Brexit is now sadly a distant memory, squandered by the Tories, and now being betrayed under Labour, who are pushing for re-integration through the backdoor thus destroying the democratic vote of the people in the 2016 EU Referendum. One MP who was in the thick of things during the last Conservative government was Nick de Bois. His exemplary efforts as an MP included a devout fight against knife crime, and he thwarted the proposed destruction of his local constituency Chase Farm hospital in Enfield, North London. Amongst his many achievements and supreme ministerial integrity, De Bois has also authored multiple books including Confessions of a Recovering MP, and the political fiction novel Fatal Ambition.
De Bois was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2022 Birthday Honours for services to tourism and the economy as chair of the VisitEngland Advisory Board.
The Ed – During your time in Parliament, you held numerous posts, including membership of the Conservative 1922 Committee. Which of those roles proved the most stimulating or surprising for you personally?
Nick de Bois – I relished the 1922 role, but the tasks that I found most interesting were sitting on two Select Committees, first the Public Administration Comm. and then the Justice Select Comm.
The power of a select comm. to convene inquiries and bring significant people to answer to the committee was compelling stuff. On the rather dull sounding Public Administration Comm. we would regularly haul in the Cabinet Secretary and even had Chiefs of the Armed Services before us. On the Justice Select Comm. Law Chiefs, Secretaries of State, Prison Service leaders as well as notable victims of miscarriages of justice numbered amongst our witnesses.
Our job? To challenge policy, challenge decision-making and hold public bodies and minsters to account.
Select committees should be empowered further, as sadly, far too often their recommendations, all evidence based, are easily ignored by governments.
Many feel that Brexit was never seen through to its full conclusion, and that the current Labour government is quietly re-entangling Britain with the EU. In hindsight, did the Conservatives fail to capitalise on the Brexit momentum, and if so, where did they lose their nerve?
There was never genuine momentum within government or Parliament to get Brexit done — only amongst the public. The government quickly lost its nerve when it became clear it had underestimated the EU’s unity to act and one block and determination to stand firm in the name of the so-called EU Four Freedoms” rejecting even modest UK proposals on both the Withdrawal Agreement and future trade. Our mistake was to underestimate that unity of purpose.
There was never genuine momentum within government or Parliament to get Brexit done.
After three years of botched negotiations and parliamentary discord, the next disappointment was Boris Johnson’s failure to use the new freedoms Brexit had secured. Instead of seizing the opportunity to make Britain more competitive, we kept our borders open to uncontrolled immigration and simply copied and pasted EU regulations into domestic law. Whatever happened to the ambition of a “Singapore-on-Thames”? Instead, the anti-competitive straitjacket remained firmly in place.
Is it not nigh on impossible for a Conservative or Libertarian leaning government to get things done when the civil service/education/NHS/transport/local gov./media/unions and all other branches of governance are generally socialistic in their outlook? How would you as a politician deal with inherent political biases leaning to the far-left in all institutions?
At first, I found the idea of “the blob” offensive. I had worked with many capable civil servants — including during my independent review of English tourism. Yet across government, resistance to a Conservative agenda was widespread and often open, with civil service unions even taking legal action against ministers, or more subtly frustrating delivery.
That said, ministers decide, and civil servants advise — and too often ministers hide behind officials to excuse failure. Many simply lack the stamina or resolve to insist on delivery. It’s worth remembering that our system of choosing ministers means more often than not people with little or no executive experience of running anything — some barely having run even a bath — are put in charge of vast departments of state.
I’d favour a US-style approach where each new government appoints senior political executives to drive through its agenda. A couple of well-meaning special advisers that we have in post now are not enough.
The Conservatives remain deep in the polling doldrums after their recent election defeat. Do you think Kemi Badenoch has the political agility and charisma to bring the party back from the wilderness before the next vote?
Kemi Badenoch can’t bring the Party back from the wilderness — not because she lacks ability, but because public disillusionment with both Labour and the Conservatives runs so deep that Reform’s momentum looks unstoppable (unless perhaps there is a Farage led implosion).
Kemi Badenoch can’t bring the Party back from the wilderness.
The revival will come, probably after the next election, when the Party moves beyond the old guard of the Johnson and Sunak cabinets. Renewal will depend on a generational shift — leaders with broader real-world experience, now sitting quietly on the back benches, who can reconnect with voters and rebuild trust.
The 1922 Committee has always carried an air of mystery. Do MPs still literally slap tables in approval, or are the rituals more myth than reality? What can you reveal about life inside that influential room and the minutes of each session?
Anything said in the full 1922 meetings usually found its way to social media before the session ended.
Absolutely — the table-banging tradition lives on. When a Prime Minister or senior minister on the ropes came to address the 1922, the volume of the banging was a sure sign to journalists gathered outside Committee Room 14 of the mood inside. I may be doing him a disservice, but I recall James Forsyth — later of No.10 fame — with his ear to the wall, or perhaps just catching forty winks as speeches droned on.
Anything said in the full 1922 meetings usually found its way to social media before the session ended. As co-secretary, I drafted the minutes — which were later archived at the Bodleian Library — as blandly as possible to preserve at least some confidentiality.
