What's behind the Adam Afriyie "stalking horse" plot?

The MP for Windsor is being touted as a challenger to David Cameron. Why him - and why now?

Adam Afriyie, the 47-year-old Tory MP for Windsor, is not a household name.

But he's made two Sunday newspaper front pages today - the Sunday Times had "Black MP is hot tip to be the next Tory leader", while the Mail on Sunday splashed on "Stalking horse plot to oust PM".

As a potential Tory leadership candidate, Afriyie has a lot to recommend him. His personal story - born to a Ghanian father and a white English mother in Peckham, made a fortune in IT, became the Tories' first black MP in 2005, refuses to claim his second home allowance - is a compelling one for those who feel that David Cameron seems too "privileged" to connect with ordinary voters and that the whole political establishment is seen as too cosy and corrupt.

But what does this plot really amount to? The MoS is keen to note that Afriyie is being lined up "should a rumoured backbench revolt force the Prime Minister to resign". It adds:

Changes in Tory Party rules mean rebels cannot use the ‘stalking horse’ tactics used to topple Margaret Thatcher by getting a backbencher to strike the first blow and trigger a full contest. Under revised rules, 46 Tory MPs must demand a vote of no confidence in the leader. 

Given that David Cameron has just enjoyed a poll bounce - and a renewed surge of affection from his Eurosceptic backbenches - by promising an EU referendum if he wins the next election, that demand seems unlikely to come in the near-future.

Indeed, Isabel Hardman reports at the Spectator that "one backbencher suggested to me last week that the EU speech wouldn’t just keep Cameron safe until 2015, it would give local parties some security over other issues, too".

The political team at the Telegraph - which did not run the story - are also downplaying the idea of a leadership challenge. Deputy Editor Ben Brogan tweeted that "these plots will come to nothing". All in all, the weekend after Cameron has made his long-delayed, backbench-appeasing Europe speech seems just about the worst time to try to stir dissent.

So what's behind the supposed Afriyie challenge? It seems that either his quoted "friends" have mishandled the whole affair, or the Sunday papers have dramatically overstated a few grumblings in the tea room.

Either way, it's unlikely to cost David Cameron too much sleep. 

Update, 16.38 The BBC reports that Afriyie says there is "no truth to any of it" and he is "100% loyal" to David Cameron. He told Sky News he nearly "choked on his cereal" when he read the papers earlier today. 

Adam Afriyie. Photo: Getty

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.