"It's not a purge!" Kemi Badenoch on forging a future for her party

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "It's not a purge!" Kemi Badenoch on forging a future for her party

Podcast: Political Thinking with Nick Robinson (BBC Radio 4)
Date: July 23, 2026
Guest: Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition
Host: Nick Robinson

---

Overview

This episode of Political Thinking features an in-depth conversation between Nick Robinson and Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition (Conservative Party), at a pivotal moment following Andy Burnham's recent ascension as Prime Minister and Labour leader. The discussion explores Badenoch's political philosophy, her vision for the Conservative Party, responses to shifting Labour rhetoric, internal party discipline, welfare reform, defence spending, political security, and personal reflections on leadership and legacy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Labour’s Leadership Change and Andy Burnham’s Approach

• Badenoch is not fazed by Burnham replacing Starmer, viewing it as a “new face” but “the same Labour Party.”
  • "They've changed the leader, but it's still the same MPs...The mindset hasn't changed." (01:07, Kemi)
• Burnham characterized as more jovial than Starmer, but Badenoch dubs Labour “the Welfare Party,” focused on “benefits and welfare.” (01:55, Kemi)
• She claims to have prepared for Burnham's rise, consulting regularly with previous Conservative leaders like Michael Howard, Iain Duncan Smith, and occasionally David Cameron for strategic advice.
  • Cameron advised PMQs is "more theater rather than a courtroom." (03:43, Kemi)

[00:53-04:22] - Reaction to Leadership Change & Personal Preparation

Critique of Labour’s Economic Diagnosis

• Badenoch dismisses Burnham's claim that 40 years of "neoliberal" politics have failed, calling the term a “template for grievances” and defending the record of Conservatives and New Labour.
  • “For Andy Burnham to say that the last 40 years have all been terrible is an indictment not just on Mrs. Thatcher...It’s an indictment on his time in Labour.” (05:23, Kemi)
• Argues Burnham misdiagnoses Britain's economic malaise: focuses too much on centralization and redistribution, not enough on creating prosperity.
  • “We have not invested in the economy, in those who take risks in business. Instead, we’ve strangled them with more and more red tape and more taxes.” (07:39, Kemi)

[05:04-07:50] - Policy Critique and Diagnosis

Conservative Economic Vision and Public Distrust of Business

• Badenoch doubles down on policies for growth, deregulation, and tax cuts.
• Pushes back on the notion that young people are anti-business, especially regarding tech:
  • “I have not heard any young person complain to me about tech companies...” (08:21, Kemi)
• The failures of water companies (like Thames Water) are cited as regulatory flaws rather than failures of privatization.
  • “Nationalising Thames Water isn’t going to dig a single reservoir or fix the pipes.” (08:46, Kemi)

[07:50-09:31] - Deregulation vs. Oversight

Party Unity and Accusations of a "Purge"

• Badenoch sets uncompromising "red lines" on Net Zero and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), insisting prospective Conservative MPs must commit to the manifesto on these issues:
  • “This time around... I want people to know that the red lines I have drawn are going to stay red lines, and they are around the Convention on Human Rights...” (10:32, Kemi)
• Defends barring dissenters from standing as Conservatives:
  • “If you’re voting Conservative, that person is going to do what is in the manifesto.” (11:09, Kemi)
• Pushes back at claims of a "purge":
  • “It’s not about wets or dries. It’s not about left or right. It’s about right or wrong.” (14:54, Kemi)

[09:31-15:04] - Party Discipline and Red Lines

Willingness to Work with Labour and Cross-Party Cooperation

• Open to collaboration with Labour on welfare reform and social care, as long as it “doesn't cut across Conservative principles.”
  • “I have made an offer...but it has to be common sense. We are the Common Sense Party.” (15:43, Kemi)
• Skeptical about the feasibility and fairness of Burnham's proposed “National Care Service”:
  • “Whatever system...I would want that to be the foundational principle — that we don’t punish people who have saved and done the right thing.” (22:58, Kemi)

[15:04-24:53] - Prospects for Cross-Party Policy

Welfare Reform, Benefits, and Inter-Generational Justice

• Argues contemporary welfare is unsustainable; claims growing benefit recipients could work:
  • “Our benefit system should be for people who cannot work, not for people who don’t want to work.” (16:35, Kemi)
  • “In the last two years...people have worked out how to use the system. You just call up and say, 'Well, I'm feeling anxious, I can't come in,' and you're waved through. This cannot be right.” (17:35, Kemi)
• Downplays the focus on state pensions or pension age rises as primary targets for reform, noting the importance of addressing working-age benefits first:
  • “If we don't sort that out, there’s not going to be any money for state pensions later anyway.” (20:20, Kemi)

