Cabinet reshuffle Feb 2020
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Keeping divisions alive isn't a sign of political acumen, particularly with the PM in such a strong position. Moving towards greater harmony between No 10 and No 11 certainly is.
Harmony and concentrating control to number 10 are not the same thing.Whomever he appoints to a ministerial position, it should be someone whom he trusts to chose their own advisors.
It has always been the case that number 10's problem with number 11 is the treasury overly focuses on the cost of number 10's wants and needs and how to pay for it.
As such, PMs find many a prospective parade pissed on. Regardless of the will of the people or worse still the good of the goverment/party if it costs the treasury doesn't like it.
If the Treasury doesnt like it firstly it let's the world know and secondly makes sure it gets paid for.
The Problem getting things paid for is a fiscally responsible treasury will instinctively tax rather than borrow which doesn't do the electoral prospects of the party any favours.
Chancellors have a reputation for going all "its all about the money money money" without thought for the political consequences.
Boris has decided he isn't going to tolerate this. He is going to spend whatever it takes to be popular and also to buffer against the "bumps" Gove et all have accepted the economy will suffer as a result of Brexit.
I'm not sure where I personally stand on the consequences of this. I work in construction and will make a lot of money if the govt splurges on big style on infra structure projects. Then again, looking at the long term picture, my pension could be wiped out if all this spending and borrowing causes the economy to tank.
As such, PMs find many a prospective parade pissed on. Regardless of the will of the people or worse still the good of the goverment/party if it costs the treasury doesn't like it.
If the Treasury doesnt like it firstly it let's the world know and secondly makes sure it gets paid for.
The Problem getting things paid for is a fiscally responsible treasury will instinctively tax rather than borrow which doesn't do the electoral prospects of the party any favours.
Chancellors have a reputation for going all "its all about the money money money" without thought for the political consequences.
Boris has decided he isn't going to tolerate this. He is going to spend whatever it takes to be popular and also to buffer against the "bumps" Gove et all have accepted the economy will suffer as a result of Brexit.
I'm not sure where I personally stand on the consequences of this. I work in construction and will make a lot of money if the govt splurges on big style on infra structure projects. Then again, looking at the long term picture, my pension could be wiped out if all this spending and borrowing causes the economy to tank.
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 14th February 06:35
markyb_lcy said:
Fundoreen said:
Esther McVey sacked.
Im convinced she is given jobs in order to be sacked later and put a spring in the nations step.
Minister of State for Housing and Planning in a Tory govt must be the easiest job ever.Im convinced she is given jobs in order to be sacked later and put a spring in the nations step.
1) Get appointed to post
2) Do nothing
3) Leave post
stongle said:
ATG said:
Good leaders surround themselves with people who can think and offer opinions, and they encourage them to do so. They don't surround themselves with people who are inexperienced and owe them something.
The idea expressed by TB that a PM is da big boss man surrounded by minions is ... uhm ... peculiar. The UK is not an elected dictatorship. Parliament is sovereign, we have cabinet government and the PM is first amongst equals, nothing more.
Spinning today's reshuffle as a sign of strength and leadership is risible. No one can pretend that having the Chancellor resign a few weeks before a budget looks like strength or competent leadership. Particularly when plan B is a political sprat. It looks chaotic and reactive, and that's an increasingly well-established pattern.
Sorry, that is a superficial analysis.The idea expressed by TB that a PM is da big boss man surrounded by minions is ... uhm ... peculiar. The UK is not an elected dictatorship. Parliament is sovereign, we have cabinet government and the PM is first amongst equals, nothing more.
Spinning today's reshuffle as a sign of strength and leadership is risible. No one can pretend that having the Chancellor resign a few weeks before a budget looks like strength or competent leadership. Particularly when plan B is a political sprat. It looks chaotic and reactive, and that's an increasingly well-established pattern.
In an entirely domestic situation, you might be correct. Unfortunately we are in the middle of possibly sn existential economic (or political if you are the EC) negotiation right now. Taking Javid OFF the board* eliminates another pillar of confirmation bias / bluff the EC have been so fond off.
The risk in the trade negotiations thus far, is the EC are pushing a much more aggressive posture than team UK. They think we will blink because BJ is not as strong as they wish / hope for / silly sausage liberal media says. Taking the weak link OFF the table, is the smart move. It lowers the risk of No Deal, as we ain't bluffing. They are.
Javid wasn't planning to resign today, it came after the 1hr punch up. The EC have and will try to leverage every political gap in this negotiation, we are closing them (as they found out on equivalence - no one with half a brain even their own central bank buys their bulls
t).There is a bigger game afoot.
