“I am not scared of the US president”: an interview with Eelsemaj99

The prime minister tells the Guardian that he believes President Trump is a racist, explains why the UK is leaving Erasmus, promises a white paper on a proposed police phone records database, reveals a policy pledge to introduce a single age of adulthood, and claims that the “Opportunity Budget” is fully paid for in a wide ranging interview.

Prime Minister Eelsemaj99 took part in an extensive exclusive interview with the Guardian.

It was behind the scenes of the Conservative party conference that I had the chance to sit down and interview Prime Minister Eelsemaj99. Mr 99 took up the post following the resignation of his predecessor, LeafyEmerald who occupied No 10 Downing Street for a total of 280 days – the longest tenure of any prime minister since 2014. I spoke to him just after he came off of the stage of the ICC in Birmingham where the party had been meeting for 3 days. The conference’s theme was “a record of delivery” and many of the speeches emphasised many of the Conservatives’ achievements in government this term and their plans if re-elected in August. The prime minister’s speech was no exception.

Slightly geeky, but with an air of confidence, Eelsemaj99 looks like he’s always thinking two or three steps ahead of anybody he’s talking to and has a constant aura of calm composition. As he sits down, joined in the room by a couple of aids, he looks relaxed and comfortable as always, as if he feels perfectly suited to this role. “Good evening Prime Minister, thank you for taking the time to sit down with me,” I say to start. He smiles and nods politely and we dive straight in. I start the interview by picking up on the words spoken by the prime minister on the conference stage just moments before, beginning with by comparing his fulsome praise of his coalition partners – the LPUK “have proven themselves reliable and trustworthy partners,” – with the scandals that have enveloped the party over the last few months. “What is it about the Deputy Prime Minister “screaming insults” across the chamber, in the words of one MP, a bill that would legalise racist abuse, and a former deputy leadership candidate telling an opposition MP to drown himself that you find so “reliable and trustworthy?” I ask.

“I was more referring to how they act behind closed doors,” he responds. “The LPUK are an extraordinarily trustworthy party when it comes to civility when making agreements, and in sticking to said agreements. While I agree that at times, the eccentric acts of some of their members in the chamber can be infuriating, they are a party that when it comes down to it, can be relied upon to be constructive partners in Government.” On whether the LPUK’s actions have been embarrassing to the government, the prime minister told me: “Some of their members have said embarrassing remarks, but really when it comes down to it their party is far from embarrassing.” He is more evasive on whether the party is his ideal coalition partner. He does confirm that he would be willing to work with them again next term, but only in general terms: “I am open to a coalition deal with any party or set of parties next term.”

I press him on his current partners in particular. “Is the LPUK your ideal coalition partner?”

“The LPUK has been a successful coalition partner this term.”

I push him again. “They have been good to work with, and I am happy that the party voted to coalition with them,” he says, still avoiding the question. “Equally I would have been as happy had we voted to coalition with the Classical Liberals and New Britain. I would love to see a Conservative majority govt and that’s what I’m fighting for.”

Moving onto policy, in his speech the PM said: “No longer will the young in our society be burdened with the responsibility of choosing our government because of the Representation of the People Bill.” I want to know what the prime minister thinks is so burdensome about voting that young people who can get married and start a family, join the armed forces, and play the lottery need to be relieved from. His answer goes in a different direction.

“I think marriage should be 18, I don’t think 16-17 is an appropriate time to start a family, nor should I think 16 year olds should be sent to war. I also don’t think just because you can play the lottery under the keen eye of shopkeepers who are keeping an eye on gambling abuse, is something that necessary results in a need to vote.

“16s and 17s are not legally adults. You cannot leave education till age 18, people under the age of 18 do not have the life experience, nor the responsibilities necessary for them to make informed decisions as to who to vote for in Elections, as they are by definition still in education. I think it’s right that only those who have had the opportunity to live independently, and out of compulsory education should have the right to vote, it’s quite simple.”

I ask whether the Conservative manifesto will act on that with measures on political education and raising the age of adulthood across the board. “In the upcoming education reform package, there will be promises on political education. Many schools already offer a civics course, but not all do. I would support raising the age on all the other areas discussed, yes. There should be a singular age of adulthood.” I ask for clarity on whether a singular age of adulthood will be a manifesto pledge. “It will be,” he answers after a short pause.