[16:13-22:18] - Welfare Reform Debate

Defence Spending, War Bonds, and Fiscal Priorities

• Criticizes the proposal for 'war bonds' to fund increased defence spending:
  • “War bonds are just borrowing in a fancy outfit… Borrowing more to pay for defence means more interest on debt than we’re spending on defence.” (26:24, Kemi)
• Calls for rebalancing priorities away from welfare towards defence:
  • “We have grown so fat on welfare.” (26:45, Kemi)
  • “Now we spend one in every three pounds on health and welfare, one in every seven on defence. That does need some rebalancing.” (26:45, Kemi)

[25:42-27:03] - Defence and Fiscal Strategy

Political Security, Personal Risk, and Role Models

• Reflects on the risk to politicians, referencing historical and recent attacks (Airy Neave, Ian Gow, Anne Widdecombe, Sir David Amess).
  • “I worry that if the conversation becomes more and more about our security, then we’re spending more time talking about our security than the country’s security.” (27:25, Kemi)
• Airy Neave cited as a political hero:
  • “He escaped from Colditz...But also because he supported Mrs. Thatcher before it was fashionable to do so.” (28:52, Kemi)
• Remembers Sir David Amess as someone who encouraged her early ambitions.

[27:03-32:31] - Security & Heroes

The Conservative Party’s Identity and Cultural Framing

• Likens the Conservatives to the character “Professor Snape”:
  • “We’re trying to do the right thing. People think we’re the bad guys but, without us, everything would go horribly wrong. And in the end, they’ll see that.” (33:06, Kemi)
• Jokes about her children preferring she worked at McDonald’s for the free burgers over being opposition leader.
  • “They're more interested in burgers than they are in politics — which is probably very healthy for children under 10.” (34:53, Kemi)

[32:31-35:01] - Party Image & Family Anecdotes

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On red lines and party unity:
  • "This is not about wets or dries. It's not about left or right. It's about right or wrong." (14:54, Kemi)
• On Labour's new leadership:
  • “They’ve changed the leader, but it’s still the same MPs....If anything, it’s becoming more entrenched.” (01:07, Kemi)
• On social care:
  • “Whatever system...I would want that to be the foundational principle — that we don’t punish people who have saved and done the right thing and then reward those who don’t.” (22:58, Kemi)
• On security:
  • “If the conversation becomes more and more about our security, then we’re spending more time talking about our security than the country’s security.” (27:25, Kemi)
• Professor Snape analogy:
  • “We're trying to do the right thing. People think we’re the bad guys but, without us, everything would go horribly wrong.” (33:06, Kemi)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:53–04:22 – Reaction to Labour leadership change; Badenoch’s preparations & PMQ advice
• 07:50–09:31 – Debate over growth vs. regulation, water companies, and business confidence
• 09:31–15:04 – The “purge” debate: Red lines, party rules, and accusations of intolerance
• 15:43–24:53 – Willingness to work with Labour on welfare/social care; parameters for cooperation
• 16:13–22:18 – Welfare reform and intergenerational fairness, sickness benefits, working-age vs. pensioner policy
• 25:42–27:03 – Defence spending, fiscal priorities, and criticism of 'war bonds'
• 27:03–32:31 – Reflections on security for politicians, political heroes, and early supporters
• 33:06–34:53 – The "Professor Snape" analogy and family anecdotes putting politics in perspective

---

Conclusion

In this candid conversation, Kemi Badenoch articulates her vision for a tougher, principle-driven Conservative Party, unafraid to set rigid boundaries for MPs, while calling for economic policies that put business and growth first. She critiques both Labour’s “same old party, new leader” rhetoric and Burnham’s policy prescriptions, and signals willingness for cross-party policy only where Conservative values are not compromised. The episode closes on a personal note, revealing her influences, inspirations, and family life, punctuated by humour about burgers versus politics and the importance of perspective in public life.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hello and welcome to Political Thinking. The most powerful slogan in politics is summed up in just four time for a change. It's the message that lay behind Andy Burnham's campaign to replace Keir Starmer as Labour leader and as Prime Minister, and his claim now to be a break with the past 40 years of political consensus. It poses a new challenge to my guest this week on Political Thinking, the leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch. Initially written off by many as the fundamentally unsuited to the job of leading her party, she's more recently been credited with dragging it back from the brink. But how will she respond to the challenge of Labour's new leadership and seek to convince people that it is her leadership which the country now needs? Kemi Badenot, welcome back to Political Thinking.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Now, we're all processing this change, not just a change of Prime Minister, but of course, of Charles and Foreign Secretary, Health Secretary and many others. What are your thoughts a day or two in as to what this kind of represents?

[B]

They've changed the leader, but it's still the same MPs. Half of the original cabinet is back in and the mindset hasn't changed. If anything, it's becoming more entrenched. And by that I mean the wrong mindset of how to get the country going, how to get the country growing. They believe that it's them, that they're the ones who are going to get. Get the growth. But it's not, as even Conservatives learn, it's not government that creates growth, it's people, it's business. And government needs to create the conditions and they don't know how to do that.

