Cameron’s proposals ‘a recipe for anarchy’

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron was facing a growing backlash from Tory MPs last night over his plans to make it more difficult for the opposition to force a general election if the new coalition government is defeated on a vote of confidence.

Senior Conservative backbenchers branded the measure – designed to seal the coalition pact with the Liberal Democrats – as “constitutionally incoherent” and a “recipe for anarchy”.

Cameron insisted that the proposals – which would see him surrender the traditional right of the prime minister to choose the timing of the election – actually represented a “big giving up of power”.

However, Tory MPs opposed to the plan insisted they were “extremely hopeful” that ministers would be forced to re-think the whole idea.

Meanwhile, Cameron also found himself under fire from his Lib Dem allies, with newly appointed Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone sharply criticising the lack of women in the government, saying: “We must do better”.

The plan for five-year fixed-term parliaments was a key plank of the coalition deal hammered out by the Conservative and Lib Dem negotiating teams following the election stalemate.

In order to reassure both sides that neither party could cut and run in order to force a fresh election when it suited them, it was agreed there should be a binding resolution of the house requiring the support of 55% of MPs if parliament is to be dissolved early.

However, Conservative MPs have now joined with Labour in strongly condemning the proposal, warning it undermines the principle that a government can be forced out by a simple majority vote in the Commons.

Veteran Tory Richard Ottaway, who is one of the front-runners for the chairmanship of the Conservatives’ 1922 Committee of backbenchers, said it would “undermine the primacy of parliament”.

“It’s constitutionally incoherent. Unless it can be clarified, it’s not acceptable,” he said.

Another senior Tory, Christopher Chope, said the plan had been “cobbled together” without properly consulting MPs.

“If the present government was to lose its majority in parliament and wasn’t able to operate as a minority government because it didn’t enjoy the confidence of a sufficient number of MPs, then what is being suggested is that it would be able to carry on. That would be, basically, a recipe for anarchy,” he said.

Cameron, in Scotland for his first meeting with First Minister Alex Salmond, insisted the measure was necessary to secure stability, although he accepted that it would have to be debated in the Commons.

He said: “I’m the first prime minister in British history to give up the right unilaterally to ask the queen for a dissolution of parliament. This is a huge change in our system, it is a big giving up of power.

“Clearly, if you want a fixed-term parliament you have to have a mechanism to deliver it. Obviously that is a mechanism that can be debated in the House of Commons, it can be discussed, but I believe that it is a good arrangement to give us strong and stable government.”

However the danger for Cameron is that the issue could provide a rallying point for Tory MPs who are unhappy with the pact with the Lib Dems and who would have preferred the Conservatives to govern alone as a minority administration.