Mr 99 also used his speech to tout his government’s record on climate change, but he politely rejects the idea of declaring a climate emergency, emphasising the need for real action. “Climate Change does constitute a crisis, as I have said in the house several times. Declaring a climate emergency sounds flashy, but in reality is meaningless words. What we need is solid policy to tackle the Climate Crisis, such as we have seen in the Climate Change Act, and as we shall continue to see in further manifesto policy.”

He also refuses to promise welfare devolution regardless of the result of the ongoing royal commission on devolution in order to respect the referendum – a guarantee requested by Labour when it was set up during the “grand coalition” and which, in part, caused that government’s collapse. “If I was promising that, there would be no point to a commission. We will implement the recommendations of the commission, whatever they may be, as I have said in the speech… The referendum was not legitimate, there was no “no” campaign, and it was not sanctioned by the British government. Devolving it unilaterally will create a culture where devolved assemblies will claim whatever they want as a legitimate right, without consulting the Government. This only weakens the union. Hence, we have a Royal Commission.”

I challenge that: “So the government views the referendum as illegitimate despite the turnout over 50%, the majority yes vote, and the Scottish government’s legal ability to call a referendum?” He responds matter of factly. “I am sure that those facts will be taken on board by the Royal Commission when they make their ruling.”

Some of the government’s reforms this term have been highly controversial, particularly the relaxing of protest policing restrictions, the raising of the voting age, and the restoration of prescription charges, but the prime minister is adamant that these are reasonable and moderate reforms. “If you ask the average person on the street, I am sure that they would not want to be subject to uncontrollable violent riots, to Government chosen with those who are still in school and an underfunded NHS.”

As we talk, the education secretary, Shitmemery, says in the House of Commons on a bill banning exorcisms on those aged under 18: “I think many people below the age of 18 are capable of deciding for themselves.” I raise this with the prime minister who does not believe the cabinet minister is undercutting government arguments for raising the voting age to 18. “The bill that the Education secretary was referring to was about Exorcisms, the Government policy at present only extends to the voting age.” When pressed on whether the logic behind it undermines the government, he deflects: “This is best answered by the Government Press office. This was not the focus of my speech, and concerns matters not in the speech you are purporting to interview me about.” Moving back to the speech, and the achievements listed in his speech, the prime minister tells me his biggest achievement in No 10 “has got to be the Climate Change Act, without a doubt. My key aim for next term would be to get the best possible deal with the EU when we leave the Single Market.”

I also had to take the chance of an interview with the prime minister to ask about some of the details of “the Opportunity Budget” unveiled by the chancellor in his speech the day before, along with many of the other costly pledges outlined during the conference. The chancellor promised in his conference speech that the government would be hiring more teachers, renovating and building classrooms, introducing a fairer funding formula, replacing council tax with an LVT, cutting every band on income tax, cutting VAT, and bringing forward new measures on housing, all while ensuring a surplus and keeping debt falling. Meanwhile, the health secretary unveiled plans to increase the number of places for doctors and nurses, and the government has agreed with Plaid to provide funding for the Swansea Tidal Lagoon, to provide more money for the poverty reduction fund, and to increase the Welsh block grant. I ask the PM whether this spending spree and tax slashing is just an attempt to buy votes ahead of the August election and amid a Conservative polling drop.

“It seems to me that you assume that the Conservatives simply spend because we want to buy votes. This isn’t the case at all. due to a finance policy with strong foundations, we are able to provide sweeping investments that will serve the British people as a whole. We have always been a party of sensible investment and a party that funds necessary projects. Now, you bring up block grants and the tidal lagoon, in my view, these policies are a way of providing investment to Wales, which has up until now not received enough investment. The Swansea Tidal Lagoon will also help us move away from fossil fuel powered energy. I will point out that as a consequence of the Barnett formula, which serves as the foundation of the Government’s funding agenda, the Block Grants were always going to increase. The question is how much by?