[A]

But just on a human level, what I was thinking of this interview, I was thinking it's a very odd thing to be leader of the Opposition and suddenly the person you're opposing goes and is replaced. It's a bit like, I guess, playing in the World cup and finding that at halftime, a different team emerges from the changing rooms. How unnerving is that?

[B]

It's. It is not unnerving for me. I'd seen it coming. You could tell from a few months ago that it looked like Andy Burnham would be coming in midterm. I think it's interesting, He's. He's got a very different personality to Keir Starmer. He's a lot more jovial, he's amiable, but it's still the same Labour Party. You know, I call them the Welfare Party now. They only care about benefits and welfare. That's what he seems to be focused on in his own way.

[A]

You saw it coming.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

So have you been planning? I mean, have you been sitting around with advisors? We're even told that David Cameron is one of your advisors these days.

[B]

Have you been sitting around worldest and wisest advisor? Yeah, I'm sure he would want me to say, I actually speak to all my predecessors who were in opposition as party leaders. So Michael Howard, Ian Duncan Smith. It's not just David Cameron because the institutional memory that the Conservative Party has is pretty phenomenal, even if you go into, into the grassroots, but had a long term strategy. So when you have a long term strategy, things happen, but you might adjust a little bit here or there. But I still have the same thing that I, that I want to deliver, which is a stronger country, stronger economy.

[A]

I hear you say that you get consultations with lots of ex Tory leaders, but it's David Cameron who's your new adviser on Prime Minister's questions.

[B]

He's not. Do you know what it is?

[A]

He's been in the room before Prime Minister's question.

[B]

Not that often, but actually he'd been doing it even when people weren't praising it. So this is the thing success has many fathers. When you're doing well, everyone says, oh, I'm helping her. There are lots of people.

[A]

So David Cameron's boasting about that.

[B]

So there are lots of people who haven't had anything to do with PMQS who apparently have been helping. But David Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith first actually did help. I would ask sort of, have you been in this situation before? How do you think I should play it? He's not there most of the time, but one or two times when I think, well, I don't know what to go on this week, what would you do? And what do you think is an interesting topic? And I don't always agree with what he says. Sometimes he looks at it and says you definitely shouldn't do that. That and then I do it anyway. And he says, well, you were right. So. But what's the best advice he's given you? It was that you're taking it too seriously. IDS's best advice was it was going on too long. David Cameron said this is more theater rather than a courtroom and you need to be able to show what is happening rather than get into lots of detail. And once I did that, it became a lot easier for other people to follow.

[A]

So what's your sense of how that will be with Andy Burnham, as you say? You. Some people called it attacked. Other people thought it was merely teasing. You called him a pair of eyelashes and a black T shirt and he came back quick as a flash, actually retweeting that and making his own gag.

[B]

Yes, and I retweeted his gag. So I think he's got a sense of the panto element of it. But it was actually not a criticism of him, it was a criticism of Labour. Labour MPs who kicked out the person who won them their seeds, but they didn't actually disagree with any of his policy. So what worries me is that we're going to be getting more and more of what went wrong in the past. More and more Labour, more and more left wing ideas, more spending, more taxes.

[A]

Well, let's talk about his story then, about what's gone wrong in the past. Because it is striking, isn't it, that even though he's succeeding at insisting that he'll stick to Labour's manifesto, his story is that the past 40 years of neoliberal politics he's phrasing hasn't delivered for people, that it's failed. Is he on to something with that?

[B]

No, he's definitely not onto anything with that. What does he even mean by neoliberalism? People throw these words around. Do you remember when everyone was talking about neocons? I mean, they are words which they use as a template to put in all of their grievances. For Andy Burnham to say that the last 40 years have all been terrible is an indictment not just on Mrs. Thatcher, who he seems particularly obsessed with. It's an indictment on his time in Labour as a Cabinet secretary and Tony Blair.

[A]

Let me tell you what I think he means. I mean, he talks about the draining away of economic, political and social power. Doesn't he actually mean the same thing that was underlying the vote leave message? That sense that there are places and people that have been left behind that are certain parts of the country and certain people have prospered under the market, many others have suffered and that conventional politics has yet to find an answer to that.

[B]

He's making the same observation that many people make. But his diagnosis of what is causing it is wrong. He thinks that it's because we are over centralized. We've been centralized for a very long time. That's not the reason. He thinks it's because we haven't got enough regional mayors. Having more politicians is not going to solve any of the things that has gone wrong in the country. The difference between his diagnosis and mine is that he thinks that people who have money or capital have taken more than their Fair share. And he's going to redistribute it. I believe that you've got to make the money before you redistribute it. He doesn't know how to make the money and he's going to actually make the country poorer with a lot of his policies. Let's just look at what is really Boris Johnson's levelling up agenda, minus the private sector. That's what Andy Burnham is offering. We did that 2019-2024. It didn't work. Just simply taking money from one place and moving it to another was not very conservative, but it didn't work. We moved the treasury to the North. Didn't make the treasury any better. He wants to move number 10 to the north. My view is that the fundamental thing that has gone wrong is that we have not improved our standard of living. Our wages haven't increased and they haven't. Because we have not invested in the economy, in those who take risk in business. Instead, we've strangled them with more and more red tape and more taxes to the point where they've given up. They're not creating as many jobs, they're not taking the risk that really creates the growth. That's what needs to change.

