The resignation of /u/model-mili has sparked the first public leadership election since 2015. At the time of print, there are five candidates, with just hours left before tonight’s 10pm candidacy deadline. The first to publish their manifesto, and thus the first to be interviewed by The Times, is /u/Yukub. The archetypal Tory grandee, Yukub has seemingly been on MHoC forever. He is by far the most experienced candidate in the race, but could this go against him in what is a varied and enthusiastic field? The Times sat down with Yukub earlier this afternoon.

UH: Yukub, thank you for joining me.

Y: Thank you for extending the invitation, it’s always a pleasure to talk with The Times.

UH: What are your core ideological principles?

Y: I suppose my core ‘ideology’ could be described as what is fashionably called ‘One Nation Conservatism’. That is, I am a staunch defender of the traditional, cherished institutions of this country, but recognise a certain sense of obligation, the collective duty we have towards this country and to one another. I’m a staunch unionist, but I recognise that it will not be held together by appeals to tradition and the Acts of Union alone.

The Conservatives have gone beyond simply recognising or tolerating the ‘post-war’ consensus, and have expanded upon it with ambitious social programmes of their own. I applaud these moves, as they embody something greater than mere ‘conservatism’ — at times a rather stubborn and vain attempt to ignore the changing winds. Regarding my oft-stated support for policies such as AmberCare and my scepticism for the more… Thatcherite policies, I would quote Lord Salisbury and say: “laissez-faire is an admirable principle but it must be applied on both sides.” Compassionate conservatism is wholly impossible without compassionate capitalism.

It is The capital C ‘Conservatism’, which I identify with. Support of the free market, but tempering it’s volatility through the instruments of the state, unremitting support of the Union, a sensible and responsible economic policy, a serious and comprehensive package of measures and tools to fight climate change. Those make the party that I believe in, the party that I will fight for.

UH: What’s the most pressing issue facing the party at the moment? How are you going to change it?

Y: Activity, no doubt about it. Perhaps the hegemonic position the Conservatives have occupied for so long has made many of them rather too comfortable in their place, complacent. Perhaps the strain of being in such a position has started to show. It is not a burden everyone can bear without leaving its mark. Whatever the cause —and I do believe it to be a combination of the two — something has to be done. In my own time, in my own places as a senior figure in the Conservative Party, and as a member of Cabinet, I felt that the energy and drive was sometimes lacking. I do not wish to lay the blame on any specific person. Making a scapegoat is not a solution to our problem. At a crucial time like these, we need real solutions, and we need them fast. During my time in cabinet I’ve experienced a great deal of frustration at the pace of which things are taken up and accomplished. Matters of simple communication seemed to take much longer than necessary. This too can be, for a large part, solved by appointing a capable Press Officer and/or Chief of Staff, a person with the necessary authority, activity and capability to make sure our engagement in and with the media remains consistent and of the high quality we demand.

I think that a great deal can be solved by the mere presence of a strong, active and energetic leader. It gives great reassurance to the ‘rank-and-file’ of the party to see their Leader engaging in debate by throwing himself in the middle of it. People can be forgiven for their lack of drive or desire to engage in debate, in the press or wherever else, when the engagement of the Leadership is lacking, contradictory or confusing. As I’ve detailed in my manifesto, I aim to provide the ‘talking points’ for debates on legislation. In practice, this will mean a referral or perhaps summary of the speech or comments the Leader, or someone from Leadership or otherwise commendable, has provided. Simply put: a good Leader leads from the front-lines, next to his troops. This is what I think is badly needed, this is what I will do.

UH: What - if any - reforms would you make to the internal party machinery?

Y: I think the position of Chairman should be adjusted, or in a sense 'elevated'. At present, the presence is felt most during an election campaign. That, of course, will continue to be the case, but I believe the position should have an increased stake in the day-to-day affairs of the party. The policy document, that members can add policies to and suggest them for inclusion in our platform, is a good step forward, and I would seek to expand the engagement of both leadership and the general membership with it. I know it often gets said and little gets done, but I believe it provides an excellent opportunity for form a lasting, long-term programme.

As I mentioned before, the position of Press Officers needs to be filled. Not with a placeholder, but with someone with experience in the workings of the press, and with an eye for quality, and stimulate this members to form a dedicated press team from within the membership. This, I hope, will stimulate our design-savvy and creative members to work together to increase both the quality and output of our posters, ads, and so on.

