The 1922 Committee: Power behind the scenes

By Philip Norton

The Conservative Private Members (1922) Committee is an important but elusive force in British politics. Despite becoming almost a household name during the leadership crises of 2022, it remains little understood beyond the corridors of Westminster.

Established in 1923 by a group of Conservative MPs elected the year before, the Committee offers backbenchers an opportunity to discuss their views and coordinate independently of the frontbench. Over time it has become the kingmaker of the Conservative Party, overseeing leadership elections and confidence votes such as that faced by Boris Johnson over ‘partygate’.

How did the Committee come together? How is it structured and how much power does it really wield? These are among the questions the book considers. Providing unprecedented insights into this long-standing institution, it is essential reading for anyone who cares about the integrity of our political system.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Release date: Oct 17, 2023
• ISBN: 9781526173294

Book preview

The 1922 Committee

The 1922 Committee

Power behind the scenes

Philip Norton

MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copyright © Philip Norton 2023

The right of Philip Norton to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Published by Manchester University Press

Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL

www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 5261 7330 0 hardback

First published 2023

The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Typeset by Newgen Publishing UK

Contents

Preface: what is ‘the 1922’?

1Setting the scene: parliamentary parties in perspective

Part I: History

2Modest beginnings: the origins of the 1922

3Speaking truth to power: in war and peace

4Wielding the sword: the era of electing the leader

5The maker and slayer of leaders: from Cameron to Sunak

Part II: Organisation and leadership

6Who and when: membership and meetings

7Engaging members’ interests: backbench committees

8Transforming or presiding? Leadership in the ’22

Part III: The impact of the 1922

9What’s going on? Bedding in and being heard

10Collective action: a trade union for backbenchers

11Us versus them: maintaining the integrity of the party

12‘May I have a word, minister?’ Influencing policy, challenging ministers

13‘The men in grey suits’: choosing a leader

14Conclusion: the 1922 in British politics

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Preface: what is ‘the 1922’?

There are some questions that probably should not be attempted, or even asked, in pub quizzes. ‘What is the 1922 Committee?’ is a prime candidate. The name crops up in the British media, especially during periods of political crisis. It is mentioned in some texts and political memoirs. The problem is that attempts to explain what it is frequently get it wrong. Even its own executive committee has on occasion mistaken the date of its formation. ‘It is a political body set up in 1922.’ Incorrect. ‘It’s the name for the Parliamentary Conservative Party.’ Strictly speaking, no. ‘It is a group of Tory MPs set up to keep the party leadership on its toes.’ Incorrect. ‘It is a cabal’ (according to a Tory party activist in 2022). Er, no.

What media reports of the 1922 Committee do convey is that it is an ‘influential’ or ‘powerful’ body. Every so often, it appears prominently in media stories, not least when there is conflict or a leadership crisis in the British Conservative Party. At times, it has been seen as the body that has forced ministers out of office. A number of senior ministers under the governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major fell foul of the 1922 Committee and resigned. However, its greatest impact has been seen in both making and destroying Conservative leaders. In the twenty-first century, it is not so much the making as the slaying of party leaders that has rendered it a powerful body. In the three years from 2019 to 2022, the UK had three prime ministers who resigned, each doing so after being visited in No. 10 Downing Street by the chairman of the 1922 Committee,¹ Sir Graham Brady. None was removed by the electorate. Each had been the subject of Conservative MPs writing to Brady, calling for a vote of no confidence. Brady was a regular presence on television screens. In determining the fate of Conservative prime ministers, the 1922 Committee clearly matters.

However, it was not ever thus. The 1922 Committee has had an eventful, but uneven, history. It is in large part shrouded in mystery, reported, albeit sporadically, in media stories, but rarely the subject of sustained scholarly study. Its role in Conservative leadership elections, and in inducing ministerial resignations, is what renders it the focus of media attention, but it had no such role for the first few decades of its existence. It has, though, had some notable consequences for British politics. Those consequences are varied and significant.