[A]

Your difficulty is this, isn't it? Which is if your message essentially is one about growth. Yes, and deregulation and tax cuts and setting business free. Many people, and particularly the young, I would suggest to you, see some businesses as actually exploiting them rather than helping the country. Sometimes that's privatized business. The water companies, for example. In other situations, it's actually huge global players like the tech companies, and they want government to actually protect them from that.

[B]

I have not heard any young person complain to me about tech companies. We're the ones who are trying to ban social media because we think that it's actually ruining their social skills and creating a huge mental health crisis. But that's by the by. You talked about water companies. Something has gone very wrong with water companies. Thames Water being a classic example. What's gone wrong? Is it evil water company exploiting young people?

[A]

No.

[B]

Is it that the regulatory regime that was put in place overemphasized low bills versus investment, at the same time knowing that the shareholders wanted their steady returns, which meant the reservoirs weren't getting built? So what do we do to fix that? You've got to change the regulatory regime. Nationalizing Thames Water isn't going to dig a single reservoir or fix the pipes. And this is what I mean by getting the diagnosis wrong. That if you just assume that, well, some bad people who've been doing things, and then if you give it to good, nice people, everything will be fine. This was Keir Starmer's diagnosis. Everything's gone wrong because of Conservatives. Once they're gone, it'll be fine. And it wasn't fine. In fact, under labor, everything got worse. That's why you. That's why you need a diagnosis and solutions.

[A]

What's striking, talking to you now and when we've talked before about your roots and your values and your background on political thinking, is your self confidence. And you've gone from someone, as I said in the introduction, being accused of failing to someone now credited with being the least, as you joke, unpopular leader in Britain. How's that going, by the way? Because I think you're now not the least unpopular leader in Britain.

[B]

I think I still am the least unpopular and also, according to some metrics, now the most popular because I've flipped into positive territory. So we'll see. But I don't. I don't spend time looking at polls. They move up and they move down. You've got to stay the course.

[A]

But given what is evidently an intellectual self confidence, political self confidence, why are you so terrified of Conservatives who disagree with you and you're now trying to block Conservatives who disagree with you on Net Zero? They disagree with you on getting out of the European Convention on Human Rights? I'm not saying I disagree. Not say you can't be in my shadow cabinet. You cannot be a Conservative member of Parliament unless you agree with Kemi Bacon.

[B]

That is correct. And I'm not terrified of them. But it is because of one of the experiences which I had as a new MP coming into Parliament and watching Theresa May unable to get a Brexit deal through because people were just doing whatever they liked. This time around, when Conservatives come in, I want people to know that the red lines I have drawn are going to stay red lines, and they are around the Convention on Human Rights, because until we do that, we cannot control the borders. We did everything in the last Parliament except that it is the reason why we can't deport foreign criminals.

[A]

Let's come to the policy in a second. I want to talk about your attitude to Redis.

[B]

I don't mind. I don't mind disagreement, but I cannot have people coming in as MPs who decide, well, actually, you know, I don't really care about the manifesto. I'm just going to do my own thing. I want your listeners to know that if you're voting Conservative, that person is going to do what is in the manifesto and those are two red lines. It doesn't mean they can't be members of the party and they can't disagree.

[A]

They can't be members of Parliament.

[B]

Yes, that's what happened in the 1930s.

[A]

If the then Conservative leader who said, if you don't agree with Chamberlain and you don't agree with appeasement, you can't be a Member of Parliament. No. Winston Churchill.

[B]

Well, I actually think that what I'm doing is actually the sort of thing that would solve those problems. We've had the debate. This isn't just a random thing that I've cooked up. We had a debate in the party about echr. We had a debate in the party about Net zero, something which I've been talking about for many years. We've had the debate. We now have a decision.

[A]

Forgive me, what was the answer to Winston Churchill? I mean, would you like me to give you something

[B]

perfectly honest? Winston Churchill switched parties from time to time. I think that we, we can accept that sometimes there are exceptions. Exceptions are not how I am planning to run the party.

[A]

Yes, but hold on. Under your policy, if it were applied in the 1930s, Winston Churchill would have been kicked out the Conservative Party.

[B]

Well, it's not. It's not. Winston Churchill left the Conservative Party and came back. He is not the best example. I'm sorry, Nick, but let's give you another example. He really isn't. And it's not Theresa May no longer

[A]

able to be a Conservative.

[B]

So, as I said, Theresa May is in Lords. She's not standing for Parliament. But if she wanted to, she would have to agree to vote in this way. I don't think the public think this is weird. You join a party and you go with the things that you're promising to do. I cannot understand a situation where a party makes a promise and then MPs come in and decide, well, I'm going to do something different. We just can't, cannot have that.

