Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tories warn Cameron: Listen to us or we mutiny Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    David Cameron has been warned by rebel Tory MPs that they will sabotage future legislation if he does not listen to their concerns.


    As a sea of angry students demonstrated outside Parliament, an equally turbulent mood was building inside.




    A Conservative backbencher arriving for the crucial vote on tuition fees summed up the sinister atmosphere.




    "If there is a chance the Coalition could lose, I will vote against them," he said, a vindictive edge to his voice.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...we-mutiny.html


    Interesting - it may prove that the coalition will become unstable not thanks to the Liberal Democrats but to David Cameron's own backbenchers. What makes this more interesting is that it is the new intake that is vocal in their anger.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A mix of dinosaurs like Julian Lewis, opportunists like David Davis, and scared new Tory MPs who want some good publicity to hold onto their seats voted against the rise. The rest of the article isn't that useful without names - it just sounds like the usual suspects like Bill Cash whinging.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thats a load of rubbish and ill tell you why. The rebels who didn't vote didn't resign...they got fired by david cameron and have lost a load of power. Also its paper talk, there trying to sell papers and that's all it is. Its a new government and a new idea so there obviously going to make stories up about it because its something new.
    • Offline

      1
      Isn't Ed Milliband now holding out the 'hand of friendship' for them to join the Labour ranks...to become 'cross benchers' as it were, as they're still MP's and can't be 'sacked', only voted out at the next election by the electorate?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Nope hes not doing that. Infact the opposite arent the lib dems and tories goign together as one ticket at the next general election??
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      David Cameron is a mug and definitely not a natural leader in any sense. How he became the leader of anything I have absolutely no idea. He's made Britain look like a joke to America and the rest of the world and now we learn he clearly can't run his own party, shouldn't he quit while his failure is still behind Gordon Brown?
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      Typical Tories, arguing amongst themselves is more important than securing the future of the country. This happened in John Major's day when the economy was coming together between 94-97, the Tory MPs decided that they would rather let Labour in for 13 years than show some unity in the national interest.
      • Offline

        1
        (Original post by The_Great_One)
        Nope hes not doing that. Infact the opposite arent the lib dems and tories goign together as one ticket at the next general election??
        They might as well...there's no difference between them. :rolleyes:
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        To try and get this away from the stuff above-I assume the article is refering to the 1922 committee and the problems Camerons been having with them already. It may not be being reported but this parliament is in the midst of its most rebellious first session ever with government party members regually moving against the whips on all kinds of isses-even minor ones which they wouldn't usually care to tempt the whips wrath on. The tuition fees debate was simply one aspect, the most visable thus far, of this. This is part of a general trend for Parliamentarians to become more independent and less deferental thats been happening over the last 30 years while also being exaserbrated by an extreamly discontented 1922 (which Cameron tried and failed to reform in June and which contains many prominant right-wingers on its bench and which is disgruntled about the coalition and attempts to ;cut it out' of party conversation) and a Liberal democrat party which is traditionally very federal in its decision making and which is split over many issues.

        Already we've had the largest Lib Dem rebellion of all time both numerically and statistically and the most active Tory dissent since 1992/1993 and Maastrict which destroyed major. They've got a big enough majority ATM to hold things together but give it a year or so and the government will really be worrying. 46 Tories have already reblled, 26 of which are new members (who staistically are less likely to rebel-once you've done it once you tend to do it repeatedly) and if they go together that'd wipe out the government majority along-and we're only a few months in!
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        theres no rebellion, people are entitled to there opinions so what difference does it make. Theres some things i'd probably vote against as well if i was a MP doesn't mean im going to quit its just the way life is. Infact if i was a labour MP i'd probably vote against everything they propose lol. It's healthy to have some arguments because its very theraputical.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by The_Great_One)
        theres no rebellion, people are entitled to there opinions so what difference does it make. Theres some things i'd probably vote against as well if i was a MP doesn't mean im going to quit its just the way life is. Infact if i was a labour MP i'd probably vote against everything they propose lol. It's healthy to have some arguments because its very theraputical.
        I feel you really have a poor idea of how Parliament works. THere are a l;ot of rebellions-small, yes, but still significant in a Parliamentry context. Parties rely on decipline to get legislation through office and they maintain that as strongly as possible via the whips. Without this discipline they look in disarray, they struggle to get legislation through and they have to work hard at even the most basic functions (Plus it reduces the talent base to pick ministers and PUSSY's from). Look at the 1992-1997 Major government to see what a number of small but vocal rebels can do.

        Cameron is already facing a lot of rebels and thats within the first session-which is highly unusual. To compare this one to other first session-Blair faced rebellions on less than 1% of votes in 1997-1998 and numbers of MP's rebelling as below 10. IN 1953-1955 not a single Tory MP voted against the government whip-thats in 2 years!

