Cabinet reshuffles – as regular, almost ritualized events within the lifetime of a cabinet – have become a defining feature of British politics and of several other Westminster-type democracies. They are a key element of political power play and are widely considered as having profound implications for cabinet efficiency and governmental change.
Whether masterly handled or botched, cabinet reshuffles are a central part of the life cycle of a government and have been increasingly personalized by the media as a symbol of a premier’s leadership style and political judgement. This has fueled public interest in ministerial turnover and turned cabinet reshuffles into an event of undisputed political and scholarly importance.
Hilary Armstrong pointed out that the reshuffle is an exhausting and stressful process: it is “a political Christmas”, as she put it, with a strict 6 pm deadline for announcing any changes (and even then, decisions can get delayed). She also highlighted how much trouble it is to move around people from different departments: sometimes, people can’t be contacted on the day or refuse promotions they are offered. Tim Montgomerie added that the press always leaks news of reshuffles before it’s announced in No 10, and people can obsess over who gets a Welsh Secretary (now, David Jones).
All speakers agreed that the reshuffle had brought more women into the cabinet and that the Conservatives needed to do more to promote female MPs and to encourage them to apply for ministerial posts. However, a number of issues remained open for discussion, including the fact that it can be hard to keep ministers accountable for policy they have overseen if they have been reshuffled, and the general tendency for reshuffles to be limited by the availability of candidates to fill new positions.
About the Author
