Is backbencher backbiting overshadowing leadership?

As first seen in Professional Manager

Politics used to be all about the “big beasts”: frontbench heavyweights with big personalities and big ideas. But a succession of political leaders has shifted power away from the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, and towards small cabals of advisers and acolytes.

In doing so, they have drawn policy decisions even further away from MPs on the party fringes, leading to a number of flashpoints between leaders and disgruntled backbenchers. Tony Blair was able to placate these MPs through a mixture of charm, bluff and minor concessions. But David Cameron has found this a much harder task.

Cameron’s backbenchers include the usual collection of lickspittling careerists – but they also contain a large number of MPs willing to risk career stagnation in order to challenge the party hierarchy. In addition to a familiar group of elder statesmen and embittered former ministers, this includes new, youthful backbench MPs from a diverse range of backgrounds. Given the broad church that these Conservatives represent, Cameron and his supporters have found it hard to whip them into line. As a consequence, rebellions have grown to a level approaching insurgency.

In stark contrast, Ed Miliband faces more benign objections from Labour backbenchers. Following a start to his leadership in which his momentum seemed glacial, Miliband was beset with questions over his competence. But improved performances at PMQs and a greater deftness with managing conflicting Old and New Labour factions has shored up his position and quelled backbench criticism.

What, then, of the Lib Dems? Nick Clegg has found his approach questioned by backbenchers on more than one occasion, but on the whole, most seem to accept that the party is locked in a loveless marriage with the Conservatives, and that any further turmoil would only harm the party and its chances for re-election.

The last government was characterised by its clashes between Brown and Blair – but this bickering did not prevent the party from presenting a (relatively) unified front in public. Both figures understood that party infighting is a guaranteed vote loser.

The difference for Cameron is that he is not faced with an ambitious colleague looking to dethrone him, but numerous colleagues questioning the government’s direction. It may well be highfalutin ideals that power these rebels. And their rebellions may be symptomatic of their simple desire to make a mark. Nonetheless, Cameron needs to find a way to placate them if he wants any chance of retaining power at the next election.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com