“I would disagree with the sentiment that the Government is simply buying votes through making investments and altering taxation. Taking these sweeping measures project confidence in the British economy as a whole and shows that the economy is in good shape. It also prepares us for uncertainty caused by the situation abroad, such as, the trade war between the USA and China as the budget is running a surplus.”

heavy in this family

Have the huge number of promises been costed and where is the money coming from, I ask. “Yes we have costed it,” he responds. “All that needs to be done on the budget is the Finance Act, and it should be presented to the house in the next few days.” A government spokesperson has told the press since the interview was conducted that the budget is to be delivered later day. Asked again about how it is being paid for, he tells me: “As I said, the budget is coming out in the few days, so I won’t give too much away. We are instituting a Carbon levy, starting to take real action on climate change. We are also instituting a Land Value Tax, at 82% of the rental value of the land. Income tax will be merged with National Insurance, that’s all I’m saying on that front. We are satisfied that we have spent adequately, wait for the budget.” He commits that there will be a surplus.

His conference speech did not just focus on the past, however, with a number of new policies announced. Most controversially was a plan for police phone records to be kept in a bid to stamp out corruption. Opponents have said that this would be a violation of officers’ privacy. One of our most detailed and lengthy exchanges focused on this proposal. “I think that people have taken that policy the wrong way, that was not what I meant by that at all,” the prime minister says when asked whether it would be civil rights abuse for a lot of clean officers.

“Only recently have we discovered how endemic corruption is in our police forces. The very people who are meant to enforce the law are often the ones breaking it. This affects not just those around them but everyone as crime goes unsolved and people’s lives are affected. This is where my conference policy comes in. It acts not just as a tool to help root out the corrupt, but as a deterrent to those who would find themselves in league with Organised Crime Groups. Additionally, these databases will be kept under lock and key. The data will only be accessed with a genuine and justified reason behind it, and I can personally guarantee that.”

I want to drill into the detail of the proposal not spelled out in his speech. “What phones and phone calls will the database include – just professional, work phones, or personal phones, that may be used for corrupt activities, but will also be much more private, as well?”

“The current thinking is that this will just extend to professional phones,” he says.

On the detail of who is going to be responsible for managing the database and following up any

suspicious activity and what security will be in place to ensure there is no misuse or leaks, Mr 99 tells me that “we plan to issue a White Paper on the issue of Police corruption, which will have the full details.” Pressed again on whether police resources will be redirected from other crime to this surveillance and how the government will prevent the information from leaking, he says: “We realise that this is a sensitive issue, we will not rush into this and there will be adequate security using the most up to date methods. For the sake of the officers’ privacy, I better not say much more.” He says that the white paper will be published after the general election as it is currently only party, rather than government, policy.

He is reluctant to tell me whether the LPUK would support or veto the policy in any future government coalition, and gives yet further signals that he is not overly keen to run back to the party after the election. “You are making presumptions here as to how next term’s Government will look,” he answers curtly. “I cannot comment on the policies of a party I am not in.” Pressed on whether preliminary discussions have been held with the LPUK about next term he says, “We have, but I don’t know how much respective party leaders would like me to say about these discussions, I am sure that as a former party leader yourself, you understand.”

“Would you feel comfortable, if you were working in a job, and your boss proposed collecting your phone records and storing them in a database?” I ask

“Yes, as I’d know they were stored securely, and that if I were innocent, I’d have nothing to fear.”

The most heartfelt and detailed answer the prime minister gives throughout our long interview is on mental health and his plan to take on what he called the “loneliness epidemic”. He is passionate and seems thoroughly on top of the details of the issue and proposal to a much greater extent than on any other policy discussed. “As someone who myself has suffered from feelings of loneliness and isolation, this is an issue close to my heart. I think that the first step is to admit that it’s happening. And to get those too proud to admit they are suffering to admit it to themselves. this requires a shift in the way we think about mental health, that I am optimistic is underway. Now of course, this will have to rely on self-reporting, but there is a lot of action that can be taken when someone reports loneliness.

The internet can provide part of the solution, with counselling available 24/7, as well as the opportunity to build communities of people, helping people realise that they are never alone. For those who feel they are unpopular and unable to contribute in social situations, we will make available guidance for how to get more confidence in conversation. We will also work with local authorities, to find ways to preserve traditional methods of meeting people, such as the high streets, the pub trade and other such experiences. When I was Defence Secretary, I wrote and passed a bill creating Veterans Community Groups, and I believe that the same model can work for loneliness.”

