you [23:24] know we we had to you know we all had to [23:26] amuse each each other why [23:29] that was really really polite [23:32] I you know because it was more fun your [23:35] brothers and sisters are less amusing [23:37] than you are I wouldn't say [23:40] that that's a very controversial thing [23:42] to say you would say that I would no I [23:44] would not say that you would say that [23:46] who I would say that yeah you think Leo [23:49] have you met my brother Leo no I've not [23:50] met well then you got to get Leo on this [23:52] show but your sister my brother Joe yes [23:55] you met my brother [23:57] Jo no look honestly there's a serious uh [24:01] risk of of [24:03] uh we had a wonderful childhood because [24:06] and they wouldn't deny this because we [24:08] all you know we had a lot of fun trying [24:12] to interest and amuse each other and and [24:14] and and to your point probably our [24:17] parents as well CU your sister that's [24:19] not to say that we were we were you know [24:20] we didn't we didn't do kind of shards [24:23] and and Christmas masks and and plays [24:26] and and God knows what jery Corbin said [24:28] Boris is a calculated intelligent who [24:30] lives in a Persona which is the [24:33] opposite is that TR at [24:36] all [24:38] um no I I mean I I think that I I wish [24:42] you were true in some ways but I don't [24:46] I because most of your most you videos [24:48] on YouTube are you tackling a small [24:50] child we thing rugby and by the way by [24:52] the way he he he would I reckon he could [24:54] be much older than he looked you know [24:57] the guy in Japan the kid you tackled the [24:59] kid in Japan the one I accidentally [25:01] knocked over in Japan they're all comedy [25:02] videos yeah he he [25:04] anyway Eon it's pretty crazy she went to [25:08] Eaton at 13 years old it's the crazy [25:10] thing for me is that approximately 20 of [25:12] the 57 individuals who have served as [25:14] prime minister went to Eon which is [25:17] roughly 35% of the UK prime ministers [25:19] were educated at Eaton roughly yeah this [25:22] for me when I read that I go something's [25:23] broken here because for one school to [25:25] contribute so many of the most powerful [25:28] people in in the land feels like a [25:30] little bit of like someone's got their [25:32] hands on the scale or there's some kind [25:34] of that's why you need to read level [25:36] read the book because the book contains [25:38] this is the whole theme of the book [25:40] right not the whole theme of the book [25:42] it's one of the major themes of the book [25:43] it's about leveling up yeah and if if [25:46] you remember what I say about I don't [25:48] know whether you got through that bit [25:51] but I so I went there on a scholarship [25:53] and it was fantastic I was very lucky I [25:55] was I was paid for by the by Henry V 6 [25:58] oh the legacy of Henry V 6 and I [26:01] remember feeling this [26:03] incredible sense [26:08] of [26:10] Amazement [26:12] that there were kids from some of the [26:14] most famous illustrious families in in [26:17] Britain uh who plainly didn't have you [26:22] know much um intellectual interest [26:26] academic you know Spark [26:28] in them and and kidss who'd come from [26:32] backgrounds all over the [26:34] country who were incredible and I and my [26:37] my insight at school very very very [26:39] young was that this there's there's a [26:41] fundamental problem which is that there [26:44] is ambition and energy and genius and [26:48] talent probably completely evenly [26:50] distributed throughout the UK [26:53] population [26:54] and opportunity is not yeah I [26:58] and that is the problem and that is the [27:01] basic problem with our country and this [27:03] country has more potential arguably than [27:07] any other major European economy because [27:10] it's so imbalanced and if you look at [27:12] the the propon schools like mine p in [27:16] London in the Southeast in the UK [27:18] economy it's actually unlike France [27:22] Germany Italy Holland it's also totally [27:24] unlike the United [27:25] States and so [27:28] I I decided very early on that the [27:33] that there was massive massive wasted [27:37] potential and so one of the so when I [27:40] became mayor of [27:41] London one of my biggest projects was [27:45] really the biggest thing we did was [27:46] really all about trying to lift the the [27:50] the burrow that people said were were [27:51] locked in a permanent cycle of [27:54] disadvantage and and you know you know [27:58] what I mean the inner the inner donut of [28:00] London hne where you know all that and [28:03] and it was total rubbish total rubbish [28:06] and you you can change [28:09] people's aspirations but you can then [28:11] also change uh the culture of of [28:13] achievement [28:15] and and I saw it happen in London and I [28:18] was only mayor for eight years but in [28:20] that period you really did see the city [28:23] change in in you know quite a [28:26] significant way and and I believe very [28:30] very strongly that that is fundamentally [28:34] what needs to happen in the whole of the [28:35] UK and and I think that this is the job [28:38] of politic I don't care whether they're [28:39] labor or conservative or whoever I think [28:41] that that is that is what we need to to [28:43] be doing and I think there are very [28:45] simple ingredients that polit there's [28:47] not there's limits to what politicians [28:49] can do but there are some simple things [28:50] that politicians need to be doing to to [28:52] make that happen has the conservative [28:54] government done well enough at leveling [28:56] up the the whole of the UK over the last [28:59] decade uh obviously not because it's not [29:03] happening f it is I mean it is happening [29:05] leveling up is happening but if you look [29:07] at the but it's nothing like fast enough [29:09] yeah [29:10] and you know so you know AB I was proud [29:14] of doing things like um rolling out [29:18] gigabit Broadband from you know 7 to 70% [29:21] 69 70% of of households in in 3 years [29:24] which is not not bad going I was proud [29:26] of all the infrastructure stuff we were [29:28] we were doing I think it's a mistake to [29:31] to stop [29:32] that [29:34] infrastructure is crucial [29:36] [Music] [29:37] for leveling up transport infrastructure [29:40] is a great is a great equalizer of [29:43] opportunity so things like hs2 Northern [29:46] Powerhouse [29:47] rail we should be going on with those in [29:49] in my view and um you know whatever my [29:53] my defects as a politician I think one [29:56] thing I was good at was getting a lot of [29:58] stuff done fast and get and and driving [30:01] and driving project projects but the [30:04] problem is Eaton Eaton was to back to [30:07] your [30:09] question that youthful [30:12] experience [30:14] was I I was also at Primary School in in [30:18] London and I really really decided that [30:23] this was because I think our country has [30:25] this [30:26] problem worse than most other most [30:29] comparable countries but if you think [30:30] how if you think of how strong the UK [30:32] economy already [30:34] is then imagine what we could achieve if [30:38] we leveled up right do you know this [30:39] this stat around Eon that 20 out of the [30:41] 57 individuals who've served as prime [30:43] minister came from there isn't that just [30:45] the clearest example of the fact that it [30:48] is yeah the people that are coming into [30:51] politics but also generally the people [30:52] that are getting to the top in society [30:55] are starting with a unfair advantage to [30:58] some [30:59] degree I well I think what it shows is [31:04] that I mean you probably point to [31:07] cultures like France or wherever where [31:10] you know the a lot of the the country is [31:12] run by the um the the people from the [31:16] the the Great Schools um but yeah I mean [31:22] fundamentally yes that's I think that [31:24] the so so the great the great choice for [31:27] for anybody who's interested in public [31:29] policy is well okay this is a this is [31:32] clearly clearly a problem uh it's [31:34] clearly wrong uh it's clearly imbalanced [31:38] what do you do uh do you set out to [31:41] launch a kind of cultural assault um [31:44] Paul pot Style on the successful [31:48] institutions or do you say actually what [31:51] we're going to do is try to spread [31:55] opportunity so it's more like America [31:57] and and if you look at [32:00] America you the growth rates are [32:02] spectacularly outperformed European [32:04] growth rates there's a different sense [32:06] people have a different sense of what [32:08] they can do and we need to have a we [32:11] need to have a a culture in the UK where [32:15] people don't feel prisoners of their [32:17] geography of their background that [32:19] certainly is the case isn't it at the [32:21] moment in the UK too much the case I [32:22] mean it's less it's less than it was I [32:24] went undercover I went undercover in a [32:26] school in Liverpool that was very poorly [32:29] ranked on the offed rankings and I [32:31] remember being in that school and just [32:32] thinking how on Earth are these kids [32:35] going to have a chance well they're not [32:37] going to have a chance if their teachers [32:38] tell them that they're never going to [32:39] get into a Russell group University and [32:41] they and they well what I observed when [32:42] I was there was I observed one teacher [32:45] running from one classroom to the next [32:47] classroom this was under Ator government [32:49] trying to teach two classes at the same [32:51] time and I remember sitting down with [32:53] her cuz I cuz I got like kicked out of [32:54] school then I was unexposed from school [32:55] so I had a bit of my own prejudices [32:57] about school I thought teachers were the [32:58] problem and what I came to learn from [33:00] speaking to the Headmaster of the school [33:02] was that this is effectively run like a [33:03] business and the amount of students that [33:05] choose that school every year determines [33:07] how much money the school is given by [33:08] the the conservative government and the [33:10] the amount of the parents choose schools [33:12] based on the league table and the league [33:14] table is determined by grades so really [33:16] if you think about the the structure [33:18] here um the reason why they're driving [33:21] kids like me to do subjects which I [33:22] absolutely hated when I was really [33:24] interested in business was because if [33:26] they don't get me to get 12 AED to sees [33:28] or whatever the nonsense is in certain [33:30] subjects less they they rank poorly in [33:32] the league table less parents choose the [33:34] school they get less money from the [33:36] government and it's this down with [33:37] spiral and because the school was so so [33:39] people are people are are naturally [33:40] skewed to doing subjects that [33:42] perhaps no interest of them they had me [33:45] pushing some plastic baby around the [33:46] school in Health and Social care when I [33:47] was running businesses in the school and [33:49] I was I was spending so much time in my [33:51] in exclusion unit because I was falling [33:53] asleep in classrooms turns out I had [33:55] ADHD I wasn't interested in these things [33:57] but I was obs in these things the system [33:59] is that is designed to just to just sort [34:01] of spread bet you across multiple [34:02] subjects and you're a failure if you're [34:04] not good at that but going back to the [34:05] sort of the E the the um e economics of [34:09] the school I watched this teacher run [34:11] from one classroom to the other teaching [34:12] two classrooms at the same time and she [34:15] told me that because less students had [34:16] chosen that school this year she was [34:18] having to pay for the footballs and the [34:21] the pencils in her classroom this school [34:23] I I observed the quality of Education [34:25] with all due respect they did the best [34:27] with with what they had but oh my God it [34:30] doesn't compare doesn't compare to a lot [34:32] of the other schools that I've observed [34:34] and I thought God these children in this [34:36] school are starting out life with a [34:38] significant disadvantage and much of [34:41] that is just down to the funding [34:42] situation they don't have the teachers [34:45] the teachers are dropping like flies [34:46] because they're getting sick because [34:48] they're understaffed and I just thought [34:50] that that's such a if we think about you [34:52] know what's the furthest Upstream thing [34:54] we can do to give people a fair Shake in [34:57] life so that they can become a prime [34:58] minister or a CEO or whatever they want [35:00] to be it starts there it starts with [35:03] education and just giving everyone the [35:04] same sort of quality of opportunity but [35:06] right now and especially under the the [35:07] sort of last 10 15 years of [35:09] government Cas I think I probably ought [35:12] to to to try and resist some of that [35:15] because um yeah I mean I think teaching [35:17] is incred I tried to be a teacher myself [35:20] it's it's it's unbelievably difficult [35:22] and and demanding job and I hugely [35:26] admire teachers [35:28] um when I came in in 2019 we put a lot [35:31] of money into into the education budgets [35:33] and um made sure teachers were going to [35:37] be paid new new teachers are starting [35:39] Sal at least 30,000 pounds and uh put a [35:45] lot of money into into further [35:47] education um and actually if you look at [35:49] that period of con of the conservative [35:53] Administration I think most fairm minded [35:55] people say actually look UK went up the [35:58] pza rankings uh for literacy and [36:02] numeracy most people actually would say [36:04] that education was one of the things [36:06] where things did get better and uh I [36:10] think the driving out of the whole [36:12] Academy program I [36:14] mean not remotely denying what you say [36:17] about [36:19] um the teacher you you know the teachers [36:21] you saw being being totally run run [36:23] ragged um and you know the [36:28] they need the maximum possible support [36:31] but if you look at the [36:34] data schools did get appreciably better [36:37] in this country during that period now [36:41] what I wanted to do was really [36:43] turbocharge that and [36:46] give not just school children but also [36:50] kids who'd left school at at 16 the [36:52] types of skills that they were going to [36:54] need to [36:57] compete and to make sure that business [37:00] felt that they had in the schools in the [37:03] Fe colleges in wherever it was they had [37:06] the talent that they needed to invest in [37:08] that area because that's ultimately what [37:10] it's all about it's about having the [37:13] um the [37:16] confidence that the the state is doing [37:19] enough [37:21] to deliver private sector [37:23] investment that is that is ultimately [37:26] what will transform [37:28] the the neighborhood and and you get [37:31] instead of getting the vicious circle of [37:32] of decline that you talked about you'll [37:33] get a you'll get a uh a positive [37:36] feedback Loot and uh parents want to [37:40] move there they want to send their kids [37:41] to the to to the school the school get a [37:43] good good reputation and and so things [37:46] will things will turn around as they did [37:47] in London look at London schools um you [37:52] know I can't I can't comment on the [37:53] school you mentioned in Liverpool but [37:55] London schools really really changed a [37:57] lot [37:57] I think with even with the leveling up [37:59] thing one of the easiest ways to level [38:00] up without building the train line would [38:02] just be to improve the quality of [38:04] Education in these and I think if you [38:06] look at what the conservatives did they [38:08] really focused on that and they focused [38:10] on the curriculum they focused on [38:11] standards they focused on quality and I [38:15] think that was very important because [38:16] you [38:21] know I mean it's Al it's very very [38:23] important to to to fund schools properly [38:26] um but but you know you you shouldn't [38:29] underestimate what what a great teacher [38:31] can achieve and the difference that they [38:33] can make and you know if if you [38:36] emphasize quality and you [38:39] emphasize attainment and you and you [38:42] focus on that that's why I'm I know I [38:44] think it's I'm slightly worried about [38:46] what's happening now with with ofstead I [38:48] mean I I I can understand why people [38:50] don't like one word ofstead gradings but [38:54] parents need to know whether a school is [38:57] gonna deliver you went to Oxford [38:59] University then you had a job as a [39:00] Management Consultant which lasted only [39:02] a week I hear yeah I was wasn't really [39:04] cut out for Management Consultant you [39:05] know you then become a journalist um you [39:07] become a journalist for the next couple [39:09] of years you then appear on have I got [39:11] news for you is it is it now is it now [39:13] feeded from the memory it's slightly [39:15] it's slightly fading it's still a great [39:16] show but it's still slightly fading um [39:18] you were then editor he must tell in his [39:20] lot that it's F and and uh you an empty [39:23] at the house of comms um then eventually [39:27] you for London mayor were you did you [39:30] expect to win the London mayor ship I [39:32] well you see this is the way you I [39:34] hadn't got the faintest idea I mean [39:36] seemed the thing was that I'd actually [39:38] been quite an admirer of Ken Livingston [39:39] in in the old days and I thought that he [39:42] had some some bold and original ideas [39:45] for London I I thought he was good on [39:47] the environment he was good on air [39:48] quality he was good on on the I thought [39:50] there was some some some good things [39:52] that he that he did um but it was clear [39:56] that after 8 years you know you start to [39:58] get a bit ragged did you did you think [40:00] you would [40:01] win I suppose I must have done I suppose [40:03] I must have thought it was a good chance [40:04] it was it was it was a pretty exhausting [40:06] campaign but if you ask me if I thought [40:09] I would win something I can tell you in [40:11] hset whether I thought I'd win I did [40:12] soccer Aid last year this year and I can [40:14] tell you if I thought I was going to win [40:16] did you think you were going to win when [40:18] you [40:19] ran I thought there was a goodish chance [40:22] but it wasn't obvious I mean I I think [40:25] the bookies didn't really had me as the [40:29] as the favorite uh for for a long time I [40:32] think it then changed I can't remember [40:34] exactly but [40:37] um you know you make your own L right I [40:40] mean I had to I had to go in there and [40:42] make the arguments I me I think one of [40:43] the things that [40:44] Ken didn't pay enough attention to was [40:47] crime and I thought [40:50] the was a real issue that needed to be [40:54] addressed and that was the the numbers [40:56] of teenage kids being murdered and we [41:00] really really went at that hard and [41:03] again it was one of those things where [41:05] when I together with a lot of other [41:07] people kit Mouse Deputy Mayor Steven [41:10] greenhalge uh Paul Stevenson the [41:13] commissioner Bernard Hogan [41:14] how who who followed him we really [41:18] really tried to fix knife crime and gang [41:21] crime I used to literally lie awake at [41:24] night worrying about it because it was [41:26] so on me [41:28] you know every every single casualty [41:31] having to talk to the parents you know [41:33] the misery the misery of of their [41:36] suffering we really felt it and we and [41:39] it was it was a good example of [41:41] democracy because we'd pledged to fix [41:43] it and if we [41:46] didn't we had nowhere to go one of the [41:49] things I'm proud of is we we cut the [41:50] murder in London during my time by 50% [41:53] in 2016 at 52 years old you become [41:56] co-leader along side Michael go of the [41:58] campaign to take Britain out of the EU [42:00] when I when I look at your Premiership [42:02] as prime minister of the UK there's [42:04] three really significant moments isn't [42:06] there that typically don't fall all in [42:09] one [42:10] person's role as a prime minister you [42:12] had the brexit issues you had Co and you [42:16] had the Ukraine war y um before I before [42:18] I talk about those particular [42:21] issues in hindsight now how do you feel [42:24] about the fact that you had to contend [42:26] with three [42:28] generational crises and issues but you [42:31] know that's the job of being prime [42:32] minister but most Prime Ministers don't [42:34] get sure but but you know pandemic [42:37] leaving the EU some Prim ministers have [42:40] had Wars some Prim ministers have had uh [42:44] terrible crisis uh Sterling crisis [42:47] terrible you wish you got a different [42:48] hand no I I I think actually do you [42:51] think you'd still be in politics now and [42:53] as prime minister if you if you got a [42:55] different hand no I think there are I [42:57] think honestly I think there were other [42:59] reasons for for for that I mean I'm so [43:02] I'm I'm proud of of the things that we [43:04] did with with the country I think it was [43:08] very you know people now say um oh [43:10] brexit War actually you know one of the [43:13] points I make in in Unleashed is that if [43:16] you look at it the model of national [43:18] Independence that we got was crucial so [43:21] full freedom to do what we wanted in [43:23] legislation and regulation that was [43:25] actually crucial when it came to that [43:27] pandemic because we were able to [43:29] vaccinate faster than any other European [43:31] country a much faster I mean did you [43:34] think you were going to win the brexit [43:36] vote um I honestly when I was outside [43:40] London yes when I was inside London no [43:44] so whenever I traveled around the [43:45] country I thought my God people are [43:47] going to vote then when I got back into [43:48] the [43:49] Metropolis um it felt very different so [43:52] if you had to put your house on it [43:54] remain or leave in terms of the [43:56] probability of the outcome what you your [43:58] predicted outcome which one would you [44:00] have voted [44:02] on well I the polls were were basically [44:05] more for remain than for [44:09] leave um but I sort of thought that our [44:13] voters were more motivated so I hoped [44:18] that they would come out and I hoped [44:20] that they [44:23] would that was and but he did but on a [44:26] scale had foreseen I mean because we had [44:28] 17.4 million people voted Lee which was [44:30] the biggest number voted for any [44:32] proposition in history and um but you [44:37] know there were plenty of times when I [44:38] you [44:39] know you could be in a in I was a St [44:44] Andrews University in Scotland for my [44:47] daughter's graduation day and you really [44:49] wouldn't have thought that we were going [44:51] to leave talking to those people there [44:53] so you know it depended do you know [44:55] what's interesting when I was reading [44:57] your book but also when I was reading [44:58] some of your previous writings you [45:00] seemed really conflicted on which way to [45:03] go leave or remain right up until you [45:07] wrote your sort of first announcement [45:08] piece that you were supporting leave you [45:10] seemed to be really really [45:12] conflicted the the reasons for for for [45:17] not [45:18] leaving were it seemed to me to be more [45:22] to do with Britain's duty to the rest of [45:25] Europe or need to be good partners uh [45:28] our need not to be [45:31] negative uh to be friendly I that that [45:33] those were the things that worried me [45:35] people the positive reasons for leaving [45:37] people point at this letter which was [45:39] unpublished you know the letter I'm [45:40] referring to the unpublished letter you [45:42] wrote about the decision to leave or [45:44] stay within the EU is this no you mean [45:46] the the article the unpublished article [45:48] yeah yeah yeah yeah where you said here [45:50] some of the the phrases from that piece [45:51] think of Britain think of the rest of [45:53] the EU think of of the future think of [45:55] the desire of our children and our [45:56] grandchildren to live and work in other [45:58] European countries to sell things there [46:00] to make friends perhaps to find Partners [46:02] there I like the sound of freedom I like [46:03] the sound of restoring democracy but [46:05] what are the