The Prime Minister asserts his strength - and proves its limits

The reshuffle will successfully ease some pressure on Number 10. But not for long.

A government reshuffle has two purposes. First, it is an opportunity to remove ministers who are failing to perform their duties effectively and replace them with ones who might do better. Second, it is a chance for the Prime Minister to signal has political priorities and express the kind of character he wants his administration to have. The official line from the heart of government is that today’s realignment is very much about the former goal. The coalition is said to be moving into a tough phase of implementing complex policies across a range of portfolios and the PM puts a premium on managerial competence. As one senior aide puts it rather indelicately: “This is all about Cameron getting rid of bad ministers.”

Well, they are hardly going to say it is all about Cameron trying to shore up his position in a party that has acquired a dangerous appetite for rebellion. Nor will it ever be admitted that the noisy rearrangement of cabinet chairs is meant to symbolise seizure of the political initiative after the disorderly parade of crises that characterised the months running up to the summer recess. But that of course is a large part of it.

Still, there is no doubt that the need to facilitate implementation of tricky projects is the main motive. Justine Greening has been kicked out of the Department for Transport (she is now Secretary of State for International Development) largely because she has been implacably and vociferously opposed to the expansion of Heathrow airport. As an MP in a not-too-secure southwest London seat she could hardly be anything else. That doesn’t mean a third runway will be built – the Lib Dems still hate the idea – but it removes one obstacle.

The dismissal of Andrew Lansley from the Department of Health (to the mostly ceremonial job of Leader of the House) was considered a prerequisite to recouping any kind of support for the government’s controversial NHS reforms. The argument for keeping Lansley was that much of the political damage has already been sustained in the gruelling passage of the Health bill through parliament and Lansley is one of the very few people who actually understands the package. Surely, his allies said, he should now be allowed to see the project through. The counter-argument was that the furore around the bill was made needlessly vicious by the then Health Secretary’s famous inability to communicate his aims in public and his failure to reassure NHS staff that he did not have it in for them. Those shortcomings, if repeated in the painful implementation of the reforms, would cause endless agony for Number 10. That latter view prevailed.

Lansley’s replacement by Jeremy Hunt, formerly culture secretary, is one of the more eyebrow-raising elements of the reshuffle. Earlier this year, Hunt was fighting for his political life as Labour accused him of improper cosiness with News International and dereliction of a quasi-judicial duty to be impartial when overseeing Rupert Murdoch’s ambitions to increase his control over BSkyB. The Lib Dems withheld their support from Hunt in a parliamentary vote – a move that provoked fury on the Conservative benches.

Downing Street always stood by Hunt. That was partly because sacrificing him would have implied that there was something inherently dodgy about intimacy with the Murdoch clan – and that, for obvious reasons, is not a signal Cameron was eager to transmit. Besides, the view in Number 10 has always been that Murdoch-hunting, phone-hacking and the interminable spectacle of the Leveson inquiry are obsessions contained largely to the Westminster village. They are not seen as matters that weigh on the minds of most voters, so Hunt’s embroilment in them is not seen as a barrier to promotion. Hunt has another vital quality: he is a loyal Cameroon and generally well-liked in parliament. That is a rare combination, since the Prime Minister lacks allies beyond his very tight-knit circle of friends and advisors. Cameron needed a dependable and pliant loyalist in a key portfolio. Whether or not Hunt is capable of mastering his complex and combustible new brief is a subject open to speculation.

The imperative of effective policy delivery was also a reason why the Prime Minister, according to various reports, wanted to move Iain Duncan Smith from the Department for Work and Pensions. IDS is the architect – or more accurately, the chief ideologue – behind plans to overhaul the welfare system. There has been mounting concern for some time that the practical delivery side that project, especially the introduction of IT systems required to make it work, is imperilled. Meanwhile, George Osborne has his eye on welfare spending as a target for deeper cuts now that his original deficit-reduction plans have unravelled. IDS resists any more raids on his budget.

Cameron, encouraged by Osborne, is reported to have asked Duncan Smith to move on but he decline the invitation. So he stays at the DWP, presumably nurturing a deadly grievance against the Chancellor for having moved against him. Not one of the happier sub-plots of the reshuffle.

The one high-profile departure from the DWP is Chris Grayling, formerly employment secretary, who now becomes Justice Secretary – a job for which he had unsubtly lobbied Number 10. Grayling’s appointment is a clear nod to the right. He has advertised himself to that section of the party with noisy interventions against immigration and all things European. The stage is thereby set for a confrontation with the Lib Dems over Britain’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and – my favourite flashpoint of obscure political geekery – the question of exercising the opt-in to the Justice and Home Affairs Pillar of the Lisbon Treaty due by 2014. (Too complicated to explain here, but trust me – it’s a potential coalition-wrecker.)

Concerns that Grayling’s authoritarian streak might sabotage the Justice Ministry’s interest in prisoner rehabilitation – as opposed to endless incarceration - are probably overstated. One preferred mechanism for dealing with serial re-offenders is “payment by results” model, using private sector providers to find gainful employment for people leaving prison. Presumably part of the thinking behind putting Grayling in MoJ is that he has already devised such a model as Employment Minister in the form of the Work Programme. That is seen as a policy success story in Downing Street. Others rather closer to the front line of the labour market depict it as a flimsy edifice of unworkable contracts, glaring gaps in accountability and G4S/Olympic-style out-sourcing fiascos waiting to happen.

Lib Dems will certainly lament Ken Clarke’s departure from Justice. His pro-European instincts and liberal views on penal policy made him a natural ally for Team Clegg, although that status was more symbolic than practical as far as I can tell. Clark stays in the cabinet with a mysterious roving brief that would appear, until there are reports to the contrary, to mean Semi-Retired Minister in Charge of Sounding Affable and Moderate on the Today Programme.

Another rather new-fangled role has been created for Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who will be a Foreign Office Minister also responsible for Faith and Communities, with a seat at cabinet. That looks like a package hastily cobbled together in compensation for having the role of party chair taken away. Warsi’s dismissal from that position was probably the single most important demand from MPs on the right of the party, without which the reshuffle would have been declared inadequate. Cameron’s acquiescence was inevitable, but hardly a sign of strength.

Warsi’s replacement is Grant Shapps, formerly Housing Minister, whose main virtues from Cameron’s point of view are vaunting ambition that still manifests itself in loyalty to Number 10, an eager pugnacity that suits the chairman’s tribal party duties and a fairly fluent media style.

The most significant development on the Lib Dem side of the government is the long-anticipated return to a ministerial post of David Laws. The former Treasury Chief Secretary who resigned weeks after the election over an expenses scandal replaces Sarah Teather as Minister of State for Children and Families at the Department for Education. This is an important portfolio for the Lib Dems who are keen to make early years intervention an important part of their claim to be addressing problems of social mobility (and want a bigger slice of the credit for what is widely seen inside government as Michael Gove’s successful education reforms). Laws is a big hitter who has been providing informal advice as part of Clegg’s inner circle. Teather, by contrast, was seen as ineffective in defending her policy turf. She was the subject of a pretty dedicated campaign of hostility by Tories who denounced her as a queasy lefty not sufficiently in command of her brief – although she enjoyed good relations with Gove. Besides, Teather has a tricky seat in North West London to defend against a very plausible Labour threat. She can now be licensed to go discreetly off-coalition message at a local level, as many Lib Dems will have to do to stay in parliament after the next election.

With Laws working alongside Gove, the DfE becomes a crucial coalition power ministry – a place where the two governing parties, their leaders hope, will be seen conspicuously working together on a radical and popular reform programme. That is all the more important since so many other areas of policy look headed for deadlock.

Those are some early thoughts on what has happened today. Doubtless vital developments have been omitted and there are surely coded messages in some junior appointments yet to be decrypted. It must also be said that the significance of the whole reshuffle is diminished when none of the most powerful offices of state – Home, Foreign, Treasury – change hands. The people running economic policy are the same as they were before. The balance of power between the two coalition parties is not drastically altered. The most persistent irritation to the Prime Minister – the noisy and disruptive discontent of his party’s right wing will be assuaged for a while by the sacrifice of Warsi and the promotion of Grayling. (Plus: one tier down the ranks, the appointment of Michael Fallon to be a hawkish Tory foil to Vince Cable at the Business Department will please many Conservatives.) But if recent history is a useful guide in these matters, the soothing balm will wear off pretty quickly. Tories who were angry and disillusioned with Cameron last week will be angry and disillusioned next week too. The structural flaws and mutual resentments that made coalition hard to manage in recent months will resurface in the months to come.

The government is reshuffled. The path ahead is no clearer.

 

Jeremy Hunt enters Number 10 to learn of his move to the Department of Health. Photograph: Getty Images

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

The 11 things we know after the Brexit plan debate

Labour may just have fallen into a trap. 

On Wednesday, both Labour and Tory MPs filed out of the Commons together to back a motion calling on the Prime Minister to commit to publish the government’s Brexit plan before Article 50 is triggered in March 2017. 

The motion was proposed by Labour, but the government agreed to back it after inserting its own amendment calling on MPs to “respect the wishes of the United Kingdom” and adhere to the original timetable. 

With questions on everything from the customs union to the Northern Irish border, it is clear that the Brexit minister David Davis will have a busy Christmas. Meanwhile, his declared intention to stay schtum about the meat of Brexit negotiations for now means the nation has been hanging off every titbit of news, including a snapped memo reading “have cake and eat it”. 

