tensions in london. the assistance forces commissioner praised officers who put themselves in harm's way. and the uk pays tribute to the armed forces on remembrance sunday. the latest headlines at the top of the hour. now on bbc news, political thinking with nick robinson. hello and welcome to political thinking. this week saw the first king's speech in 70 years. the first, and who knows, maybe the last, under prime minister rishi sunak, after 13 years of conservative rule. at the centre of power in those 13 years, both in pushing original policies and allegedly sinister plotting behind—the—scenes, is today's guest on political thinking. a conversation, with rather than a newsy interrogation of, someone who shapes our thinking about what shaped theirs. he, if you've not guessed yet, is michael gove. he's found some pretty surprising allies during his ministerial career. he is praised now as housing secretary by housing campaigners. whereas tory supporting developers complain about what he's doing. he was praised by environmentalists when he was environment secretary, and byjustice reformers when he was in charge of england's prisons. he is, though, often condemned by conservatives condemned by conservatives as a sort of plotting genius. michael gove, welcome back to political thinking. thanks, nick. when we last spoke, back in 2019, days after you declared you wanted to be leader of the conservative party, you spoke movingly about your adoptive parents, and the influence they had had on you. and you said that you wanted to prove to them that they'd made the right decision. what did you mean, and have you been able to prove to them? what i meant was that there was a real sense of gratitude and also obligation. so, my parents took a gamble and a risk, taking me into their lives. i saw my mum last weekend, i was up in aberdeen. - i saw my mum last weekend, i was up in aberdeen. my dad passed away almost exactly a year ago. i was just chatting with my mum about the decision to adopt. when you are adopting a child, you do not know who you are taking into your home. as a result, it is a commitment to love and to care for a stranger. and that is a huge thing. and in my mind, because my mum and dad made big sacrifices for me, has always been the thought that i should try to prove to them that the risks they took, the sacrifices they made, were not in vain. that, as well as being a decent son, i could also repay that by doing something worthwhile with my life. now, as you say, there are lots of people who will say, if you really want to do something worthwhile with your life, you're better off being a social worker than a politician and creating the rows and controversy with which you have been associated. but that sense of wanting to give something back, and indeed some of the particular themes and policies i chose to get involved in, reflected that. you've said in the past that perhaps your impatience that is so visible in politics, your restlessness in politics, is connected with being adopted. is that because you have a sense of not being totally grounded, despite the love your parents obviously gave you? it's partly that. it's partly also that when i was a shadow education spokesman, i came across, in looking at the statistics, one school that i think was in blackpool, liverpool, certainly in the north—west of england, where the children there, only i% secured five good gcses including english and maths. and i thought, if my life had been slightly different, if i'd been adopted by a different set of parents, i might have found myself in that school. i might have found myself in a place where, for whatever reason, the opportunities that i did enjoy were not manifest. so the key thing in my mind is you only have a limited amount of time in politics in government. during that time, you should try to make a difference. and you should keep in mind who you are trying to make a difference for. in my mind was the thought of the 11—year—old me and the 11—year—old entering that school. i often think the most revealing question in politics is what makes you angry. what stirs you? is it the plight of that ii—year—old? is that what makes you cross? yes, inequality. inequality, and you are a conservative? the fundamental thing, i think, is that you do need to have a society where wealth is created and where individuals have the chance to soar, and their talents can be rewarded. but... a society that is narrowly meritocratic, that thinks you're rich because you are worth it, is not a moral society. you are rich, yes, because you worked hard, but also because you are fortunate. and we have an obligation to those who are unfortunate, those who are poorer, those whose circumstances have meant they haven't had the chance to flourish. have you changed ? because i've noticed that, as you go through the reforms you're doing now, as housing and levelling up secretary, you did injustice, the environment, you constantly seem to pick a fight with natural conservative supporters. i mean now, on housing, you are having a row in your own party about whether to take on landlords. yes. to give them fewer powers, to give renters more powers. - before we get to the policy, have you shifted in your view about where power lies in society? i think it has evolved while i've been in government, but not hugely. you're right, when i was in education, lots of people were upset with what i was doing. i would argue that the results now show that those changes were worthwhile. but what drove my approach then, when i first entered government, was a belief that the education system needed to help the most disadvantaged, most of all. my drive to make sure that we had higher standards for all, even though it involved some pretty conservative approaches, by social justice imperative, which is to defeat what george bush has called the soft bigotry of low expectations. what is interesting, as i say, when you talk about the later departments you took on, we talk about housing now, you are praised. and you were beginning to say you thought your views had evolved about capitalism ? mmm. about big business? yes. about what role they play in perpetuating the thing you say you loathe, inequality? yes. i am a fundamental believer in free markets. but also, a believer in the argument put forward by the austrian economistjoseph schumpeter that, left to their own devices within markets, there is a tendency toward monopolies and oligopolies, technical terms that basically means the big players get bigger and they squeeze out the little guy. and as well as squeezing out the little