Senior Tories say prime minister needs to rethink relations with Conservative backbenchers
Share 3
inShare1
Email 
David Cameron may find some of his supporters struggle in elections to the 1922 committee executive. Photograph: Rex Features
David Cameron has an unfortunate history with the Conservative 1922 committee which has historically acted as a forum for backbench MPs to vent their frustration with the party leadership.
Mindful of the way in which the 1922 helped destabilise the leadership of Sir John Major, Cameron tried to abolish the committee after the 2010 election by allowing frontbenchers to vote in its elections. Paul Goodman writes on ConservativeHome today that Cameron won the vote but backed off after it became clear that the centre right of the party were spoiling for a fight.
In the last two years relations between the government and the 1922 have been pretty poor. Members of the executive, such as Mark Pritchard and Peter Bone, regularly sound off against the government.
Cameron's allies, who believe the critics are unrepresentative of the parliamentary party, decided that the 1922 executive could do with a shake up. But with memories of the post-election fiasco still raw, they decided to influence the elections below the radar.
Key Downing Street allies liaised with the 301 Group to draw up a slate of candidates for the executive of the 1922 who would be more supportive, though by no means slavishly loyal, to the leadership. Paul Goodman and Matthew Barrett have written a piece on ConservativeHome about which MPs the 301 Group is supporting for which posts.
All was going swimmingly for Downing Street. Pritchard decided to stand down as one of two secretaries of the 1922 "without a shot being fired", one Cameron ally told me on Tuesday after it became clear he was losing support.
But the No 10 plans ran into trouble late last month when I reported, just four days before the local elections, that the 301 Group was planning to introduce "seismic change" to the 1922. Kris Hopkins, one of the founders of the 301 Group, told me that his supporters hoped to oust "bloody rude" members of the old guard from the 1922 executive.
The first key signs of a backlash came when I reported earlier this week that Nicholas Soames and Tracey Crouch, who are generally loyal to the leadership, would not be standing for election again to the 1922 executive. They hoped that by standing aside they would strengthen the position of some members of the old guard targeted by the 301 Group.
So what will happen when the elections are held later today? The results will probably be a mixed bag for the leadership. The 301 Group will probably achieve some successes. But there will probably be setbacks for the group and therefore Downing Street. Charlie Elphicke, who is being backed by the 301 Group for one of the two secretary posts, is thought to be struggling. Nick de Bois, the popular MP for Enfield North who made a late decision to stand without the support of the 301 Group, may well beat him.
James Landale has written an excellent piece about what the fuss over the elections mean. One thing is for sure. Cameron and George Osborne are seen as remote and out of touch – even by some of their supporters. They may need a rethink on how to reach out to their disgruntled colleagues.