Will the Conservative Party face a financial crisis?

 As per the records of the Electoral Commission of the total funds raised by CCHQ in the last year 75% of those funds came from 10 donors.   I wonder how many of those donors will still be around if or when the Conservative Party loses the next General Election?   Could the Party end up as in the early 1990s when it had a deficit on net assets of £19 million?   Who would bail out the Party?   No good looking to the members as their numbers have dropped from approx 500,000 to 150,000 today and after every General Election you get a further fall in members!   The situation will be dire, but then what can you expect when the person in charge of CCHQ  i.e. the Party Chairman, is unelected by and unaccountable to the members of the Party.

How Rishi became Prime Minister?

 Great article by Camilla Turner:

Sunak being ‘propped up’ by 1922 committee ‘stooges’, claim MPs

Backbenchers allege some senior members of parliamentary group may have been ‘bought off with promise of gongs and peerages’

Camilla Turner SUNDAY TELEGRAPH POLITICAL EDITOR 6 April 2024 • 6:05pm

One former minister said that, far from acting as 'shop stewards', the 1922 committee was seen by some as 'propping up Rishi'

The Conservative party 1922 committee has the power to make or break the careers of MPs, right up to the party’s leader. It has sealed the fate of two recent prime ministers.

In the dying days of both Boris Johnson’s and Liz Truss time in office, it fell to Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the committee, to pay them a visit in Downing Street and tell them the game was up.

The committee, which celebrated it’s 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 Tory party and the Government.

Given the influence it wields, it is no surprise that the committee occasionally attracts the ire of fellow MPs. But in recent weeks, frustration among backbenchers has reached boiling point, with the committee’s members accused of acting as “stooges” for the Prime Minister.

As one former Cabinet minister put it, far from acting as “shop stewards”, the 1922 committee is now seen by some Tory MPs as “propping up Rishi”.

Another MP told The Telegraph: “They no longer represent the parliamentary party. It has become a thank you club for Rishi. They are just his stooges.” The MP claimed some senior members of the committee may have been “bought off with gongs and peerages”.

The 1922 committee is chaired by Sir Graham Brady, a veteran MP and former officer of the 1922 committee echoed that sentiment, saying: “One of the problems is that too many of the officers of the ’22 are not standing again as MPs, so what are they looking for? They are looking at their ticket to the House of Lords.

“They should be more representative of what’s happening. In terms of their relationship with the PM, there should be a healthy tension between the two. They are not really doing their job of robustly defending the interests of backbench MPs.”

The MPs argue that, since some of the senior members of the committee are standing down at the next election, they feel less inclined to rock the boat and are, if anything, seeking to curry favour with Mr Sunak.

Sir Graham has said he will not stand again as an MP, as has William Wragg, one of the committee’s joint chairmen along with Jo Gideon, an executive member. 

A source said Downing Street did not recognise claims about promises of peerages and gongs.

Some believe those MPs who have said they will stand down should give up their places on the committee to make way for fresh faces.

One former Cabinet minister said: “Most people feel that the 1922 committee is not a useful body for expressing frustration to the PM. You either go to someone in Downing Street yourself, or you go by other routes, or you go public with it.

“No one can even remember their names, apart from Graham Brady who is leaving at the next election anyway – that changes the position. It makes him a lame duck.”

Sir Graham Brady (centre), the chairman of the executive of the 1922 committee, with its officers in April last year. 

Others believe the rise of factions in the Conservative Party is in part a response to the lack of trust in the 1922 committee’s ability to adequately convey the feelings of the MPs to ministers.

The rise of factions “speak to how divided the party is” and “shows how broken the 1922 committee is. We are just not a functioning party”, some MPs have claimed.

For some in the party, suspicion around the motives of the 1922 committee dates back to the last Tory party leadership contest. “He [Mr Sunak] was put in position, and is being kept in position, by the committee,” said one MP.

At the time of the last leadership contest, the committee drew up the rules, along with the Conservative Party board. The rules stated that only candidates who can secure the nomination of 100 Tory MPs – out of roughly 360 available – can make it into the MPs’ voting round. 

That meant Mr Sunak was crowned party leader and Prime Minister without a vote going to Tory party members, who did vote for Ms Truss, his predecessor.

John Strafford, who chairs the grassroots group Conservative Campaign For Democracy, said there was “no doubt at all” that the committee was keeping Mr Sunak in power.

“When Rishi became Prime Minister, the ’22 committee acted in liaison with the party board and changed the existing system of how many people were needed to nominate a candidate,” he said. “They just quite disgracefully changed the rules, and there was no consultation with the party members.”

One senior MP said: “The way in which the rules were manipulated in order to prevent there being a proper contest, to prevent Boris being able to come back and so on, all of that showed them to be not objective and out for themselves.”

However, even those who criticise the committee still heap praise on Sir Graham, who is widely respected by colleagues. “Graham, to his credit, has always been very discreet, hasn’t revealed what he said to prime ministers but has handled with reasonable distinction a number of different occasions,” said one MP.

Sir Graham said: “Most of the work of the officers and executive of the 1922 committee is done privately, and is more effective for it. We also provide a regular open forum in which all colleagues can express their views.”