Alastair Campbell: The Political Debate Has Become Incredibly Superficial

Alastair Campbell is one of the defining names in British politics. Tony Blair’s tenure as prime minister cannot be explained without Campbell, who served as his director of communications. Today, he is one of the leading figures in British political journalism. His podcast, The Rest is Politics, together with former diplomat and author Rory Stewart, racks up millions of downloads every month. Through his microphones have passed Rishi Sunak, Yuval Noah Harari, Helen Clark, Keir Starmer, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and Pedro Sánchez, among others. About his success, he believes it responds to a clear demand: “People are tired of constant outrage. They are tired of politics being trivialized”, he says.

Campbell opened the doors of his London home to me during one of the most significant moments in British politics: just days before Andy Burnham’s arrival at 10 Downing Street—though the “king in the north” plans to spend a lot of time in his new office in Manchester. Campbell has known Burnham for years and admits that, “if back then you’d asked me if I would become prime minister, I would probably have said no”. Yet he acknowledges in him great virtues and sees him capable of standing up to the hard right of Nigel Farage. “Populists are not defeated by copying them, but by offering a better alternative”, he explains.
 

Tell me about the new prime minister.

I’ve known Andy for a long time. We met when he was in his mid-twenties and worked as a researcher for a Labour MP who was also a minister. He was already involved at the Labour Party’s national headquarters during the 1997 campaign and, a few years later, entered Parliament, was named a minister and eventually became part of the Cabinet.

If back then you had asked me whether he would become prime minister, I would probably have said no. In part, because we were all so immersed in the Blair-Brown era that it was difficult to imagine anyone else leading the party.

What has impressed me most is how much he has grown, especially since he left Westminster to become the mayor of Greater Manchester. In fact, this morning I was rereading the book he co-authored with Steve Rotheram. It is interesting to see how many of the ideas he presents today have been part of his thinking for years: the need to deepen decentralization, reform Westminster and Whitehall, change how the Government operates, and improve decision-making. There is real coherence to his political trajectory.

“It is interesting to see how many of the ideas he puts forward today [Burnham] have been part of his thinking for years”

He is also a much better communicator than Keir Starmer. I have immense respect for Keir, but I think he faced difficulties dealing with some of the realities of contemporary politics. There’s another thing that surprised me: I never thought Andy was particularly ruthless. Yet he has shown that, when necessary, he can be.

Do you think he is the right prime minister to take on Nigel Farage?

Yes. He became prime minister, for the most part, because he took a huge political risk. He forced by-elections in one of the UK’s most Brexit-favorable constituencies and won decisively. That demonstrated to the Labour Party that they could beat him where others could not.

Curiously, even before all that happened, I had already begun to think that Nigel Farage had probably reached his ceiling. I may be wrong—perhaps it’s wishful thinking—but that is my impression. Politics also requires luck.

Since Andy became prime minister, Farage has virtually disappeared from political discourse. Instead, he is preoccupied with his own troubles: internal disputes, financial controversies, and a by-election that has become a source of embarrassment. So yes, I believe Andy is well positioned to confront him.

“Since Andy became prime minister, Farage has practically disappeared from political discourse”

Something that encouraged me particularly was his first statement as prime minister. He said: “We are not going to defeat Reform by becoming Reform.” It’s exactly that. Populists are not defeated by copying them, but by offering a better alternative.

Look at what he has done in his first days in office. Nothing revolutionary, but all the decisions send the same message: address the cost-of-living crisis, support people on low incomes, and help those who are struggling. That defines him politically.
 

Do you think he understands the nature of today’s political polarization in the UK? Is he prepared for this new way of doing politics?

It’s still very early. After all, politicians are not judged by what they promise, but by what they actually do.

One of Andy’s strengths is that he genuinely knows how to deal with people. He isn’t acting. When he talks about music, football, or helping others, you believe him because he is authentic.

Of course, now that he is prime minister, he will inherit everything that comes with the role: hostility, online insults, manufactured indignation, and that algorithm-driven hatred that increasingly dominates politics. But I think he will cope with it better than most.

Another thing I find interesting is that he seems determined not to spend every day attacking his opponents. That carries a risk, because they, of course, will not stop attacking him. Social media will continue to amplify outrage, misinformation, and personal attacks.

“In many respects, it seems like the UK’s last chance to regain trust in politics”

But I am optimistic. I am a Labour voter and the past few months have been tough. Still, I genuinely believe this is an opportunity. In many ways, it seems to be Britain’s last chance to restore faith in politics.

British political instability has been extraordinary over the last decade. Is Brexit the main cause?

I think Brexit explains a significant part. Brexit rewarded a way of doing politics based on populism, dishonesty, and the internal divisions of the Conservative Party. Those divisions never disappeared.

David Cameron called the referendum because of internal Conservative tensions. He lost and resigned. Theresa May became prime minister because she seemed a reliable figure, but she also failed to resolve Brexit.