Next you will be telling us von Clausewitz should he taken literally.
* you do know he didn't actually resign, right? It was elimination of his advisers and merge with the Cummings Borg that pushed it...
Edited by stongle on Thursday 13th February 20:47
Oh the irony of the PM sacking those who are disobedient and don't tow the party line.
It is no longer a party of debate and compromise to come to a singular party line, but a divided group who seemingly can no longer come to a compromise on much. 'My way or the highway' isn't democratic politics, its a dictatorship.
It is no longer a party of debate and compromise to come to a singular party line, but a divided group who seemingly can no longer come to a compromise on much. 'My way or the highway' isn't democratic politics, its a dictatorship.
Although the notional concept of the Prime Minister is theoretically "first amongst equals", the practical reality has always been that a strong PM acts very much as a Dictator within Cabinet. Leader of the party and leader of the country - I say jump, you say how high Sir?...
This has been a truism not matter which Century you care to pick within British politics, since the political rise of the "First Minister". Be it before the Civil War or since. Take either of the Cecils, Walpole, either Pitts through to Winnie and Maggie...every single one of them would have recognised exactly the same thing.
Far more interesting are the nuances around Dom Cummings. Only a few days ago the "talk" was of his loss of influence, over playing his hand and on his way out - after losing the arguments on HS2 and the 5G network Chinese access stuff. Now the insinuation is that Dom has done his Rasputin act again, waved the wand and "done for" the Chancellor.
This one has more to play out yet
This has been a truism not matter which Century you care to pick within British politics, since the political rise of the "First Minister". Be it before the Civil War or since. Take either of the Cecils, Walpole, either Pitts through to Winnie and Maggie...every single one of them would have recognised exactly the same thing.
Far more interesting are the nuances around Dom Cummings. Only a few days ago the "talk" was of his loss of influence, over playing his hand and on his way out - after losing the arguments on HS2 and the 5G network Chinese access stuff. Now the insinuation is that Dom has done his Rasputin act again, waved the wand and "done for" the Chancellor.
This one has more to play out yet
CerbWill said:
Chaps, I've read a fair amount of NP&E but try to stick to the TVR section for my contributions to PH. Noone needs my uneducated opinion. The big thing here, it seems to me, is a shift in the 'independence' of No11 and power balance between No11 and No 10. Can anyone point me to some decent links explaining to the layman the importance of the No10/11 relationship and the pros and cons of this latest change?
Ian Geary said:
I think the importance of the balance between no. 10 and no. 11 has to be judged on the wider context.
As someone said earlier, CMD and Osborne worked well together to stay on message around so called austerity.
Blair and Brown less so, as Brown was determined to get his chance to prove he would be a worse PM than Blair.
Spreadsheet Phil (doubt he ever used one tbh) was using the role very politically, and when he was in step with May, it was probably just by accident.
Reflecting on it: it does seem odd that the leader of the party, the govt and the country would let his next door neighbour cook up a budget of their own making that the PM could find completely unacceptable.
In my humble organisation, the Finance Director would never work on and present a budget that wasn't utterly aligned to the organisation's objectives, having gone through many iterations of senior review to make sure it was palatable.
Surely governments do the same?
So I do wonder what these 6 spads would have done that Boris (sorry Dominic) thinks that was so dangerous....
Stripping out all the usual media frenzy this seems to be the key question. Should No 10 and no 11 be rivals within government or working as one seamless unit. If you step back and think about it the old British system can seem rather odd. With a PM who does not properly control the money to achieve his or her ambitions in office. Often not even seeing the budget until budget day. Delegation is one thing but this is institutionalised powerlessness.As someone said earlier, CMD and Osborne worked well together to stay on message around so called austerity.
Blair and Brown less so, as Brown was determined to get his chance to prove he would be a worse PM than Blair.
Spreadsheet Phil (doubt he ever used one tbh) was using the role very politically, and when he was in step with May, it was probably just by accident.
Reflecting on it: it does seem odd that the leader of the party, the govt and the country would let his next door neighbour cook up a budget of their own making that the PM could find completely unacceptable.
In my humble organisation, the Finance Director would never work on and present a budget that wasn't utterly aligned to the organisation's objectives, having gone through many iterations of senior review to make sure it was palatable.
Surely governments do the same?
So I do wonder what these 6 spads would have done that Boris (sorry Dominic) thinks that was so dangerous....
Delegation to me seems far more suited to putting people in charge of individual departments, education, health, defence, home office, and letting them get on with things. The Treasury is always a part of the central authority, because without money little else is possible.
Boris wants to be a radical transformative PM and he couldn't be that with a traditional chancellor. He needed a trusted deputy who would work with him in one seamless team.