Its name is a misnomer. Over the decades, many writers have indeed assumed that it was founded in 1922 and some have ascribed its origins to a meeting of Conservative MPs at the Carlton Club in October 1922 that brought down the Liberal–Conservative Coalition led by Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George.² The claim was still being made in 2022.³ Even the officers of the 1922 Committee have at times been confused as to the year of its creation and its origins. In 1971, one of the joint secretaries suggested writing a history to mark the 1922’s half-century the following year.⁴ It was pointed out that it was a year too early. The Committee clearly lacked an institutional memory, as in 1992 the officers were contemplating holding a 70th anniversary event until it was pointed out it was not 70 years of age.⁵

The 1922 Committee was not founded in 1922 and it is a not a committee. As we shall see, it was founded in 1923, formed by some MPs newly elected in the general election of November 1922, and was nothing to do with the Carlton Club meeting of the previous year. The motivation for its formation was not political, but practical: it was to enable new MPs to make sense of their surroundings. It evolved from being a body of newly elected MPs – the class of 1922 – to one encompassing all Conservative private members. It is the closest there is to being the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but it is not a creature of the party, nor is it the whole parliamentary party – it excludes the party leader (always) and ministers when in government. It was not formed by the party leadership, but by the members themselves, resulting in a body that enjoys autonomy within the Conservative Party.

Scholarly analyses of the 1922 Committee have been notable for their rarity. With the exception of the historian Stuart Ball, few have studied its history. The dearth of scholarly attention has meant that the 1922 is a powerful political body hiding in plain sight. This volume seeks to fill a notable gap. It has been written to mark the centenary of ‘the 1922’. In 2013, I wrote a booklet to mark its 90th anniversary.⁶ This is a greatly extended and updated version of that work. It retains the same basic framework, but with a much greater emphasis on the impact of the Committee, drawing out its consequences for the political system. It constitutes only the second book written exclusively about the 1922 Committee. The first, by one of its joint secretaries, Philip Goodhart, was published in 1973 to mark its 50th anniversary.

In writing this book, I have benefitted enormously from the support and co-operation of the current chairman of the Committee, Sir Graham Brady, and of other officers as well as of a wide range of past and present Conservative MPs. As explained in Chapter 1, I have benefitted greatly – indeed, the work would not have been possible without it – from access to the minutes of the Committee.

I am also indebted to Manchester University Press for the care and attention they have given not only to the editorial process, but also to the production process. One incentive for accepting the contract to publish the volume with MUP was the quality demonstrated in publishing Governing Britain,⁷ showing that books can be published in hardcover, with excellent print quality, at a price that students can afford. I am also grateful for the valuable and enthusiastic comments of the anonymous referee, whose feedback has been enormously helpful.

Although I have benefitted greatly from the knowledge and insights of a wide range of parliamentarians, as well as fellow scholars, I alone am responsible for what follows. I welcome comments from readers.

Philip Norton

University of Hull

Chapter 1

Setting the scene: parliamentary parties in perspective

Political parties are fundamental to legislatures. They mould behaviour. It is impossible to discuss political activity in legislative chambers and committee rooms without reference to party. Candidates normally stand under a party label and are elected because of that label and once in the legislature their lives are shaped by party.

Since the emergence of organised mass-membership political parties in the nineteenth century, parties have been at the heart of normative assessments of parliaments, the growth of party seen as facilitating the transfer of power from the legislature to the executive. The scholar-politician Lord Bryce in 1921 identified the multiplication of parties as one of the ‘chronic ailments’ undermining representative assemblies. He titled one of his chapters ‘The decline of legislatures’ and the term entered the scholarly lexicon.¹ ‘Writing just after the First World War, Bryce at once summarised the view of an entire generation of observers of representative institutions and provided a dogma for a new generation of disillusioned democrats.’² In the UK, there was a perception of a fall from the ‘golden age’ of Parliament, or, as Bernard Crick put it, of ‘an ideal image of the past’.³

Subjective assessments aside, government of a nation is party government. Parties contest elections for the purpose of achieving a sufficient number of seats to form a government or to be able to form part of a governing coalition. The relationship between government and the legislature is determined in most cases by party. Anthony King, in a seminal article on executive–legislative relations, identified five modes of the relationship: the opposition, intra-party, inter-party, cross-party and non-party modes.⁴ They all derive from, and are meaningless without reference to, party. Members normally sit in party groups and vote loyally as their leaders dictate. Deviations from the party stance are the exception and not the rule.⁵ In the UK House of Commons, when members are permitted free votes, unencumbered by a party line, the best predictor of voting behaviour is party.⁶ In the House of Lords, where parties have few means of imposing discipline on members, peers display high levels of party loyalty in votes.⁷ High levels of unity, as well as deviations from the party line, have been the subject of scholarly analyses. Various sophisticated models have been devised to explain party cohesion.⁸