[A]

We need to make sure. We need to see what political parties need. If you look, for example, at something that's close to your heart. Brexit.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

These people were rebels throughout their career. I mean, John Major did take the whip away, as the parliamentary jargon calls it. They were no longer members of the Conservative Parliamentary party. He didn't dream of saying, you can't be a Member of Parliament. And those people eventually, over decades, persuaded the Conservative Party to their point of view. And now we're out of the eu, which you welcome.

[B]

This is all history in two party politics. We live in an era of multi party politics. There is a party that claims to be on my right. It's doing quite well in the polls. There's the Greens. SNP politics is not like it was before. You need to let people know exactly what it is you're about and what you're going to do. So I don't accept those analogies. At a time when it was labor versus Conservative and nothing else, I think that the rules were different now. And this is not about. This is not about rebellions. This is about me saying I have some red lines. You've got to be able to do this. If you cannot agree with me on the red lines, that probably means that you are not going to agree on a whole bun of things.

[A]

Does it mean you're not a Conservative? Does it mean you're not?

[B]

It means you cannot stand as a Conservative member.

[A]

You should vote for the Liberal Democrats.

[B]

No, it doesn't mean any of those things. It just means that I'm not going to ask you to come into Parliament and then do something different from what I'm promising people. Otherwise, what's the point of a manifesto? What's the point?

[A]

Democracy. I mean, when you say I'm not going to ask you to come into Parliament, you don't ask anybody to come into Parliament. Local parties choose candidates, the local constituents. Let me just finish the thought.

[B]

Very different ideas.

[A]

Well, I may do. That's what I've been interested in exploring.

[B]

I have a very different idea.

[A]

I think the idea of democracy is that local parties choose candidates. They're put before the local electorate and the local electorate decide who they want. Our Conservative home are other people who use the phrase a purge of the wets.

[B]

They're wrong about that because it's not

[A]

a purge or it is a purge, but not just of the wet.

[B]

Because this is not about wets or dries. It's not about left or right. It's about right or wrong. Is this the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do?

[A]

So it is a purge, but it's not a purge.

[B]

No, no, no, no, it's not. And again, saying that people can't stand in this next Parliament unless they agree that's not a purge.

[A]

Let's turn back to Andy Burnham, who talks about a different sort of politics. He talks about working together, he talks about cooperation. And I just want to get a sense of whether you're up for that. If you believe it, of course, now you'll instantly, I suspect, say to me that you offered to work with the Labour Party to cut the welfare budget and they didn't take up your offer. Let's say he does now. He says, I've got these proposals, they're coming from former Cabinet Minister Alan Milvern to try and get young people into work and off benefit. Will you work with them on it?

[B]

So as long as it doesn't cut across Conservative principles, let's see why not. I have made an offer, as you said, but it has to be common sense. We are the Common sense party. Quite a lot of things that Labour does are not common sense. It has to have a plan, not just a slogan. Pledges without plans is how we've got ourselves into the mess that we're in as a country. And this is across all parties, all parties, even the ones that haven't been in government before. We need to start making sure we can do what we say.

[A]

One of the things you've said, and I want to ask you how you might do it, is that a way to cut the welfare bill is to cut the sickness benefits that go to people who've got anxiety, for example, who've got mental health conditions like adhd. Have you, as you've travelled around the country, met people, seen people and you thought they shouldn't be on benefits? We could save money by cutting their benefits.

[B]

So, yes, but that's not the only reason. It's also how many people I have met and spoken to who are talking about how they can't hire people because it is easier for them to go on benefits. Pretty much every small to medium sized business that I visited across the country, from Cornwall to Aberdeen, has said this, that we can't get the staff in because they can claim benefits and they explain exactly how they do. So that really worries me. Our benefit system should be for people who cannot work, not for people who don't want to work. That is where we make decisions.

[A]

But in a way, that's why I ask you the question, because, you know, there'll be people listening to this who absolutely cheering you on. And there'll be other people saying, well, who are these people who don't want to work? Often these are people who are anxious, who do have adhd, who are now diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. Is a Conservative leader saying to them, I don't care how you feel, we think you can work. Let me get on with it.

[B]

There is actually dignity in work and sometimes work is what would help those people. So whenever people say exactly what You've just said to me, nick, I give them a statistic. When we left office in 2024, 2,000 new people each day were claiming out of work benefits. This was post Covid. It's an extraordinarily high number. According to the government, that number is five new people each day. I do not accept the premise that all of a sudden 3,000 extra people need to claim these benefits. In the last two years, what's happened in the last two years, what's happened is that people have worked out how to use the system. You just call up and say, well, I'm feeling anxious, I can't come in and you're waved through. This cannot be right. We need proper safeguards.

[A]

So you believe. I'm still not clear whether you've met and seen with your own eyes, there are people who are playing the system who are not really.