His passion and knowledge continues on the government’s £5 billion investment in mental health and accompanying reforms. “Specialist child and adolescent mental health inpatient services will receive an increase in funding, with the money used principally on increasing bed capacity for impatient services and on better case management – Children and young people can therefore get better access to mental health care in the right settings. Young people can therefore be admitted into places closer to where they actually live, and away from the adult wards – putting less stress on families and the patients.

“Money would also be invested in improving access to, and services for, providing early intervention for psychosis. these services help young people to recover from a first episode of psychosis and to gain a good quality of life Further, some of the money would go towards an improvement to information collection and reporting of those with mental health related issues. Allowing for better access to the health records for patients suffering from mental health to be shared with the relevant bodies. This can help with rapid response to issues with a patient, and better sharing of data across the health service to deliver better care.

“Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) will receive additional support and funding for their Mental Health Support Teams to be rolled out across the education system in schools. That way early support can be delivered before the most serious cases of mental health are allowed to fully develop. A&E’s will see a permanent presence of a psychiatric specialist to ensure 24/7 emergency access for patients in desperate need.”

The health secretary also outlined a plan to give schools and teachers the responsibility for spotting children with potential mental health problems. The prime minister expands on what was a rough outline, promising proper guidance and training. “Of course, it would be unfair to implement such a policy without ensuring that the teachers are confident in what they are doing. As such, they will be required to do training courses on this issue, to ensure that they feel confident. We are also looking into creating a body where teachers can turn to if they are unsure how to handle a situation, to give them guidance.” He does not think it is a burden too far for teachers. “As someone with several teachers in my family myself I am confident that they can handle this responsibility.”

Staying on the theme of health, he says that the proposed Digital Health Act “will make it far easier for people to access their health records, it will make the NHS more efficient, and it will make for speedier and more accurate diagnostics. Personally, I have full confidence in the NHS to keep these secure.” Is he anticipating any additional security challenges as a result of the result of this policy, I ask. “No,” comes the simple response.

He also confirmed to me that three ambitious policies – universal child care, the end of no poach agreements and a “Small Business Bill of Rights” – which were ambiguously described in Business Secretary Amber_Rudd’s speech were all government policy. On how much universal child care would cost and how it will be paid for, he says, avoiding the question: “I am confident that we can afford it.” Pushed again on what the cost actually is and how it is to be paid for he, he once again dodges the details: “A preliminary draft has been costed, but I can’t comment on the cost until the bill has been completed. And as I say, we can pay for it.”

Of course, you say in your speech that in order to enact these policies, you have to win the next election. A new poll was released a few days ago showing a fresh drop for the Tories and Libertarians, with Labour less than 8 points behind you now. Are you worried that your party is now at its lowest point since October and your government is down 6.69% in the polls overall since the election and rapidly losing its once commanding lead, despite all of those achievements you’ve outlined, and what do you put this down to?

When I bring up the Conservative party’s recent polling drop, he brushes it off but I can’t help but feel he isn’t as unphased by it as he makes out. “Personally I don’t pay that much attention to polling. You don’t do actions for polling, polling follows action. I think that as a party, we are in danger of becoming complacent and resting on our laurels. This should not happen. This speech is a call to arms for the Conservative Party not to get complacent. We all believe in the good decent moderate policy we have discussed, but if the people don’t hear our plans how can they agree with them? The only poll that matters is the General Election. And the conservatives intend to win it.”

“So you’re still confident of a general election victory, and you’re not worried for your own leadership amidst this drop?” I ask pointedly. He nods and says: “I am confident that we can win this election, but it would be hubristic to say that it is already won. What the party needs to do is to come together and make the positive case for this nation. I am a leader that can spearhead this effort, and I am confident that I will continue to have the backing of the party.”

In the latter part of our interview I move on to some on-going foreign policy issues going on during and around the conference, beginning with US President Donald Trump’s racist tweets. On Sunday he used the social media website Twitter to tell four Democratic congresswomen of colour to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” When I ask the prime minister if he believes that these remarks are racist, he does not hesitate or prevaricate, and appears to have a sense of the potentially immense diplomatic ramifications of his words, particularly given that the president is due to visit the UK next week. “Yes I do. And I condemn him for saying that. However, this does not mean that we cannot keep up a positive working relationship with the US Government, and I am looking forward to the state visit of the US Government to the UK, taking place next week.”