Yet what is notable about this growing body of scholarship is what is missing. The literature addresses primarily observable, recorded and quantifiable behaviour. Speeches and questions asked can be subjected to rigorous qualitative and quantitative analysis. Votes, especially in legislatures utilising roll-call voting, can be analysed and assessed, employing techniques to test theories of legislative voting behaviour.⁹ Yet political parties, or party groups, do not operate solely in the chamber and committee rooms. They typically have a distinct organisational structure within the legislature. Party members do not simply come in as individuals and vote as the party dictates. They form part of a formally recognised, and organised, party group. Party groups normally have to be recognised as such by the chamber authorities, or rules, in order to be allocated resources. The party or party group will usually have a formal structure, with leadership positions and whips. They may have their own dedicated space. In the US Congress, for example, each party in each House has its own room, known as a cloakroom, where members can meet, discuss legislative strategy and prepare Floor strategy.¹⁰ Party members may meet, or caucus, on a regular basis and have their own secretariat, separate from the formal leadership. In some legislatures, the vote of the caucus binds members to support the decision in the chamber. When the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) was formed in the British Parliament in 1906, the party’s constitution required Labour MPs to abide by decisions of the parliamentary party in carrying the aims of the constitution.¹¹ As party leader Clement Attlee later observed, the party ‘insists … on majority rule’.¹²

Relative to the mass of scholarship on party behaviour in the chamber and committee rooms, that within the party organisation is neglected. That this should be so is explicable in that such behaviour is not normally observable and measurable. Party caucuses are usually held behind closed doors. Members of a party may prefer to mix with one another informally or to utilise the party infrastructure to discuss matters independent of party leaders or in order to convey their views privately to the leadership. Members can give vent to views they may not wish to be made public. ‘The idea of keeping the proceedings private is simply that the party does not wish to advertise publicly its internal strains and stresses.’¹³ What happens in the private confines of a party caucus may determine members’ behaviour in public. Behaviour in the chamber may be explicable only by what has happened in private party deliberations. Yet while the former is much studied, the latter is largely ignored.

There is some English-language literature on party organisation in particular legislatures, as on the US Congress,¹⁴ but little that compares legislatures. The most substantial comparative work is Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies, edited by Knut Heidar and Ruud Koole, published in 2000.¹⁵ The contributions to that work provide valuable analyses of party groups in Western legislatures. The focus, though, is often the relationship with other political actors, such as the extra-parliamentary party, and the rules and powers of the party group, not least in enforcing discipline. A more recent analysis by Schindler and Kannenberg also focuses on the formal rules – the standing orders – of party groups and the extent to which groups enjoy autonomy from the party leadership.¹⁶ To what extent does the party leadership determine the decisions of the party group? Members may have to sign up to accept party discipline. This is a common feature of analyses of the link between parties and parliamentary voting behaviour: the extent of intra-party democracy and its impact on candidate and leadership selection typically form the basis for explaining levels of party cohesion.¹⁷

There are few analyses of what actually happens within the party groups when they hold their regular meetings. The limited literature is summarised by Saalfeld and Strøm in their overview of political parties and legislators in The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. As they observe, ‘The black box of intra-party preference heterogeneity, organization, and decision-making (and its importance for legislative outcomes) has rarely been opened up.’¹⁸

Our purpose here is to prise open the ‘black box’ and look at the consequences of party organisation within the legislature. We do so through a case study of the party group in the British House of Commons known as the 1922 Committee. ‘The 1922’ may go through periods of not receiving much media coverage, but when there are tensions in the Conservative Party, especially at times of a leadership crisis or a Conservative minister coming under attack for a policy or behaviour, the 1922 comes under the media spotlight. It is described as ‘powerful’ or ‘influential’ and, in terms of removing the party leader, as a kingmaker. Yet this powerful body is much misunderstood – its name alone giving rise to false assumptions – and little studied. As noted in the preface, few scholarly analyses have been published. Other than studies by the historian Stuart Ball¹⁹ and this writer,²⁰ the only substantial work has been by a secretary of the 1922, Philip Goodhart, to mark the 1922’s 50th anniversary in 1973.²¹ This work seeks to fill a notable gap and comprises both a history of the 1922 during the first century of its existence and an assessment of its consequences.

