Cameron faces only a dinner party revolt

Anumber of rightwing Conservative MPs are confused and uneasy. Though they do not believe that their leaders are a brace of homosexual cowboys, they are afraid of being led into the wilderness. On Wednesday, Norman Tebbit, the laureate of rightwing disgruntlement, complained that, while abroad, David Cameron has not been doing enough to exalt his country. He wonders whether the prime minister is a proper Tory leader. Some Tory MPs mutter along similar lines.

Their doubts go all the way back to Mr Cameron’s 2005 leadership campaign, in part a Bolshevik coup. Mr Cameron was head of a small group of young men convinced that the party had to change to become electable. Although they fought under the banner of change, they did not confide the radicalism of their anxieties and ambitions to the Tory electorate.

Thereafter, Mr Cameron demonstrated he understood the importance of momentum. He set a relentless pace. When this threw his critics off-balance, he kept them there. In all this, he had one asset. Most Tories were fed up with losing. They were prepared to follow a leader who looked like a winner. Then came the frustration. He did not win outright.

As a result, there was disillusion and resentment. Mr Cameron was blamed for chuntering on about the Big Society – instead of crime, immigration and welfare abuse, tunes that the Tory orchestra could play blindfold. There was often a personal edge to the criticism. As a result of the coalition, 20 Tories who had borne the heat and labour of opposition were denied ministerial office. Some of them think their last chance is gone. There are a fair few bright new Tory MPs. Within a couple of years, they will be ready for promotion.

Disappointment fuels suspicion. When he awoke on May 7, Mr Cameron took some rapid decisions. He was certain that Britain needed a strong government. That meant a coalition. To make this happen, there was no room for lingering regrets. The Liberal Democrats had to be made welcome, not greeted with long faces and if onlys. In one respect, this has worked. Though Lib Dems can argue they should not have formed the coalition, no rational Liberal – not wholly an oxymoron – could claim that they should have held out for more jobs.

Tories are less sanguine over jobs, and some of the mourners think that Mr Cameron is enjoying the coalition too much. His clumsy intrusions in backbench committee elections, including the 1922 Committee, have not helped. There is only one thing worse than a cack-handed intervention: an unsuccessful cack-handed intervention. That was a needless waste of his authority.

When the Tory party feels agitated, it always turns to the most traditional Tory form of protest: passive resistance. It forms dining clubs. There are plans for a number of these, to be launched in the autumn. The Tory party staunchly believes that between the revolution and the firing squad, there is always time for a good dinner. Of itself, that should not alarm the authorities. The Tory party is never dangerous when it is dining well. Julius Caesar worried about the lean and hungry men. Dining clubs would cure them. By the end of the evening no one can remember what, if anything, was decided.

But there are other plans afoot. A large number of Tory MPs are unhappy about the proposals for constitutional reform. They feel that these have not been thought through and that they could prove to be a second instalment of Blairite recklessness. The referendum on AV (the alternative vote) is the immediate challenge. It will require legislation. Bernard Jenkin and other Tory rebels would be ready to co-operate with the Labour front bench to defeat it.

Mr Jenkin has form. In the 1992 parliament, he was one of the Tories who collaborated with Labour to sabotage legislation on the Maastricht treaty. Today’s Labour leadership might conclude the coalition could not survive the death of AV.

Mr Cameron has huge assets. David Davis may be ever a plotter looking for a conspiracy, but not many Tory MPs would volunteer to become the masseur of his ego. The vast majority are committed to the spending cuts and to the education reforms. In both cases, success would be a title to greatness. It is probable that the only rebellion the leadership has to fear is the scent of roast beef and claret in a Commons’ dining room. Even so, the Right needs stroking, and watching.

The writer is a political commentator