Time to revamp cabinet rules?

(C) Xurble
In the midst of a heatwave and the beginning of the swine flu epidemic little over a month ago, what did Gordon Brown do about the situation? He appointed a new health minister.
This made …

Submitted by David Gold on Thursday, 23 July 2009View Comments

(C) Xurble

In the midst of a heatwave and the beginning of the swine flu epidemic little over a month ago, what did Gordon Brown do about the situation? He appointed a new health minister.

This made me wonder. Why? As Lord Sainsbury pointed out recently, most members of the cabinet tend not to stay in one set role for longer than around 18 months. Which seems just a tad bizarre, when you think about it.

Then we had Mrs Jacqui Smith, and her plea that she should have received training for her role as Home Secretary. That’s a decent shout. I’d have also trained her in how to apply moral standards to one’s personal expenses, and how to keep one’s husband sexually satisfied.

These things considered, one is lead to an obvious conclusion. How can ministers do their jobs effectively when they are constantly moving from department to department? If they stayed in the same role, they could at least build up expertise and knowledge of the area they look into.

There is the argument that shuffling the cabinet is necessary for the replacement of ministers who have resigned or been moved on. This I can live with, the Prime Minister reshuffling the ministers within the cabinet. But what I think is ridiculous is this shuffling of secretaries of state.

We should adopt the US system. That is, cabinet ministers should not have to come from within Parliament. A cabinet of all the talents would take into account people from across society, not just the three hundred or so members of the ruling party. Continuity would be the advantage, as well as real expertise. The CEO of Marks and Spencers would not be someone without any background in retail or business, so why should say, the Transport Secretary, be someone who has no practical experience of the transport system. It just doesn’t make sense.

Furthermore, this would dilute the Prime Minister’s ability to rule in the Presidential manner that Thatcher and Blair have during recent years. If we can invoke a system where people from all strands of society can take their place in the cabinet, they will have less inclination to appease the Prime Minister and work their way into his or her ‘Kitchen Cabinets’ that have become increasingly popular. Cliques within cabinet would hopefully dissipate, and you would get a more critical and vigorous debate within Whitehall, with the Prime Minister’s ability to set and decide the agenda curtailed somewhat.

I don’t know how this can practically be achieved. But it would be good if it could, wouldn’t it?

View Comments »

Bobby Dean said:

As somebody who usually bemoans the old-school Westminster processes and is a consistent supporter of reform, I am surprised at myself to disagree with you.

The purpose of a MP is to represent the people’s interests. In order to become a minister you must fulfill this role credibly and have the added ability to speak in parliament and to the media, manage an increasingly huge workload and be able to examine a myriad of information and make a decision that keeps in touch with what is best for the electorate as a whole, whilst protecting the minority.

There is no need for the minister to be an expert to fulfill his role properly, in fact there are many dangers of this including the argument of ministers ‘going native’. If a minister has too much attachment to the departments issues then it can become blinded to the needs of the government, party and indeed the electorate.

The civil service are there to provide expertise, many pressure groups make no hesitation in putting forward the arguments and the Minister is there to take into consideration all of the above, judge public opinion and make a political decision.

As odd as it may sound, sometimes the ‘expert’ decision is not necessarily the correct decision. In a democracy the people rule.

- 25 July 2009 at 9:52 am

David Gold said:

Interesting, and good, point. I still think it would be a good idea though…MPs are appointed to represent, yes, but this is mainly a result of their constituency work, casework and raising issues in the house during debates. Whilst to an extent the point you make does apply, I believe that those who aren’t elected would be kept in check by the politicians who have ultimate authority – perhaps it would be more workable if you introduced a deselection of a secretary if a proportion of the house introduced a motion of no confidence, much as they do for their own party leaders?

‘The expert decision is not necessarily the correct decision’ – again, a good point, well put. But is it not still preferable to have the voice of experience and expertise making a decision, rather than a moral arbiter who is a champion of the people? The moral arbiters are what we need in votes in the house on legislation, not necessarily where policy is being set in regards to individual departments necessarily.

Another big point is that of accountability. From the perspective of the realist, you find that Secretaries are increasingly unaccountable, and pass the buck for setting and enforcing policy to quangos and civil servant mandarins. Bringing in people from the private sector, with no political responsibilities as such, would possibly improve this by restoring a sense of purpose and accountability to the central departments. In effect those at the heads of departments have less and less of a say than ever, and worse, it is a voluntary, self inflicted situation.

- 27 July 2009 at 7:40 pm

Bobby Dean said:

Fair arguments but I stand by my points.
“But is it not still preferable to have the voice of experience and expertise making a decision, rather than a moral arbiter who is a champion of the people?” In a word, no. Of course, it is absolutely essential that the ‘moral arbiter’ is competent enough to take into full consideration all of the ‘expert’ advice he is given (via civil service, quangos, advisors etc). However making a political decision must look beyond that, its a broader remit than just the experts opinion.
We also have to be careful not to be blind to the fact that these ‘experts’ are subject to their own political and ideological persuasions in the first place. How are we to tell how an economic ‘expert’ decision is any different to a ‘ideological’ opinion?

- 28 July 2009 at 1:18 pm