“Brexit rewarded a way of doing politics based on populism, dishonesty, and the internal divisions of the Conservative Party”

Then Boris Johnson arrived with the promise to “complete Brexit.” He won the elections and carried it out, and it has been a disaster. He did not fall because of Brexit per se, but because he was, at heart, a fraud. After him came Liz Truss and she managed to plunge the British economy in a matter of weeks. Looking at that sequence of events, it’s not surprising that the UK began to look like a country that doesn’t take itself seriously.

For years we joked that Italy or Japan changed prime ministers constantly. Now Giorgia Meloni has held the post longer than almost all British prime ministers since David Cameron. It is extraordinary.

Do you think Andy Burnham could campaign for the UK to rejoin the European Union?

I don’t know. He cannot do too much in this term because he remains bound by Labour’s current electoral program, but I do think he can start pointing in a direction.

Personally, I prefer talking about entering the European Union rather than rejoining. The EU itself is changing. It could become an organization with different levels of membership, varying speeds of integration, and a broader membership that includes countries like Ukraine, the Western Balkans, Norway, and Iceland. That is the Europe I would like to see.

“Prefer to talk about entering the European Union rather than re-entering”

Andy has long advocated constitutional reform, electoral reform, and greater decentralization. Those ideas have not disappeared. Now that he is prime minister, he can begin laying the groundwork. Yet the most significant reforms would probably have to wait until after other general elections.
 

I’d like to ask him about The Rest Is Politics. I think one of the reasons for its success is that it shows people with different political positions having a civil conversation. In a time of growing polarization, you have shown that disagreement does not have to entail hostility.

I think that’s true, but I’d put it a little differently. Our main aim isn’t merely to prove that people can disagree politely. It is to help understand that politics is complicated, but also fascinating.

One of the biggest problems today is that political debate has become incredibly superficial. Complex issues are reduced to slogans, and everything is presented as a battle between two rival tribes.

What Rory Stewart and I are trying to do is tackle difficult political questions and debate them in an accessible way, but without oversimplifying them. When we disagree, we do so openly. But we don’t accuse each other of lying or assume that only one side can be right. Politics doesn’t work that way.

“One of the biggest problems today is that political debate has become incredibly superficial.”

We launched the podcast four years ago. We now average around 21 million downloads per month and it continues to grow almost exclusively via word of mouth. For me, that demonstrates something important: there is a large audience seeking thoughtful political debates. People are tired of constant outrage. They are tired of politics being trivialized.

I also think traditional political journalism remains trapped in an older way of covering politics. Look at what is happening today. The dominant political story is the release of prisoners. It’s an important issue, of course, but suddenly the entire political conversation centers around a single case.

That is happening more and more: one story swallows everything. What gets lost is the context, and without context it is almost impossible to understand politics correctly. Social media has greatly amplified this problem. Everything becomes immediate, emotional, and absolute.

Recently I laughed because there is a British satire program called Dead Ringers. They often imitate Rory and me. Last week they staged a scene in which a BBC interviewer asks Andy Burnham, just days after becoming prime minister: “You must be disappointed to have become Britain’s most unpopular prime minister in history.”

That is the culture we have created. Politicians barely have time to govern before they are declared failures.

“What is lost is the context, and without context it is almost impossible to understand politics correctly”

The interesting thing is that this format is, to some extent, replacing the kind of journalism I used to practice. Traditional political journalism isn’t dead, but it faces enormous pressure. Podcasts offer something different: they allow depth. And I think people are increasingly seeking that depth.

The same is happening with books. In the United Kingdom they are performing extraordinarily well because readers are looking for something that simply cannot be obtained from social media or continuous news. They want context and complexity.

As prime minister, can you compare Andy Burnham to Tony Blair?

That is a very difficult comparison. Tony Blair was an exceptional political leader. People often remember his charisma, his communication ability, his sense of humor, and his confidence. All of that was real. But what many people underestimated was the quality of his thinking.

Tony pondered public policies with extraordinary depth. He genuinely enjoyed analyzing complex problems. Andy certainly possesses many of those qualities.

But being prime minister is unlike any other political role. He has been a government minister. He has been mayor of Greater Manchester. They are important positions, but the leap from those responsibilities to the office of prime minister is enormous.

I often compare it to cricket. When you’re a minister, it’s like facing a single very fast bowler. When you’re prime minister, it’s like facing twenty fast bowlers at once, attacking you from different directions. Everything comes at you all at once. Each crisis becomes yours. Each decision is yours.

Only time will tell whether Andy is capable of handling it. What I would say is that he possesses a quality Tony also had: calm. He does not let panic take over. Pedro Sánchez, in fact, also has that quality. It is one of his strengths.

“When you are a minister, it’s like facing a single very fast bowler. When you are prime minister, it’s like facing twenty fast bowlers at once”

Andy also has an excellent ability to relate to people. But I think the current political environment is considerably tougher than the one Tony Blair inherited in 1997. The economy is more fragile, politics more fragmented, and international relations more unstable. Today, simply leading is harder.

Thank you very much.