Yesterday's (October 12th) internal Foreign office reshuffle which made Chris Bryant (still a Parliamentary Secretary) Europe Minister and (Baroness) Glenys Kinnock (a Minister of State) Africa Minister. This is justified, amongst other things, as finishing the tidying up in ministerial responsibilities from the departure of Lord Malloch-Brown over the Summer.
It's the first time, I think, that the minister with the lead responsibility for Europe has been a mere Parliamentary Secretary. It's traditionally been seern (though its incumbents don't have a particularly good record of being promoted to Cabinet) as the most senior of the Foreign Office ministerial roles; and one of the most senior roles outside of Cabinet. But is now held by someone in the lower ranks of government.
It also underlines the rapidity with which this role has changed hands over the last few years. Under the Tories 18 years in office, there were 7 Europe Ministers - the longest serving being Douglas Hurd who served throughout the first of Thatchers terms from 1979-1983. They ranged from being the decidely Euro-sceptic David Davies and David Heathcote-Amory to the Euro-enthusiastic (some would say fanatical) Tristan Garel-Jones and Lynda Chalker. An average tenure of 2 1/2 years each.
Labour, in contrast, in just 12 years, have clocked up 12 Ministers (counting Geoff Hoon twice, as he had the job twice, though lasted less than 3 months the first time) - one a year.
Is this a result of the Labour government being less stable, more prone to reshuffles, than its predecessor? Well, the top posts have turnover at about the same rate as they have at any time. Europe being less important? You wouldn't get that from the lines the government have taken on Europe, how enthusiastically they have engaged, so that can't be the explanation either.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The departure of another minister (and her non-replacement)
The departure today of Baroness (Shriti) Vadera from her position as Parliamentary Secretary at (predictably both) the Business department and the Cabinet office has many interesting features, of which the newspapers have focussed on 'why' and 'what can it mean'.
She is yet another government minister (Malloch-Brown, Darzi) who has departed without a successor - the official statement is that her duties will be undertaken by Lord (Mervyn) Davies of Abersoch, the man who (eventually) successed Digby Jones as Trade Minister. Is this a reflection that her job in government has been concluded (seems unlikely given that she was a business minister and the economic realities haven't changed) or that no-one else wants the job?
Normally, you'd expect one reshuffle, on one day, triggered either by an event or the periodic wish of a Prime Minister to refresh government. This week, 3 months after the last reshuffle and not triggered by any forced departures, we've had two separate reshuffles, on two separate days. It's an unusually random and apparently uncoordinated approach to reshuffles - I can't think of any similar pattern to reshuffles over the last half century or so.
She is yet another government minister (Malloch-Brown, Darzi) who has departed without a successor - the official statement is that her duties will be undertaken by Lord (Mervyn) Davies of Abersoch, the man who (eventually) successed Digby Jones as Trade Minister. Is this a reflection that her job in government has been concluded (seems unlikely given that she was a business minister and the economic realities haven't changed) or that no-one else wants the job?
Normally, you'd expect one reshuffle, on one day, triggered either by an event or the periodic wish of a Prime Minister to refresh government. This week, 3 months after the last reshuffle and not triggered by any forced departures, we've had two separate reshuffles, on two separate days. It's an unusually random and apparently uncoordinated approach to reshuffles - I can't think of any similar pattern to reshuffles over the last half century or so.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
An unusual mini-reshuffle
Today, Margaret Hodge returned to the government in the same position she left it on October 3rd 2008 (Minister of State at Culture) and Barbara Follett (the Parliamentary Secretary who'd held the Arts portfolio for the previous year) filled the Parliamentary Secretary post at Communities, vacated by Sarah McCarthy-Fry in June.
It's unusual in that:
Hodge's departure and then return to precisely the same post is more akin to the compassionate leave you'd get in a more normal job than any other standing down from government for personal reasons I can think of. Normally, the best a minister would hope for is to return at the next available normal reshuffle to the same rank.
It appears to be at a time of Hodge's choosing. There's no other reason to hold this mini shuffle now (the vacated post having been vacant for over 3 months, no other posts involved, no imminent public policy statements requiring a new minister etc).
It's unusual in that:
Hodge's departure and then return to precisely the same post is more akin to the compassionate leave you'd get in a more normal job than any other standing down from government for personal reasons I can think of. Normally, the best a minister would hope for is to return at the next available normal reshuffle to the same rank.
It appears to be at a time of Hodge's choosing. There's no other reason to hold this mini shuffle now (the vacated post having been vacant for over 3 months, no other posts involved, no imminent public policy statements requiring a new minister etc).
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Why appoint another peer?
Minor reshuffles have gone almost unnoticed amongst the fuss as to who is 'running the country' during August (we never used to have this nonsense. Why do we have it now? Does the country genuinely need 'running' like this? Is it, perhaps, illustrative of the undermining of Cabinet government if we have to have a primus inter pares at all times?).
One of these minor appointments has been that of Lord Brett (who's last post before becoming a life peer in 1999 was being the general secretary of a trades union I'd never heard of but has now, after merger, become Prospect) as a Home Office Parliamentary Secretary in place of Meg Hiller, whilst she's on maternity leave.
Lord Brett may have merits but he's hardly shown the form to be a weather changing appointment a la Mandelson. So why, does a Prime Minister desperately in need of approval and endorsements from anongst his own Parliamentary (for which read, House of Commons) Party, pass up the opportunity to give a bauble to an MP, and instead give it to a journey-man peer? Brett doesn't have the sort of specialist skill or reputation that doesn't exist in the Commons, he's not an independent GOAT who can demonstrate what a consensual sort of chap the PM is. A golden opportunity to, at the least, get another MP on the payroll vote, grateful for the opportunity and experience passed up for, apparently, nothing.