In the long-term, I would support a move towards having a single Deputy Leader in the party, allowing for a chain of command and reducing the need for frequent internal elections. The work-load should be manageable enough for the Leader, Deputy Leader and the Chairman. This, I must emphasize, is a long-term aim and not one which I expect to be implemented anytime soon.

UH: Who are our natural bedfellows in coalition?

Y: To answer your question more directly, our “natural bedfellows”, at this time, would logically be the Liberal Democrats. In slightly over a month in government, we have achieved a tremendous deal. Being in government with them is perhaps one of the most pleasant and interesting experience I’ve had in some time. I would always extend an offer for continued cooperation with the Liberal Democrats, and I am convinced they would gladly extend that offer themselves. Beyond that seemingly obvious and immediate partnership, I would be open to working with anyone to achieve our vision of Britain. Relations with the Libertarians might be frosty and less than amiable at the moment — an unfortunate situation both of us have played a part in, but this is clearly an unacceptable and wholly undesirable situation in the long run. Over the past years, we’ve worked together on many occasions for the greater good of this country. We cannot afford to let our petty divisions and lingering animosity trump our duties to this nation and its people.

UH: Who are your greatest political inspirations?

Y: From earlier eras I suppose first and foremost Disraeli, for the extent of his ambitions and his drive which led him to go from a commoner to being the first Jewish Prime Minister of this country, a remarkable feat, especially at that period. Salisbury, for this eloquence, erudition and steadfastness — a true Conservative icon, no question. More close to home, I would say TheQuipton [/u/Brookheimer] had always been a true inspiration and a mentor for me from the moment I joined the Conservative Party in 2015. I maintain he is perhaps the best Prime Minister we never had. In that same line, I have huge respect for /u/InfernoPlato and /u/DrCaeserMD, both former Prime Ministers. They are very different in a lot of ways, but both are extremely principled, capable, knowledgeable and thoroughly decent men. They and their political careers have been, and continue to be, enormous inspirations. Perhaps some lesser known but equally distinctive names are that of /u/sZjLfStA and /u/Ieya404, remarkable, intelligent, sensible and incredibly knowledgeable whose intellect, sensibility and knowledge have been a profound influence on me.

UH: You’ve talked about staying one-nation, compassionate, but model-mili has been gone just days and you’re already tearing up his legacy by threatening cuts to AmberCare?

Y: I would protest profusely at allegations that my proposals would, in any way ‘’tear up’’ his legacy. I’ve been a staunch supporter of AmberCare throughout its journey through the parliamentary process, and was — and am — ecstatic to see its implementation. My proposed amendment(s) would not seriously threaten the main object and purpose of the policy. I merely propose some alterations, improvements, even to develop its full potential. The universality of programmes is most commendable in principle, but often falters when applied in the real world. I would look towards undertaking an investigation of the feasibility of ‘means testing’. As I raised in my recent speech, one merely has to look towards the evolution of Basic Income into the Negative Income Tax we have today. The benefits, the crucial boons that it represents, for those less fortunate, are enormous. They have been preserved in the transition from BI to NIT. They will be preserved under my proposals. I simply propose that we should handle the taxpayer’s money with some propriety. They should not be expected to reimburse the childcare costs of those who can afford it without worry or stress. I am concerned about those who have up to half — or more! — of their salary wiped out by the high costs of childcare. They will be protected. AmberCare will remain a leading part of our programme.

UH: Are these proposed reforms an example of you pandering to the Libertarian Party? You've mentioned them a fair amount in your campaign so far.

Y: No. I have issue with describing them as ''pandering'' to the Libertarians, which would imply that they have no purpose or motive outside of being congenial to the Libertarians programme. I would argue that it fits perfectly within the tradition of the Conservative approach to social and welfare programmes, and preferring that they be 'means tested' in some way or another over a blanket universality that I would argue is counterproductive and essentially redundant. It is of course to be expected that they would be mentioned in my campaign, as indeed they would in any campaign. They've long been our allies on the right, and it's essential that we see a thaw in relations, for the good of both of us. We cannot afford to be divided.

UH: You've described /u/Friedmanite19 as “a crude butcher, a charlatan, a fraud and a quack doctor, a clown, a sadomasochistic comedian, and finally a hustler and pimp” - all in one article. Quite how is this consistent with the thaw in relations you are now calling for?

