John Hayes replaced as energy minister by Michael Fallon

A mini ministerial reshuffle.

David Cameron has made a slight tweak to his ministerial line-up this morning – John Hayes, formerly a Minister of State at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, is to become the prime minister’s senior parliamentary advisor. Michael Fallon, already a Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, takes on the energy brief in addition to his current responsibilities.

The BBC’s Norman Smith reports that the move is designed to give “a more business focus” to energy policy. But questions will be asked about whether John Hayes is indeed being promoted, or in fact brought closer to heel. Michael Savage of the Times tweets that Hayes’ departure will help solve the “awful” atmosphere at DECC, and it’s been no secret that he’s clashed with Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey, particularly over wind farms. 

Tim Montgomerie is cheerful about the move – he applauds the decision to bring Hayes, a “non-southern, non-posh voice” - closer to the No 10 operation. Similarly, the Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan appears to be delighted to see Fallon recognised with a bigger brief – he calls him “one of the proper grown-ups”.

It’s not clear exactly how Michael Fallon is going to balance ministerial jobs in two different departments, but it is apparent that his ability to get on with a Lib Dem Secretary of State at BIS is being rewarded – by avoiding public clashes with Vince Cable, Fallon has charmed his way into David Cameron’s good books for sure. Now he will be expected to do the same with Ed Davey. We have yet another indication, if we even needed it, that the Conservatives are committed to trying to preserve Coalition harmony for the foreseeable future.

John Hayes speaking at the 2011 Conservative Party conference. Photograph: Getty Images

Caroline Crampton is web editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.