Dictionaries offer translations of the word “reshuffle”—it is “remainiement” in French—but its full political meaning is unique to Britain. No other country offers the kind of drama we have just seen in Westminster, with one group of ministers being sacked or demoted and others installed in their place, simply for the purposes of refreshing the top team. Elsewhere ministers tend to stay in their job longer between elections, unless scandal or ill-health forces them out.
Should we be proud of Britain’s singular way of moving ministers around? The fate of Dominic Raab is instructive. Had his appointment as justice secretary been a promotion, we might applaud Boris Johnson’s decision. Raab originally trained as a lawyer and has had junior positions dealing with human rights (2015-16) and courts and justice (2017-18).
However, we know that this is not the real story. Raab has been a poor foreign secretary but Johnson felt he could not sack Raab altogether. Justice, with the beefed-up title of deputy prime minister, was a political fix, not a commitment to better government. It brings to mind what happened to Geoffrey Howe in 1989. He, too, was forced out of the Foreign Office. He, too, was made deputy prime minister as a consolation prize for demotion to leader of the House of Commons.
A year later Howe exacted his revenge, resigning from Margaret Thatcher’s government and delivering a blistering speech which triggered the leadership contest that forced Thatcher out of Downing Street.
Before we get carried away dreaming of Raab following Howe’s trajectory, let us return to the question of whether reshuffles improve the way we are governed—or sell the country short precisely because they are so often exercises in short-term political tactics.
Last year, the Institute for Government published analysis which bemoaned the fact that cabinet ministers since 1997 have stayed in their jobs for just two years on average, while junior ministers tend to last little more than a year. In other countries ministers stay in their jobs significantly longer. This gives them a real chance to get on top of their subject and exercise significant political control over their department.
As Raab takes over at Justice, he follows Michael Gove (who held the job for 14 months in 2015-16), Liz Truss (11 months), David Lidington (seven months), David Gauke (18 months) and Robert Buckland (26 months). So only Buckland survived two years. Has he now been sacked for being incompetent? Well, he has not suffered the kind of (justified) briefing that prepared the ground for Gavin Williamson’s dismissal from Education. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Buckland is a casualty of the prime minister’s reluctance to send Raab to the backbenches.
And, yes, while Raab has held two relevant junior posts, they were for only 14 and seven months respectively.
The point here is not that Raab’s story is exceptional but that each of its components is pretty familiar. Should we do things differently?
Certainly longer spells in cabinet jobs would mean greater political control. George Osborne and Theresa May demonstrated this by keeping the same jobs (chancellor and home secretary) throughout David Cameron’s six years as prime minister. I daresay I am not alone in withholding great praise for their record. However, they faithfully applied the doctrines on which the Conservatives won (sort of) the 2010 election. If “better” is defined as delivering over time the policies on which they were elected, Osborne and May were clear advertisements for ministers keeping their jobs for an extended period. (The same can be said of Gordon Brown, chancellor for 10 years despite his stormy relationship with Tony Blair.)
However, to change the system of appointing, moving and sacking ministers would be to fundamentally change the power of the prime minister. Much of the PM’s authority between elections flows from his or her power of patronage. Keeping that power means regular reshuffles and often absurdly short periods in particular jobs. Get rid of reshuffles and the dynamics between Downing Street, ministers and parliament change hugely.
It won’t happen any time soon—and probably not at all without much wider constitutional changes, such as a reform of Britain’s voting system. (Some of Europe’s most stable ministerial systems are the result of negotiations within multi-party governments in countries with proportional representation.)
So, should we be proud of Britain’s unique system of reshuffles? No; but I’m afraid we are stuck with it for the time being.
