New Times,
New Thinking.

  1. Politics
21 May 2010updated 27 Sep 2015 2:19am

Is David Cameron comparable to Robert Mugabe?

Well, no, probably not, but that’s what some Tory MPs are saying. The Prime Minister may come to reg

By Samira Shackle

A day after David Cameron bounced through a vote to end a long-standing tradition by which Tory backbenchers meet each week, the consensus is that this will come back to bite him.

Under the changes — which were voted on just 15 minutes after being announced — government ministers will be allowed to attend meetings of the 1922 Committee.

Cameron’s argument was that “we’re all in it together” (where have I heard that before?), and there is no need for two separate voices within the party. He has been accused of rushing through the reform to prevent the rebellious MP Graham Brady from becoming the committee’s chairman.

But if the move was intended to suppress the power of disgruntled backbenchers, who caused John Major such headaches, it was misguided.

Select and enter your email address Your weekly guide to the best writing on ideas, politics, books and culture every Saturday. The best way to sign up for The Saturday Read is via The New Statesman's quick and essential guide to the news and politics of the day. The best way to sign up for Morning Call is via
  • Administration / Office
  • Arts and Culture
  • Board Member
  • Business / Corporate Services
  • Client / Customer Services
  • Communications
  • Construction, Works, Engineering
  • Education, Curriculum and Teaching
  • Environment, Conservation and NRM
  • Facility / Grounds Management and Maintenance
  • Finance Management
  • Health - Medical and Nursing Management
  • HR, Training and Organisational Development
  • Information and Communications Technology
  • Information Services, Statistics, Records, Archives
  • Infrastructure Management - Transport, Utilities
  • Legal Officers and Practitioners
  • Librarians and Library Management
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • OH&S, Risk Management
  • Operations Management
  • Planning, Policy, Strategy
  • Printing, Design, Publishing, Web
  • Projects, Programs and Advisors
  • Property, Assets and Fleet Management
  • Public Relations and Media
  • Purchasing and Procurement
  • Quality Management
  • Science and Technical Research and Development
  • Security and Law Enforcement
  • Service Delivery
  • Sport and Recreation
  • Travel, Accommodation, Tourism
  • Wellbeing, Community / Social Services
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how Progressive Media Investments may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.

Over at ConservativeHome, the former Tory MP Paul Goodman has analysed the numbers and worked out that a majority of the Conservatives’ backbench MPs voted against the change:

Let’s assume that every minister voted for David Cameron’s proposed 1922 Committee change. Then subtract that 76 from the total of 168 Conservative MPs who did so. Which leaves 92. In other words, only 92 backbench Tory MPs voted for the leadership-backed plan, while 118 voted against.

He continues:

A week ago, Cameron retained the goodwill of most of his MPs, despite failing to win the election outright and forming a coalition with an opposing party — on what many of them regarded as dubious terms.

Much of that goodwill has vanished since yesterday, driven out by resentment, grievance and anger. Tory MPs not usually prone to excitement are citing their leader in the same sentence as Kim Il-sung and Robert Mugabe.

Meanwhile, on the Guardian‘s website, Tim Montgomerie points out the hypocrisy of this centralisation of party management, in the light of the fact that Cameron’s big idea is decentralisation.

The reform may have got through by a hair’s breadth, but the 118 MPs who voted against the reform must not be underestimated. It is a large number. And all this before the Queen’s Speech.

The rule change may have been a paranoid move, intended to suppress unruly backbenchers. But it could have the opposite effect on party members, who were largely shut out of the coalition negotiation process (just compare their involvement to that of the Lib Dems).

These concerns within the Tory party are very real. During the election campaign, those outside Cameron’s circle were reportedly already angry at his presidential style of running the party, and the way in which he shut out all but the chosen few.

At the moment, the onus is on retaining stability and getting on with the hard-won business of power. But, as one MP told the Guardian, Cameron has “lit a fuse”. It could yet ignite.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of “Liberty in the Age of Terror” by A C Grayling.

Content from our partners
The power of place in tackling climate change
Tackling the UK's biggest health challenges
"Heat or eat": how to help millions in fuel poverty – with British Gas Energy Trust