downsides and here we must [46:07] be honest there is the worry about [46:09] Scotland about the possibility that the [46:11] English only Lee vote could lead to the [46:13] breakup of the Union there is the Putin [46:14] Factor we don't want to do anything to [46:16] encourage more shirtless swaggering from [46:18] the Russian leader not the Middle East [46:20] not anywhere and then there is the whole [46:22] geostrategic anxiety Britain is a great [46:24] nation a global Force for good it is [46:25] surely a boon for for the world and for [46:28] Europe that she should be intimately [46:30] engaged in the EU lastly this is a [46:32] market on our doorstep ready for future [46:34] exploitation by British firms the [46:36] membership fee seems rather small for [46:39] all that access why are we so determined [46:41] to turn our back on it shouldn't our [46:42] policy be like our policy on cake pro- [46:44] having it and pro eating it pro Europe [46:46] and pro rest of the world so when I read [46:48] that but then I also I read the um the [46:51] very Vivid description you gave of that [46:53] night when you're trying to make your [46:54] decision in your book unle [46:57] and you seemed torn but the guy that [47:00] went out and campaigned didn't seem torn [47:03] there was a there was a real lack of [47:04] nuance in the campaign but there's such [47:06] a a huge amount of nuance in both the [47:08] moment you were making the decision and [47:10] the Articles you wrote about that [47:12] decision there are arguments both ways [47:15] and and I I I say it in the in the book [47:18] and it's certainly true that as I as I [47:20] said just now the the case for for stay [47:24] is I think one about um not seeming to [47:28] be hostile not seeming to be detached [47:31] but I had to [47:33] decide because the being in the EU isn't [47:37] like just being in a club that where the [47:38] rules don't change it's it's a project [47:43] to create a United States of of Europe [47:46] with a single currency with a single [47:48] Parliament and and and so on [47:52] and I thought that we weren't ever going [47:54] to get the choice again the chance again [47:56] to have National Democratic Independence [47:59] and as I said in so I wrote that article [48:02] you just quoted was a sort of pasti of a [48:05] of a [48:06] counterargument which I wrote for myself [48:08] as an exercise after I'd already written [48:11] the piece to to come [48:13] out and I wanted to set them side by [48:18] side and and to think the that's nuanced [48:21] but the campaign wasn't nuanced but if [48:23] you read the the other article yeah [48:26] you'll see the points that I came down [48:28] in favor of MH [48:31] and that was about having full marhall [48:35] Independence and be able to do things [48:37] your own way and the trouble with [48:40] staying in the [48:42] EU was it it meant that we were going to [48:45] become less and less [48:47] Democratic and in the end you've got to [48:49] be able [48:50] to as a [48:54] politician you've got to be able to [48:56] answer the question [48:57] question who put you in authority over [49:01] me and how can I remove you from office [49:06] and the problem with the EU is there's [49:08] no way they can answer that question [49:10] because they're not they're not [49:11] democratically is there not way you can [49:13] reform the relationship with the EU [49:14] while being in the EU you know it's [49:16] interesting I think I was thinking of a [49:18] football analogy as you're talking there [49:20] and right now Manchester United my team [49:21] are having a bit of struggle right and [49:23] um my friends in the group chat are [49:25] saying do you think that we should get [49:26] rid of the manager and I'm saying when [49:28] you think about making a decision like [49:29] that you also have to factor in um what [49:34] you do after I.E who replaces the [49:36] manager so many fans would just say sack [49:38] the manager but then the question [49:40] becomes but then what and it was quite [49:42] clear in your book that although you [49:43] wanted to leave the EU you had no [49:47] idea what the plan would be thereafter [49:50] and in fact no but no but what we needed [49:52] to do is take back control and so that's [49:55] like fire the manager I'm saying but [49:56] then what [49:57] it [49:58] wasn't I was just wanting to win an [50:00] argument with the public about their [50:03] democracy and whether they should [50:04] control it or not and I thought that [50:07] ultimately we had to do that and and I [50:10] think that if you look at so going back [50:12] to the points that we were talking about [50:14] earlier to growth rates in America and [50:17] and Europe you couldn't say that the the [50:18] EU model has been economically [50:22] successful not at all um it's got [50:25] chronically bad growth rates um very low [50:30] Innovation by comparison with the United [50:32] States something is is not working so [50:35] whatever that whatever they're doing in [50:36] Brussels to provide this this great body [50:39] of of Regulation it's not actually [50:41] delivering results for the people of of [50:43] Europe and if [50:45] you clip when compared to America well [50:49] so so from 2008 on to 15 take the 15 [50:52] years 2008 [50:55] 20202 whatever to tr indry um but does [50:59] that mean that the EU is doing something [51:00] wrong or that the Americans are doing [51:02] something right because when I think of [51:04] America I think of insane [51:07] Innovation a lot a bit of both a lot I [51:09] mean a lot of both [51:10] so me the Americans by the way would [51:14] never dream of trading away National [51:17] sovereignty over anything they just [51:18] don't they never they never they never [51:21] in any way NATO is a bit of a act where [51:25] they've formed complete hegemony in NATO [51:28] I mean you know that's but they joined [51:29] forces to make the some greater than the [51:32] parts yeah but you know there's no the [51:34] the the EU provides a a body of new and [51:39] a continuously evolving body of new law [51:42] which British the British Parliament [51:44] can't change and so to get back to so [51:47] why I mean I'm not pretending it wasn't [51:49] an e it wasn't a difficult decision it [51:50] was a difficult decision uh for the you [51:52] know for the reasons that you that that [51:54] we've gone into but I wanted the country [51:59] our country to be [52:02] legislatively free again and and at the [52:05] heart of the book you know you talk [52:07] about the pandemic being the most [52:09] difficult thing it was very very [52:10] difficult but and it was very difficult [52:13] to persuade the British public to I very [52:15] find ways of stopping the spread of the [52:17] disease but one thing we did better than [52:20] any other European country was vaccinate [52:23] and one reason we were able to vaccinate [52:25] so fast is because we had regulatory [52:30] freedom of exactly the kind I mean it [52:33] was a complete flute but it turn exactly [52:35] the kind we'll talk about that that I [52:37] that I had advocated we'll talk about [52:39] that and so and so that for me was [52:41] absolutely crucial and then we'll talk [52:43] about that I just want to I need to make [52:44] sure I'm clear because if I'm not clear [52:46] moving forward then my audience aren't [52:47] going to be clear um this idea of like [52:50] Freedom if we take the the analogy of [52:53] like a of a [52:54] parachute if I cut the C WS I'm free but [52:58] I'm also in danger unless I have a [52:59] paraglider waiting to catch me and my [53:01] point here is I understand the head all [53:04] the like the big emotional words that [53:06] freedom Take Back Control Etc it sounds [53:08] compelling to me but as I said with the [53:10] football analogy what's the plan [53:12] thereafter and I think I I actually [53:15] don't want I don't about cutting you [53:17] talking about the parachute right and [53:19] cutting the cords of the of the [53:22] parachute um actually it was the other [53:24] way around it was because we'd come out [53:27] of the EU that we were able to equip [53:30] ourselves with a parachute faster than [53:31] anybody else and uh we were able to to [53:35] get out of the Burning Plane uh faster [53:38] and to get to ground safely faster [53:42] because we' taken back control of our of [53:45] our regulatory freedom and that meant [53:48] that by March 2021 we' vaccinated 45% of [53:52] the adult population and of the older [53:55] people I think we done almost 80 over [53:57] the over 80 we done almost 100% and that [53:59] was incredible if you remember we had we [54:01] had we'll talk about the vaccines in [54:03] early in those early day but the two [54:04] things are connected those early days we [54:06] had thousands you know up to a thousand [54:08] people dying every day and so it was [54:12] incredibly important just we were able [54:15] to give elderly and vulnerable people in [54:17] the UK a protection from in a on this [54:21] point of brexit though in your book you [54:24] say you almost sort of connect yourself [54:27] from the fact that you there had to be a [54:29] plan associated with the decision [54:32] because you seem almost angry that [54:33] people would expect you to have the plan [54:35] even though you led the campaign yeah so [54:38] I mean I'm trying to make the connection [54:40] between brexit and the real world and [54:42] why brexit delivers value was there a [54:44] plan for leaving so so but on the in [54:47] 2016 and I think what you're really [54:49] saying is what was our plan for the [54:53] um the referendum outcome so me [54:56] everybody who campaigned to to leave [54:58] were we expecting to win uh were we [55:00] expecting to form the next government [55:01] let me quote your book this is good for [55:02] promotion for your book so you're like [55:03] this never at any point in that campaign [55:06] did we Boris and Michael gave discuss a [55:09] future leave based government because we [55:11] did not imagine that there would be [55:13] would have we would have to be in charge [55:15] of government the government stated [55:17] policy was to implement the referendum [55:19] result it was a result it was a [55:21] referendum not an election we had no [55:23] plans for government no plans for [55:25] negotiations because it was not our [55:28] job and in so far as the next few days [55:31] were chaotic which they were it is [55:33] utterly infuriating that we should be [55:35] blamed it was up to the government to [55:37] announce the plan to withdraw it was up [55:38] to the government to begin negotiations [55:41] so this is I mean this is this is a huge [55:43] issue because if in the context of [55:45] business because when because when [55:46] because why because because because I [55:48] think there a fundamental misconception [55:50] when you when when when a government [55:51] decides to put something to the people [55:52] in a [55:53] referendum the government is not saying [55:57] um oh you know if if it goes against our [56:00] you know the any particular position [56:03] we'll we'll disappear but the government [56:05] they wanted to remain in France uh for [56:08] instance uh uh uh France miton had [56:11] referendum on I I can't remember I think [56:14] it was the master treaty um or was one [56:17] of the treaties that he he lost the vote [56:20] um and he didn't resign he didn't [56:22] disappear plenty of European uh leaders [56:25] have had referendums on E on on on the [56:28] EU and and they've gone against them but [56:32] they haven't vanished from the scene and [56:35] so you know let put this the other way [56:38] around imagine imagine that go and I or [56:42] the whole of the leave team had been [56:44] specifically campaigning to in the leave [56:48] vote to form the next government and to [56:51] install ourselves as the rulers of the [56:53] country people would have said this is [56:56] not about um this you're plainly you [57:00] you're talking all your arguments [57:03] designed to advance your political [57:04] careers you're not you're not talking [57:06] about the issue of leave or remain [57:07] you're talking about a plan to take over [57:09] the government I and so totally I'm not [57:11] politici I'm just I'm just a member of [57:13] public I'm just trying to I'm trying to [57:14] explain why that that was not possible I [57:16] get it but as a member of the public I [57:18] think if you're leading the charge for [57:20] an outcome you must have looked a couple [57:23] of steps further to think about the [57:24] implications and the real ity of this [57:28] outcome like you must have had okay do [57:30] it like this we I assume that the [57:32] government would have bring would have a [57:34] white paper that said that brought they [57:37] they were going to bring forward the [57:39] options for the country and a plan to [57:40] negotiate and a plan and a plan to would [57:43] to do what they said they were going to [57:45] do but the government including your [57:46] friend David Cameron said this is a [57:48] really bad idea he so one would one [57:51] would take from that that the plan is [57:53] not a good one that they've looked at [57:55] all the available options post leaving [57:57] and there's no good options here so if [57:59] the people in charge were saying we [58:01] should not leave there is no good [58:03] plan shouldn't we have listened to them [58:06] well no because I think they were [58:08] wrong as a member of public is I see two [58:10] like two people stood at a cliff Edge [58:12] and you got one guy called David one guy [58:14] called Boris and David has said listen [58:16] I'm taking you to the cliff Edge because [58:18] it's your right to to make this decision [58:20] but do not jump and this other guy [58:23] called Boris is going jump I would [58:25] assume that Boris knows something about [58:27] how we survive once we start falling but [58:30] to find out that Boris had no plan and [58:31] thought David was going to pull out the [58:33] parachute for me is like well David D [58:37] the problem the problem was that I I [58:39] then we then had to we then found [58:41] ourselves because David prime minister [58:43] Cameron then disappeared from the [58:46] scene [58:48] immediately as I as I described in the [58:51] book we then we then had a a chaotic [58:53] period where we had to work out what the [58:54] hell we were going to do because it was [58:56] clear [58:58] that we were going to somebody was going [59:00] to have to take over and and lead us [59:02] through it did David Cameron react badly [59:05] when you told him when he thought that [59:07] you might be voting to leave because you [59:10] talk about in the book he yes I did he [59:12] but I mean but I describe it um in the [59:15] in the book he he said he said [59:19] um he [59:21] said I well I said look I I was really [59:24] struggling with this because I didn't [59:26] see how I consistently cuz he'd offered [59:28] me he said if you come out and support [59:30] rain you can have a top five job in the [59:33] cabinet I couldn't work out what a top [59:34] five job was and then he and then he [59:36] said um and then I he I said well look I [59:40] was Finding very because I've written [59:41] lots and lots of Articles the pointing [59:43] out the the Democratic problems of the [59:46] of the EU and you know finally we had a [59:48] chance to to resolve this and I was [59:50] thinking of of coming out for leave and [59:52] I you know didn't know how to put it to [59:54] him that was the the truth and he he [59:56] said this isn't about articles this is [59:57] about the future of the country I said [59:59] well I agreed about the future of the [60:00] country but I was still thinking canot [60:01] believe and he said well if you if you [60:05] if you come out believe he said I will [60:08] and I you know apologize for he same he [60:10] said I will I will [ __ ] you up [60:12] forever and which I thought was quite a [60:14] big big you know sort of promise to me [60:16] he said he was going to [ __ ] you up [60:17] forever forever and so I immediately um [60:21] went back home after I went back home [60:23] after that evening and uh and cycled [60:27] back from my office in in in City Hall [60:30] and talked to my my family my kids and [60:32] one of my kids uh said immediately well [60:34] you know he got no choice and you'll [60:36] have to come out for leave so [60:39] um I mean I put that in to to I put all [60:42] that in really to just to show you that [60:46] um there were very good Arguments [60:50] for having a quiet life do you know [60:53] what's interesting in that is I when I [60:54] read that part in your book The was two [60:56] things that I thought the first was him [60:58] offering you a top five job if you [61:01] followed his opinion is that not briary [61:04] and is that how the jobs are dished out [61:06] in the government at the moment if if [61:08] you if you do what I say I'll give you a [61:09] top like if you do what I say I'll make [61:12] you health secretary or defense [61:13] secretary seems like but it seems like [61:16] from as a someone who's not in [61:17] government it seems like a really [61:18] corrupt way to dish out jobs like if you [61:21] if you go with me it wasn't clear it [61:22] wasn't clear you've got to be fair to [61:24] Dave it wasn't clear what job he was [61:25] offering but top five is what defense [61:26] secretary Health [61:29] secretary you know PMS were top five [61:31] jobs so there's what really four [61:32] remaining it's probably you thought in [61:33] the book you talk about potentially [61:35] defense secretary I don't know but yes [61:36] but yeah I mean look but but is that not [61:38] a bit corrupt is that not like the [61:40] definition of corruption because if I [61:42] was it to my employ my own view about [61:44] all I think it's a it's a huge mistake [61:46] to do that kind of thing because there [61:49] are always far more people that you know [61:53] you end up you know thinking [61:56] that you should be making a promise to [61:57] then there are jobs you can possibly [61:59] give so the best thing in those [62:00] circumstan is to say nothing I I've I've [62:02] always wondered this about government [62:04] and I've never understood it is how does [62:06] someone become the head of a department [62:08] when they have no prior experience in it [62:11] like you made Matt hanock Health [62:14] secretary how did how did Margaret [62:15] thater become Prime Minister or [62:18] secretary for Education when she had no [62:19] previous previous experience how did [62:21] Tony Blair become Prime Minister when no [62:22] the Prime Minister thing I understand [62:24] how but how did how did T become you [62:27] know a shadow Minister when he had no [62:30] experience you tell me do you think this [62:31] is a good system well so this is a [62:34] really really important point because I [62:37] think that there is a [62:40] um I [62:43] I I do worry that it's quite hard to [62:47] persuade you know really good [62:49] administrative types to go into to [62:52] politics and you know you see it the the [62:55] whole time it's called Dar CEO right and [63:00] you see it the whole time you see loads [63:02] and loads of um I plenty of examples of [63:07] top business people who tried to get who [63:09] tried to become politicians and it just [63:12] doesn't seem to work and I I don't know [63:15] I mean can I can I have a guess go on [63:18] well if I look at the data I go if 35% [63:21] of them come from one school eaten and [63:23] then there's jobs being dished out based [63:25] on if you take my opinion I'll give you [63:27] a top five job I go I understand why I [63:29] could never get in even if I was the [63:31] best candidate because it's not being [63:32] done based on who's the best candidate [63:34] it's being done based on like the old [63:36] boys club but I'll do you a favor I'll [63:38] if you well not not under not under the [63:39] labor party presumably uh or you know or [63:42] or any other party not not not not under [63:43] the I mean most most conservative [63:45] cabinets so just under the T party no I [63:47] I think under under any party I think I [63:49] think that business people do for [63:53] reasons I find hard to put my f [63:56] on they don't necessarily flourish in in [63:59] that environment and who flourishes what [64:02] I what I worry about is that the only [64:05] people who are already going to start [64:06] doing it are people who are willing to [64:09] go through a lot of um you know [64:13] public attack I think social pass well I [64:17] mean well the fact so look one of the [64:20] interesting things that's happened [64:21] recently is that social media has become [64:24] very very [64:26] virulent and um I I don't read it myself [64:31] but I think it it becomes very [64:33] oppressive for politicians and also for [64:36] journalists and I think journalists [64:39] [Music] [64:42] um you know they get a lot of [64:44] shellacking and a lot of abuse if [64:47] they're not thought to be taking one [64:49] line or or the other or you know going [64:52] easy on someone um I mean somebody who's [64:55] going to interview me for this this book [64:58] um yeah you look at and she's a very [65:02] very good journalist but you look at the [65:04] stuff that she gets [65:06] online um about you [65:09] know you know her being an Inquisitor of [65:12] mine or whatever it's appalling it's [65:14] really appalling and I think so I think [65:16] that and I think that it's also the same [65:19] for MPS I think that they get [65:22] very um they think they think if it's a [65:26] choice between having a life where I can [65:28] you know avoid this sort of stuff [65:32] and you know having a wonderful [65:35] existence doing something else or or [65:37] putting myself through this on the point [65:39] of that I said think thinking that it's [65:40] related to the fact that people have got [65:42] their hands on the scales they're [65:42] pulling their friends up it's a bit of a [65:44] boys club is there any truth in that I [65:46] think but I think I look I'm sad to say [65:49] Steve I think that this probably been [65:50] the way politics has been since the dawn [65:52] of time I think that politicians I think [65:55] politics has tended to be um [65:58] factional uh since the dawn of time I [66:01] think it's tended to be just sad but I [66:04] think true um the the good thing is [66:07] that in the end the people who are [66:10] really successful are the people [66:13] who get things done that the people want [66:16] done do you think it's say magnet and so [66:18] and so and so so so it's a it's [66:22] a it's a magnet for very determined [66:26] characters who are willing to put [66:27] themselves through a lot soop get things [66:30] well well I [66:32] mean um have I used those words before [66:35] no no but that's the kind of person [66:37] you're making me sounds like you're [66:38] quoting me about maybe you but yeah but [66:42] the kind of person that I think would be [66:46] compelled and succeed in such an [66:48] environment um I [66:50] think I think you have to have a pretty [66:53] thick skin okay but the but because of [66:56] the because of the way it [66:58] works the people who actually succeed [67:03] are the people who really can drive [67:05] something forward and and deliver it [67:07] closing off on brexit um 62% of British [67:10] people view brexit as more of a failure [67:12] according to yugov and 9% consider it [67:15] more of a success um according to yugov [67:17] as well 46% of British people say they [67:19] should there should be a second e [67:21] referendum in 10 years compared to just [67:23] 36% that say it shouldn't be [67:26] and according to let me just finish the [67:28] stats you can respond um according to [67:29] the UK's Real gross added value the gva [67:32] a measure of the size of the economy um [67:35] they say there's approximately 140 [67:36] billion Less in 2023 in the UK economy [67:39] compared to if the UK had stayed in the [67:41] single EU Market according to the same [67:44] thing they say that 300 billion has been [67:46] wiped off the value of the UK's economy [67:49] um by [67:50] 2035 and my last stat here is a report [67:53] from the center of European reform in [67:56] 2023 estimates the UK GDP was 5.5% [67:59] smaller by mid 2023 compared to a [68:01] scenario where the UK had remained in [68:03] the EU this equates to an economic loss [68:06] of about 40 billion annually and just as [68:08] a business owner myself I was looking at [68:10] some stats around what business owners [68:12] think about 33% of small businesses [68:14] reported that brexit has made it harder [68:15] for them to trade with the EU due to [68:17] increased paperwork and things like this [68:19] and the London School of Economics said [68:21] that brex added 6% to food prices [68:23] between 2020 and 2023 [68:26] with all of this in mind do you regret [68:28] brexit not at all not at all I mean [68:32] honestly uh so we've outgrown Germany uh [68:37] France since 2016 onwards uh sorry [68:41] certainly out grown Italy uh since 2016 [68:43] onwards last time I looked Germany and [68:45] Italy were both members of the of the EU [68:49] and when you the statistics that you [68:51] give I mean they are dwarfed for [68:53] instance by [68:55] covid um you know even if I even if you [68:59] accept that um which I don't necessarily [69:03] uh that uh brexit has caused uh problems [69:08] it's also caused massive opportunities [69:10] because we because we were able to come [69:12] out of the lockdown earlier than any [69:15] other country remember we we came out of [69:17] lockdown in [69:20] July [69:22] 2021 we ended we ended all restrictions [69:26] and that meant that we had the fastest [69:30] economic rebound of any G7 country and [69:34] that would not have happened in my view [69:37] without the assistance of brexit [69:39] freedoms do you know the O ecd do you [69:42] know what that body is yes yes they say [69:44] the UK is the only major Rich economy [69:46] that remains smaller poorer than prior [69:48] to the pandemic and brexit may be a [69:51] factor in that in the government's [69:52] independent Watchdog which I know you [69:54] know the office for Budget [69:54] responsibility thinks the UK will [69:56] ultimately be 4% worse off than it would [69:58] have been had it not voted for brexit [70:01] when I you know in business everything [70:03] is a trade-off everything is a trade-off [70:05] so you must be able to identify the [70:09] tradeoff that the UK has made for all of [70:11] the upsides that you claim brexit is [70:13] delivered so I think it's intellectually [70:16] honest of anyone to be able to identify [70:18] both sides of the argument here so what [70:20] is the trade-off what has brexit cost us [70:22] just it cost what it cost us yeah I [70:25] think I think that that it's certainly [70:27] true that um the the way that some of it [70:31] is being managed by some of our by our [70:34] European friends is unnecessarily [70:37] bureaucratic at the moment I think that [70:38] will get better I I I I I accept that [70:42] criticism I don't think it's the end of [70:44] the the end of the world but I do think [70:46] ultimately the advantage of being free [70:50] to do your own thing free to run your [70:52] own country to control your own tradeoff [70:56] no I have I impact for us in but for me [71:00] as an average citizen what's the what's [71:02] the what's the trade downside yeah well [71:04] I think you know you I it's certainly [71:06] true that some some businesses are [71:08] finding it harder [71:10] to there is paperwork that I don't think [71:12] there needs to be and we need to fix [71:15] that but I think that the te we have [71:16] technological solutions to that I don't [71:20] think that we need to be part of a [71:22] European Empire of law get and ever [71:25] denser and more detailed Empire of law [71:29] controlling our freedom and stopping us [71:31] is there an economic [71:33] trade-off I I don't think I think that [71:35] ultimately we will be richer as a result [71:38] in the near ter we're going to be poorer [71:39] well I you know again people were very [71:42] emotional about this and look can I just [71:44] remind you when before the referendum [71:47] people said that and no one ever holds [71:50] these people to account people said that [71:52] there would be Millions more unemployed [71:54] right do you remember that people said [71:55] there would have to be an emergency tax [71:57] raising budget if the people voted to [71:59] leave the EU actually uh when I cease to [72:03] be prime minister unemployment was at a [72:05] 50-year low and we had 620,000 more [72:10] people in paid employment than before [72:12] pandemic began point about the [72:15] economic I'm just saying that people [72:17] people make all sorts of [72:18] prognostications about brexit the stats [72:21] that I read you do you believe them that [72:22] there's an economic struggle in the [72:24] short [72:25] people said that we would be we would [72:28] have a million people on the do Que [72:29] because of brexit okay fine but do you [72:31] believe that there's a in the near town [72:33] they're now saying because they're now [72:35] it's it's confirmation bias right people [72:38] but you said we will be richer [72:40] eventually so I'm saying I hope that we [72:42] will if if we do the right thing sure so [72:44] in the near term do you think there's a [72:45] little bit of struggle to get through [72:47] economically as a result of brexit I [72:49] think the I think that will that's [72:51] certainly the case if we make the [72:53] mistake of of staying I mean which is [72:57] what K star and the labor parties you [72:59] know want to do is staying [73:02] in align alignment with the the EU they [73:05] they basically want to be us to be rules [73:07] takers okay I think that's a huge huge [73:09] mistake we should go for [73:11] freedom I don't know how to say this you [73:13] in a way that you're going to understand [73:14] but perfect T is banging I'm an investor [73:17] in the company I drink it every day the [73:19] whole team drinks perfect Ted every day [73:21] we have a perfect Ted fridge in the [73:22] office here's why I like perfect Ted [73:23] typical energy drinks used to give me [73:25] these crashes and as a podcaster the [73:26] last thing you want to do is be crashing [73:28] in a conversation the founders of [73:29] perfect Ted wanted to create an energy [73:31] drink that wouldn't create that horrible [73:33] crash cycle that many of us go through [73:35] so they used matcha as the energy source [73:37] and somehow they also made it really [73:39] really delicious they've just come out [73:40] with this new flavor called juicy Peach [73:42] and it is banging if you try perfect TS [73:44] juicy Peach and it's not banging feel [73:46] free to get in my DMs and cuss me out [73:49] you can pick it up at tesos or waos or [73:51] you can get it online and here's a [73:52] secret that you've got to keep to [73:53] yourself I'm going to give you 40% off [73:56] perfect Ted just so you can try juicy [73:58] Peach yourself go to perfect ted.com and [74:00] at checkout put in the code diary 40 I'm [74:03] going to leave that up for some time not [74:04] forever that's perfect ted.com and then [74:06] use code diary 40 at checkout when you [74:08] try it make sure you tag me on Instagram [74:10] and and say Steve you were right it's [74:12] banging the next big thing was the [74:15] pandemic this was once you'd become the [74:18] prime minister of the United Kingdom um [74:22] and you have this pandemic begin to roll [74:24] in I was looking at your the the way you [74:27] described that situation in late 2019 [74:30] early 2020 in your book and it appears [74:34] that you had no idea of the severity of [74:37] this virus that was rolling into the [74:39] shores when was the first time you heard [74:41] that there was a virus that had come in [74:42] from China whatever the date was I think [74:45] it was either end [74:47] of uh 2019 beginning of 2020 I I can't [74:51] remember exactly when but there's [74:52] there's a day when uh when I'm walking [74:55] through the lobby of the House of [74:56] Commons with the health secretary and he [74:58] says you know there's I'm worried about [75:00] this um this Chinese virus was that [75:03] hanock the right person to be handling [75:05] that because that is a generational once [75:07] in a lifetime health issue yeah and in I [75:11] look I think I think he did a very good [75:12] job yes I think he was he was very [75:13] energetic was he the best person to be [75:15] handling it I think it I think he I [75:19] think he did a very good job and I think [75:22] that was he the best person to be [75:24] handling it [75:26] look in [75:28] hindsight well I I certainly think that [75:30] he well yes because I think yes I think [75:33] that he had the right mixture of energy [75:38] and and [75:40] realism um don't forget we didn't know [75:44] about the the disease we didn't know how [75:48] lethal it was we didn't know how [75:50] contagious it was and we didn't know how [75:54] exactly how it was transmitted there was [75:56] a lot of stuff we we didn't know some [75:58] quotes from your book here you said the [76:00] problem wasn't that I was ignorant to [76:02] zuntic diseases the problem was that I [76:04] felt I knew all about [76:06] them um after more than 30 years of [76:09] writing about or dealing with new zootic [76:12] zootic yeah diseases I felt I knew my [76:15] SARS and my Ebola so to speak and I [76:17] concluded two things first that these [76:19] novel zuntic plagues tend to sort [76:21] themselves out and second that the [76:24] greater risk of destruction from from [76:26] these from attempts to stop them by [76:28] politicians um was there sort of [76:30] attempts to contain the diseases that [76:32] the prevention would probably be worse [76:35] than the cause in some [76:38] respects so when hanock started talking [76:41] about a new Corona virus possibly from [76:42] bats and the risk that it would sweep [76:44] the country it was hardly surprising [76:45] that I felt I'd heard this all [76:51] before little did we [76:53] know yes I I mean so I think that's I [76:56] that's I'm I'm being very honest there [76:57] about about um as I am throughout [77:00] Unleashed about the my state of mind [77:04] because you know i' I'd covered in great [77:06] detail um the [77:10] uh salmon and eggs Panic uh when [77:14] millions of chickens were slaughtered uh [77:17] needlessly i' covered the uh the bines [77:19] punch for men off the Panic mad car [77:22] disease when uh vast portion of the UK [77:26] dairy uh cattle herd was slaughtered [77:28] probably uh [77:30] needlessly um the livelihoods of farmers [77:33] were destroyed um I'd been mayor of [77:35] London when we we were threatened with [77:38] the uh with a bird flu um so didn't was [77:42] a big deal and we we' laid on stocks of [77:45] Tamiflu which turned out not to be to be [77:47] necessary uh so I've seen SARS come and [77:52] go uh Ebola and so on and in each of [77:56] these cases what what what seemed to [77:58] have happened was that there had been a [78:01] rational anxiety about the risk of a [78:06] xonotic disease [78:09] um often from Asia or [78:12] wherever um we would get in a real we' [78:15] do our best to get ready and then [78:18] it mysteriously leave us almost [78:20] completely unaffected I remember the [78:22] swine flu is that what you thought was [78:24] happen in this case and I didn't know [78:27] course I didn't know but I was what I [78:29] was trying to do was to give you context [78:32] the context and the state of mind that I [78:35] think a lot of people were in [78:37] when they they heard about about Co when [78:41] did you call China February had it [78:44] February 2020 there was a call you made [78:46] to the leader of China to Xin ping yeah [78:48] yeah I mean I would have called him I [78:50] mean it'll be in the it'll be in it'll [78:52] be in the book and you were sending [78:53] supplies yeah that stage we were we were [78:55] still [78:56] sending um supplies to help them there [78:59] we were we were sending prote what did [79:00] he say about the virus well I said [79:08] um I look my remember the conversation [79:10] is hazy now I I I think I you know [79:15] um congratulated him on what seemed to [79:17] be his efforts to control the disease [79:20] but said I was I was anxious about the [79:23] what was happening in these wet markets [79:25] because at that stage we were given to [79:27] understand that these the disease had [79:30] had [79:30] occurred um spontaneously in a in a [79:34] market in Wuhan what did he say and I [79:37] can't remember what he said to to that [79:39] um I don't think I he look I mean he's a [79:43] he a president of China I don't think he [79:45] wanted to particularly the implication [79:47] that China was in