He is far less forthcoming – one way or another – when I ask if he believes that the president is himself a racist. “I believe he has said racist comments on many occasions,” at the first time of asking. I ask him again. “And do you think that is because he himself is a racist?” He once again seeks to avoid the question, saying: “He says things that racists say.” On the third attempt – “So does that, in your view, make him a racist?” – he finally answers definitively, and simply, “Yes.” He says he will talk to the president about his comments and tell him his view to his face. “I am not scared of the US president,” he tells me, expanding on his answer, “But I will also not let this get in the way of British-American relations.”

The prime minister is not a political novice and he surely knows that his calling the president a racist is almost certain to draw a visceral reaction, but he is not willing to say so. “I wouldn’t like to speculate. As I said, I won’t do anything that will harm British-American relations.” Might the president do something to harm those relations? “Well, anything is possible, but there’s goodwill and a wish on both sides for this to succeed.”

Moving on to Iran – with the interview taking place before the events in the strait of Hormuz that led to the seizure of a British oil tanker by Iran – I ask whether the Iran nuclear deal can now be saved. His answer is short and to the point, like many of his answers throughout my extensive probing of him. One observation that came to mind was the gamble that I was taking with each question as some yielded straight, matter of fact responses while others result in my desperately attempting to nail jelly to the wall. “Yes, I am confident that it can be saved,” he tells me.

He is not willing to either apportion blame for the current situation with Iran to the US – who pulled out of the nuclear agreement which the Middle Eastern state had otherwise been keeping to – or absolve them of it, once again demonstrating his two very different styles of answering questions. “I will be speaking to the President about this certainly,” he says. “Personally, I don’t think we ought to be apportioning blame right now, that is counter productive. We are where we are and what we need to do now is to salvage the situation.”

Pressed again on whether there was anything specific that has led to this point, and how it can now be fixed, he is, once again, matter of fact. “I think this is a general consequence of US-Iranian relations, and yes it can be fixed by good diplomacy and calm headed negotiation.” But he refuses to give any further detail on what he wants to do to try and save the deal. “I think that the situation can be saved. Equally I won’t say much more on the subject as you understand it is sensitive and we don’t want to reveal too much of our hand at this stage.”

The government’s white paper on stage 2 of Brexit talks was also published around the time of our interview – months after the beginning of the transition period and the supposed start of the current phase of negotiations. The prime minister, a former Brexit secretary, says of the seeming delay that “we wanted to get the white paper right. Accuracy and detail is more important than speed here… A good but slow deal is better than a shoddy one that is made speedily.” He is confident that there will be enough time to conclude a deal. “That is why we agreed to a transitional period of the time we did.”

He also summarised the white paper’s main points for members of the public who will not read it: “I will be making a statement in the House this evening on the debate on the white paper, and I encourage everyone to tune in for that. But briefly, the White Paper reiterates our commitment to no hard border between the UK and Ireland, it lays out detailed plans as to our proposition for close co-operation with the EU on security matters, and details our plan for a fairer deal for fishermen as we leave the CFP.”

Scottish First Minister, and arch-remainer, Duncs11 delivered a scathing speech on the white paper in the Commons debate. He said that “This is a document which shows why Brexit under the Conservatives and LPUK was a very foolish decision, and it now looks like the British public are about to pay the price. This is a document which strips away rights, closes doors, and shuts down opportunities. This is a document which is at odds with absolutely everything we should stand for, and this is a document which proves why we should not have left.” He particularly highlights the end of the Erasmus exchange programme for British students.

I asked the prime minister why the government is pulling out of this programme. “At its heart, Erasmus is a student exchange scheme run by the EU, allowing members, candidate countries and members of the EEA to swap students on year long exchanges, organised by the University. The Government very much would like to continue as a part of this scheme, and I believe that as Brexit Secretary I even promised to the House that we would remain within the Erasmus Scheme. At the time I believed that to be viable.

“The Government, However, believes that the EU would block any attempt for the UK to remain a part of the Erasmus Scheme after the transition period, Switzerland was kicked out in 2014, and as such it would be dishonest to say in the White Paper that we expect to stay a member post-transition. However, We are optimistic that we will be able to agree to a similar exchange programme to the Erasmus Scheme, and when going into negotiations, we will push to create one such scheme, an Erasmus replacement if you like.”

“Would you first seek to ask the EU if you could remain and do you think they would agree to a replacement?” I ask him.

