Even when it is at peace, the Conservative party deals in hypotheticals all of which involve David Cameron being ousted in one way or another. That’s why backbenchers have been wargaming what will happen to David Cameron if Scotland votes ‘Yes’ next week. It’s why 1922 Committee executive members have been calling fellow MPs, or pouncing on them in the corridors (one spent a good long time lurking in one particular corridor in Parliament yesterday, snaring backbenchers) to find out what they would do if the worst happens in the referendum.
Everyone agrees that a ‘Yes’ vote would be seriously damaging to the Prime Minister and that it would lead to a vote of no confidence. Serial troublemakers are making detailed plans for this to happen. These plotters are always better than the party whips at persuading and organising colleagues. So the prevailing assumption is that Cameron would lose that vote of no confidence.
This is where the unpredictable Conservative party turns out to be rather surprising once again. Fewer MPs think Cameron would go than you might imagine.
I have certainly been surprised by what I’ve found in a series of off-the-record chats with figures across the party ranging from loyalists, mustn’t-grumbles and keep-your-head-downs to grumpy rebels, pessimists and Cameron-haters. More of them seem to think Cameron would survive – and that opinion is held by MPs of all ranks who hate the Prime Minister or at least think he’s a bit mediocre, as well as those who will do anything to see him succeed. I understand that at the 1922 Committee meeting last night, Scotland was discussed in some detail, but Cameron’s own position was not.
Of course, there are MPs who think the Prime Minister would be toast. One says: ‘He’ll be gone in a few weeks: PPS, marginal seat people, constitution geeks, head bangers all agree – he and Miliband would be toast.’ Another observes that ‘he’s pissed off so many it’s difficult to see who would argue to save him that wasn’t a lackey’.
Even those who think it probable that Cameron wouldn’t go right after the vote say he would be seriously damaged. It would confirm that he is not a winner. But they argue that the party should keep a cool head because the rest of the UK would need a Prime Minister to negotiate the settlement for Scotland as it leaves. And there is no other candidate. This is hardly a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister’s abilities, is it? He’d stick around with a ‘we’ll deal with you later’ ticket. All bets on his future as Prime Minister are off if there is a ‘Yes’ vote – but he might not be pushing up political daisies straight away after the result.
Another reason that the party wouldn’t push Cameron out immediately is that though it will never be particularly fond of him, it doesn’t seem ready for that sort of upheaval. One senior Tory who would certainly throw their hat into the ring in a leadership contest whenever it came tells me ‘the party just isn’t ready for change yet. It’s probable that Cameron would survive a vote of no confidence’. Another senior figure agrees that the ‘Conservatives are not ready to go over the edge by any means… any grumpiness is limited to pretty much the same old suspects’.
My hunch, for what it’s worth, is that cool heads don’t often do that well in the party, while unofficial rebel whips can engineer all sorts of surprise revolts. But it is still surprising that the automatic assumption that Cameron would go is not held quite so fervently by the people who would push him.
There will, though, be demands on Cameron, and tricky ones at that. If ‘Yes’ prevails, then there will be calls to bring the election forward from some quarters. Others will demand that the election be delayed. Others still want him to leave the Coalition.
But if independence is rejected, that’s not the end of his troubles. As I wrote yesterday, the demands for a settlement for the English will grow. There is considerable disgust on the backbenches that their party has suddenly adopted a position of devo-more with the other parties. Those with a good view of backbench opinion think the Commons could try to resist the further powers promised to the Scots, querying where the mandate for this change of policy has come from. One says:
‘Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown have had more impact on government policy than our own Prime Minister. And it’s not going to work. It’s rather like a failing marriage where one of the partners tries to keep the other by showing them with gifts. They know they can extort more out of us. In the end, the English partner in the marriage will say we’re sorry, that’s it. If we don’t address the English question, our electorate will do it next year: it’s not as though we’re five years away from a general election.’
John Redwood is already pushing for more detail on this matter. He has written to Number 10 and to Eric Pickles asking for a ministerial portfolio covering English interests. He tells Coffee House:
‘I’m asking them two questions: who will be the minister and department responsible for producing the Devolution Bill which they’ve promised to Scotland and who will be the senior minister responsible for representing the interests of England, as many of us think that England needs some devolution as well as Scotland.’
Andrew Bridgen, a rebel with good experience of encouraging others to turn against their government, fears that whatever the result of the vote, England will lose out:
‘It’s almost now heads Alex Salmond wins, tails the English lose.’
So whatever happens, Cameron’s in for a torrid time after 18 September. But the turmoil in the Tory party after a ‘Yes’ vote won’t take the shape many assume it will. It never does: this party is far too good at surprises.
Comments