JagLover said:
Stripping out all the usual media frenzy this seems to be the key question. Should No 10 and no 11 be rivals within government or working as one seamless unit. If you step back and think about it the old British system can seem rather odd. With a PM who does not properly control the money to achieve his or her ambitions in office. Often not even seeing the budget until budget day. Delegation is one thing but this is institutionalised powerlessness.
Delegation to me seems far more suited to putting people in charge of individual departments, education, health, defence, home office, and letting them get on with things. The Treasury is always a part of the central authority, because without money little else is possible.
Boris wants to be a radical transformative PM and he couldn't be that with a traditional chancellor. He needed a trusted deputy who would work with him in one seamless team.
Surely is should be a partnership with each party bringing benefits and restraint where necessary to the partnership. A dictatorship by either side is not good.Delegation to me seems far more suited to putting people in charge of individual departments, education, health, defence, home office, and letting them get on with things. The Treasury is always a part of the central authority, because without money little else is possible.
Boris wants to be a radical transformative PM and he couldn't be that with a traditional chancellor. He needed a trusted deputy who would work with him in one seamless team.
Supposedly a behind the scenes report of what happened
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51498397
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51498397
ATG said:
That's right. This was a calculated bit of political posturing to make BJ look strong in front of the EU. For Heaven's sake, do you think that would read like strength or desperation to the EU?
It reads neither to the EC. It removes a political arbitrage or lever in the negotiations. As I posted yesterday, getting no11 on message and not creating issues (such as the leaks on Tax rises). Letting Javid fall on his sword for his advisors was politically messy - but the actual aim was to get them singing in the same direction. One nation conservatives, MMT is a thing, we are spending our way to post BREXIT success OH and I have an 80 seat majority and no powerful frenemies....This was the banana skin the EC slipped on before, and likely again. They misread the appetite for Remain or 2nd ref (although arguably Corbyn did more to scupper that than anyone), they have interfered with NI, Wales and Scotland in regards the upcoming negotiations- which are entirely politically motivated. Independent bodies such as the FCA and BoE have been unequivocal in that (and the ECB by and large if the EC and negotiations team bothered to read their reports).
BJs team has shown us all along, they will lose battles to win a war. This was a loss on skill and internal politic, whether it affects the longer term strategy not so sure.
Edited by stongle on Friday 14th February 06:30
Mazinbrum said:
markyb_lcy said:
Fundoreen said:
Esther McVey sacked.
Im convinced she is given jobs in order to be sacked later and put a spring in the nations step.
Minister of State for Housing and Planning in a Tory govt must be the easiest job ever.Im convinced she is given jobs in order to be sacked later and put a spring in the nations step.
1) Get appointed to post
2) Do nothing
3) Leave post
longblackcoat said:
Really?
Julian Smith was very effective, but got sacked despite his competence. Priti Patel stays in post despite being absolutely useless.
Julian Smith put his department before the big picture. He looked after the needs of Northern Ireland before the Needs of Boris' big picture.Julian Smith was very effective, but got sacked despite his competence. Priti Patel stays in post despite being absolutely useless.
Northern Ireland would be f
ked by a no deal Brexit Smith said it out loud and was therefore chopped.Say we had the most brilliant Health Minister driving efficiencies, delivering performance, hitting targets and doing so within a mass of financial constraints.
Imagine some political stink kicked up by the press over US trade talks (trade talks Boris is determined to succeed) where the US are starting to talk hard ball over the NHS's ability to price set drugs costing US big pharma billions.
Now imagine this hypocritically brilliant Health Secetary being asked "will the NHS spend billions more on drugs to keep the US happy".
Thinking of the good of the NHS he replies "not a chance".
He'd be out, and Boris would find someone who sings from the same hymn sheet regardless of ability.
Priti Patel stays in office because regardless of ability she says what Boris wants to hear.
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 14th February 07:06
Peter911 said:
I think that it's refeshing that discipline is being restored, and it's not all leaks and opinion poll politics.
HS2 starts getting leaked before the announcement and hey presto, they're all binned.
Should make the rest fall back into line.
If this was the primary reason for the changes, it'd be great if he advertised it as such.HS2 starts getting leaked before the announcement and hey presto, they're all binned.
Should make the rest fall back into line.
Stamping down on leaks done to drive personal agendas would be a major positive IMO.
Equally some more openness on why certain positions were changed - the NI secretary, for example, seems to have been well liked by both sides, which would seem an ideal position for the job. Maybe he was just getting too antsy about necessities related to Brexit?
I think a bit more transparency on the motivations behind such moves would go a long way.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff