The final candidate to sit down with The Times is /u/BrexitGlory. Secretary of State for Transport, he is regarded as a rising star within the party. One of the most outspoken members of the Cabinet, the MP for Essex has drawn praise from fellow Tories, but has courted controversy in the past for his comments on a range of issues. Can he shake these controversies and complete his rapid rise by ascending to be Leader of his party? The Times sat down with him yesterday evening.

UH: BrexitGlory, thank you for joining me.

Thank you for having me, I've been looking forward to this interview.

UH: What are your core ideological principles?

BG: I'm a pragmatist first and foremost, I do what works and I reject the playground of ideologies that the opposition want to turn the Commons into, so I'm afraid my answer may come across as terribly vague and dull.

The free market is the single most effective mechanism at creating wealth and allowing individuals, no matter their background, to rise as high as their talents allow them. But I see the free market as just that: a mechanism. The free market is not a god, it isn't something to be pursued as an end goal, but it is a morally and economically sound thing to have in a wider system of governance.

I am a compassionate conservative, I refuse to kick my fellow down, I will not walk on the other side of the street and I will strive to help others up the ladder, not pull it up after I have climbed. I recognise that the individual should be as free from the state as possible, that the married family is a fortress against state tyranny and I want to make the case for conservative communities.

I also strongly believe in things that I want to define our party, our belief that the United Kingdom is a nation that should exist, free from the overreach of the European Union, and banded together by common values of community, fairness and meritocracy. I believe our parliamentary system is a blessing. And I believe our constitution is a gift to protect. I believe that the monarchy is an asset to this nation, God Save the Queen!

I can appreciate a lot of that may sound vague, but I did warn you!

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

BG: The lack of a new and passionate energy at the very top; to sustain an active leadership, to set narratives and take back control of commons and press agenda. I am the only one who is able to solve this. I have said more words in the commons than all the others combined. We all now recognise the need for a vision, but I am the only candidate to submit any policies into the policy document. This is the type of activity that we need and the leader must lead from the front. The lack of new and passionate energy is the principal reason why I joined the race.

All the other candidates are the same, and they won't change anything to fix our problems, which is why I need to be in the second round so we can have a frank and formidable debate.

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

BG: The first thing I did when /u/model-mili entrusted me with being Transport Secretary was scan through the backbenches looking for interest and talent that I could bring on board. I am the only cabinet minister to have taken this initiative this term. I got a backbencher included in the legislation writing and the decision making process, and I believe this was a fruitful experience for both of us. Unfortunately most of our hard work together never saw the light of day due to the selfish VoNC. As leader I will look to emulate this across other departments so we can create a pipeline for our newer or less senior members, growing their confidence and competence.

Beyond this, I didn't mention much else in the manifesto as I didn't feel it was of immense importance, however clearly the party is interested so I will go through a few more of my ideas. Firstly the CW role is in a strange place at the moment. My instinct is to reform it as it is a single point of failure. I have spoken to Matt [/u/MatthewHinton12345] about this, he loves his job and he is highly dedicated, but I do not think it is the best way to structure the role. There are a million different legitimate reasons that Matt wouldn't be able to fulfill his duties, as well as it taking away from his other work; this is about preventing crises before they happen. Whether this involves creating a DW or a new CW, I do not know for sure yet. Yukub has talked about "elevating" the Chairman role and I do find myself agreeing with him largely on that. What I disagree with him on is the Press Officer role. As a former, but admittedly un-talented Press Officer, I do not believe we should create a large press team. Not only is there a not a big interest for this, but I don't believe it to be necessarily effective. The best way to get people doing press is to empower and entice members to do so. I have helped empower the party by creating the Spectator for opinion pieces and journalism, now I want to entice them by leading from the front with passion and energy.

When I was a Classical Liberal I took to the press after two things happened. Firstly, there was a fight to have, and secondly after seeing leadership take the initiative to do it first. I suppose in that sense you can blame model-willem and /u/tommy2boys for BrexitGlory dross! But now I am ready to entice other members to join me in the press, there is no need for a press role in my opinion.
The problem is with a lot of this stuff is that there are no hard rules. If we have someone who is highly talented and dedicated we could create a role. I will consult closely with my DLs about this and like I said, I don't have any immediate changes in mind.

UH: Who are our natural bedfellows in coalition?

BG: The Liberal Democrats. One of the first things I said in my campaign in an interview with Labour weekly, before my initial speech, was that we have a great relationship with the Liberal Democrats and we should continue to prioritise and foster it. However, one of my concerns is that we have made ourselves too similar to the Liberal Democrats. All the other candidates have touted themselves as One Nation Conservatives, while that is great, I think we should recognise what makes us different from the Liberal Democrats: Our Brexit stance, our stance on devolution and our backing for conservative communities; as well as the rejection of their more metropolitan social stances. This doesn't mean we can't continue our great relationship, and I truly seek to continue it, but if we fail to recognise our differences we put our party in a bad position.

On the LPUK, all the candidates are the same. They all have historical bad blood with the party. They have all proven themselves as sub-par diplomats to LPUK. They were nowhere to be found when I was confronting our actions that aggravated the LPUK, and I'm sorry to say that some of them have been involved in that aggravation. I find it hugely ironic that they have now all changed their mind and want to give an olive branch to the party. They are all the same on this as well, they do one thing, a leadership election comes and then they change their stance! I'm glad I have won the debate on this, but I want to be in the final round so we can have a real frank and formidable debate between me and the other same-ies.

UH: Who are your greatest political inspirations?

BG: Well, let me think. I must confess, I am not one to be a fan boy. I have never admitted to having ideological inspirations because I think government should be about governing for the nation and its people. I suppose I often look up to ambitious reformers such as Margaret Thatcher, as well as great leaders who truly rise to an immense challenge such as Winston Churchill; but I don't agree with them on everything. I also have big respect and admiration for /u/eelsmaj99, /u/DrCaeserMD, /u/InfernoPlato as three Conservative politicians who have really done their nation proud. I would also like to mention my fellow candidate /u/model-willem whose personality really commands respect, as well as other former Classical Liberals /u/Tommy2Boys and /u/Duncs11 for their huge dedication to this country and their massive success in making the case for the union in Scotland.

UH: You’ve said that you aren’t an ideologue. If you have no desire to change Britain to match your ideological outlook, why are you in politics at all? Are you just attracted to power?

BG: Well hold on a minute, those who are ideologues are the ones who want power for themselves so they can enact their fairy-tale fantasy. Perhaps you are right though, I am attracted to power. I am attracted to the power of aiding my constituents in Essex, I am attracted to the power of voting down disastrous Labour legislation and I'm attracted to the power of reforming transport to level up the economy.

That is what government is about, the Commons isn't an ideological playground and the nation isn't their sand box. I think the British people would much rather have a government that strives to work for them, their community and their nation over a bunch of prattling children playing games.

Make no mistake, I am in this race to win it. I abstained from the DL election because I did not believe my service was needed. After watching this race and seeing just how similar Yukub, Willem and Rand are, I decided to join it. They all lack the new passion and energy that I will pour into this party and this country. I want members to put me into the second round so I can make that case, I don't think we should be seen to be only interested in people who are exactly the same.

UH: Don’t you think that your ideology is a bit old-fashioned? Talk of the importance of married family, support for “conservative communities” - these ideas were rife in our party 30 years ago but don’t you think people have moved on?

BG: Hey now, not ideology!

I obviously disagree with the point at hand though, I think we are in danger of losing our unique identity as a party. I want members to try and think of any of our major policies that couldn't have been done in a majority Liberal Democrat government. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some kind of high-tory NUP-sympathetic politician, I'm not going to force people to get married! I want to keep us a modern party, however our lack of unique vision is a key problem at the moment. It means our members are absent from debate. It means we have no fight to have in the press and it means our polling slips. All the candidates recognise this as a problem now, I wasn't too aware of them recognising it when we were slipping in the polls. If they are so concerned about needing a new vision, I don't know why they didn't contribute anything in our policy document.

Perhaps you may disagree with me, or perhaps you are unsure, but is it not right that the party gets it's frank and formidable second round debate, between one of the same-ies who don't want to change much, and me who is a new and passionate energy that can bring the party back to political domination?

UH: Do you really, honestly think all your opponents are the same? It's a nice attack line you're peddling but do you really think it's true?

BG: I don't think it is an attack line because being the same to any of them is no bad thing, but I don't think we should be seen to be only interested in that type of candidate. We've already seen a valued member leave this party because we gave the impression that we were only interested in the same-ies, that may not matter to some but it matters to me. They all use the phrase "one-nation conservatism" to define their vision, which isn't something I am against, but I don't think it is enough to separate us from the Liberal Democrats. They all say how important a vision is, but I'm the only one to contribute policies to the policy doc; I doubt any of them have read our member's ideas. In the past, and present, they all heavily backed AmberCare when I brought up some potential practical issues, they now agree with me. All the other candidates have bad blood with LPUK, none of them were to be seen when I was making the case to be pleasant to our political allies. A fellow Conservative once branded me as one of the "sensibles" on LPUK relations, while leadership dismissed me with "not my problem". They are all concerned about raising Commons activity, but it's been pretty lonely in there as a Conservative. They all want to raise press activity but haven't put in the time to try and do it themselves. It's all very well seeing these things now, but our leadership team needs to get on the front foot preventing crises before they explode in our faces. They may all boast their leadership experience over me, that is valid, but why don't we have that debate in the second round? If the second round is between Yukub and Willem, it won't be a coronation of a person, but it won't exactly be a great debate either. We cannot be seen to be only interested in this type of candidate, who only show passion, energy and humility when an election comes around. I also doubt the appetite that some of the candidates have for Brexit, which is a golden opportunity to set ourselves apart from both the Liberal Democrats and LPUK.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not just here to get into the second round, I am here to win this race because I truly believe that I can be that new passion that the party needs.

UH: Would you say you’re the most right-wing of the candidates in this race?

BG: I hadn't thought about it that much to be honest, I suppose I am more right wing than Yukub and Willem for sure. Rand seems to be pretty fluid, he has gone from president of LPUK to a one-nation conservative, funny what a leadership election can do really isn't it? I think I can be more economically left wing than some think, like I say, the free market isn't a god. In my time as Transport Secretary I made clear of my plans that if private companies fail to deliver a good service on their route, I would put in a state-sponsored operator. No ifs, no buts.

There are some who say that because I can lean right-wing on things, I would want to rip up the Clegg coalition and install Blurple. This is totally false. While I have been vocal on being friendly to LPUK, this isn't necessarily because I want Blurple, it's because it is the sensible thing to do and I have been vindicated on that. Right now the sensible thing to do is to retain our fantastic relationship with our Liberal Democrat friends, I don't think it is the role of the leader to harm the party in order to push a personal agenda, no.

Am I the most right-wing candidate? I suppose I am in the sense that I'm not afraid to disagree with Labour and the TPM and I'm ready to take the fight to them.

UH: Thus wouldn’t you find it the most difficult to connect with those in the centre of the party, as well as with former Classical Liberals who might strongly disagree with some of your more socially conservative ideas?

Aha well, I am a former Classical Liberal!

Let me make my point clear. I don't see myself on the right-wing of the party, Yukub and Willem are on the left of it and Rand is copying them to make himself look good. I would argue that these candidates are unable to connect with the right, and by us showing interest in these candidates only we have made a valued member leave the party. I have introduced what could be called more progressive or left-wing legislation, I'm not completely inflexible. I would point out the football offences act, banning revolting homophobic slurs from football grounds and I have facilitated the fossil-fuel phase out in our buses. People may think I am right-wing because I often point out flaws in their legislation or the potential costs. Well I'm sorry but had someone pointed out potential costs of some of our more ambitious policies when they were in their inception, we may not be in the mess we are now. If we want to have this debate between the left on party with Yukub and Willem, and the centre of the party with me, let's have that debate in the final round because I trust the party to make the right decision.

If I could briefly go onto the small tangent of desecularisation: I am personally in favour of it and I won't lead a party against it. However, I will also not force anyone to join me in that nor would I seek to push my personal views onto the agenda. It isn't a meaningful fight that can be won due to the make up of the house, nor does it unite and excite us. I talked in my manifesto about departing old battlegrounds, this is one of them. Let's move on!

If we want to unite our party, the only way we can do that is with a new energy and a new passion at the very top, not wheeling out the same-ies who are on the left, have a dubious appetite for Brexit and haven't shown much interest in fixing our issues until the beginning of the election. When Barcelona look for their next centre-forward, they don't go searching for him in a nursing home; we need something different or we will continue to make the failures we are making now. I'm confident I can fill that space, I recognise I may have flaws, but I can learn from them and I won't be alone in leadership.