Y: Aha, I knew you would bring this up. At the time, I was trying my hand at several different approaches to journalism and writing. This article, among others, was intentionally and excessively polemic, and that includes a fair share of hyperbole and exaggeration. You have to realise that the article in question was written more than two years ago, at an extremely hectic time for the party. Friedmanite and his followers had recently split from the Conservative Party and had announced their intention to form a new party based on Libertarian principles. To say it was a rather emotional period is a severe understatement. All but a few expected that this venture would last for more than a month; most expected that like previous attempts, it would founder and die. It is to Friedmanite's credit that he overcame the barrage of criticism and attacks that came his way. My predictions about him and his party have been proven utterly wrong. Friedmanite et al have managed to transform their ideals and vision into a party that is, by now, established within Westminster and the public political imagination. Since then we have been in government with the Libertarians twice. We've passed a plethora of joint legislation. It was a long time ago, under different circumstances. I am not ashamed to admit I was, in many ways, wrong.

UH: Do you think disagreements such as this with Friedmanite19 could come back to bite you in the future, if elected?

Y: I would expect that Friedmanite would be sensible, level-headed and mature enough to put the need of unity above any lingering personal animosity that may still exist between us. I know I would. Our respective parties deserve better. The country deserves better. The blood has been spilled long ago; let's not reopen old wounds.

UH: You've recognised yourself that in that same article you made the prediction that Friedmanite19's "political career has, quite possibly, reached as high as it will ever go”. You were clearly wrong on that - is this kind of spectacular political misjudgement typical of you?

Y: I don't think it is entirely fair to take it as representative and characteristic of my political judgements. As I've said, there are few who, at that juncture, saw much promise or viability in Friedmanite's political endeavour. Perhaps we were blinded by arrogance. Perhaps we underestimated the extent and reach of Friedmanite's ambitions. It was as much a judgement as a condemnation, bound within the context of the time and within the polemical character of the article. I think it's undeniable that the Libertarian's upset of Westminster and their rapid and unprecedented consolidation of a place in the 'establishment' is exceptional. I've admitted I was mistaken, and I give full credit where credit is due. I think the fact that our respective parties have worked together, in government, with significant success, reinforces my estimation that old 'salt' and previous hostilities are insignificant next to the benefits of unity and cooperation. I suppose you could draw the comparison between the situation back then, at the beginning of the LPUK, and now. We did it then, and we can do it now. We must all stand strong. We must stand together.

UH: Why now, Yukub? You’ve been on the scene as long as anyone I know in the party - is it really that you feel you are finally the best man for the job, or do you just want to tick leader off your otherwise illustrious CV?

Y: Why now? That is a good question, one I have pondered myself for some time. . I’m not at all motivated by the desire to ‘tick the box’, to become Prime Minister for the purpose of adding another title to my, er, collection. I would have been quite happy to serve in a subordinate and advisory position under a capable leader. I think there comes a point in every serious politician’s career, a point where they have to choose between following and leading. I’ve witnessed many momentous, sometimes cataclysmic, events during my time in the party. I have seen many leaders come and go. I’ve long remained on the side-lines, preferring to provide my expertise and disseminating my ideas and influence outside of the big spotlight. There always seemed to be a suitable candidate, a capable and worthy successor to the outgoing Leader. What, then, has changed? The unfortunate reality is that, in my opinion, such candidates are sorely lacking today. At the very least, I feel they are not comparable to some of the tough material we have seen even in recent history. I am less than convinced in their ability to steady the ship and turn it around, as we’re slowly drifting into a storm. I have long been part of the crew, and the day has come to take the wheel.

UH: What makes your opponents so unsuitable for office?

Y: /u/MerrilyPutrid is a rather obscure figure in British politics. I don’t think she is able to provide the necessary experience, drive and commitment that the job — that the party — needs. The nature and content of her campaign thus far, and the content of her manifesto, reinforce that conviction.

Rand [/u/_paul_rand_] has a long and commendable service record, and I thank him for the good work he has done for the party and the country. However, I don’t believe he will be able to provide the activity, presence and stability that our party needs. His… activity and presence in recent times has been hit-and-miss; inconsistent at best. The extent and reach of his vision, seems to be rather limited and vague, at least thus far. The rhetoric is there, the substance and ideological groundwork seems to be lacking.

