if he is forced out of office by his own mps, people will say, history will no doubt recall that he had to go because he broke the rules which he had set. the truth will be a little more complicated, as my guest on political thinking will spell out, i think. it will be because many conservatives think that borisjohnson has stopped being a conservative. that those very covid rules, limitations on freedom, that extra spending, that higher tax, or represents a change that they don't want to see. steve baker was a thorn in the flesh of theresa may when he ran the erg, the european research group. he has become a thorn in the flesh of borisjohnson, as one of the leaders of the crg, the covid recovery group, which has opposed the lockdown, the restrictions, the compulsory vaccines, the compulsory masks, and all the rest of it. last time we spoke on political thinking three years ago, he told me that his job was to herd the tigers. so, which way will he herd them now? steve baker, welcome back to political thinking. well, nick, thank you very much indeed for having me on and giving me that terrifying introduction. i was very nervous on the first one we did and i am slightly worried about what you will ask me this time but the last pod cast was a great success so thank you for it and thank you to everybody who has listened to it. well, last time we spoke, a month later, theresa may fell, she was toppled. here we are again. yes, it is a sorry situation we are in. i am appalled that we have reached the situation. we didn't make borisjohnson prime minister for his meticulous grasp of tedious rules but, you know, this is appalling and the public are rightly furious so at the moment, i'm afraid it does look like checkmate but whether he can save himself, we'll see. checkmate? yes, ifeel a little bit like we are all looking at the chessboard and you know how it goes, check, check, check, checkmate, and then people are all looking at the board and at the grand masters and saying, well, is it over? and i think that is where we are. it probably is checkmate and we are all waiting for sue gray's report at the moment. but you think, in other words, farfrom saving him, that might be the end of the prime minister. i'm very clear that i won't allow myself to substitute politics where law and ethics should be. so, if the prime minister lied at the dispatch box, if the prime minister broke the law, if the prime minister positively acquiesced in the breaking of the law, then he simply must go. i think if we had reached a set of circumstances like this with the chief executive of a company or a major leader of a public institution subject to select committee scrutiny, i honestly don't think they would be in post by now. but we are in an extraordinary set of circumstances with the prime minister, and particularly with the prime minister being pursued, hounded out of office, i think, probably by a former disgruntled employee. that may create an extraordinary set of circumstances and here we are. so, we are looking forward to sue gray's report, we'll take a judgment after that. you say he is being harried out of office by, i assume you mean dominic cummings, a man you fell outwith, we'll come to that a little bit later. but if you made up your mind that you will, if the report is as you fear it is, trigger a vote of no confidence, you will put a letter in and then you will vote against him? so, i am very clear that if he has broken the law or lied at the dispatch box, then he must go, and then i would act myself to that end. but i would just say, as i said before, i would much prefer that boris johnson was a roaring success but that is not where we currently are. but one thing i would say, i'm not going to organise against borisjohnson, my heart wouldn't be in it. and having been down that road once before, i really don't want to go down it again. so, you know, i won't be organising against him, no. why not? because, as you say, when theresa may was in trouble, when you were criticising the sort of brexit deals, you did then say you were herding the tigers, to use your phrase to me three years ago, why is now not the moment first steve baker to herd the tigers and say, we've got to get rid of him? i suppose, to respect your listeners, i will give the true answer. the true answer is we are all only human and to stand in the midst of such a maelstrom where you are trying to remove the prime minister is a terrible, a great and terrible experience, and itjust doesn't have to be me every time. it just doesn't. you know, i am a backbench member of parliament, i have one vote in a leadership confidence vote, like i do in the house of commons, and, you know, i am not under a duty to be a leader of every insurrection and i don't especially enjoy the conflict. i've done it once before and, really, honestly, at the moment, i am looking to the cabinet for leadership. we are talking about alleged serious breaches of ministerial code, possibly the law, possibly the nolan principles of public life. and, really, there are some proper grown—ups who are supposed to be leaders of our country in the cabinet, and i would quite like them to rise to this moment, you know. i am a humble backbencher, i don't have any power in these matters, apart from my one vote. and what do you say to those people, who say in the end it should be about political calculus? you should be working out whether removing borisjohnson is right for your sort of conservatism, or indeed for the conservative party's chances of winning an election. one of the things that is wrong with politics and has been wrong for a long time, one of the things which i think has corrupted democracy, is where people don't take seriously the set of rules that we are under an obligation to follow. for example, the nolan principles. we should, in a