So, with confusion abounding, here is what we know from the Brexit plan debate: 

1. The government will set out a Brexit plan before triggering Article 50

The Brexit minister David Davis said that Parliament will get to hear the government’s “strategic plans” ahead of triggering Article 50, but that this will not include anything that will “jeopardise our negotiating position”. 

While this is something of a victory for the Remain MPs and the Opposition, the devil is in the detail. For example, this could still mean anything from a white paper to a brief description released days before the March deadline.

2. Parliament will get a say on converting EU law into UK law

Davis repeated that the Great Repeal Bill, which scraps the European Communities Act 1972, will be presented to the Commons during the two-year period following Article 50.

He said: “After that there will be a series of consequential legislative measures, some primary, some secondary, and on every measure the House will have a vote and say.”

In other words, MPs will get to debate how existing EU law is converted to UK law. But, crucially, that isn’t the same as getting to debate the trade negotiations. And the crucial trade-off between access to the single market versus freedom of movement is likely to be decided there. 

3. Parliament is almost sure to get a final vote on the Brexit deal

The European Parliament is expected to vote on the final Brexit deal, which means the government accepts it also needs parliamentary approval. Davis said: “It is inconceivable to me that if the European Parliament has a vote, this House does not.”

Davis also pledged to keep MPs as well-informed as MEPs will be.

However, as shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer pointed out to The New Statesman, this could still leave MPs facing the choice of passing a Brexit deal they disagree with or plunging into a post-EU abyss. 

4. The government still plans to trigger Article 50 in March

With German and French elections planned for 2017, Labour MP Geraint Davies asked if there was any point triggering Article 50 before the autumn. 

But Davis said there were 15 elections scheduled during the negotiation process, so such kind of delay was “simply not possible”. 

5. Themed debates are a clue to Brexit priorities

One way to get a measure of the government’s priorities is the themed debates it is holding on various areas covered by EU law, including two already held on workers’ rights and transport.  

Davis mentioned themed debates as a key way his department would be held to account. 

It's not exactly disclosure, but it is one step better than relying on a camera man papping advisers as they walk into No.10 with their notes on show. 

6. The immigration policy is likely to focus on unskilled migrants

At the Tory party conference, Theresa May hinted at a draconian immigration policy that had little time for “citizens of the world”, while Davis said the “clear message” from the Brexit vote was “control immigration”.

He struck a softer tone in the debate, saying: “Free movement of people cannot continue as it is now, but this will not mean pulling up the drawbridge.”

The government would try to win “the global battle for talent”, he added. If the government intends to stick to its migration target and, as this suggests, will keep the criteria for skilled immigrants flexible, the main target for a clampdown is clearly unskilled labour.  

7. The government is still trying to stay in the customs union

Pressed about the customs union by Anna Soubry, the outspoken Tory backbencher, Davis said the government is looking at “several options”. This includes Norway, which is in the single market but not the customs union, and Switzerland, which is in neither but has a customs agreement. 

(For what it's worth, the EU describes this as "a series of bilateral agreements where Switzerland has agreed to take on certain aspects of EU legislation in exchange for accessing the EU's single market". It also notes that Swiss exports to the EU are focused on a few sectors, like chemicals, machinery and, yes, watches.)

8. The government wants the status quo on security

Davis said that on security and law enforcement “our aim is to preserve the current relationship as best we can”. 

He said there is a “clear mutual interest in continued co-operation” and signalled a willingness for the UK to pitch in to ensure Europe is secure across borders. 

One of the big tests for this commitment will be if the government opts into Europol legislation which comes into force next year.

9. The Chancellor is wooing industries

Robin Walker, the under-secretary for Brexit, said Philip Hammond and Brexit ministers were meeting organisations in the City, and had also met representatives from the aerospace, energy, farming, chemicals, car manufacturing and tourism industries. 

However, Labour has already attacked the government for playing favourites with its secretive Nissan deal. Brexit ministers have a fine line to walk between diplomacy and what looks like a bribe. 

10. Devolved administrations are causing trouble

A meeting with leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ended badly, with the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon publicly declaring it “deeply frustrating”. The Scottish government has since ramped up its attempts to block Brexit in the courts. 

Walker took a more conciliatory tone, saying that the PM was “committed to full engagement with the devolved administrations” and said he undertook the task of “listening to the concerns” of their representatives. 

11. Remain MPs may have just voted for a trap

Those MPs backing Remain were divided on whether to back the debate with the government’s amendment, with the Green co-leader Caroline Lucas calling it “the Tories’ trap”.

She argued that it meant signing up to invoking Article 50 by March, and imposing a “tight timetable” and “arbitrary deadline”, all for a vaguely-worded Brexit plan. In the end, Lucas was one of the Remainers who voted against the motion, along with the SNP. 

George agrees – you can read his analysis of the Brexit trap here

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.