A reshuffle that actually works

It's difficult to find fault with Brown's first cabinet - however hard you try

By Martin Bright Published 29 June 2007 13:17

I used to work as a film critic believe it or not. My speciality was very bad French films and I could be truly vicious: I liked to use the phrase "pre-digested pap" as often as I could. The trouble was that as soon as I had a good film to review, I didn't know what to say. I just didn't have the language.

The same is true in the post-Blair world. I am so used to knocking this government that it's difficult to remember how to be positive. But I have to say, despite what Simon Hoggart says about the dullness of this Cabinet, this is really pretty impressive.

I'll just pick up on a couple of reasons why this marks a significant shift away from the Blair era. Firstly, by moving responsibility for the "respect" agenda into the new ministry for children and schools, Brown has effectively neutralised this moronic idea. In private, Ed Balls always thought it was risible and I would be amazed if the word ever passed a minister's lips again (even Hazel Blears).

The inclusion of John Denham, who resigned over the war has been much remarked on. David Miliband and Sir Mark Malloch Brown at the Foreign Office will hopefully pursue an independent policy.

But for me, there is now a constellation of ministers around the issue of social cohesion, who will deal with my particular area of interest (some would say obsession!) Islamic radicalism. It was essential that Jack Straw did not return to the Home Office or the Foreign Office and Brown has clearly listened to those who warned against this. Hazel Blears is someone who will be able to continue the work done by Ruth Kelly at the Department of Communities and Local Government to reach out to the grassroots rather than relying on the usual suspects. The fact that Kelly remains in the cabinet is also important for this agenda. Ed Miliband at the Cabinet office and David Miliband himself both understand the importance of not "engaging for engagement's sake" with the respresentatives of political Islam.

It's strange feeling optimistic, but I have to admit that is my dominant emotion. I could well be disappointed, but, who knows, this time maybe I won't be.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Martin Bright

2 comments

Mon, 2007-07-02 21:35 — markcrossley

In the first few days with all the events that have arisen since Brown became Prime Minister he appears to be saying and doing the right things at the right time supprisingly.

I have to say I have been more of a Blairite and feel there should have been an election or a contest for the leadership however we are stuck with him and have to give him a fair go afterall he has waited 10 years to get the job or more so Blair stay on for longer!

Martin, having met and seen Margaret Beckett a couple of times why on earth has Mr Brown dropped her from the cabinet I will never know. What's your stance on her?

I have to say although you are feeling optimistic my fear is that ok and am on nutural ground or perhaps more pesimistic than optimistic.

HE has created a government and is trying to use talents such as Lord Stevens etc however I have more reservations about him and perhaps he would have been better off staying in number 11 but I hope that he will work hard for the country and try his best like he said in his speech.

Perhaps I will get used to him or its because the government is so different that its getting used to the change in the cabinet but I think certain people should not have been dropped however I am not PM so perhaps the country should be glad of that!

Tue, 2007-07-03 11:01 — Danny Mac

I resigned from the Labour party because of the ways of Tony Blair and his cronies. On the day Brown became PM I received a letter from the local party asking me to rejoin. Impressive as a marketing exercise but too early, I thought.
The new cabinet looks to be a step in the direction.
Now, how about divorcing himself from Bush by denouncing the President's decision on his aide's prison sentence?
Isn't it what his moral compass would tell him to do?