nutshell, be first doing what is right. so, this is why... i do recognise that some people put the political calculation ahead of the law and the ethics, but actually in a situation like this, i am not willing to. the law comes first, the ministerial code, as it were, second, because it is not actually law, and then other moral considerations. but if in the end this is a political decision, then i will make a political calculation. but i think it will be first and foremost not a political question. not everything is politics, right? now, perhaps, what you havejust said is what explains why you have been a leader of one rebellion and one group on brexit, one of the leaders of the covid recovery group, now the leader of the conservative way forward, a thatcherite group. you do talk as if politics is always about principle and rarely about compromise. do you think that is right? no, politics has always got to be about compromise. i think if you only had people in politics with a radical zeal that could never know compromise, you would have constant series of revolutions. so, i am willing to compromise and of course on the big issues where i have taken a stand, i can see why people would say, he is uncompromising, but that is because i have taken a stand on an issue. even on brexit in the end i compromised, as i remember discussing with you on that today programme. but day after day after day, i need to look at measures and say, well, i am just going to support the government. i've got some concerns, for example, about the way protests will be policed, but in the end, i am going to support the relevant bill. we'll come to that because it is an interesting test of your commitment to being a liberal, you often cause yourself a small l liberal, someone who believes in freedom, what some people call a libertarian. i still want to focus, though, on whether you enjoy this role that you have taken on on the backbenches, you are a former raf officer, and some people think you love the whiff of cordite, the smell of the battle in your nose. you can't resist a fight, you see someone and you want to go and punch them. i'm not a combative person, this is the irony, and this is what people said to me when i came into politics. i am an introverted person who doesn't like conflict but i am afraid there are some things which i find intolerable and people keep doing things which i find intolerable. and i suppose it is rage against injustice and rage against suffering. we talk about the covid stuff, it is not an in principle... the main motivating factor is not just a mere in principle desire to be free, the main motivating factor is people are suffering terribly from the collateral damage from restrictions on them being able to see their wife of 50 years in the care home before she dies is one story. i mean, that is the animating force, really, not some mere principle. we are coming to policy in just a second but when i said you like the whiff of cordite, i was struck by the fact that last summer, you texted members of the covid recovery group with a quote from the great escape. do you remember what you said to them? yes, it is the duty of every officer to try and escape. was it that one? it is the sworn duty of all offices to try to escape. if they cannot escape, it is their sworn duty to cause the enemy to use an inordinate number of troops to guard them and their sworn duty to harass the enemy to the best of their ability. i'lljust remind you, when you say the enemy, you were talking about people in your own party in your own government, including the chief scientific adviser and chief... nick, this is humour, and i know humour is always risky, particularly when it is quoted back to you in an interview but look, in the royal air force, whenever you went on an operation or an exercise, the kit packing list would always say, bring a sense of humour. because stuff goes wrong, stuff is stressful, you've got to get through difficult circumstances, and i have always believed that when times are at their toughest and most difficult, mobilising and motivating people, keeping the troops going in times of difficulty, requires a sense of humour, and a sense of perspective, and that is really what that quote is about. is it also that you like notjust principle and humour but you are addicted to speed? i wonder if you are an adrenalinejunkie? i notice that in your private time, you like to freefall without a parachute for thousands of feet. i'm a freefall skydive, yes, but you normally deploy the parachute at about 3000 feet, yes. but are you addicted to adrenaline? well, it is difficult for me to say that i'm not because as you say, i'm a skydiver, i ride fast motorcycles, within the law, of course. i've previously been a fast catamaran sailor. i suppose what i like to do is big, exciting, dangerous things, but keep the risks under control. that is what i think i find satisfaction in, doing things which are thrilling but containing the risk and succeeding. i suppose that is one of the themes of my life. i do like excitement. i get bored quickly and i like to do thrilling things, you know. well, you've had no shortage of excitement in politics in recent years. let's turn, then, to philosophy. covid rules we will come to in a second. you made an overall critique of this government, of this prime minister, just before christmas. you essentially said it is not a conservative party any more, it is heading in the wrong direction, and it is pursuing centre—left policies. how so? just the sheer scale of spending and intervention in people's lives. you know, boris did at one point promised to be a brexity hezza, after michael heseltine. and that is really where he is, he is a power politician, he is led by polls, he likes to promise big dramatic things and then provide them, and it is all very