UH: You told The Times a few weeks ago that you admired Enoch Powell. Is that an acceptable comment for a Cabinet minister, let alone a Prime Minister, to make?

No I don't think it was. With the context and with what I was actually saying, there was nothing wrong with it. I do see how it could have been misinterpreted despite me being clear in the interview that I did not admire him or his theories, but that often doesn't get spoken about.

There are legitimate concerns about me being leader of the Conservative party, past comments that I have made that I now see as mistakes is one of them. I cannot turn back time, the only thing I can do is recognise those mistakes, hear out concerns from our membership and learn from it.

UH: I think it’s fair to describe you as outspoken, but this is a double-edged sword, isn’t it? You recently said that if the opposition expects answers to MQs, they should just ask simpler questions? You’d be a liability as leader, wouldn’t you?

No no, what utter rubbish. I was making a tongue in cheek compliment to a parliamentary friend who was making a tongue in cheek I think it's pretty shameful that the DRF are trying to condemn me for being friendly to others in politics. It's possible to have polite disagreements, the failure of our leadership to do that is in part why we are where we are now.

Outspoken is not a bad thing, our previous leadership was too quiet. We never took the fight to Labour, so they rose in the polls. We lost grip of the agenda and process, so Cabinet members became dedicated firefighters. And we lost control of the narrative, failing to argue our party's stance on hot topics. We must have an active leadership that is two steps ahead of Labour; for that we need activity in the commons and the press to raise polls, activity to create a vision and activity to set narratives and force errors. As the Prime Minister said, the next leader cannot be a "seat-warmer".

If you are looking for a leader who has never made mistakes, then all 5 of us are invalid. The best leaders are the ones that learn from those mistakes, hear out those that have something to say and listen closely to their justifications. I believe I can do that, and that gives me confidence that I can do this job. I agree with Yukub when he says "a leader is never alone", I will have DLs that the party has trusted into their position and I will have the rest of the party to consult with as I have done before. What I believe we need is a new energy and a proven passion, to take back the agenda, set the narrative and swing our polls up.

UH: But you are by far the most controversial leadership candidate. Wouldn't it be better to elect a leader who wouldn't give the opposition constant ammunition to fire right back at us?

By far the most controversy? Well thank you for paying such close attention!

If a man says 1000 words one of them is likely to be wrong. I've said over 11000 in the commons between the Queen's speech and the beginning of this campaign, more than all of the other candidates combined.

The concern you bring up is again valid. I thought about this exact point before running for this race. But then I looked at the other candidates. I felt something was missing, and that was passion and energy. I could point to the mistakes of the other candidates, and I could argue how their mistakes have been far more consequential than the DRF making some press dross. What I want to argue instead is that I recognise the past mishaps, I recognise the concerns and the only thing I can do is look back, reflect and then move on. I want to make the case for a new energy and a new passion, I am the only one that can deliver that.

UH: Do you have anything else you would like to say?

If I may speak directly to the Conservative party. I know many of you may think I am controversial and I know many of you think I've made too many mistakes. These are valid and legitimate reasons not to vote for me, and I may not win your first preference based on recognising those mistakes alone.

What I do want to win your vote on is my passion and energy, my innovation and my commitment. I am fighting this campaign hard because I don't want the final round to be a vote between two candidates who are almost identical. Candidates who have changed their mind on big issues. And candidates that haven't shown they can be active in the places they are needed. We cannot continue electing people afraid of disagreeing with Labour, we need the energy and innovation that is suggested in my manifesto, I want to lead from the front and it would truly humble me if I was lucky enough to win.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the former Labour leader /u/lily-irl when they say: "While his path to winning the leadership is uncertain, /u/ARichTeaBiscuit may be hoping they don't have to face him across the dispatch box in a few weeks' time."

What's bad for Labour is good for us and what is good for us is what is good for the nation. Thank you all for reading through this and hearing me out, I hope to see you in the debates ahead.

UH: BrexitGlory, thank you very much.

BG: Thank you.

/u/UnexpectedHippo is a Conservative MP, as well as being Executive Director (Operations) at The Times. This is the fifth and final in a series of interviews, which has sat down with all leadership candidates before voting opens on Monday 13th April. You can see the previous interviews with /u/Yukub here; with /u/MerrilyPutrid here; with /u/_paul_rand_ here; with /u/model-willem here.