Starmer's new Cabinet

A nice article with an early insight into the PM/Cabinet topic area

You'd have to have been sleeping in a cave not to have heard about Keir Starmer having finalised the appointments of his senior ministerial team. There has been a lot of coverage about how many of his new colleagues are, like Starmer himself, state school educated.

So what do we do with the info?

Well, a typical short answer question on the AQA specification on Cabinet appointments is to explain three factors a Prime Minister considers when appointing their Cabinet.

A simple approach is as follows:

• Provide reason
• Explain reason
• Give as many examples as you can

Briefly...

The first factor would be loyalty. Why? Prime Ministers will seek ideological compatibility. This is for the obvious reason that it helps them drive forward their political agenda. A classic example is Thatcher sacking the wets and replacing them the dries. Blair tried to surround himself with New Labour acolytes. Brown elevated Ed Balls since he was an ideological soulmate. Johnson initially packed his Cabinet with Brexiteers initially, now Brexit is done, then perhaps this isn’t so important.

Notwithstanding the above, PMs have to seek some sort of balance. Why? I would say that Uk parties are coalitions in all but name. major had to perform a difficult balancing act by keeping Europhiles and Eurosceptics at the same table. Blair placated party stalwarts by including Old Labour colleagues like John Prescott. Theresa May presided over one of the most fractious Cabinets in history by incorporating Brexiteers and remainers.

Big hitters and rivals almost select themselves. Why? As the oft-quoted LBJ put, it’s better to have rivals inside the tent than out. I would contend that Wilson had the most talented Cabinet at his disposal of any premier with political heavyweights like Benn, Crosland, Callaghan, Healy and Castle. Major had to include Heseltine. Blair couldn’t exclude Brown. Likewise, May with Johnson.

That’s three.

I’d also add that…

More recently social composition has become an important consideration, and more students tend to include this as an example. Why? Former President Clinton said he sought to form a cabinet that “looked like America”, and the politics of representation has assumed a higher level of importance. So, if a Cabinet has the wrong optics, it can backfire on PMs. Major’s first Cabinet, for instance, had no female members, and consequently criticised as the “cabinet of chums”. When new Cabinets are announces, media outlets often give a breakdown of gender, ethnicity and so on.

For example, it has been widely reported that Starmer's new Cabinet is the most gender balanced in history, with a record 12 female ministers, including Rachel Reeves as the first woman to hold the nine century old office of Chancellor.

Another reason as to why some people might be elevated to the most powerful office in the land could be competence. Why? I think the reasons for this are pretty obvious. The incumbents of Number 10 want allies who have the capacity to run massive organisations with huge budgets, but they also need to be a safe pair of hands in the face of relentless media focus – especially in the 24-hour media age. Blair often called on John Reid to step in and clear up a departmental mess – such that he had seven jobs in as many years. But Starmer faces an experience gap. As the result of being in opposition for so long, Starmer's new Cabinet has the second least amount of experience of time in government than any since Blair's 1997 Cabinet. Thus he is relying to an extent on how they performed in opposition, and also their related background. Reeves, for instance, has postgrad degree in Economics from Oxford and completed a six year stint at the Bank of England, making her arguably the most qualified ever holder of the office.

Those following the edexcel route will also want to consider the Telegraph article here in the context of the PM's power of patronage and the extent of PM power. I really like the bit comparing Starmer and his DPM, Angela Rayner, as occupying rival camps much like the Blair-Brown a quarter of a century ago.