expensive. and i don't think it is quite matching the times that we face but perhaps you will ask me about that. i'll read you the quote — today's conservative party is in the wrong place and heading in the opposite direction of conservatism. yes, that's right. that is true, it is heading in the opposite direction. you know, i have always recognised it is a broad church and i am willing to compromise and build consensus. you mentioned conservative way forward and people may have seen a clip that i put out about that. we can't reheat conservatism, we need to be much more relational, much more aware of community and people's place in society in relationship. so, i am going to confound people who think i am just reinventing thatcherism, that is not what we are doing. so, in other words, you want to combine her love of the free market, her love of freedom, but you recognise the criticism, do you, that says even if she didn't quite say this, it became popularly felt that she had, that tories could not say there is no such thing as society? yeah, of course, it is a mischaracterisation of her position. but what i would say is that when you look at the sermon on the mount, that famously she did, she was very pro—society. the message, my message is, and i think she would agree with it, is that relationships are at their best and their most fulfilling and their most healthy and virtuous when they are voluntary. and, so, what we have to do is think about individuals and relationships and what does it mean to have a good relationship? we need to talk about things like temperance and prudence and, you know, kindness and nobility and magnanimity. the kind of virtues which our society has always been founded on at its best. that's what conservatism should be about, preserving what is best of society, recognising that good relationships are voluntary, rather than using state power and law to coerce relationships, which in the end, that is what the law does, it forces issues, and we need to be much kinder and gentler about what we use the law to do. which brings us very neatly onto covid. what changed in your attitude to the covid restrictions? there wasn't a vote on the first lockdown but i don't think you fought it at the time, but you have fought pretty much every restriction ever since. what did you see, what did you fear, and why did you change your view? yes, so i was always very sceptical but at the beginning when we were bounced into a lockdown, i remember seeing the announcement during the debate on the coronavirus act, which i criticised, or expressed great misgivings about, and we were locked down during that debate, and i think that we all expected at that time, really horrific levels of death and suffering. i had had a call with, i forget the exact timing, but at an early stage in this, i had a call with the council, they doubled mortuary capacity and doubled it again. and then we were on the call once again talking about doubling mortuary capacity once more. we expected to run out of crematorium capacity. muslims in my constituency were worried about being cremated, not buried, but of course, the reverse was the concern, that people wanted to be cremated and might have had to be buried just because we had too many bodies to deal with. that was the kind of atmosphere we faced them. and i considered it my duty to take that moderate and supportive tone. but you went on to talk about panic in government circles, you said a ghastly trap had been created, a two—tier britain. was that simply because your political values, i think also your christian values, suggest that the state should not have been instructing people in the way that it was, that you are happy people took their own precautions but you don't think the government should instruct them, let alone find their behaviour against the law? well, i suppose because we are in search of simplicity, i think that characterisation is broadly correct but nothing is, of course, simple. the harm principle entitles the state to restrain people's behaviour to protect others, and that is the fundamental legitimacy of the kinds of measures which government used. many classical liberal commentators today use that argument to justify their support for lockdowns. i think lockdown was most justifiable when the vaccines appeared, and indeed i made sure we put sirjeremy farrar in the front of sceptical mps at that time so that the best possible case could be made to them by the government's best advocate of that idea but the point was lockdown now, reduce the case numbers, get the vaccines into arms, we really will save large numbers of life. that was the best argument they ever had. but who really thinks that it is desirable to prevent businesses operating? that it is desirable to prevent people visiting theirfamily in care homes? that it is desirable to prevent you sitting on a park bench or going for a walk with a coffee? or indeed leaving your house for exercise more than once in a day? i really don't think anyone thinks these things are desirable. and i think we are going to find in the enquiry that a large proportion of deaths resulted from infections in care homes and hospitals, not, for example, among young people. so, it might well be that actually a policy of focused protection might have worked much more successfully without the huge collateral costs of the restrictions that we took. but that remains to be seen. many of the scientists i speak to say that the delay to the second lockdown, when the prime minister was worried about people like you and your covid recovery group objecting cost, they claim, tens of thousands of lives, while there was indecision. and they say, actually, more people died in that period than had died in the first one. do you accept that what one scientist put to me, that you guys are