Yet more elections

Vince Cable has resigned as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in order to better focus on his new role in the coalition government. The Deputy Leadership election will be interesting to watch. Will Liberal Democrat members support the coalition and vote for a member of the government, or will they support an outsider from the backbenches? We'll know the result by mid-June.

For now the main talk is about why Vince Cable has chosen to resign - the real reason. The decision is an interesting one as many have said that, if the coalition begins to fall apart, Dr. Cable is likely to be the first to going.

Vince the Cable, as Andrew Neil calls him, is one of the most famous Liberal Democrats in the country, second only to Nick Clegg – and Mr. Clegg only overtook Dr. Cable in popularity during the election campaign. Dr. Cable has stated on several occasions his belief that the two coalition parties are not natural partners.

Cable was once a Labour councillor in Glasgow and many think he would have preferred a coalition with that party rather than the Conservatives. So was today's resignation just a way of allowing himself to resign from the government more easily at some point in the future, if the coalition begins to falter?

The Labour party will be hoping that the coalition stays together for at least a little while as they won't have a permanent leader in place for months. Now Labour have setup a leadership counter on their official website which shows the number of nominees for each candidate. Each potential leadership contender requires the support of at least 33 Labour MPs. As I type this, only the two Miliband brothers have the required numbers. Surprisingly, all the other candidates (including Ed Balls, seen to be one of the favourites) are some way from the number of MPs needed. They have until 9 June to get enough support, and all claim they'll be able to do it, but there is a chance that the field might not be as crowded as some had thought just a few days ago.

Not wanting to be left out, today the Conservatives had their own election. This one was for the new chairman of the 1922 Committee.

As I said in a previous blog, David Cameron had succeeded in changing the rules of the extremely powerful committee in order to allow government ministers to be members. Perhaps sensing the anger this act had caused, the Prime Minister agreed that although Conservative members of the government could join the 22, they would not be allowed to vote in any of its elections.

I wonder if the PM now regrets that decision, as tonight the 22 elected Graham Brady (the MP for Altrincham and Sale West) as their new chairman. Mr. Brady is not what you'd call a great supporter of the Prime Minister. He was once the Shadow Minister for Europe under David Cameron, but he resign in 2007 so he could more easily criticise the Conservative leader over his position on grammar schools. I wouldn't expect the 1922 Committee to be very sympathetic to the Conservative leadership in the times ahead.

Meanwhile, there is one more election to report. Tomorrow the voters of the Thirsk and Malton constituency will go to the polls to elect their new MP. Voting had to be delayed from the general election after the death of the UKIP candidate during the campaign. In the UK, if a candidate for an election dies after nominations have closed, the election is delayed to prevent a dead person being elected - as has happened in some countries.

The newly created constituency should be a safe Conservative seat, with the Liberal Democrats in second place. Reports on the grown say that the fight between the coalition partners is as fierce as ever. Strangely though, whether Thirsk and Malton's voters go for the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, the winning candidate will sit on the government benches in the House of Commons.

And some people thought the elections all ended on 6 May.

The power of 1922

It's often said that, due to the UK's wonderfully bizarre unwritten constitution, it's a lot easier to remove a Conservative Prime Minister from power than it is to remove a Labour Prime Minister. There are mechanisms for removing a Labour PM, but they're convoluted and, more than that, Labour MPs tend to be unwilling to use such mechanisms. This is not true of Conservative MPs who have a belligerent tendency, not to mention the fact that they can remove their leader with a very straightforward mechanism which rests in the infamous 1922 Committee.

The committee was actually formed in 1923 but was named after the year in which its founders were elected. However, when Conservatives hear '1922', they don't think of the general election which took place in that year, they think of something far more dramatic.

On Thursday 19 October 1922 Conservative MPs gathered at the Carlton Club in London to discuss the coalition government which consisted of Conservatives and Liberals. Does this sound familiar? The difference between that coalition government and the current one is the Prime Minister in the 1922 coalition was a Liberal (David Lloyd George), despite the fact that the Conservatives were the largest party in the Commons.

Austen Chamberlain, the leader of the Conservative party and Chancellor of the Exchequer under Lloyd George, strongly supported the continuation of the coalition as did most of the leadership of the party. But many of the ordinary Conservatives MPs did not like linking themselves to an unpopular Liberal Prime Minister. So on that day in October 1922, there was a vote of the members present at the Carlton Club, effectively on whether to remain in the coalition or not. The party leadership lost the vote, 187 to 87, and as a result Chamberlain resigned as leader, the coalition collapsed, an election was called and the Conservatives won a majority in the Commons. Ever since, '1922' has been shorthand for the devastating power of ordinary MPs when they become sufficiently disgruntled.

The new Conservative MPs who entered Parliament in the 1922 election formed a committee of backbench MPs – the 1922 Committee – which continues to this day and is far more powerful than equivalent groups in any other mainstream party. For example, an immediate vote of confidence in the leader of the Conservative party can be called if just 15% of MPs write to the 22's chairman asking for one, and Conservatives are not timid about using this power either. It was most recently used less than seven years ago to forcibly remove Iain Duncan Smith from the leadership.

Perhaps this is why yesterday David Cameron changed the rules of membership of the 1922 Committee. Previously, only Conservative MPs who were not part of the government were allowed to be members of the 22. At the Prime Minister's request, this rule has been changed and now all Conservative MPs are allowed to join. This is significant as members of the government are far less likely to vote against their Prime Minister in any vote of confidence. The 22 has other powers, such as overseeing elections within the Conservative party, including the selection of Conservative chairpersons of Parliamentary committees, which can now be influenced by the government.

Interestingly, the vote to change the rules wasn't that close - 168 supported the change, 118 were opposed. Of course, when you consider the fact that there are 147 new Conservative MPs, it is not too surprising as they wouldn't want to upset the leader who has just brought them into Parliament, but many of the older Conservative MPs were very angry at this change.

David Cameron should perhaps be careful; even after these changes, the 1922 Committee is still extremely powerful and past experience shows Conservatives are not coy about using their power.