[B]

That's not what my job is, not to go out, assess people, let the doctors do that. But I can see from the evidence, from the statistics, those numbers I just said, from the people who are hiring and saying our staff are leaving because benefit or more from the sheer scale of what we are spending.

[A]

But the people who looked at people like Alan Milburn, people like Charlie Mayfield, who used to run John Lewis, who's done a report into this, actually don't disagree with about the figures. But they say people need help. What they don't need is their benefits

[B]

simply cutting off supply side versus demand side solutions. And I've picked one. They've picked, picked, they've picked the other. I think most people know that we cannot afford a state where we pay more in benefits than we earn in income tax. It just doesn't work.

[A]

The curious thing when politicians talk about reforming welfare is that you never want to talk about cutting the benefit bill for pensioners. It's a massive increase. The Office for Budget Responsibility says because we're an aging population and because of, you know, I'm going to ask it, the triple lock. We could almost double the cost of the state pension over the next 50 years. Why, other than because older people tend to vote conservative, are you not interested in delivering what many people say would be justice between the generations?

[B]

Actually, when I looked at this, I found out that young people were even more in favor of the triple lock than elderly people. But I don't look at polls to make the decision. I start with my principles. And the first one is that growth is the problem. The triple lock, whether it's there or not, there is not a growth is not a Growth policy. It's simply redistributing money from one place to another. You take people off welfare and into work, you're saving money on their benefits and they're paying taxes into the Exchequer. It's a double whammy. It's a win, win. That's why we're starting there.

[A]

You could start there but still do it. I mean, there's nothing that says I'm going to do welfare reform amongst the young, but I can't.

[B]

But it's not, it's out of work, it's out of work benefits. If we don't sort that out, there's not going to be any money for state pension later anyway.

[A]

Let's be clear, Pip, for example, one of the benefits you're talking is not an out of work benefit, it's a top up payment to people who are often in work.

[B]

But don't, don't forget that when conservatives came in in 2010, there was a lot of pensioner poverty. And the state pension is also one where many people feel that they have contributed to. There is a sense, you know, accepting that principle that you pay and you should get something out. And right now I just think that if we can deal with the welfare problem, a lot of other problems will start fixing themselves.

[A]

What about the retirement age? We know that the treasury have over time been increasing the age at which we can get the old age pension, the state pension. There's some suggestion that could be sped up. Would you be in favor of that? Is that the sort of thing cross party working could agree on and would save tens of billions of pounds.

[B]

So the jury is out on that. I'll start by saying I am not against it. It's not third party policy, it's not something that we're actively working on. But the challenge of an aging population needs addressing. Keeping people healthier for longer means that they should be able to work longer. We have people in Parliament who are in their 80s and they're, and they're still working. It depends on the sort of job you do. So what I don't want people to think is that if you've been doing, you know, back breaking work, that you're expected to do that until you're 70. But it's quite clear that many people can work, you know, well into their 70s, you know, even early 80s. I'm more concerned about the way that work itself is changing. You look at what AI is doing to the workplace. Young people are the ones who are most impacted. So that's where I'm Putting a lot more attention. How do we stop the graduate recruitment crisis? The worst state in terms of graduate recruitment, certainly in my lifetime. How do we fix that? So it's where the priorities are. I do think we can look at that, but it's not Conservative Party policy. It's not something we are for or against. Let's see what the government does, and we'll start from first principle.

[A]

The big one that he prioritized and has been talking about, he openly admits for many, many years since he was Health Secretary, is social care. Now, his dream has been to have what he calls a National Care Service, like the National Health Service, so that if, to put it crudely, you have Alzheimer's as against cancer, the same reaction from the state, your care is free. Whereas, you know, now people can pay almost £100,000 a year from their own savings or from the value of their house in order to pay for care, if they're unable to care for themselves. Do you sympathise with that objective? Would you work with government on that or you think that's a mistake?

[B]

I can sympathise with wanting to make sure that people don't worry about care in old age, certainly. But Andy Burnham tried this before and it landed very, very badly. What's the problem I'm trying to solve when it comes to social? It is making sure the people are well looked after. But secondly, making sure that if you are somebody who has worked and saved and put money away, you are not punished for that compared to somebody who didn't put anything away and then the government comes to the rescue. I don't think that's fair. And so whatever system it is that we do end up designing, I would want that to be the foundational principle, that we don't punish people who have saved and done the right thing and then reward those, those who don't, because that creates a huge moral hazard.

[A]

By punish, in other words, you mean they don't lose the value of their house that they may have saved up over their life to do.

[B]

If you have done the right thing, made sacrifices when you were younger, then I don't think that all of that should be taken away compared to somebody in the same situation who didn't make those same sacrifices.

[A]

You say Andy Bodham tried and failed. He did. He, as Health Secretary, had failed secret talks. I know they were secret because Andrew Lansley was the Conservative Health Secretary, talked to me on the Today program about those talks that were kept secret even from his own party leadership. But he had the talks. He thinks that Burnham was sincere. He thinks he's sincere now and he thinks it's in the country's interest to get on with it. Are you willing to say, yeah, I'll take the risk. We'll sit around the table with it.

