It was Sir Humphrey in the great Yes Minister who said ‘a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts. Effectively no choice at all’.
Indeed when you look amongst the 300-odd Conservative MPs,
once you take out those who are constantly rebellious, politically immature,
too old or just simply bonkers, there is not a lot left – so David Cameron’s
task when putting the government together is not as difficult as it seems. No
Lords or EU rebel got promoted so that’s a third of the parliamentary party for
For the Liberal Democrats, however, the opposite is
the case. Where you have fewer MPs (the ‘cream rises to the top’), coupled with
a limited number of ministerial places, there is simply too much talent to
go round. The Lib Dems are blessed to have so much quality on its benches but
cursed in that it cannot be put to full use in the government’s service. So
while it is pleasing to see David Laws, Norman Lamb and Jo Swinson enter the government,
it is sad to see Sarah Teather, Nick Harvey and Paul Burstow depart.
One view of this is to share out the responsibility. When
the election comes, half of the parliamentary party will have had ministerial experience
which will stand well both for any future plans the party may be involved in (another coalition?),
or, to take the worst case, their individual career development outside
But the crux of the matter is – David Cameron’s question was
who to bring in, Nick Clegg’s was who can we afford to live without?
Of course, if the Lib Dems had 300 MPs then doubtless
we would have as many donkeys as the other two parties. But, pound for pound, it
is clear that the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is the most talented grouping in parliament.
So what of the reshuffle? Firstly, there was some dismay in
Lib Dem quarters at having no-one in either the Foreign Office or Defence. To
be honest, this does not concern me too much. As I said last time, I think William
Hague is doing an impressive job and Nick Clegg can speak for the party if
required. As for defence, again Clegg could cover but the argument for an alternative
to Trident can be continued outside the department.
Secondly, no change in the cabinet. The only other role Vince
Cable could be considered for is Chancellor of the Exchequer which will not
happen. Danny Alexander is doing a fine job, Michael Moore has not done anything
wrong and Ed Davey is on the right lines. The addition of David Laws in a roving
role will be interesting (although I am not sure what that means – will he be a
consigliere like Ken Clarke?). David Laws is the only Liberal Democrat to get
regular kind words from Conservative Home – although this could be a double-edged
There were rumours that Lib Dems (possibly Laws) would be
given the Health department – and administer the Tory NHS reforms – an idea whose
flaws are rather obvious.
It is at the junior levels that we now look and we see that
concentration is being made on areas we hold dear. In Education (Laws), Health
(Lamb), Business (Swinson) and Agriculture (David Heath), we have a more prominent and strengthened
role - both to push our own views and check the Conservative ideas. (To be fair, not all Tory ideas are bad - but there are some which need, shall we say, another view).
My main concern has been Lynne Featherstone’s move to international
development, which will reinforce this amongst the government's priorities, but the loss of the equalities brief – a role in which she excelled
– could be very harmful, and implies that Cameron may again be placating his
backbenchers, especially on same sex marriage.
How do the Liberal Democrats now fit into the government as a
whole? Overall, I would be optimistic. There is influence in most of the key
areas of the government and I would hope to see greater Liberal Democrats
prominence as a whole. In a recent survey by Lord Ashcroft, 51% wanted to see
more Lib Dem influence on the government so let us hope this will go partly in that
direction. (There are many on the Tory Right who argue that Lib Dems have too much influence
– an argument not borne out by the facts).
I want to see our ministers, new and old, come forward with proposals.
The main priority is growth and the economy. The only Conservative idea is to
cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor, which history has shown does
not work. Liberal Democrats can think broadly and have greater initiative –
balancing the need for a growing economy with a liberal sense of justice and
fairness. It is up to us to free the government from the shackles of the Tory Right
and push forward our plans.
Now the reshuffle is over, let us hope that the desperate
yearning for a coalition collapse, that we see every week in the media and on the
Conservative backbenches, will subside and the new administration can be left
to get on with it. There is after all no shortage of work to do.
FOOTNOTE: However, as I prepare this entry, an interview has
arisen with Michael Fallon, newly appointed business minister, in which he
makes clear his views that we should salute ‘wealth creators’ (Tory-speak for ‘the
rich’), and make it easier to sack people (the most famous and ridiculous part
of the Beecroft report). One has to question the wisdom of the two leaders in allowing such potential tensions in a department as important as business.