In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn’ we sit down with Steve Baker, whose reputation as the "Hard Man of Brexit" made him a key figure in the UK’s departure from the EU. Baker reflects on his pivotal role as the "Rebel Commander" in orchestrating rebellions during the Brexit years, his methods of leadership, and the toll politics has taken on his mental health. The episode offers an unfiltered look into the mechanisms of political rebellion, party dynamics, and the personal costs of parliamentary life.
Baker recounts his journey from a newcomer to Parliament to a commanding figure in the Brexit movement, detailing how he leveraged personal conviction and strategic organisation to challenge successive Prime Ministers and government whips.
He candidly discusses the emotional and mental toll of his role, sharing moments of intense pressure and his eventual mental health struggles.
Baker offers an insider’s view of parliamentary rebellion, revealing how he employed technology, unwavering resolve, and personal connections to mobilise support. He contrasts his approach with traditional methods, emphasising leadership through shared goals rather than coercion.
The episode also explores the Conservative Party’s ideological fractures, the influence of the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, and the broader implications of Brexit for British democracy.
Steve Baker
Steve Baker is the former Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Wycombe, serving from 2010-2024. Known for his strong stance on Brexit, he played a pivotal role in shaping the UK's withdrawal from the EU, chairing the European Research Group from 2016-17 and 2019-20. He served as Minister of State for Northern Ireland from 2022-24 and as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union from 2017-18. A former Royal Air Force engineer and software developer, Baker advocates for free markets and individual liberty.
Fighting for a free future, Steve Baker's Substack newsletter
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.
[00:00:00] Intro: You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.
[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters Whipping Yarns, our series peering into the hidden world of Westminster's whips. I'm Ruth Fox.
[00:00:25] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark Darcy. Our guest in this edition was one of the key players in Parliament's Brexit wars. Steve Baker spent years pushing his party and Prime Minister into holding a Brexit referendum and then more years ensuring a hard British exit from the EU.
[00:00:39] Ruth Fox: We talked to him about how he ringmastered a series of rebellions against successive party leaders without any of the powers of patronage and punishment available to government whips.
[00:00:50] Mark D'Arcy: He became known as 'Rebel Commander' and the 'Hard Man' of Brexit. I began by asking him if he regretted those nicknames.
[00:00:58] Steve Baker: I sort of regard them with a degree of intense regret and also, I'm afraid, a degree of satisfaction, but they don't give me any actual pleasure. It would have been far better if none of it had been necessary. If only Prime Ministers had chosen to do what I asked them in the first place.
[00:01:15] Mark D'Arcy: Well, you did your best to leverage them into doing it.
[00:01:18] Steve Baker: I'm afraid so.
[00:01:19] Mark D'Arcy: How did you land that role? Was it a conscious choice? Did everybody just at some meeting turn around and look at you?
[00:01:25] Steve Baker: Douglas Carswell. Douglas Carswell.
[00:01:27] We were in Room R organising the rebellion of 81 when we decided that we would have a referendum vote using the new backbench business procedures and there was going to be a votable motion and it was a three way referendum. And we knew that come the day that we didn't want a three way question, but, um, we put it down as a three way question.
[00:01:47] I'm desperately trying to remember the name of the colleague who did it. David Nuttall? David Nuttall. Of course, it was David Nuttall. I just haven't seen him for years. So it was David's lead, and David, uh, made the speech, moved the motion, and we had people who wanted to remain in the European Union who just wanted this settled, voting with us.
Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.
In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn’, we talk with Simon Hart, former Conservative Chief Whip during Rishi Sunak’s Premiership. Hart opens up about his time in one of Westminster’s most demanding and discreet roles, chronicled in his new book, ‘Ungovernable: The Political Diaries of a Chief Whip’.
If a crisis or major national event occurs during a period when Parliament is adjourned, there are often demands from MPs, the media and the public for Parliament to be ‘recalled’. But the House of Commons Standing Orders stipulate that only Government Ministers - in reality, the Prime Minister - can ask the Speaker to recall the House. In recent years the House of Lords has generally been recalled at the same time as the House of Commons.
In response to the Modernisation Committee's call for views on 17 October 2024, we submitted evidence outlining key areas we believe the Committee should prioritise. Our submission recommended a focus on: strengthening legislative scrutiny, with particular emphasis on reforming the delegated legislation system; enhancing financial scrutiny, especially in relation to the Budget and the Estimates; addressing strategic gaps in parliamentary scrutiny; making more effective use of parliamentary time; and reviewing the Standing Orders, language and rituals of the House of Commons.
This briefing explains what to watch for during the Second Reading debate of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. It outlines the procedural and legislative issues that will come into play: the role of the Chair in managing the debate and how procedures such as the 'closure' and 'reasoned amendments' work. It looks ahead to the Committee and Report stage procedures that will apply if the Bill progresses beyond Second Reading. It also examines the government's responsibilities, such as providing a money resolution for the Bill and preparing an Impact Assessment, while addressing broader concerns about the adequacy of Private Members’ Bill procedures for scrutinising controversial issues.
In this ninth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we continue to explore the latest developments in the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, often referred to as the assisted dying bill. We are joined by Dr Marie Tidball MP to discuss the amendments she has secured for a Disability Advisory Board and an independent advocate for people with learning disabilities.