any way at at fault [79:50] and I can take understand that but I now [79:54] think that wasn't right I know I think [79:55] it almost certainly was a um a lab [79:59] accident or it was as a result of [80:01] something that went wrong in that lab [80:03] can I ask about this because this [80:04] started as a conspiracy theory that is [80:06] now widely accepted as the probable [80:09] likely outcome why were they messing [80:11] around with a virus in a lab in Wuhan [80:14] well you may well ask I mean I think it [80:16] I think they were why do you think they [80:18] were someone that is so far away from [80:20] why people do these s such a thing I I I [80:22] genuinely don't know but I think that [80:24] they [80:25] were they were exp you know science the [80:29] the point of science is to keep pushing [80:30] back the frontiers of human knowledge [80:32] everywhere and to see what you see what [80:34] they could do you think it was a weapon [80:36] I don't I didn't have any reason to [80:38] think so I didn't have any reason to [80:40] think so I think it was a terrible [80:41] accident I think the thing um escaped [80:44] from the lab I think you know they they [80:46] were uh looking at engineering these [80:50] viruses a function gain of the of the um [80:54] of the virus and and ways that they [80:56] could manipulate it and um sadly [81:00] something went wrong um that's that's my [81:03] best guess and a lot of people now seem [81:04] to think that you called Trump around [81:06] this time as well to speak to him about [81:07] it I did yes what did he think um well I [81:13] yeah I mean he took the the firm view [81:16] that you know China had a case to answer [81:19] but so did a lot of people and in the [81:21] book you talk about the World Health [81:22] organization's response being seen [81:24] seemingly hesitant because they are [81:26] wanted to keep Beijing in [81:30] favor yes I think a lot of scientists [81:32] were anxious [81:34] about cheesing off the the Chinese and I [81:37] think a lot of scientists you know [81:39] because China is very heavily involved [81:41] in the support and sponsorship for of a [81:43] lot of um academic research and and so [81:46] on so there was a sort of hesitant I [81:48] felt I me I might have been wrong about [81:50] this my impression was there was a sort [81:52] of um gingerness about seeming to fing [81:55] of the Chinese too much on lockdowns um [81:59] it's interesting that I was reading in [82:00] your book that around the 8th of March [82:02] you start to see what's going on in [82:04] Italy and I think we can all vividly [82:05] remember those scenes from those Italian [82:07] hospitals where there was patients in [82:09] the chors being pushed around on trol [82:11] trollies and there was not enough beds [82:13] and I think for me as well that was one [82:14] of the big moments where I realized [82:16] watching it actually play out on Twitter [82:18] that this was an incredibly serious [82:21] situation something that I'd never seen [82:23] in my lifetime before [82:25] um was that the the penny drop moment [82:27] for you that this wasn't just another [82:29] bird flu or I was very anxious about it [82:32] because I knew the Italian Health Care [82:33] system I thought it was broadly [82:34] excellent and I remember when you know [82:37] one of our one of our kids had a uh fell [82:40] into a swim pool in in in Italy once you [82:44] know when everybody was having a lion [82:45] you know most shattering thing that you [82:48] know could never happened to you and the [82:50] Italian Prontos Coro came and they were [82:53] unbelievably good they were so fast they [82:55] were they they were so and I thought you [82:57] know if the Italians are having problems [83:00] with this thing and you know frankly our [83:03] population is about as elderly as theirs [83:05] then this could be very very serious so [83:07] I think that I think I think that did [83:09] really register with me and so if you [83:11] look at the and obvious I defer [83:13] completely to the inquiry into into all [83:16] this under Dame Heather Howard but if [83:17] you look at what happened from then on [83:19] in you see a series through through [83:22] March up till the 23rd of March you see [83:24] a series of intensifying steps to try to [83:28] get people to take precautions what I [83:31] what I observed I saw that in the book [83:33] and you kind of have the stages that you [83:34] break down um that you went through from [83:36] that moment onwards what I observed [83:38] though and I think this is probably a [83:40] fair estimation or a fair description of [83:43] what happened was there was [83:47] indecision because it seemed like there [83:49] was facts coming from one ear facts [83:51] coming from the other ear and there was [83:53] almost a bit of paral is and when you [83:55] look at the rest of the European numbers [83:56] which I was looking through um yesterday [83:59] about when different sort of European [84:00] markets made that decision the UK [84:04] appears to make the decision to lock [84:05] down much slower than all the other [84:07] European nations um slower to close the [84:10] schools the shops and events seem to be [84:13] later than our European counterparts and [84:16] Matt hanock went on to say that they [84:18] were ahead of us in the in the in the [84:20] epicur anyway MH uh so so so they they [84:24] so you mentioned the Italian situation [84:27] yeah and they they were already ahead of [84:30] us and you know we could see that we [84:33] were going to have to bring in measures [84:37] but you know again this will be for the [84:39] inquiry to to comment upon but it's it's [84:43] it's pretty clear to me that we we [84:44] couldn't reasonably have [84:47] instituted these measures in the UK [84:51] which would novel and draconian [84:54] um in advance of the scientific advice [84:56] or opinion and and that's what and [84:58] that's what it would have been them [85:00] being ahead of us isn't relevant because [85:01] the chart I have here shows how many [85:04] days it took us to take decisive action [85:07] after the third death and it shows that [85:09] for all of the European nations and when [85:11] I was reading about the information you [85:13] were getting from scientists on this end [85:15] and from other people in [85:17] politics it was so contradictory that I [85:22] think I was guessing that that's what [85:23] caused the decision and also your own [85:25] sort of philosophy towards shutting down [85:27] soci we had this group called the [85:28] scientific Advisory Group on emergencies [85:30] right the sage and they they were so we [85:36] were going to be led by the science [85:40] and we basically had to I decided that [85:44] we had to follow what Sage [85:46] advised [85:48] and for a long [85:50] time to a point they hesitated about [85:55] schools because of all the dis benefits [85:58] and if you remember the argument was [86:00] that if you went too early then there [86:04] was a a risk that you'd have to keep [86:06] doing it uh because you you know the [86:09] public would lose patience with with the [86:13] lockdown and there was there there was a [86:16] second argument which was there would [86:18] then be bounced back if you if if you [86:20] went too early uh and you kept on for [86:22] twoo you'd then [86:24] take the measures off and the virus [86:27] would would flare up again and which [86:28] indeed did happen um throughout the [86:32] course of the of the pandemic so there [86:35] were the scientific [86:38] advice [86:40] was I mean it wasn't I wouldn't say it [86:43] was particularly confused at that stage [86:45] I think it was they were struggling to [86:48] assess exactly what to to do and there [86:50] were different views within the [86:52] scientists about certain things like [86:56] Matt hanock said that we could have [86:57] saved 30,000 lines like um masks and so [87:00] on is that true Matt Han you know [87:03] I if we if we' lock down earlier I I I [87:06] can't say that for sure uh I I I've no [87:09] no way of knowing that um but what I [87:12] what I can say is that [87:17] the to have locked down earlier would [87:20] have been to have um [87:25] gone beyond to have [87:27] anticipated scientific advice it would [87:30] not have been some and I'm you know I'm [87:32] not a epidemiologist I'm I'm not a [87:34] scientist uh I was being asked to you [87:37] know the what was on the agenda was [87:39] imprisoning the whole UK [87:41] population um it wasn't something the [87:43] scientists were yet recommending in the [87:46] book you seem to question whether those [87:48] lockdowns really even worked so I'm not [87:50] saying that what I'm saying so dep what [87:52] you mean by work [87:54] I think that they [87:56] certainly [87:59] did have a role [88:04] in stopping spread of the disease and [88:08] they helped probably to turn down the [88:11] the curve of the of the disease probably [88:14] I you know almost certainly what I find [88:16] very difficult to gauge now and you know [88:19] again this is for for heet is to what [88:23] extent was it the [88:25] lockdowns what did it and to what extent [88:28] was this going to happen naturally a [88:31] result of the the natural Parabola and [88:34] you suspect it was going to happen [88:35] anyway I'm not what I what I'm saying is [88:37] that to some extent it to some extent or [88:39] to a large extent it was perhaps going [88:41] to happen anyway perhaps and [88:45] given that it was perhaps it was to a [88:48] large exent perhaps going to happen [88:50] anyway the question [88:52] is did the benefit benefits of [88:55] lockdown [88:56] outweigh the very very severe Damage [89:00] Done to kids life chances at school [89:03] which talked about earlier what do you [89:04] think the answer to that question is I [89:06] think that we did the right thing you [89:08] think we did the right thing I think we [89:09] did the right thing but I but I'm I'm [89:10] conscious that there are lots of people [89:13] who who disagree and what I hope is that [89:17] the covid inquiry will will say that yes [89:19] we did do the right thing in your book [89:20] when you talk about those those measures [89:22] um you refer to them as Bon [89:25] the the sort of different areas yeah I [89:27] think that's that's bit that's later [89:28] that's by the that's when we got to the [89:30] tearing system the tearing system you [89:31] talked B Bonkers and you seem surprised [89:33] that people would follow this stuff and [89:36] that they wanted to follow this [89:39] stuff which is strange hearing it from [89:41] the guy that put the rules in place you [89:42] think it's the tearing system was [89:44] Bonkers and you surprised talk about the [89:46] hindsight right yeah yeah so at the time [89:48] at the time it seemed so we had a [89:51] situation so coming out of the first [89:55] um the [89:57] first um lockdown so in in the summer of [90:00] of 2020 and and going into the into the [90:03] Autumn and things start to get more [90:06] difficult again we have a situation [90:08] where in some parts of the country in I [90:11] don't know places uh like leester or [90:14] West Midlands or or [90:16] wherever uh [90:18] Northwest um you have the tears you've [90:21] got a problem which is that some areas [90:24] haven't really seen a you know the co [90:26] really go down anything like as much as [90:28] it went down say West country Cornwall [90:32] was that a bad idea in say and so you [90:34] had uh people saying you know why the [90:37] hell should pu be closing cornall yeah [90:40] when there's no Co and just because [90:43] there there's Transmission in in in [90:45] bolon or wherever so is that a bad idea [90:47] in hindsight well no it was a good idea [90:49] in principle because because because [90:51] after all um it was it it was crazy it [90:55] seemed but the problem the problem was [90:57] that it was very very difficult to draw [90:59] the boundaries and as soon as you as [91:01] soon as you said you know well this bit [91:04] of Lester's in uh tier which whatever or [91:07] or yeah it was it was impossible went [91:10] crazy because it was very invidious and [91:12] it see and on on a human level when [91:15] you're leading the country during a [91:17] pandemic and you've got you're getting [91:18] these numbers every day that people are [91:20] dying and that people are sick and then [91:21] you know I know you got sick yourself [91:24] what is there a mental toll on you [91:26] throughout that [91:28] period Well I think it [91:30] was so as you discover it Unleashed I [91:35] like it when I can go forward and when I [91:36] have things positive projects to do so [91:39] it was very very difficult when I was [91:41] constantly having to shut the country [91:44] down constantly trying to stop the [91:46] transmission of the Disease by these [91:48] very very crude methods but once [91:55] in by end of 2020 we had the prospect of [91:59] a vaccination then my mood totally [92:01] changed because because then I had [92:03] something my question was about you as a [92:05] human being when you're dealing with [92:07] tragic news and this escalating pandemic [92:11] what what's the human toll if i' had [92:13] been a fly on the wall in your hardest [92:14] moments throughout that pandemic what [92:15] would I have seen well I think that I [92:17] think it was certainly pretty tough I I [92:19] had a bad bout of covid what was the [92:21] hardest day outside of the getting the [92:23] illness yourself what was the hardest [92:24] day for you throughout that [92:27] period I think [92:30] that ah boy I think it [92:33] was there was a lot of tough times but I [92:35] think having [92:37] to having to go probably the to go back [92:40] into lockdown in in in the end of 2020 [92:44] was pretty pretty awful because the CL [92:47] you we'd really really hope that tearing [92:49] would work and you know some people [92:51] still think it could have worked [92:54] um but it just W you know we we couldn't [92:57] I couldn't take the risk the quote from [92:59] your book that I pulled out which really [93:01] shocked me was the real question I [93:02] suppose is why on Earth the public so [93:04] avidly craved these rules and why they [93:06] were so willing to have their doings [93:08] circumscribed in such a rabinal detail [93:12] in their complexity they were also like [93:15] a kind of religion detailed rituals you [93:17] just obeyed L Leviticus like in the hope [93:19] of Salvation because science was slow to [93:22] help us on the 13th of September 2021 [93:26] your mother Charlotte passes away while [93:29] at the same time you're dealing with all [93:31] of this Fallout and the recovery from [93:33] the [93:36] pandemic that's a tough moment yeah but [93:39] that's the same for any person in any um [93:42] in any Walk of Life you know that's [93:44] always a a very very tough moment um I [93:48] think [93:49] that [93:51] um you know to to your to your point [93:54] about the the people why why do people [93:55] obey the rules so much and and my my [93:58] feelings about that I think no I'm [94:01] asking about your mother here so your [94:03] mother passed away in September [94:05] 2021 and you you don't touch on it so [94:07] heavily in the book the circumstances of [94:10] that but that must be a particularly [94:11] tough moment for a person that's dealing [94:12] with all of these other social issues [94:15] and political issues at the same [94:17] time yes I know but I mean I think I [94:19] suppose the point I make there is that [94:21] is our our common human law lot isn't it [94:24] and yes it it [94:27] was tough for me and my my brothers and [94:30] sisters of my family [94:33] um very very very tough you know we miss [94:36] her to this day uh all of us but you [94:39] know um a lot of people were suffering a [94:43] lot throughout that pandemic and a lot [94:46] of people lost loved ones [94:50] and you know I had to be I had to be [94:52] very very mindful of [94:54] of what was happening every day in in [94:57] households across the country and and I [94:59] had to try to and I had a desperately [95:01] difficult because one of the interesting [95:02] things about being prime minister is is [95:05] the way it works now is how much of it [95:08] is just funneled [95:10] upwards and you know there's you have to [95:13] take those decisions there's nobody else [95:15] who can do it for you would you remember [95:17] where you were when you found out that [95:18] Charlotte was had passed away got I [95:23] think it was in I was driving driving to [95:24] London I I'd been I'd been out on a [95:26] visit and was it [95:29] unexpected well I mean you know [95:33] um she'd had she'd been out for a long [95:35] time with um with [95:37] Parkinson's and she had various [95:40] complications associated with [95:43] Parkinson's [95:44] um and she'd had a bad scare about a [95:47] year previously so no I couldn't say it [95:50] was you know um medically [95:55] I could not say it was medically totally [95:56] unexpected no did you have a chance to [95:59] grieve her [96:01] passing I certainly did grief her [96:03] passing [96:05] um but [96:09] um if if you mean did I sort [96:12] of process it mourn it I you know to I [96:17] to the best of my ability yes are you [96:19] good are you a natural at that sort of [96:21] thing that sort of [96:24] emotional I guess connection with [96:32] yourself God [96:35] um I think probably go back to some of [96:38] the earlier things we were we were [96:40] saying I mean I did grieve and you know [96:42] I do miss her like all my brothers and [96:44] sisters I do I do miss her today but you [96:47] know um I also had a huge amount to to [96:51] think about and to get done and [96:54] and we just have to you know we had to [96:56] do it many members of the UK population [97:00] were also mourning and grieving at the [97:02] same time and I think that's why the the [97:03] party gate scenario which you talk about [97:05] in the book was so enraging for many [97:09] people because as someone who again is [97:11] not very close to politics like myself [97:14] it's Optics here you know and I think [97:17] that's really the issue when you've got [97:19] people who are unable to see their their [97:21] loved ones because of the situation with [97:22] funerals and the pandemic even the [97:26] suggestion that there was a rave going [97:28] on in number 10 is the most enraging [97:31] thing that I think anyone could say but [97:32] there wasn't a rave going on I mean [97:34] you'll find it all that you'll find all [97:35] Unleashed and there and I feel desperate [97:37] about it and I really do and I and I [97:39] understand you know completely why [97:41] people got so enraged I really do [97:42] understand that and I did my I did my [97:45] best to to try and you know I think I [97:47] mishandled the whole thing the the the [97:50] revelations as such as they were uh but [97:54] also [97:55] reality but you know because at the end [97:57] of the book you do seem to to highlight [97:59] that you could have done things to well [98:01] what I could have done was what I could [98:03] have done I think so I I wonder why I [98:07] commissioned Sue gray uh to conduct an [98:10] investigation into it I mean I I was [98:12] informed that she was the you know [98:15] politically impartial and a model of [98:17] sort of you know obsessed with with [98:19] Proby and and neither of those things [98:22] now seem to me to [98:24] true I've got a picture here um there [98:27] was 17 parties that were alleged during [98:30] the the the sort of party gate time [98:33] frame and one of the pictures that [98:35] leaked to the public was this picture of [98:37] you enjoying some cheese and some wine I [98:39] believe um at 10 Downing Street now as [98:42] again a member of the public I look at [98:44] this I look at some of these key dates I [98:45] know you were fined for one particular [98:46] date which was your birthday I think [98:48] where you were raising the glass of wine [98:49] with some colleagues no I wasn't you see [98:52] again you see [98:54] people say this kind of thing and it was [98:56] it the AIDS leaving drink that you were [98:58] fined for no I wasn't fined for that [99:00] what were you find for I was fined for [99:03] my for going into stand at my desk in [99:06] the cabinet room uh between meetings [99:09] with a glass of wine no not with a glass [99:10] of wine um and [99:14] several members of staff were also there [99:17] but there were people I saw throughout [99:19] the working day anyway but this picture [99:22] and just just cuz people think that I [99:24] had a cake and that we we didn't have a [99:27] I didn't have a cake I I I didn't even [99:29] see a cake [99:31] um to say it was a party is a complete [99:36] travesty it was about the most [99:38] lugubrious event in the it was it [99:42] consisted of people who were part of my [99:45] normal working life that that picture [99:47] that you you're pointing to [99:50] there was this the the Metropolitan [99:52] Police did at that but they decided [99:54] there was no offense committed because [99:55] what you've got is people sitting [99:57] outside as as people tried to do during [100:00] those times because there was much less [100:03] risk of infection just let me just read [100:06] some of the stuff so 15th of May 2020 [100:08] cheese and wine um at Downing Street [100:10] approximately 349 people had died from [100:13] Co that Day in the UK Mr Johnson was [100:15] photographed sitting with his wife [100:16] Carrie and some staff at a table with [100:18] wine and cheese in the number 10 Garden [100:20] at this time Co restrictions so that [100:22] people could not [100:24] reasonable excuse let me just read this [100:25] and then I'll but we we were I was that [100:26] that's my that is my home that's the [100:29] garden I was supposed to be May 20th um [100:32] there was a bring your own booze party [100:35] on the same day that 38 people died from [100:36] the from the pandemic and you attended [100:38] for about 30 minutes you say it was 25 [100:41] minutes and then the 19th of June was [100:43] your your birthday sorry okay can I just [100:45] go back over there I mean you know none [100:47] of this watches with the public because [100:48] they all think that we were you know [100:50] having dancing around and and getting [100:52] drunk [100:54] 12th of April Johnson announces that he [100:56] has been f50s by the police do you know [100:58] what it is though it [101:00] like it's all about it's all it's all [101:03] about leading by example isn't it and [101:06] you know this [101:07] yeah I think my opinion is that whatever [101:11] is going on at number 10 needs to be the [101:12] extreme demonstration of the perfect [101:15] example the extreme demonstration [101:18] because you of course you're going to be [101:19] attacked you know that yeah of course if [101:21] you sneeze you'll be attacked and I say [101:23] that in that's what I'm saying so so [101:26] what we should have done and and I I say [101:28] is we should have I should have said to [101:31] everybody look people are going to say [101:34] you know matter because it was in fact [101:36] as I tried to explain impossible to [101:38] maintain perfect social distancing uh in [101:41] the the office environment that we were [101:43] in um people were working around the [101:46] clock um [101:50] and I I think that um I should have said [101:54] something to the staff like people are [101:56] going to be out to get us for God's sake [101:59] you [102:00] know not only obey the rules but be seen [102:02] to obey the rules now we had you know [102:04] all the signs in the corridors and and [102:07] and stuff like [102:08] that I think that there were a lot of [102:11] people by that stage who were perhaps [102:13] not altogether friendly to me uh who [102:16] wanted to you know that's that's fine [102:18] that's fine but honestly I I can't help [102:20] but believe cuz I try and remain pretty [102:22] impartial in these things so I try to [102:23] apply common sense as like a business [102:24] person but do you really think I was [102:26] deliberately partying and breaking the [102:28] rules for me do you really think that [102:30] for me seeing that photo when one of my [102:32] friends can go to their grandmother's [102:33] funeral and seeing that there's people [102:35] drinking and have appearing to have a [102:37] whale of a time just in this photo but [102:39] also the other photos where you're [102:40] cheersing with wine I go you should [102:42] never have allowed that to happen do you [102:45] know and I think you agree with me agree [102:47] with me because you