Monday, May 24, 2010

Looks like the 1922 Committee is fighting back

Tim Montgomerie reports on ToryBoy Blog that the 1922 Committee (whom Conservative Party leaders have underestimated at their peril in the past) are now asking for "clarification" of the rules as, apparently, voted through by the Conservative Party on the Boy-King's demands. The Boy-King, incidentally, cannot be member of the 1922 Committee by definition, so one wonders how he could demand that its rules be changed.

It would appear that the motion that had been voted through was curiously vague (there's a surprise) and, as the Sunday Telegraph wrote yesterday, the constitutionality of the vote is questionable, not to mention the new government's commitment to the promise of returning power to Parliament.

It is at times like this, with a small majority of a hung parliament that backbenchers can have any power, which is, presumably, why there has been a concerted effort to block that before it is too late and the government might find itself being made accountable to their own MPs.

1 comment:

  1. A fixed 5 year parliamentary term reduces the frequency with which the electorate can judge its MPs. The 55% majority required to overcome this fixed term will slide into being the level at which a government can be thrown out. The conversion of the 1922 Committee into the leadership's poodle (thankfully being resisted) reduces the chance of Ministers being held to account.

    All this illustrates Cameron's character as being petty, authoritarian and anti-democratic.