/u/BrexitGlory is certainly an enigmatic figure. On the one hand, he has proven to be a very capable Minister, and at times his intelligence shines through. However, he remains a divisive figure. He actively seems to court and revel in controversy and seems to lack any sense of tact or diplomatic inclination. I don’t think that is what we need, at all. Coupled with his relative inexperience, I do not think he is a suitable candidate for the job. Of course, I am closely following his career with great interest, and I believe he could be very well suited for some measure of authority and responsibility within the party, but he is, as of now, not suitable material for the ‘top job’.

Willem [/u/model-willem] is… divisive. I don’t think he is the strong, unifying figure we need at this crucial time. He has shown himself to be a capable worker, but is prone to let his temper get the best of him. This is both from what I heard from others, and from my own experiences. Rumours of his ‘tantrums’ following disagreements and mild criticism proliferate in the halls of power. I myself am not entirely impressed by his ability to receive and productively work with constructive criticism. Until very recently, his attentions were divided between his responsibilities as First Minister, as Deputy Leader and as Foreign Secretary. This meant that some tasks, which one could reasonably expect him, as part of leadership, to take upon himself were left to others or did not receive the undivided attention they required. I fear he may be prone to make the same mistakes as leader. I have nothing but respect for the man, and find him likeable in many ways. However, I cannot put these feelings above my instincts and what I believe to be true. For these reasons, I do not think he is the Leader we need and deserve.

UH: Isn’t it time for fresh ideas, a fresh face, someone with upwards momentum in the party? Is a candidate who comes from the traditional party establishment really the man for the job in such tumultuous times?

Y: I would be somewhat insulted with the insinuation that both my ideas and my person would not be ‘fresh’ enough. If you take ‘fresh’ to mean young, new or inexperienced, you would be right in saying as much. But if you judge a candidate’s ‘freshness’ on their drive, energy, motivation and the extent of their ambitions, then the opposite holds true.

I feel the term ‘establishment’ is rather overemphasised. It is true that I have, on many occasions, been asked to provide my views, or have provided my assessment when I felt it to be necessary. But this ‘establishment’ you speak of is not an homogenous, concrete or tangible entity. I, like so many others, have provided my takes when the situation required it. It is ultimately up to the Leadership to procure opinions, analyse the options and weigh them. I have not been in that position; I did not have the power or means to implement all my suggestions (or those of other people which I agreed with). I have much more to give. The usage of ‘establishment’ in the question implies a negative connotation. If ‘establishment’ is to mean stability, sensibility, unity, strength, confidence and continuity, then by all means I am an establishment candidate. I do not subscribe to the point of view that the party should be forevermore unchanging, nor do I think that we should necessarily return to the party and politics of two years ago. I suppose AmberCare is, by now, a core ‘establishment’ policy. Not too long ago, it was a radical, almost revolutionary policy for the party. Moreover, willingness to admit it is flawed like any other policy in its infancy, and my proposals to rectify that, are proof I’m not a vacuous ‘establishment’ candidate. You suggested that I, perhaps, would be better suited an advisor to a ‘fresher’ candidate. I think it is crucial that the Leader of the party, as our candidate for the top job and the public face of our party, has some solid experience under their belt. In a sense, they are the foundation that keeps the party strong.

I find it nonsense that anyone should dismiss me as ‘old fashioned’. My energy and ambitions are unchanged and unimpeded from the man when I joined the party. Indeed, they have grown stronger; bolder. My mind remains as open as it ever was. I am not at all averse to new perspectives and new ideas, in fact, I welcome them.

UH: Do you have anything else you’d like to say?

Y: I can honestly say I believe I am the most qualified person to lead this party into the future. This, I cannot do alone. Of course, I am, like any human, have my faults. But a Leader is never alone. I will build upon the successful leaderships of the past, supported by my trusted, astute advisers. I will work for and with you, to secure our position and to realise our vision for this country, the vision it so needs and deserves. I think my qualities are obvious to all: my record is out there, for everyone to see and judge for themselves. I truly believe that with your aid, we can reinvigorate and revitalise the party. We cannot let Labour past. We must stand strong. We must stand together.

UH: Yukub, thank you for your time.

Y: Thank you for having me!

/u/UnexpectedHippo is a Conservative MP, as well as being Executive Director (Operations) at The Times. This is the first in a series of interviews, which aims to sit down with all leadership candidates before voting opens on Monday 13th April.