In a slightly startling answer, the prime minister says to me: “I think that it is unlikely that they would accept but I suppose we could.”

Surprised, I follow up. “So first seeking the EU’s definite answer on Erasmus was not originally part of the strategy?” He responds that “it was not, as the Government is convinced that it will reject any requests out of hand.” He says he will now consider making the request first. I ask why, assuming they should reject our membership, what reason they would have to sign up to a British-led alternative. The PM says: “It will be a bespoke deal that will be designed in the start to meet the UK’s objectives. EU Universities already do exchange programmes with non-EU universities, I am rather optimistic.”

Not satisfied that he has answered the question, I press again. “If the EU is against British participation in Erasmus, what reason would they have to then sign up to a British version meeting British objectives?” He glibly corrects me. “It would meet UK-EU objectives.” I persevere, asking again: “So what reason would the EU have to with one hand reject UK efforts to join Erasmus and the next sign on to a new, British version?”

Mr 99 once again avoids the question. “As I say, it already is common worldwide.”

I push back again. “But why would the EU would be unwilling to allow the UK to participate in Erasmus and then sign up to a British alternative? What would the operational difference be for them that would make it more palatable or lead them to approach with a different attitude?”

Changing his reasoning entirely, he now says: “It is not about the EU being unwilling to allow our participation in Erasmus , it is about the EU using our membership of the scheme to continually wring concessions out of us. It is not unlikely that they will threaten to suspend our membership if we did not accept unconditional freedom of movement from the European Union, and this would spit in the face of what the British people voted for. Alternatively, if we were to set up our own scheme, it would be in the EU’s interests to come to an agreement with us regarding participation. The United Kingdom has some of the most prestigious universities in the world, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham to name a few. Why would they not wish to maintain access to these universities?”

Quoting his words back at him in regards to his logic switch, I say: “With respect, Prime Minister, when explaining why we would leave Erasmus, you said, ‘The Government, However, believes that the EU would block any attempt for the UK to remain a part of the Erasmus Scheme after the transition period, Switzerland was kicked out in 2014, and as such it would be dishonest to say in the White Paper that we expect to stay a member post-transition.’ When did the government’s rationale go from being concerned about rejection to being concerned about the UK’s membership being exploited?”

“Both concerns were always considered by the Government,” comes the calm reply, either because he is trying to hide the mistake, or because he has not realised that it happened.

“So,” I begin, trying to make sense of the prime minister’s replies, “the government does not want to apply to remain in Erasmus as it is concerned that their application to remain in the programme would be rejected, but if it were rejected that the UK would be exploited? And if the concern of the EU exploiting our membership is a serious one then why would the EU reject our continued membership?”

Remaining calm, he tells me: “We will either be rejected or exploited if we reapply to join this intra-EU scheme. both are bad outcomes for us. A UK-EU scheme can be worked out between us and to the satisfaction of both parties.”

Moving to a softer question as we near the end of our time, I ask if he has spoken to European commission president-elect Ursula von der Leyen and what he had to say to her. “We have exchanged pleasantries but not had any substantial talks as of yet. An unpredicted pick, but one we can certainly work constructively with.”

Finally, as his aides begin to gesture frantically at clocks, I ask one final question aimed at finding out a little about the man who resides in No 10 beyond policy. “What’s the naughtiest thing you’ve ever done?” There’s a pause as he thinks. He doesn’t make any sounds during this moment of reflection. Other, less controlled politicians may have started thinking aloud with words such as “goodness me,” and facial expressions of panic and thought, but ever calm he waits until he has his answer. “Well I guess you’d find the anime pretty naughty, but as it’s not NSFW, I don’t. Apart from that, I remember when I was younger I used to run through fields of wheat. Hmm or maybe that time when I deliberately locked my sister out of the house when I was away for the weekend. She went out without a key on her so naturally when I left, I locked both doors and posted the spare keys through the letterbox, from their secret hiding place.”

I ask whether she’s forgiven him for that yet, and he laughs it off, saying: “Yes, but I have yet to forgive her for taking a sledgehammer to the back door to get in. Well I say that – I have, it’s just funny to joke about at times.” And with that we shake hands, share brief pleasantries and he is whipped away to make the late night journey back to London and No. 10.

A full analysis by the Guardian of this interview, the key moments and the reaction will follow later on today.