The Committee is, of course, best known for its role in electing party leaders. Its Chair guards that power jealously — rightly so. Part of the process involves receiving letters (now emails) of no confidence in the leader. When enough are submitted, a leadership contest can be triggered. My only frustration was that the then Chair, Graham (now Lord) Brady, never once hinted at how many letters he’d received — no matter how much I tried to find out.
In 2018, you served as Special Adviser to Dominic Raab during the turbulent Brexit vs Remainer years. What can you tell us about those behind-the-scenes negotiations, and how close did Britain really come to not fulfilling the democratic EU Referendum vote?
Even when powerful forces tried to block Brexit, I never doubted we would leave the EU. What I did see was a concerted effort to “soften” Brexit to the point of making it meaningless — an approach favoured by many officials and MPs.
From day one, my job as Chief of Staff was to help land the then PM Theresa May with a deal that could pass the vote in Parliament. I doubted that was possible. No.10 believed a softer Brexit deal, albeit incoherent, might scrape through — it didn’t. My 122-day tenure ended with Dominic Raab’s resignation as Brexit Secretary. He was right to go on principle; unsurprisingly, he went onto much greater things as Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister. I rightly went back to my sofa.
Do you believe the traditional machinery of governance — Cabinet, civil service, parliamentary process — is still fit for purpose in an age of AI, digital surveillance and rapid technological change?
As I’ve said, we need more politically accountable leadership at the top of the civil service to ensure ministerial priorities are actually delivered.
Whitehall’s biggest weakness is its inability to move quickly. One reason is simple: government places no value on time. In the private sector, time is money; in Whitehall, it’s meaningless. Bureaucracy thrives in that vacuum. AI could improve efficiency and cut costs, but until time is measured and valued, progress will be slow.
Whitehall’s biggest weakness is its inability to move quickly.
As for Parliament, beware the enthusiasm for “modernisation” that strips away its strengths. Allowing MPs to vote digitally would be a huge mistake. The division lobbies are called “lobbies” for a reason — they give backbenchers precious access to ministers, even Prime Ministers, away from their staffers and gatekeepers. That’s where you corner them and make your case. I did — often successfully.
Modernisers, beware what you wish for.
The recent Chinese espionage revelations have shaken confidence in Westminster’s security. What more should be done to protect MPs and state secrets, and how did you handle such concerns during your own time in Parliament?
Backbench MPs rarely handle classified material, but Chinese intelligence often works by piecing together small fragments into a larger picture. During my time, staff underwent no meaningful security clearance — perhaps not even basic checks. That must change.
It was only when I worked for Dominic Raab that I underwent high-level vetting, though it was never completed — I’d left before it finished. Once again, time never seemed to matter in Whitehall.
You were selected via the party system and operated under the discipline of the Conservative Whip. What are the benefits and drawbacks of the party whip system in terms of democratic accountability and effective governance?
A government needs an effective whipping operation — without it, every bill would descend into internal negotiation and chaos.
But every MP faces a choice: follow the Party line in hopes of future promotion, or stand on principle and risk career exile. The whips only have power if you want what they can offer. They are only as powerful as you, the MP, let them be”
I chose my constituents over career prospects — and asked the question anyway.
I rebelled occasionally but remained broadly a team player. Yet when offered a Trade Envoy role in exchange for not asking a question about my local hospital at PMQs, I chose my constituents over career prospects — and asked it anyway. That’s what they deserved in my constituency .
You served as an MP for one term. When voters elect MPs, what qualities do you believe matter most today? Integrity, local engagement, subject-matter expertise, or something else?
Parliament’s reputation, and that of MPs, is at a low ebb. Among younger generations, even faith in democracy itself is faltering.
While government decisions shape national opinion, individual MPs can still make a difference locally. Visibility, accessibility, and genuine engagement with schools, charities, and businesses all matter enormously. I’d also like to see better civic education in schools — politically neutral, but helping young people understand what MPs do, why Parliament matters, and why, for all its flaws, it remains the best system in the world.
Parliament should be an eclectic mix of skills, background, trade, profession or vocation, young and older, as well as the so-called professional politician, (but less of the latter please).
But, it’s a two-way relationship between MP and constituent and the public would benefit from recognising if you want pavements fixed, a leak in your council house sorted, and possibly the streetlights turned up as well as do something about the traffic, go to the right people to sort it out. The MP may be local, but there are councillors and council staff to sort out many of the issues that land on the MPs desk. That way, their time can be better directed at sorting out the things that they are best placed to do.
From your vantage point outside of Parliament, how do you view the institution now? Has losing your seat changed your perception of the system, its strengths and weaknesses?
I view Parliament with great affection — and the occasional bucket of despair.
Around the world, our system is still admired. Few countries, for example, allow citizens to meet their MPs so easily or see their concerns raised in the nation’s legislature within weeks of such a meeting. That accessibility is one of Westminster’s greatest strengths.
It’s tempting to join the chorus of cynicism, but we mustn’t confuse Parliament with the Government. By all means, loath your government or otherwise as much as you like, but, Parliament’s job is to give voice to those without one, to hold government to account, and to break through the Westminster bubble so the realities of people’s lives are heard and acted upon.
