Threat to Major could be blocked by MPs
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.DONALD MACINTYRE
Political Editor
Sharp differences have emerged within the Tory Party over whether rule changes which could make it impossible for John Major to be challenged again as Tory leader are desirable; proposals are to be examined by leading backbenchers.
Sir Marcus Fox, chairman of the 1922 committee, confirmed yesterday it was planning to re-examine the rules. A small sub-committee of senior officers of the committee is expected to be set up shortly to examine the procedures for electing party leaders.
But as Sir Marcus warned in a BBC Radio interview yesterday that the committee would not reach a hasty decision, it became clear that the committee executive is divided over whether a further change in the rules is desirable.
At least one member of the executive is expected to argue that the present system, under which a leader can be challenged from within his own party whether or not he is an elected Prime Minister, should be radically reformed. But other members of the committee, particularly on the party's right wing, are highly sceptical of the desirability of a rule change which they believe could simply be a manoeuvre to eliminate any possibility of an 11th-hour challenge to Mr Major before the general election.
Sir Marcus acknowledged that a further challenge in 1996 was theoretically possible, but said he was sure one would not take place because it would be "ludicrous" for the party to split in the run-up to a general election. He said: "There is a case about whether it is right that when we are in government, we should have a challenge every year to the Prime Minister when he is in office.
"The feeling among some is that it's quite different when you are in opposition. But in government, it's confusing, to put it mildly, and debilitating [to have a leadership contest]."
Sir Marcus has been briefed by his predecessor Sir Cranley Onslow on the issues examined by the 1922 Committee executive when it changed the rules for leadership contests after the fall of Baroness Thatcher in 1990. At present, 10 per cent of the parliamentary party must notify the 1922 chairman that they want a contest.
The insistence of Sir Marcus and at least one senior colleague that the examination would not be hurried, makes it possible the rules could remain intact until after the election.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments