Nobody resigned. The prime minister didn’t accidentally appoint the wrong MP to the government. The UK is still a member of Nato. This must, therefore, be considered a successful – albeit limited – cabinet reshuffle. Nevertheless, in time Rishi Sunak may look back on today and think actually, I probably shouldn’t have done that.
The headline changes aren’t personnel, but structural. The Institute for Government reckons today’s announcements represent the largest change to Whitehall since at least 2007. Their live blog contains a fun chart that I spent far too long gazing at.
And I for one welcome our new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology overlords. But there are conventional wisdom-related reasons why these machinery of government changes are considered far from risk-free.
First, there are the boring but important friction costs. Not simply divvying up which department gets what brief, but basic organisational tasks any start-up must consider, from procuring enough chairs to sorting out the payroll. This all takes time and swallows up bandwidth.
Second, it’s not immediately obvious that smaller, more focused ministries are superior. Take the old Department for Energy and Climate Change (2008-16) which is back, having grown a moustache and now calling itself the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
There was a debate among policymakers and observers as to whether a standalone climate department is vital or might in fact lack the strong voice across government, especially given how intersectional climate change is. And by the way, I’m not the only person to point out that the new department doesn’t even mention climate change in its description, but it does reference inflation. Which is a flex.
Third, will these new departments, still establishing their boundaries, work together when it comes to overlapping responsibilities, or will it make for a chaotic bunfight? More to the point, will they be able to collectively stand up to the Treasury, or does HMT look even mightier now, its enemies colleagues have been split into newer, smaller and more manageable chunks?
Fourth, and perhaps most critically, is cash. None of these changes by themselves mean there will be any more money for policies that grow the economy (without antagonising voters in marginal constituencies). Indeed before the reshuffle got underway, the FT’s Jim Pickard and Gill Plimmer reported that High Speed 2 faces further cuts and delays of up to four years, meaning that the line would not be completed until 2045 – a spectacular 12 years later than first planned (and roughly £66bn more than first budgeted). This seems like a bigger deal than a new plaque on the wall.
Clearly, process does matter. Tony Blair came into government with the mindset that it was outcomes and delivery that were sacrosanct, not process and ideology. There were few things more early New Labour than self-conscious agnosticism. But by the end, Blair had changed his mind, coming to realise that raising standards and performance could not be separated from structural reform.
But to be successful, process must be married with energy, ideas, money, political will from the centre, time, confidence and an electorate still willing to give its government the benefit of the doubt. There is no new department that wills any of these into existence.
Elsewhere in the paper, appearing in front of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (RIP) committee, BBC chairman Richard Sharp denied arranging a loan of up to £800,000 for Boris Johnson before the then-prime minister supported his appointment to lead the corporation.
In the comment pages, Nimco Ali says that ten years ago she began her campaign against FGM, we’re winning. Simon Hunt explains why the Bank of England is introducing its own digital currency, dubbed ‘Britcoin’. And Maddy Mussen says sorry, but Madonna has earned the right to do whatever she wants to her face.
And finally, Netflix is making Scoop, a film about that Prince Andrew and Emily Maitlis interview, featuring Gillian Anderson and Billie Piper. I await with trepidation the Amazon Prime true crime documentary based on this newsletter, called Final.
