In a sea of ministerial turnover, Nick Gibb has been a rare island of stability. Among the 10 education secretaries since 2010 (and eight since 2018) Gibb was a near ever-present at the department as minister of state. It is perhaps no coincidence that schools in England have been one of the Conservative government's principal success stories.
Education is far from the worst offender when it comes to churn. Yesterday, Lee Rowley was appointed the 16th housing minister in the last 13 years. The previous Labour government fared little better, going through nine of their own between 1997 and 2010. No one is suggesting that Britain is a minister of decent tenure away from resolving the housing crisis, but it couldn't hurt to try.
Cabinet reshuffles are the sugar rush of politics. Who's in and who's out makes for a fun parlour game. But the Institute for Government (IfG) think tank takes a perhaps unsurprisingly sceptical view on them. Far be it for me to call the IfG, a cherished part of our uncodified constitution, the fun police. They just want us all to consume the odd crunchy carrot and juicy tomato.
The IfG recognises that reshuffles can be useful for party management, important for signalling policy shifts and necessary when confronted by events beyond a prime minister's control. But it warns that they come with significant drawbacks.
Some are political. The red lights ought to start flashing when the number of former ministers eclipses the size of the parliamentary majority. You'd be amazed how often the recently dismissed discover their principled objections to government policy.
But the core downside is ministerial churn. This is a problem because changes in direction and loss of institutional memory damage efforts to deliver long-term reform. All too often, as soon as a minister finally feels like they understand the role, they're moved up, down, sideways or out.
An IfG report from early 2020 recommended that the prime minister should "set an expectation that secretaries of state stay in post for at least three years, and junior ministers for at least two years." Yet tenures have continued to shrink, most notably at the top of government
Since 2020 there have been three prime ministers, four foreign secretaries and five chancellors. This has a direct impact on policy, especially the thorniest and cross-departmental ones such as levelling up, industrial strategy and social security.
Civil servants do of course provide continuity, but they require ministerial direction. Case in point: on the day that Francis Maude's report into civil service reform was published, the relevant minister, Jeremy Quin, left the government. His successor, John Glen, may get a year in the role, if he's lucky. Ministers often – and sometimes fairly – criticise civil service capability. This sort of thing does not help drive through the changes they want to see.
Should, as the polls indicate, Labour wins the next election, there will naturally be a wholesale change of ministers. The party is promising major reforms across the economy, health service and housing. A good place to start would be to keep ministers in post for long enough to see change through. Of course, even prime ministers who start off with the noblest of intentions find it is never that simple.
In the comment pages, Jon Sparkes, chief executive of Unicef UK, warns that the need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza is growing more urgent by the hour. After a horrible experience in East London, Benji Park says wearing his kippah feels like inviting antisemitic abuse. While Anne McElvoy compares the top ranks of the cabinet with an ABBA Voyage-style tribute to the final days of the Cameron ascendancy.
And finally, service, please. Mike Daw heads to Shoreditch to put in a 17-hour shift and see what it's really like to cook at Manteca.