        This is a very major issue and shows the traditional Tory control of its party is breaking down.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
        I feel you really have a poor idea of how Parliament works. THere are a l;ot of rebellions-small, yes, but still significant in a Parliamentry context. Parties rely on decipline to get legislation through office and they maintain that as strongly as possible via the whips. Without this discipline they look in disarray, they struggle to get legislation through and they have to work hard at even the most basic functions (Plus it reduces the talent base to pick ministers and PUSSY's from). Look at the 1992-1997 Major government to see what a number of small but vocal rebels can do.

        Cameron is already facing a lot of rebels and thats within the first session-which is highly unusual. To compare this one to other first session-Blair faced rebellions on less than 1% of votes in 1997-1998 and numbers of MP's rebelling as below 10. IN 1953-1955 not a single Tory MP voted against the government whip-thats in 2 years!

        This is a very major issue and shows the traditional Tory control of its party is breaking down.
        You keep telling yourself that.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by The_Great_One)
        You keep telling yourself that.
        Its basic academic fact-just look at the stats. The basic facts are that the Tories have always had a powerful back bench (http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content...2/183.abstract) and one which was more more infleuntal than labour via the 1922 committee but also one which rarly rebelled, or needed to rebel, to get its way. However sinve 1992 backbenchers have been at their most rebellious for all 3 parties (Discounting the 1975-1979 gvt.) and this has continued.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
        Its basic academic fact-just look at the stats. The basic facts are that the Tories have always had a powerful back bench (http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content...2/183.abstract) and one which was more more infleuntal than labour via the 1922 committee but also one which rarly rebelled, or needed to rebel, to get its way. However sinve 1992 backbenchers have been at their most rebellious for all 3 parties (Discounting the 1975-1979 gvt.) and this has continued.
        Tories are also better at getting rid of a leader... rather than messing around like Labour with people ducking and diving, Tories just execute the leader over a few days
        • Political Ambassador
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        Heard they are getting pissy because the Lib Dems can rebel all they want and nothing happens wheres the Tories are told vote or this is the end of your career
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Aj12)
        Heard they are getting pissy because the Lib Dems can rebel all they want and nothing happens wheres the Tories are told vote or this is the end of your career
        Indeed
        • Offline

          14
          (Original post by Teaddict)
          Tories are also better at getting rid of a leader... rather than messing around like Labour with people ducking and diving, Tories just execute the leader over a few days
          But a new leader would likely mean a new election. (The only possible exception being if they elected another liberal conservative that the LibDems could work with, which would just create the same problem over again.) I doubt many of the MPs really want to risk losing their job over this - especially the ones who have just managed to get into the HoC. So to me it just looks like a bit of brinksmanship.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Teaddict)
          Tories are also better at getting rid of a leader... rather than messing around like Labour with people ducking and diving, Tories just execute the leader over a few days
          Very true-the PLP has nothing on the 1922 in terms of infleunce and power.
          • Thread Starter
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Kolya)
          But a new leader would likely mean a new election. (The only possible exception being if they elected another liberal conservative that the LibDems could work with, which would just create the same problem over again.) I doubt many of the MPs really want to risk losing their job over this - especially the ones who have just managed to get into the HoC. So to me it just looks like a bit of brinksmanship.
          My comment wasn't directly exactly at this situation, rather a general observation.

          (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
          Very true-the PLP has nothing on the 1922 in terms of infleunce and power.
          Good times

          It has an awesome name as well 1922 Committee - that is a good sounding name. Oddly though, the committee was formed in 1923 :rolleyes:
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Teaddict)

          Good times

          It has an awesome name as well 1922 Committee - that is a good sounding name. Oddly though, the committee was formed in 1923 :rolleyes:
          True but it was after the Lib/Con coalition between (IIRC) 1919-1922 which kept Lloyd George in power and outraged many tories who saw the Libs as their worst enemies and Lloyd Georges as similar to the anti-chirst after the 1909 budget. Thus when the Cons swept the board in the 1922 election due to the growing power of Labour the new members decided to form their own coaltion to represent their interests against the leadership who had betrayed them-the 1922. They opened it up to others in IIRC 1925 but kept the tradition of it being closed to Ministers till 2010 when Cameron tried to force it open-only to backtrack pretty rapidly.

          Lot of echos of that situation ATM-there was talk of a 2010 committee after all...
         
         
         
        Reply
        Submit reply
        TSR Support Team

        We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

        Updated: December 13, 2010
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
        Useful resources

        Groups associated with this forum:

        View associated groups
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.