Why?
One of these minor appointments has been that of Lord Brett (who's last post before becoming a life peer in 1999 was being the general secretary of a trades union I'd never heard of but has now, after merger, become Prospect) as a Home Office Parliamentary Secretary in place of Meg Hiller, whilst she's on maternity leave.
Lord Brett may have merits but he's hardly shown the form to be a weather changing appointment a la Mandelson. So why, does a Prime Minister desperately in need of approval and endorsements from anongst his own Parliamentary (for which read, House of Commons) Party, pass up the opportunity to give a bauble to an MP, and instead give it to a journey-man peer? Brett doesn't have the sort of specialist skill or reputation that doesn't exist in the Commons, he's not an independent GOAT who can demonstrate what a consensual sort of chap the PM is. A golden opportunity to, at the least, get another MP on the payroll vote, grateful for the opportunity and experience passed up for, apparently, nothing.
Why?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Unneeded ministers?
There's much talk from ex-ministers (Chris Mullin and Digy Jones spring to mind) about how we have far too many ministers. A recent trend towards not filling vacancies seems to confirm that some posts can be left perfectly well unfilled.
When Lord (Digby) Jones stood down from Government it took some time, months, for his successor as Trade minister, Lord (Mervyn) Davies to be appointed. Maybe this is an exceptional post as, right from the start with the appointment of Lord (David) Simon of BP to the same post, Labour have been keen on getting senior businessmen to take this particular post.
But when Sarah McCarthy-Fry left the Department of Communities and Local Government to replace Kitty Usher at the Treasury, just a few days after the last reshuffle, she wasn't replaced at the DCLG. At all.
Did the work of the DCLG need 6 ministers (2 shared with other departments) as it did on June 9th, or 5 ministers (again, 2 shared with other departments) as it has from June 17th?
In a few weeks time, Lord Malloch-Brown will stand down from his post at the Foreign Office - for reasons that don't stack up his long-standing decision to stand down could only be executed 7 weeks after a major government reshuffle that saw most of the other Foreign Office ministers change.
Will he be replaced immediately, or this be another example of a post that doesn't need filling?
When Lord (Digby) Jones stood down from Government it took some time, months, for his successor as Trade minister, Lord (Mervyn) Davies to be appointed. Maybe this is an exceptional post as, right from the start with the appointment of Lord (David) Simon of BP to the same post, Labour have been keen on getting senior businessmen to take this particular post.
But when Sarah McCarthy-Fry left the Department of Communities and Local Government to replace Kitty Usher at the Treasury, just a few days after the last reshuffle, she wasn't replaced at the DCLG. At all.
Did the work of the DCLG need 6 ministers (2 shared with other departments) as it did on June 9th, or 5 ministers (again, 2 shared with other departments) as it has from June 17th?
In a few weeks time, Lord Malloch-Brown will stand down from his post at the Foreign Office - for reasons that don't stack up his long-standing decision to stand down could only be executed 7 weeks after a major government reshuffle that saw most of the other Foreign Office ministers change.
Will he be replaced immediately, or this be another example of a post that doesn't need filling?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Shared Ministers & Whips
This latest reshuffle by the British Prime Minister is notable for many things - the first reshuffle in years carried out before the election results came out, the rarity of one precipiated by ministers announcing their departure from government (and in some cases, parliament) on a day-by-day basis and the oft-remarked increased influence of government by the House of Lords.
But two other features stood out for me.
Firstly, its the first time I can remember when there have been shared appointments between a government department and the whips office. Previously they'd always been thought of as quite distinct functions. But Diana Johnson (Hull North, and Education/Whips), Lord Young (Business/Whips) and Lord Davies (Environment/Whips)all straddle this divide, presumably both determining policy proposals (a ministers job) and then securing it (a whips job).
Given the distinct roles both play in committee and on the floor of the House it will be interesting to see how things happen in practice (of course, in the Lords, Whips have been customarily spokesmen for departments, usually when there isn't a departmental minister in the Lords, but being a minister is quite different from being a spokesman)
Secondly, no fewer than 13 ministers are shared between government departments. What started as an apparently quite sensible idea of sharing a Trade Minister between the DTI and the Foreign Office, has now ballooned to the extent that at ministerial level there are only 48 MPs below Cabinet level who don't share a job with another department.
But two other features stood out for me.
Firstly, its the first time I can remember when there have been shared appointments between a government department and the whips office. Previously they'd always been thought of as quite distinct functions. But Diana Johnson (Hull North, and Education/Whips), Lord Young (Business/Whips) and Lord Davies (Environment/Whips)all straddle this divide, presumably both determining policy proposals (a ministers job) and then securing it (a whips job).
Given the distinct roles both play in committee and on the floor of the House it will be interesting to see how things happen in practice (of course, in the Lords, Whips have been customarily spokesmen for departments, usually when there isn't a departmental minister in the Lords, but being a minister is quite different from being a spokesman)
Secondly, no fewer than 13 ministers are shared between government departments. What started as an apparently quite sensible idea of sharing a Trade Minister between the DTI and the Foreign Office, has now ballooned to the extent that at ministerial level there are only 48 MPs below Cabinet level who don't share a job with another department.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)