The power of the 1922

Power is a term much used in political discourse, but it is a concept that has different meanings. Steven Lukes advanced three views: in essence, the pluralist, elitist and institutional.²² The first is concerned with who achieves a desired outcome once an issue is on the agenda, the second is concerned with who determines what gets on the agenda, and the third is concerned with the structures and processes that determine how an issue is resolved. The first tends to be the view utilised by most studies of political decision making. Each has a utility for analysing the consequences of the 1922 Committee for British politics.

The pluralist view is concerned with observable outcomes when there is a dispute over what to do. Has A achieved the outcome desired in getting B to do that which otherwise B would not do? It may be achieved through coercion, B believing that they have no practical capacity to resist, or through persuasion, B having a choice but exercising it in favour of A. In the context of the 1922, the Committee is powerful when there is a dispute and it achieves an outcome desired by most of its members.

An elitist view of power is concerned not with how issues are resolved once they are on the agenda, but with how they are kept off the agenda.²³ Issues may be kept off by shared attitudes of those who set the agenda not wanting something discussed,²⁴ or by anticipated reaction, that is, wanting a matter considered but anticipating it will engender opposition and possible defeat. It may not be worth the effort. An issue may be kept off the agenda if a leader or minister believes that MPs won’t support it and, in order to avoid conflict in the chamber or with the 1922 Committee, does not pursue a policy. The problem with non-decision-making is that it is not usually observable and quantifiable. There may be occasions when some information is gleaned that anticipated reaction has deterred a minister from proceeding with a particular policy, but on other occasions there may be no record of it.

The institutional view of power is not concerned with the substance of a dispute, but rather the process by which it is resolved. Institutions are not neutral in their effect. Their structures and rules can affect outcomes in a way that differs from what would happen if they had different structures and rules or if they did not exist at all.²⁵ MPs’ behaviour in the House of Commons is shaped by detailed rules, interpreted and enforced by a presiding officer. Members’ behaviour may change as rules change. Leadership of parties is determined by a set of rules that may be amended over time. The rules may differ between parties. Had the British Labour Party in 2015 had the same rules as the Conservative Party for electing a leader, Jeremy Corbyn would almost certainly not have become leader of the party. Had the Conservative Party retained its pre-1965 process of selecting a leader by ‘emergence’, Margaret Thatcher by her own admission would not have become party leader in 1975.²⁶

Not offering a definition of power can result in analysts talking past one another. The 1922 may not regularly challenge successfully policies favoured by the leadership; from a pluralist perspective, it is thus not very powerful. However, when it comes to electing the leader of the Conservative Party, it is the 1922 that determines the rules and timetable. Those seeking to be leader have no option but to work within the rules set by the 1922. Thus, from an institutional perspective, the 1922 matters and it matters greatly.

A functional approach

These views of power are not mutually exclusive. Each allows us to examine a body from a particular perspective to understand its effect on the political system. They provide a framework to explore the consequences of the 1922, which, following Robert Packenham, we term functions of the 1922.²⁷ As Packenham noted, those who write about legislatures assume that that they have consequence for the political system; as such, all those who study legislatures are, explicitly or implicitly, functionalists.²⁸ Packenham spent time observing a legislature in action and teased out consequences it had for the political system. He was examining a body that had little or no impact on public policy – it was a legislature operating in a nation under military control – but nonetheless fulfilled tasks, such as acting as a safety valve for tensions generated by the political system. As he recorded of the legislature, ‘even if it had no decision-making power whatsoever, the other functions which it performs would be significant’.²⁹ Research of legislatures in other non-democratic nations has led to a similar conclusion.³⁰

A functional approach provides a basis for scholars to assess the impact of party groups in legislatures. This approach does not rest on a theory of party groups, but rather, following Packenham, offers a checklist for scholars to utilise in assessing the behaviour of party groups in legislative chambers.³¹ Are these functions replicated in other legislatures? Do they have the same significance? Even where, as is variously the case, party groups are not autonomous of the party leadership, do they have consequences for the political system? This is essentially a starting point for making sense of party groups in their legislative environment and comparing consequences provides the basis for seeing commonalities, and differences, and generating theories to explain them.