sometimes interested in politics—led evidence, not evidence—led policy? no, actually, iwould make the same criticism of them. i desperately don't want to have a row here over this because there is huge uncertainty. all of the evidence... not all of it. the number of people who have died is very certain but the number of people who have died of covid rather than with covid is perhaps less certain, so there is a huge room for debate in all of these things. what i would say is that some scientists were absolutely insisting that we had to have a circuit breaker lockdown, but wales did have one and it didn't seem to do very much good. and when i compare, as anyone can, on our world in data for example the experience of germany, the uk, and sweden, it does look rather like it doesn't matter what you do on the non—pharmaceutical interventions, the restrictions of liberty, you get about the same progression of the disease. but i don't wish to be glib but again... but if you compare sweden not locked down, with denmark, much more like the uk, or if you compare the united states, many states didn't lockdown, with say germany, many scientists said the evidence is absolutely clear, those restrictions work. so, i am absolutely clear in my own mind that if you prevent people from having contact with one another, that will restrict the spread of the disease, yes, of course i am clear about that. but the point that i am making is we cannot settle questions of whether non—pharmaceutical interventions are worth the costs that they incur by having a political discussion. and that is why i have put forward a programme of four reforms, one to the public health act, one to the way that cost benefit analysis is done, which i have forward. one on the structure of expert advice. because, actually, i believe... i have tried very hard not to be personally critical of experts. i have actually set far too much has been asked of them. unfair burdens have been placed on their shoulders and we need to recognise they are human to and have a better structure of expert advice. and also the modelling needs reforming because it has been too wrong too often. i hear you and you are doing a lot of work on this but often, people hear your colleagues talk, people talked about a public health socialist state, for example, and they seemed to put freedom as a value above everything else, and you just said a few minutes ago that what conservatism needed to be about was community and not just individual? at the heart of this debate is this idea about what it means to be a virtuous human being. because, presumably, we do want to live in a society of virtue. well, are we going to keep on terrifying people to comply with, to be obedient to very strict rules, or are we going to be a responsible society which thinks for itself and does the right thing? now, what i find it is time and again, people say they want responsibility and they can defend it when it is easy but when it gets difficult, and we might actually learn something and change, they give in and coerce instead. and that is what i am really opposed to. let's really make progress here. i think some people think there is a curiosity that there are people on the conservatives, usually the right of the conservative party, that talk a lot about freedom but, for example, and you raised it, will then give the police huge new powers to limit the power of protest, saying that protests that are too noisy or too inconvenient are not legitimate democratic expressions of opinion. is there a danger that for conservatives of your type, that you seem interested in one type of freedom and not another type of freedom ? well, that sort of thing is exactly absolutely the stuff of political debate. i have taken an extremely strident view on covid status certifications and vaccine passports but i am in favour of photo id. but i do consider, if we get into it, that they are categorically different circumstances. but, of course, people equate them and then accuse me of not being principled, and on the debate goes. but on protest in particular, when you are talking about people who are willing to disrupt our society by deliberately getting people arrested to flood the courts and bring them to a standstill, you do actually have to stop that. we've got a duty to have the rule of law. i mean, iam not some kind of anarchist, i believe in liberty under the rule of law and right relationships. so, we absolutely do have to counter the new radical form of protesting that we have. but if you are asking if i am concerned about some of the stuff on noise, for example, and protest, yes. and that is why dominic grieve and ijointly wrote an article aboutjust that. but in the end i stood as a conservative and the question is yes or no, very often, and sometimes i have to hold my nose but back to your point, that is where i am compromising. didn't the conservative party, didn't people like you have to compromise on this great principle of the size of the state? in other words, many conservatives would say, look, we were at war, in effect, of course we had to spend big, of course we had to borrow, of course we now have to tax, that is what you have to do in the equivalent of war. and, yet, you are concerned that borisjohnson has, i think, got addicted to the big state? there is not really any question of having small government in the uk, not in our lifetimes and not in several generations, if ever. what we could do with is at least balancing the budget. what i believe is happening, the trajectory that we are on, if people look at the the office for responsibility�*s fiscal sustainability report, it shows a really genuinely catastrophic trajectory of debt. in the 2018 report they said this level, this hundreds of percent of gdp debts won't happen, and they said policy will have to