First published as two volumes in 2016 and 2019 by
Haus Publishing Ltd
4 Cinnamon Row
London SW11 3TW
www.hauspublishing.com
This first updated and expanded paperback edition published in 2020
Copyright Peter Hennessy and Robert Shepherd, 2016, 2019, 2020
Copyright Melvyn Bragg, 2019
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
These interviews were first broadcast on BBC Radio 4
ISBN: 978-1-912208-98-2
eISBN: 978-1-912208-99-9
Typeset in Garamond by MacGuru Ltd
Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays Elcograf S.p.A.
All rights reserved.
Foreword
Melvyn Bragg, on Reflections, Volume II, published in 2019
Peter Hennessy has pulled off the triple! He is a distinguished academic in the crowded field of political commentary; in the House of Lords he is acknowledged, from his seat on the cross bench, as the gold standard in debates concerning constitutional matters his views listened to almost reverently and widely discussed afterwards in the corridors and tea rooms; and here, in this book, he shows himself to have become a superlative interviewer of Those Who Rule Over Us!
From these compliments he may reel back in horror, but they are heartfelt and Ive no doubt shared by all who know him. He is someone we attend to carefully, especially in our current constitutional turbulence.
This book consists of twelve interviews selected from his Radio 4 series, Reflections. The range is catholic, from Michael Heseltine to Margaret Hodge, Tony Blair, Sayeeda Warsi, Kenneth Baker, Harriet Harman, Michael Howard, Paddy Ashdown, Iain Duncan Smith, David Blunkett, William Hague and Vince Cable.
At first sight, the range can seem rather limited in that seven of the twelve are Members of the House of Lords. But none of them inherited the position. I would argue that, in the current disposition of Parliament, being in the Lords can be seen as not a limitation but an asset, above all a chance to speak freely and without constraint.
They have all had careers inside and outside politics which, as we can see in the interviews, have greatly enriched their views. It is widely argued now that the perceived weakness, even mediocrity, of the House of Commons is directly related to the fact that so many of its Members have been professional politicians one way or another for most of their early adult lives from student politics to political research to a safe seat, often parachuted in, largely untainted by contact with the outside world of hard knocks.
The Lords has a far broader span, and, despite its baggage of tradition, it conducts what to outsiders often seem to be more intensely informed and democratically driven debates than those of their masters in the other House.
Peter Hennessy is pitch perfect for the job he has set himself as an interviewer here. When the dust settles, what will be our enduring chronicles? It used to be the stories of kings and saints; it became the multi-volume hagiographies of the great and famous, men almost exclusively; now I would suggest the interview might prove to be the most enduring of all. It is vigorously various: snappy interviews; urgent interviews; hectoring, bludgeoning, interruptive interviews; sycophantic interviews; under-researched interviews but at its best, as demonstrated in these pages, an interview can give, on television, but perhaps more especially on radio, here transferred to print, a portrait of its subject in a way which carries greater authority than anything previously attempted. The subject is not an object but an equal, and that brings a unique veracity. In the right hands, it can be the new First Draft of History.
Television seems to have the advantage. The human face, we are told by psychologists and film directors, can in itself without words transmit a cluster of impressions is the face we see being honest or fake? Is it pretending to be modest? But what about that boastful imminent smirk? Is anger being held in, is passion being faked? Theres no doubt that, as Ingmar Bergman said of his films, the greatest shots were always those of the human face, because it expressed so much more than anything else.
I suggest that radio at its finest can match and even surpass this. Partly because the paraphernalia of television, the cameras and the clutter in the making of a programme, is undeniably distracting, and vanity is teased and gets in the way. Few sane people enjoy being photographed for public consumption, and those who do strike a pose. Radio is a voice from outer space. The set-up is as simple as a sitting room. Peter Hennessy is there with one person, one microphone, a couple of chairs in a small and usually windowless studio, a table between himself and the politician near perfect as an environment for trust. It is also an invitation to honesty.
But the trust has to be earned and the honesty has to be available. These interviews earn the trust of the interviewee and of the audience through the indisputable knowledge of the interviewer and his steady high purpose, his persistence to seek out the core. His questions are put with a gentle but steely persistence, and his subjects respond to that.
They know that they are with someone who respects their calling without needing to flatter their egos. Hennessys method both reassures and spurs on his subjects. They know that what they say will be as good as they can hope to say in any public forum. They give a feeling to me that they are aware that they are on the record and they have to tell the truth.
I would be very surprised if most or all of them would fail to choose their Reflections interview as their most truthful chronicle.
And so we get Michael Heseltine scrupulously telling us the minutiae of his sometimes very lucky steps up the ladder. Hennessy allows Heseltine to be both playful and profound. There is a strong feeling of nothing being hidden. Without provoking self-congratulation, he is steered through the successful career which gave him such a formidable moral and financial reach. He is also endearingly rueful about why he did not finally make the top slot.
With Margaret Hodge, Hennessy is determined to track the difficult career she had and is full of admiration for it, but does not hesitate to take on the mistakes she made when, on Islington Council, she did not by any means satisfy her own standards on the subject of child abuse: I was wrong. I was wrong. I wish he could return to her for another interview now and we could hear her passionate, informed and despairing views on the Labour Partys anti-semitism.