said at the end of [102:48] the book you said I should have said to [102:51] to my whole team don't even let [102:54] them appear to be breaking the rules in [102:56] in in in the course [102:59] of almost two [103:02] years of people working around the clock [103:04] in number 10 in conditions of great [103:08] proximity to each other [103:11] um there were going to be moments when [103:14] of course when colleagues are saying are [103:16] going away when you raise a glass to [103:18] them unless you're going to ban that I [103:20] think you should have well that's a [103:21] point of view because I just think [103:23] alcohol in 1940 we would we would have [103:25] won the second world war I think Prime I [103:26] think prime minister during a pandemic I [103:28] think you just have to be the most [103:29] extreme [103:31] example we we got a ban on alcohol in [103:33] this country no I think I think I think [103:35] genuinely s if we if we if we banned [103:38] alcohol in number 10 in 1940 M I think [103:41] all Gatherings should have been banned [103:42] at number 10 because I think sorry but [103:44] we were gather we that means Banning [103:46] meetings so what do you mean Gatherings [103:49] Gatherings with alcohol and music and [103:51] cake I think have been B I've tried to [103:54] explain to you there was no cake or I [103:56] saw no cake I I was at no event where [103:59] there was there was music or dancing [104:00] that total nonsense now maybe those [104:04] things took place but they certainly [104:06] didn't Place take place when I was there [104:08] I think one of the problem one of the [104:09] mistakes I made was beginning the whole [104:13] thing by issuing this General apology [104:17] and so what happened was so that people [104:19] think that there was um [104:23] there was do you still apologize I don't [104:25] apologize for allegations of vomiting or [104:28] fist fights because they turned out what [104:30] you apologize for and well I in so far [104:33] as people broke the rules on my watch [104:34] and far as I'm responsible of course I [104:36] apologize for that but what I was what [104:38] I'm what I'm saying in [104:39] Unleashed is that [104:42] um the problem with leading with a [104:46] blanket apology was that it then meant [104:48] that absolutely any allegation that was [104:51] you you know you've said you've just [104:52] said made a couple of your so um you [104:54] know any allegation that was then made [104:57] about and in Sue Gray's initial report [104:59] that she had to to change it she said [105:02] there were uh there was a you know [105:05] violent altercation and and vomiting and [105:07] somebody V but they that both of those [105:09] things turned out not to be true you [105:10] said you made the mistake in the in your [105:12] book you say you made the mistake of [105:13] issuing pathetic and groveling apologies [105:15] over the Scandal which made it look as [105:17] though we were far more culpable than we [105:18] were which is just the point I've just [105:20] made because I think because because it [105:22] it looked as though [105:24] but by issuing a sort of universal [105:28] apology it meant that any [105:32] subsequent um [105:34] allegation people assume well that must [105:36] be what happened and you and you to be [105:38] fair to I I I kind of get the feeling [105:40] that's what you think [105:44] and that was largely my fault because I [105:47] seem to [105:48] be intently validating the apology is is [105:51] is not I seem to be validating [105:55] everything that people said about what [105:57] was going on and what was actually going [105:59] on was that people were working [106:01] unbelievably hard around the clock to [106:04] get a lot of very difficult things done [106:06] I and and and actually what the the [106:10] things that they were successful in are [106:13] very creditable and I and [106:16] so I feel badly about them on page 75 of [106:20] your book you say in retrospect I should [106:22] have done more to protect myself and the [106:23] rest of white hle against party type [106:25] allegations I should have said to the [106:26] entire staff perhaps in a letter about [106:28] the vital importance of not only obeying [106:30] the rules but also to be seen to be [106:32] obeying them and reminding um and I [106:35] think that that is actually my point [106:37] which is apologies I think are good [106:38] things I think people should apologize [106:40] no but you I'm trying to explain if if [106:42] you apologize in advance for the the [106:46] problem was that a lot of things were [106:47] said about staff in number 10 that [106:49] weren't true and weren't fair to them [106:51] and my blanket [106:53] looked as though I was validating and [106:57] accepting all those criticisms okay [106:59] which which I think was not in [107:01] retrospect I think I should have waited [107:03] to see exactly what people you know said [107:08] and I what was established to be true [107:10] and then I should have apologized for [107:11] what what actually happened you see what [107:13] I'm saying and and also I want to stick [107:16] up again for those officials yeah uh who [107:18] were working around the clock to sort [107:22] out the government's and the country's [107:24] response to covid and when it came to it [107:27] did an absolutely outstanding job and I [107:29] I don't want I [107:30] don't I know you've been you've been [107:33] very patient with me you you know you [107:34] you've you've allowed me to talk for [107:36] almost two and a half hours and of what [107:38] I thought was going to be an hour's show [107:40] so I'm you've been heroic in putting up [107:42] with we're wrapping up now but I just [107:43] wanted wanted to ask a few more things [107:44] these are personal questions that I have [107:46] so um um one of the things that no one [107:49] knows about you is how many kids you [107:51] have why is this such a [107:53] widely debated subject I've never sat [107:55] with a guest on my show where I don't [107:57] know why widely debated it's a matter of [107:59] a matter of I have eight children it's [108:01] eight matter matter of public record [108:03] okay I don't know why people why is [108:04] everyone so obsessed with with a of kids [108:05] you have search me go Charlotte Owen [108:08] you're not related to her are you no [108:09] she's not a former lover no okay I asked [108:12] my friends some of the things they want [108:13] to she so she's but it's in the book [108:15] read read all about it in the book she [108:17] is a she is a very capable adviser and [108:20] what happens next for Boris Johnson are [108:22] you going back into [108:23] I live a life of blameless rustic [108:25] obscurity you want to get back into [108:26] politics I I think that um I stay in [108:30] unleashed the chance of the frisbe [108:32] dec I saying Unleashed you you should [108:34] only do things if you genuinely think [108:36] you can be useful at the moment I think [108:38] the most I'm loving I do a lot of [108:39] painting I'm having a great time living [108:41] in uh you know in the countryside um I I [108:46] got my hands folding all sorts of things [108:48] and and next question quick fire yeah [108:51] Trump or camalo and you can't sit on the [108:52] phone [108:54] all British prime ministers including [108:56] ex- Prime Ministers yeah are [108:58] constitutionally obliged to be friendly [109:00] with whoever who's the best for [109:01] international relations whoever whoever [109:04] the um the American people decide that [109:06] is that is the right thing and you are [109:09] dwindling audience would not expect who [109:12] who's better for stopping the wars a [109:14] who's better for stopping the wars I [109:16] mean you know if you read Unleashed I [109:18] did read it okay and I saw your [109:19] interview on GB news and you seem to [109:21] think that Trump would be a better well [109:23] I think what I'm saying is that you [109:24] should be aware of some of the kind of [109:28] anti-trump prejudice about his handling [109:31] of foreign policy and there are very [109:33] good re you know there very when he was [109:36] president he took some tough decisions [109:38] and and you know projected in a sense of [109:43] American strength and purpose and that's [109:45] you know but I make no no further [109:46] comment than that and we have a closing [109:48] tradition on this podcast where the last [109:49] guest leaves a question for the next [109:50] guest not knowing who they're going to [109:51] leave it for right okay and the question [109:54] that's been left for you is Success [109:57] often comes at a price and one of those [110:00] is the relationships we lose along the [110:02] way which relationship or person did you [110:05] lose in the pursuit of your [110:07] success [110:11] um you seem to one of the longer you [110:15] live the the the more you you know you [110:17] can have what seems to be a complete [110:21] terrible Sun [110:23] and then Le and behold things cheer up [110:26] and andn your your your friends again [110:29] and [110:30] um [110:33] so I mean look at look at look at [110:35] Michael go you got to answer the [110:37] question which relationship will pass [110:39] the answer the answer your question is I [110:41] don't I don't I don't regard any of the [110:44] termination any any rupture I don't [110:46] regard any rupture as fin no one's ever [110:47] swered this question so you're not going [110:48] to be the first I didn't regard any [110:50] rupture as final which relationship or [110:51] person did you lose in the pursuit of [110:53] your success they are not lost I didn't [110:55] I I don't give me a person give me a [110:57] name we've never had a this is a [110:59] long-standing tradition no one's ever [111:00] swerve this question I had a clearly I [111:02] had a rupture with Michael Gove but then [111:05] um in 2016 but then with um heroic [111:10] optimism I I I put him back in the in [111:14] the cabinet and and you know there you [111:17] go Baris thank you thank you for your [111:20] time and I'm going to link this book [111:22] below so any [111:23] uned can can get the book it'll be [111:24] linked below um it was your your your [111:27] writing style is exceptionally engaging [111:30] I think everyone that's interviewed you [111:31] from the ITV to GB news has said the [111:34] same thing um the book is linked below [111:36] if you're interested in the subject [111:38] matters we've talked about but many more [111:39] it's an exceptionally long book some [111:42] 700 I don't know I got it wrong I think [111:44] it's it's over 7 771 pages2 pages with [111:48] the with the index and the and the and [111:50] the thanks and Incredibly detailed um [111:52] book into all of the key issues that [111:54] have happened over the last five six [111:56] seven years and some touches of of what [111:59] happened in your life [112:00] before link down below Boris Johnson [112:03] Unleashed thank you so much Boris thank [112:05] you very much Steve it's been an honor I [112:07] I think do I get a prize for I think [112:09] that must be that was a that how long [112:10] was that interview supposed to be [112:11] because I don't know they're always two [112:13] usually they're four sometimes they're [112:14] four hours I [112:18] see isn't this cool every single [112:22] conversation I have here on the Diary of [112:23] a CEO at the very end of it you'll know [112:25] I asked the guest to leave a question in [112:28] the Diary of a CEO and what we've done [112:31] is we've turned every single question [112:33] written in the Diary of a CEO into these [112:36] conversation cards that you can play at [112:39] home so you've got every guest we've [112:41] ever had their question and on the back [112:44] of it if you scan that QR code you get [112:47] to watch the person who answered that [112:50] question we're finally revealing [112:53] all of the questions and the people that [112:56] answered the question the brand new [112:58] version 2 updated conversation cards are [113:01] out right now at Theon conversation [113:03] cards.com they've sold out twice [113:06] instantaneously so if you are interested [113:07] in getting hold of some limited edition [113:09] conversation cards I really really [113:11] recommend acting quickly [113:15] [Music] [113:23] a [113:26] [Music]