guy, they also have a tendency then to behave in a way that doesn't serve the consumer, the citizen, the individual. so far from being anti—capitalist, i would argue i was very pro—capitalism, but to understand capitalism, you need to understand that tendency, and that means you need to see, a, how can we keep things competitive? and b, where you have people who are behaving in a way that essentially rigs the system, you need to intervene, proportionately. it's not a licence for the state playing a massive role, but you do need, sometimes, that proportionate action. now, taking on, therefore, sometimes the vested interests in capitalism takes us to grenfell tower. yes. you appear to acknowledge, even though the inquiry�*s not finished, even though there is more than we need to know, even though i'm sure you won't want to prejudge it, that something fundamental went wrong in terms of deregulation and in terms of companies exploiting that deregulation to put safety very low on their list of priorities. was that a fault of capitalism, if you like? i don't know if it was a fault inherently of capitalism as a system, nor, and one has to be careful here, is deregulation overall a bad thing. you have to be vigilant. too much regulation, the wrong sort of regulation, impoverishes and indeed sometimes can create new risks and new dangers. but you are right, in the case of grenfell, and again we mustn't prejudge the inquiry or any criminal investigations that follow, but it's pretty clear from what we've seen that there were individual companies that behaved in a way that was beyond reckless. they knew the products they were selling could put people's lives at risk, and they went ahead anyway. it was also the case that there was a flawed system of regulation and oversight in this country, and we need to put it right. i wouldn't say that those flaws derive from a particular ideological starting point, but they do need to be put right. but the flaws might be ignored from a particular ideological viewpoint. but the flaws might be ignored from a particular ideological viewpoint. in other words, it may be that conservatives have a tendency to think, regulation bad, deregulation good. companies good, public sector involvement bad. is that something the modern conservative party has to change? i know exactly what you mean, but actually i think the experience of government is, and the experience of the conversations i've had with conservative parliamentary colleagues is, yes, of course we believe in the free market, we believe in limiting the size of the state, but we also believe that there is a role for the state. and we need to be balanced. i want to take you back. yes. even before the conservatives got into power in 2010, when you and your friend david cameron were talking about how to get into power, how to change the tory party. you talked about modernising, you talked about detoxifying the tory brand. when you look around at the state of politics now, do you wonder at the dramatic change to a much more toxic do you wonder at the dramatic change to a much more toxified political system than there was then? i think a critical thing is, 2008 and the financial crash. i think, for a variety of reasons, that and some other incidents like the expenses crisis and so on, shook confidence... you're not saying brexit and i know people will be and i know people will be shouting at the radio to say brexit. no, i think the thing is that brexit followed on from the profound upheavals that the events of 2008 brought about. the first phase of david cameron's leadership was about optimism, let sunshine rule the day. then, in the period following 2008, before 2010, we recognised that we needed to prepare the country for some tough times, what became known as austerity. subsequent to that, yes, you are right, there have been a number of wrenching political events, which i think often have their roots in that period, including brexit, including the lockdown and the huge costs that imposed on society. which have had an impact. there is something else as well. it's wrong for politicians to blame the media, but social media has meant we are in a situation a bit like the first couple of the 18th century, when you had an explosion in pamphleteering and printing. you had a period where you had what was called the rage of party. it is not historically unprecedented when you have a big media change, a wrenching political change, to have a slightly more... what's the word? er, heated political culture. toxic, many people would say. so it's the economy, stupid. partly. it's social media, stupid. partly. it may be about the end of american hegemony, which is leading to more conflict. yeah. ..around the world, which brings us to where we find ourselves now. and many people see this terrible conflict in the middle east, which is breaking so many hearts back at home, as part of that global change. do you feel, as communities secretary, comfortable when the home secretary labels thousands who are worried about what's happening in gaza as hate—marchers? well, i think, as you know, the whole question of extremism is one i have taken an interest in, even before i became a member of parliament. i wrote a book, which in itself was quite controversial at the time, about this. the home secretary is right to draw attention to the fact that anti—semitism, the oldest hatred, which asjonathan sacks reminded us, mutates over time, has a hold on parts of society in a way that, as we can now see, has made the people in thejewish community feel more exposed, more at risk, more concerned than at any time since the aftermath of the second world war. so it's a profound cause of concern. and anti—semitism is a form of hate. now, it requires care, i think, and thought, in recognising the distinction between a perfectly legitimate criticism of israel and its government, and then when that criticism, and there are very thoughtful and scholarly analyses of how you draw that distinction, when that criticism moves into something anti—semitic. when you are talking about israel as the world's onlyjewish state, you are using anti—semitic tropes and arguments. so i think the home secretary was right to draw attention to the fact that there were people, have been people on those marches, who have said hateful things. it's also the case, and i don't think this is facile, it's true, it is also the case that there are people who have historically been attached to the plight of the palestinian people, and nobody can feel indifferent to a civilian death. you mentioned a book you wrote. yes. in the