Methodology

This study of the 1922 Committee utilises a range of methodologies. The principal approach is anthropological. As Emma Crewe, herself an anthropologist, wrote in her study of the House of Commons, ‘Parliament has everything an anthropologist loves,’ including conflicts, rituals and hierarchies.³² ‘The Westminster Parliament is famous, changing and misunderstood; perpetually in the news but always mysterious.’³³ The 1922 Committee can well be claimed to fall within the mysterious, certainly for the scholar, given that it operates primarily in private space. The challenge is essentially getting behind the scenes and immersing oneself in the life of the community.

For that purpose, this study utilises the most common form of anthropological study, namely that of participant observation. It is ‘a way of knowing from the inside’.³⁴ It entails observing while participating in the rituals and other events of the specific community. ‘There is no contradiction … between participation and observation: rather, the one depends on the other.’³⁵ As a Conservative peer, I have had the opportunity to attend the weekly meetings of the 1922 Committee and have done so regularly since entering Parliament in 1998. It is a case of not just observing the natives, but also being one of them. I have drawn on my notes of meetings, made contemporaneously. Discerning readers will see the odd reference in the text that demonstrates my occasional engagement going beyond passive attendance.

An anthropological approach also has one other distinguishing feature. ‘To do anthropological research well, you have to have an open mind and to approach conversations, observation and encounters with a willingness to learn.’³⁶ This study is therefore not couched within a particular theoretical approach: there is a basic framework in terms of power, but no testable hypotheses. Different behavioural theories have helped inform my observation, but none has formed an exclusive basis of analysis.

As part of an anthropological study, participant observation is complemented, and for the early history of the 1922 substituted, by textual analysis. This encompasses archival research, drawing on the minutes and other records of the Committee held in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, as well as other primary material, such as that held in the Thatcher Archive at Churchill College, Cambridge, and newspaper articles available through The Times Archive and the British Newspaper Archive. It also encompasses my own archives, comprising records of interviews and correspondence with MPs who sat in various twentieth-century parliaments, undertaken in the early 1970s as part of research on Conservative parliamentary behaviour. Utilising these sources is necessary to analyse the historical development of the 1922. There is no one still alive who can recount events in the first few decades of its existence. Diaries and memoirs of parliamentarians can provide information beyond that given in the formal minutes, not least in providing insights, identifying the impact of the speaker, and giving a sense of the mood of the meeting. Memoirs may also offer useful reflections on the nature and utility of ’22 meetings. They can have value in terms of what is not said, with a dearth of references suggesting that the ’22 has not impacted greatly on the political life of the writer.

Archival research extends to media reports of the 1922 throughout its history. This encompasses regional and local newspapers, not least for the early decades when they were an important source of information for citizens. Media stories can be useful for reflecting the importance of an issue. Some members may leak what has happened in meetings of the 1922, though their interpretation is likely to be partial and can be at odds with the interpretation offered by others who were present. Lobby correspondents ‘are experts at reading between the lines and writing very plausible stories – usually with a considerable basis of truth’,³⁷ though on occasion the information is garbled or simply incorrect. Michael Spicer, chairman of the 1922 Committee, recorded in his diary on 28 June 2001: ‘Evening Standard says I was overridden on the timing decisions [of the party leadership election] by ’22 Executive committee – not true.’³⁸ Media reports have been utilised to reflect when activity of the 1922 is deemed to merit attention. At times of high tension within the party, as when a leader is under pressure or a leadership election is under way, the corridor outside the committee room where the 1922 is meeting is usually crowded by journalists, ‘waiting’, in the words of one MP, ‘to ensnare unwary backbenchers’.³⁹ Members may have difficulty navigating their way into the room. News bulletins and the next day’s newspapers will cover the meeting. At other times in recent years, there is at most a lone journalist hoping to catch a snippet from departing members.

For recent decades, I have also drawn on interviews with MPs and former members. These include those who have served as officers and others who are regular attenders, as well as members who are infrequent attenders. Recent decades have seen senior and sometimes not so senior politicians publish their memoirs or diaries. A good number have proved a valuable source for reports of activity in the 1922. Some make no mention of it, which, as already noted, may reflect the fact that it does not figure significantly on their radar, with these politicians preferring to devote their time to other political activities.

The book is divided into three parts. The first recounts the history of the Committee, based on three critical junctures. Various events determined the birth and development of the 1922. In the early years, its continuance was by no means guaranteed. Nor was it initially a powerful force in the Conservative Party. That it became so was a consequence of events in the 1930s exogenous to the Committee. Controversy over the traditional means of selecting the party leader led to it becoming a key actor in determining