[B]

Sincerity is a. Is an excellent quality. It is not a substitute for having a plan that will survive contact with reality.

[A]

But if there's a plan, will you sit around?

[B]

I. I'm very happy to sit around and discuss plans. I've made the offer on welfare. We've got to take some tough decisions.

[A]

The thing that you would sit in a room with Andy Burnham, with the Prime Minister, and say, let's talk about a plan for reforming social.

[B]

As long as it didn't cut across Conservative principles. Some of the things I've talked about, well, I think that's constructive opposition. You have a problem. Let's work with you on that. If have the votes, let's work with you on that. What I think is very silly is making loads of announcements without having figured out how you're going to do them. I think it's very clear that Andy Burnham is not ready. I think he would have quite liked to have a summer to think about things, and Keir Starmer didn't give him that time. But if you are planning to be Prime Minister, you should be ready. And he wasn't ready. And so now he's flying lots of kites. And what really worries me is that he is going to raise taxes which will be destructive for growth, because all of these things that we're talking about, triple lock, social care, they all need money. Where is the money coming from? I want us to make the money first and then look at how we distribute it.

[A]

Let's go finally to one other thing on the menu, on the shopping list, if you like, of policies. Much more defence spending.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

If Britain is to meet its NATO commitment to spend 3% of GDP by 2030, even more than that, 3 1/2% by 2035, we're talking of tens of billions of pounds in extra spending. Now, there are some who say the answer to this is just as we did in the war, to issue war bonds. To say this is a unique situation, Putin is a threat in a way that we haven't faced a threat since the Second World War. War bonds, so long as they're committed purely to defense, is a legitimate form of borrowing. To which you say, what?

[B]

So it's funny you should ask this. I've just been at the air show in Farnborough and I Gave a speech where I said, war bonds are just borrowing in a fancy outfit. Borrowing more to pay for defense means more interest on debt than what we're spending on defense.

[A]

Lots of other countries in Europe, the Germans are doing it, for example. They have changed their limits on borrowing in order to be able to invest

[B]

in their defense, we need to cut spending. We have grown so fat on welfare. Before the Cold War was over, we were spending one in every three pounds on defense, one in every seven on health and welfare. Now we spend one in every three pounds on health and welfare, one in every seven on defence. That does need some rebalancing.

[A]

So I want to end our conversation by talking rather more personally. Given the horrific death of Anne Widdicombe, given the conversation about security for members of Parliament, have you felt in recent weeks and months more vulnerable, more frightened, if you don't mind me asking, about your own security and your family's security?

[B]

Honestly, no, I wouldn't say I felt more frightened or more vulnerable. I do worry about security, but not more so in recent weeks. And I worry about security because, like all politicians, I get the emails, the threats. In fact, someone was arrested just last month for making some horrific death threats. But I also came into politics with my hero being Airy Neve and Ian Gao. These were people who were blown up by the IRA. Our party conference in 1984 was, you know, blown up. Sir Anthony Barry died, Norman Tebbitt, serious injuries, his wife permanently disabled. I think there has always been a low level risk to politicians and I worry that if the conversation becomes more and more about our security, then we're spending more time talking about our security than the country's security. Well, the people out there don't have security. Many of them have similar issues, similar problems. And I think that we need to do more just to drain the swamp of the people who commit these crimes than just increase the security more.

[A]

I've never heard you say before that Airy Neave, Margaret Thatcher's closest advisor. Ian Gow, another of Margaret Thatcher's very close advisors. I've never heard you say before that they were heroes of yours. You were quite young.

[B]

Arie Neave was the hero.

[A]

Well, I just wonder why.

[B]

He died before I was born. But whenever I get asked the political hero question, I always say, erin, why then?

[A]

It's an interesting choice.

[B]

So many reasons. First of all, he escaped from Colditz, which I always say is the coolest thing that any Conservative MP has ever done. Probably any mp, you know, escaping from a prisoner of war camp but also because he supported Mrs. Thatcher before it was fashionable to do so. He was, you know, a very conservative man who one would have expected, would have wanted, you know, a former soldier of a certain ilk to be standing. And he supported this woman at a time when it was quite difficult for her. And I think men who do that, who look at the character of someone, move away from the stereotypes. People who support others before those people become fashionable, I think that they can be heroes. And the way he died I found quite striking. Just knowing that speaking out means that people will try to harm you. It's something that every politician thinks about. I think it's one of the reasons why many politicians try not to upset anyone and don't say what they really think. But if we don't say what we really think, then we're not doing our jobs and it's a risk that we take. I'm not saying this lightly. I'm not saying it's fine to harm politicians before people think that. I think it is one of the. The real dangers that we need to tackle. But we are here for the country's security. The country is not here for our security.

[A]

So you think, even though there are some people in reform UK at the moment, for example, looking at what happened to Anne Wood, thinking our security's not being taken seriously enough. Nigel Faris clearly thinks that. You think he's getting it wrong, or is it the national conversation is wrong?

[B]

I don't. Well, on him. I don't really understand why he has come out to say exactly what his security arrangements are, because that also puts you in danger. We are advised not to say exactly what the arrangements are. He's talked about my arrangements and said that it wasn't enough for him, which surprised me. I would rather not have my arrangements discussed. But the difference between Nigel Farage and me is that he spends a lot of time, time talking about himself. He's triggered a by election that's all about himself to get the same job which he had before he resigned. I don't really want to spend time talking about my personal life, my issues. I want to talk about why I'm doing this job to help the country. And that's the difference between us.

[A]

Going back to Airie Neave, I think it's fascinating that you admire him because he stood up for Margaret Thatcher before other people. Do you have people that you think they were with me from the beginning, because it's got quite fashionable now to say, oh, Kemi Badenoch, you know, she's having a Great run and she's done well in Prime Minister's questions. They wanted your head not that long ago. I mean, they wanted you out. They thought Robert Jenrick was the answer when you ran against him to be Conservative leader. Are there people you think, no, no, they were with me all the time. They saw it.

[B]

Ian Duncan Smith is an example of someone who said, you had something and I think, I'm going to back you. Although he didn't back. He didn't do it straight away, but he said, don't worry, I'll come round around. I've never told anyone this before, but someone who did say you're going to be the leader and you're going to be Prime Minister was Sir David Amos. You know, and given the conversation that we're having about security, I think about him very often. He said he was elected in 1983 and he said it quite jokingly. I think, actually it was one of the last conversations we ever had. And this was, you know, when I was a junior minister and I laughed it off. But he saw something I wouldn't say it was backing. There wasn't a leadership contest then. But a lot of people did say, we think you can do this. And they were the ones who actually gave me the strength of mind to do it. When I came into Parliament, I wasn't thinking about being party leader. I was just, you know, really pleased to be a part of an institution that I think is phenomenal.

[A]

And David Davis was a cheerleader for Margaret Thatcher. He was, you know, she, it was always said, got power because she represented Essex man and woman, of course, and

[B]

I do as well. I very much represent Northwest Essex man and woman, but all of Essex too, and hopefully the. The country one day.

[A]

We study what you say in speeches when we prepare for an interview like that. And my team came across an intriguing phrase. You describe yourself as the Professor Snape of politics. What on earth did you read?

[B]

So, for those people who are not Harry Potter fans, and it's not myself I describe, it's the Conservative Party. I say that the Conservative Party is the Professor Snape of politics, that we're trying to do the right thing. People think we're the bad guys, but without us, everything would go horribly wrong. And in the end, they'll see that. That's what I mean.

[A]

You think the author of Harry Potter, J.K. rowling, might agree with that?

[B]

I don't know yet, but I know she is. She is not, as she was a Labor supporter. Yes. I don't think she's as labor as she used to. We'll see. Maybe she might have changed her mind under Andy Burnham, but she and I do agree very much on some subjects. So maybe she might agree we should

[A]

ask you agree on the issue of trans rights. Have you reached out to her and said maybe your home is in the consensus?

[B]

Well, I would. No, I have not done that. I don't. When I know people have a different political leaning, I don't invite them to the party. There are many cross party friendships that we can have. But I want people who join the Conservative Party to be, be Conservative. But I also want the Conservative Party to appeal to people who are not conservative.

[A]

Now, last, last time you were on Political Thinking, you said something I've always remembered. It was about the fact that you had worked at McDonald's. That wasn't new. No, but what you told me is that your kids wished you still worked in McDonald's.

[B]

Yes, they didn't know and they were shocked that I would have given up such a fabulous job with free burgers and they could see me on their walk back from school.

[A]

School. Do they still think you're in the wrong job and that you should be working?

[B]

Sadly, yes. They, they have not changed their mind. The, the burgers that McDonald's make are very compelling for children under 10. I think the 13 year old knows that this is a much better and much more important job. The six year old does not.

[A]

So this is more of a verdict on burgers than it is a verdict on being leader of the opposition?

[B]

I think it might be, yes. I think they're more interested in burgers than they are in politics. Politics which is probably very healthy for children under 10.

[A]

Debbie Begnaught, thank you very much for joining me again on Political Thinking.

[B]

Thank you, Nick.

[A]

Thanks for listening to this episode of Political Thinking. The producers were Hannah Wilkinson and Flora Murray. The editor this week, Jonathan Brunet.

[B]

Christmas 1988. A plane takes off from Heathrow Airport. 38 minutes later, everyone on board is dead. A Libyan man, Abdul Basa Al Megrahi, is convicted of murdering 270 people. But that's not the end of the story. Almost four decades on fresh evidence and a new trial. I'm Miles Bonner. In this podcast I'm delving into a world of extremist groups, mysterious intelligence agents and global Politics. From Radio 4, this is Intrigue Locker Bay. Listen first on BBC Sounds.