change. but when they say policy will have to change, what they mean is the state will have default on pensions and health care and welfare and education, we'll default, we won't keep our age—related spending obligations unless we work out how to do things differently. and along the way, by the way, i do think we might destroy our currencies as well. given that is what i think we face, i am under a duty to tell people and ask for a change of direction. there is one other question you face, it's the question lots of people asked you when you were on political thinking three years ago — will you run to be leader? no, not now. because it is a totally implausible idea that any backbencher is going to be catapulted into the last two, past every government minister in the whole cabinet by conservative mps, you might as well ask if i want to be a ballerina or an astronaut. it's not going to happen. do you know who you will back? no. i am pretty confident, given my record, that i will be busy during the next leadership election but i am not at all certain who for. and, finally, you said it is important to keep a sense of humour in all of this. doesn't the conservative party, doesn't the tory right, in particular, risk looking like those groups in the life of brian, the monty python film, in which the people's popular front ofjudaea are murdering the popular front ofjudaea while shouting splitters? well, you will remember, i think i raised that in relation to the brexiteers but, no, i don't think so. i am so looking forward to launching conservative way forward. when you look at the team that i've assembled and the breadth of the party that it covers, and the extent of our agreement and the joy of the vision that we are going to present, i am so excited about showing it to you. and all this old nonsense about angry tory right—wingers will pale away and fade and no—one will care about it when we do what we are going to do. steve baker, thanks very much forjoining me again on political thinking. you're very welcome. he could hardly have been clearer. it looks like being checkmate for borisjohnson, he said. the game, though, if it is a game, is very far from over, notjust over the prime minister's continued leadership but perhaps over who follows him and what type of conservatism it involves. what is clear is that one of the key players will be steve baker. thanks forjoining me on political thinking. hello there. high pressure has been dominating the weather story just recently, but there are some subtle changes as we go through the day. just want to point out to you first thing on saturday morning it was cold and frosty, but there was plenty of blue sky and sunshine. fast forward a day. sunday morning has been certainly a grey start. a lot of cloud around in norfolk first thing at this morning and he looks likely that that cloud is here to stay. as high pressure just drifts off into the near continent and we've got that south—westerly feed driving in more cloud from a moist atlantic. and yes, some of that cloud is going to be stubbornly sitting with us throughout the afternoon. there might be some brief glimpses of sunshine from time to time, but if you keep the cloud all day, it will have an impact on the feel of the weather. on top of that, the winds are pretty light, so it's not going to be helping to break that cloud up. that said, further north and west, we're going to see the wind strengthening in western scotland, gusting to gale force by the end of the day. here we'll see highest values of nine degrees, but if you keep the cloud all day temperatures will struggle — five degrees at the very best. now it'll be a similar story through the night. on the whole, most of us will keep this blanket of cloud and prevent those temperatures from falling below freezing. but where we do get a few holes we'll see low single figures, maybe a bit of patchy, mist and fog forming. once again, it stays very mild for the time of year into the far northwest. and that's because there's a weather front as well that's pushing in. it will start to bring some rain into the northwest of scotland, and the winds remain a bit of a feature. but across england and wales still under the influence of high pressure, still a fair amount of cloud with us and very light winds. so for central and southern england, it's going to be a drab day. further north of that, there'll be some glimpses of sunshine and then we've got our weather front bringing some nuisance rain into the far north of scotland. seven to nine degrees here, but if we keep the cloud, perhaps once again, five or six at the very best. now, as we move through the middle part of the week, we're going to see more of a significant front, particularly on wednesday, bringing some wetter and windier weather into scotland. this one will sink south and potentially bring some rain for england and wales. not that much, but certainly more than we've seen just recently. so some rain around on wednesday, and then things will then get a little bit brighter and hopefully just that little bit milder as well. this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. britain's deputy prime minister says russia will face severe economic sanctions if it installs a puppet regime in ukraine. russia is a permanent member of the un security council needs to live up to the basic tenet of international law and invading another country is not one of those. former uk conservative minister nusrat ghani tells the sunday times she was sacked from herjob, because of her muslim faith. the government chief whip mark spencer says her claim is completely false. tonga's government warns there's a long road to recovery — a week after the volcanic eruption and tsunami. survivors recall the moment the wave hit: nobody knew that there was a wave coming so, you know, in every