When Cameron returned to No.10 in May, comparisons were immediately drawn with John Major, the last Conservative prime minister to win a majority. Major maintained a short-lived semblance of stability through a coercive whips office, which just about managed to keep the backbenchers appeased. However, although the situations are cosmetically similar there are some crucial differences.
A slim parliamentary majority and a major focus on the UK’s relationship with the EU has the potential to be a toxic combination for the Conservatives, as it was for Major in 1992. However, the dynamics are somewhat different. Cameron is currently on a high having increased seats and vote share, and successfully rescued his members from the policy restrictions created by their former Lib Dem colleagues. Cameron’s trajectory is upwards not down, and the new intake are loyal for the time-being. Furthermore, the opposition is disorganised. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are in a process of reorientation and the new SNP MPs are still finding their feet in Westminster. These dynamics will be important in giving the government breathing room in the early months of this parliament.
This does not mean governing will be plain sailing, rather that party management will be key. One important lesson from 1992 is that the backbenches will not, and cannot, be circumvented when votes are precious. In the last parliament Cameron was accused on numerous occasions of bypassing the 1922 Committee – the influential group of backbench MPs chaired by Graham Brady. The fact was that Cameron could get away with appearing to do so relatively unscathed. Despite it being the most rebellious five years on record, there was a healthy buffer of Liberal Democrats to help ensure legislation made it over the line.
In the post May-2015 era, those Liberal Democrats have gone and been replaced with a small but robust contingent of ‘awkward’ Tory MPs that could undermine some elements of the government’s legislative programme. Chief Whip Mark Harper is so far performing reasonably well in the circumstances. MPs have allegedly been receiving around four calls or texts per day from the whips office, checking up on their whereabouts, even on relatively unimportant votes. MPs have been told to limit their travel plans wherever possible, and it’s reported that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon even popped out of a COBRA meeting in order to vote. With turnout among Tories averaging around 96 per cent in key votes over the last month, the whips have been largely successful in maintaining an external picture of unity. This may be unsustainable over the longer term, though it is indicative of the ambition of the leadership to maintain discipline in front of the opposition, media and the public for as long as possible. The PM and his senior team know that the backbenches are far from ‘lobby fodder’, rather they have the power to unsettle the government significantly over the next five years. It’s no surprise then, that the day after the election, Cameron met with Mr Brady to “make sure that there is proper consultation early on in the policy-making process.” The following Monday, the PM addressed his backbenchers to rapturous applause and desk-banging. The whips’ task now is to maintain this sense of goodwill, and it remains to be seen what lengths they will go to in order to do so.
In 1992, the whips rewrote entire bills to address objections raised by backbenchers before they reached the Commons, to avoid embarrassing defeats. We have already seen some evidence of this trend re-emerging, when the government, under the threat of a rebellion, was forced to climb-down on a number of points in the EU Referendum Bill to appease eurosceptics. The vote was only a success due to Labour’s abstention, with 27 Tories supporting the ‘Purdah’ amendment.
The backbenches will be influential not just on legislation but on driving the wider government agenda. In the last parliament Robert Halfon - once dubbed by Cameron as Parliament’s “most expensive MP”, having tirelessly and successfully championed cuts in fuel duty and bingo tax, now attends Cabinet. Halfon is a perfect illustration of the power of an effective backbencher, and while he may now be inside the tent, other backbenchers will pursue their own issues with similar vigour. Whips and government ministers will need to carefully consider how to accommodate these campaigns in exchange for support on other issues and the avoidance of dissent.
The establishment of the Backbench Business Committee in 2011 was a procedural innovation that has strengthened the hand of backbenchers. An elected Select Committee, it gives an opportunity for MPs to bring forward debates of their choice, the topics and scheduling of which are removed from government control. This empowers parliamentarians and their impact on policy. For example, the Hillsborough debate helped force the government to clarify its position on the documents it held. Another debate on contaminated blood in the NHS led to an additional £100m-£130m of support for those affected.
Expect to see more of this over the coming five years. Tory party management will undoubtedly occupy column inches, as spectators scrutinise whether the whips are enabling successful delivery of the government’s agenda. Pork barrel politics will be used to secure support from potentially rebellious backbenchers via investment in constituencies or other pet projects.
The Tories have their majority but it is slim and it will only decrease through natural attrition. By-elections and defections reduced the coalition government’s working majority from 83 to 73. Ten seats is not a loss this government can afford.
This article was originally published on the Westminster Advisers blog.