The Conservative Party’s 1922 committee has the power to make or break the careers of MPs up to the party leader. This sealed the fate of two recent prime ministers.
In the final days of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss’s terms in office, it fell to committee chairman Sir Graham Brady to visit them in Downing Street and tell them the game was over.
The committee, which celebrated its 100th anniversary last year, was set up to represent the interests of backbench MPs. It operates behind closed doors, holding weekly meetings with MPs and acting as a conduit between the parliamentary Conservative Party and the Government.
Given the influence it wields, it is no surprise that the committee has occasionally drawn the ire of MPs. But in recent weeks, frustration among the backbenchers has reached boiling point, with committee members accused of acting as “aides” to the Prime Minister.
As one former Cabinet minister put it, the 1922 committee is now seen by some Tory MPs as “pro-Rishi”, far from acting as “shop stewards”.
Another MP told The Telegraph: “They no longer represent the party in parliament. It became a thank you club for Rishi. They are just his minions.” The MP claimed that some senior members of the committee may have been “bought off with gongs and nobles”.
A senior MP and former officer of the 1922 committee echoed this sentiment, saying: “One of the problems is that most of the officers in ’22 don’t get to see themselves as MPs again, so what are they looking for? They’re looking at House of Lords tickets.
“They should better represent what happened. There needs to be a healthy tension between the two in terms of their relationship with the Prime Minister. “They’re not really doing their job of vigorously advocating for the interests of their backbench MPs.”
MPs argue they are less inclined to shake things up and even try to curry favor with Sunak, as some of the committee’s senior members stand down at the next election.
Sir Graham said he would not stand as an MP again, as did William Wragg, one of the committee’s joint chairs, and executive member Jo Gideon.
Downing Street does not recognize claims about nobility and gong promises, a source said.
Some believe MPs who say they will stand down should give up their seats on the committee to make room for new faces.
A former Cabinet minister said: “Most people think that the 1922 committee was not a useful body for expressing disappointment with the Prime Minister. You either go to someone in Downing Street yourself, you go another route, or you make it public.
“No one even remembers their names except Graham Brady, who will be leaving at the next election anyway; This changes the situation. That makes him a lame duck.”
Others believe that the rise of factions in the Conservative Party was partly a response to a lack of confidence in the 1922 committee’s ability to adequately convey MPs’ feelings to ministers.
The rise of the groups “tells how divided the party was” and “shows how fragmented the 1922 committee was.” “We are not a functioning party,” some MPs claimed.
For some in the party, doubts about the aims of the 1922 committee date back to the last Conservative party leadership contest. “HE [Mr Sunak] “An MP was appointed by the committee and is still retained,” he said.
At the time of the last leadership contest, the committee was drafting the rules with the Conservative Party board. According to the rules, only candidates who have secured the candidacy of 100 Conservative MPs out of around 360 MPs present will be able to participate in the MPs’ voting round.
It meant Mr Sunak was crowned party leader and Prime Minister without votes being given to Tory party members who had voted for his predecessor, Ms Truss.
John Strafford, who chairs the grassroots Conservative Campaign for Democracy, said there was “no doubt” the committee had kept Mr Sunak in power.
“When Rishi became the Prime Minister, the ’22 committee teamed up with the party board and changed the existing system of how many people are needed to nominate a candidate,” he said. “They changed the rules in a pretty shameful way and there was no consultation with party members.”
One senior MP said: “To prevent a proper competition from happening, to prevent Boris from coming back etc. The way the rules were manipulated for, all of this showed that they were not objective and were pursuing their own interests. ”
But even the committee’s critics still heap praise on Sir Graham, who is widely respected by his colleagues. “Graham, to his credit, has always been very cautious, not disclosing what he said to prime ministers but treating many different cases with reasonable distinction,” one MP said.
Sir Graham said: “Much of the work of the officers and directors of the 1922 committee is done in private and is therefore more effective. “We also provide a regular open forum where all colleagues can express their views.”
