The new generation of Tory MPs was accused of being “government patsies” today as they launched a bid to revolutionise the party’s key backbench committee.
A group of broadly pro-leadership MPs took the unusual step of announcing a slate of candidates — mainly from the 2010 intake — they want to succeed in next month’s internal elections to the 1922 Committee.
They insisted the move was not a “putsch” but were accused of being “stooges” who did not understand what the committee is for.
The list of 12 preferred MPs for the 1922 executive would leave just two — Nicholas Soames and Adam Holloway — who were not first elected in 2010.
The slate would also see two 2010 MPs join the six-strong panel of officers, with Charlie Elphicke and Karen Bradley running for two secretary posts.
The move has been organised by the modernising 301 Group, named after the number of seats the Tories need to win the next election.
They say they want to transform the 1922 Committee from a forum for anti-government ranting into a “more effective political force” with stronger links to ministers, party volunteers and outside bodies like think tanks.
MP George Hollingbery, one of the organisers, claimed the slate of candidates represented a range of political views, ages and intakes from across the party, insisting: “This is absolutely not a putsch of the 1922.”
Arguing that the “iconic” committee was underperforming, he added: “At the moment it is just a forum where certain people meet and complain about certain things.”
Read More
The list was immediately attacked by one Right-winger who said privately, “these are the people the Government want to see elected”, while another MP urged caution about pushing through dramatic reforms, saying: “You can’t just take over the sweet shop.”
Peter Bone, seen as an outspoken critic of the Government whose position on the committee is being challenged by the new group, insisted the committee worked well as a “safety valve”.
“People who say it does not work because it does not cheer everything the Government does do not understand the role of the 1922,” he told the Standard. “If you had a 1922 Committee that was just a cheerleader for the party it would be a disaster.”
Kris Hopkins, another of the new-intake organisers, sparked anger by predicting a “seismic change” that would see “bloody rude” committee members ousted.
Philip Davies, another government critic who is standing down from the 1922, said: “It seems to me the danger is some people have a view that nobody can disagree with the Government but government stooges and patsies can be as rude as they like to colleagues. I don’t think that is a particularly helpful way forward.”