aftermath of 7/7, the terrible terrorist attacks in london, bombs on the london underground, bombs on the bus. you wrote then, "nowhere has moral clarity been more lacking in british state policy over the last 10—15 years than in our approach to the islamist threat." yes. others may prefer the phrase islamic extremism to islamist. mmm. is that still true? i think it is an area where we haven't done as we should. i should say that the prime minister who articulated the scale of the problem best was david cameron. that's not to say that other prime ministers haven't also felt the need to act appropriately against this danger. one of the particular concerns that i have, and indeed the way in which you phrased the question, very wisely reflects this. people get confused by certain terms. islamism is not islam. islamism is a particular ideology, and its relation to islam is the relation of marxism to socialism, or fascism to patriotism. it takes a particular set of principles and turns them into a totalitarian ideology. and you can see that there are thinkers, hassan al—banna, maududi, who are the godparents of this ideology. my book was an attempt to explain that, and i think it has been the case, notwithstanding the very good efforts of very many ministers, that there is still more that we need to do in order to give comfort to, and to support, the overwhelming majority of british muslims, to recognise that islam is a force for good. and at the same time, to look at the nature of the extremist narrative, and how it is conveyed and how people are radicalised. the point of your book, i think, let's stress it was written a very long time ago. yes. was that institutions have allowed themselves to be captured by a sort of thinking that means they don't confront islamic extremism. is that true now of the police? no, i think the police have a very good understanding of some of these challenges. you know, the reason i ask you, we're doing this interview on a day when the home secretary has invited huge criticism, even, it seems, from ten downing street for an article that she's written in the times in which she accuses the police, in particular the metropolitan police, of having a double standard when it comes to protest, being tough on what she calls right wingers and nationalists and football hooligans, and not being tough at all on people who promote hate, anti—jewish hate in particular. does she speak for the government? does she speak for you? suella's a friend of mine. and one of the things i know is that being home secretary, having seen a number of other friends do the job, is a tough and pressurised job. i would not want to second guess a ministerial colleague who's in that tough position. but do you agree with her? well, again, iwould not want to interpolate myself into that conversation. i'm not going to criticise suella because it's a really tough job. there's a lot weighing and i know, i've seen up close, suella working incredibly hard and also incredibly constructively with the police in order to deal with these challenges and suella, like me and like many others, is deeply concerned about what may happen if a march goes ahead on armistice day, and the police feel... they conduct an assessment of the security. they feel that it can go ahead. we have to respect the professional judgment of the police. there is a lot on your plate at the moment. housing reforms. you've talked to communities about what you're trying to do about anti—jewish hatred. there's also a book out called the plot. oh, yes. have you read nadine dorries' book? i haven't yet. when it came to behind the scenes manipulating and manoeuvering, all roads lead back to michael gove, writes your former cabinet colleague, because he binds all the dark art people together. true? it's very flattering. she makes me sound a bit like severus snape. no. nadine was a talented minister, as health minister during the pandemic, he did a greatjob. as culture secretary, she was one of the people most committed to levelling up. there's a but coming. no, no. and therefore, she's got every right now to speak her mind. and i haven't yet read the book. and so i won't pass comment on it until you actually said she was a great fiction writer because she is well known other than to people who heard her on this political broadcast. a best selling author, i think she's sold 3 million books. you know, i won't pass comment on the book. i think it's fiction. i won't passjudgement on the book until i read it. i may not even after that. all i would say is that nadine is a gifted writer. she was a committed minister, and she's a fighter for what she believes in. and i wish her well. you are cursed, i think, throughout your life to be asked three things. brexit? yes. education reforms. and borisjohnson. so let me not disappoint by saying when you told the country wasn't fit to be prime minister in 2016 because he cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead, do you think you've been proved spectacularly right? i think i'll leave it to historians to form a judgment. the truth is, i liked working with and for boris. of course, he's a polarising character in terms of political conversation now. i prefer to think of the good that he did, his personal warmth and generosity, and also the fact that, on covid in general and the vaccine in particular, in response to aggression in ukraine, he had a a drive and a passion to do the right thing. he had flaws. but overall, i think that an attempt to either paint boris as somehow, you know, irredeemably bad, or to elevate him to martyr status, doesn't do justice to the complexity of politics. boris's style of government style, of operating is very, very different from most people's. he will rehearse different sides of an argument before coming down on one side. that's the way he does things. in other words, forgive me for interrupting, but the famous two columns, the leave and remain, this is a modus operandi. it wasn't that he couldn't make his mind up on brexit? no, no, absolutely. that is what he does. and thesis, antithesis, synthesis. and also and boris will sometimes say things in the heat of the moment which are expostulations of an extreme position, which are there in a way to hold up to the light, the logic of a particular thing, and then say, no, that's preposterous. well, that's ridiculous, and so on. but it was also the case that i saw him... the vaccine taskforce would not have been created without him. we would not have had the fastest rollout without his leadership. i do believe that at the very early stages of the pandemic, yo