If you want to restore Cabinet government, you have to reduce the size of the Cabinet
James Forsyth 6:02pm
In the politics column this week, I write about how the Tories plan to hand over many of the traditional policy making powers of the Cabinet to a seven man policy board. The Cameroons are going to do this partly because it is a model that has worked well for them in oppoistion and that they are comfortable with but also because the Cabinet is just too large for effective, detailed discussions about policy.
The shadow Cabinet currently has 34 members in it. In government, this number will have to drop by at least ten. But still, a 24 person group is, probably, too large to foster constructive and detailed debate.
However, if the Cabinet was smaller, then it would be easier to restore it to its traditional role without sacrificing effectiveness. One Cameron aide told me recentlty that 15 was probably the ideal size for the Cabinet and would make it possible to bring back Cabinet government.
So, why doesn't Cameron just slim down the Cabinet? There are two reasons why he won't. First, it would involve a time consuming reorganisation of Whitehall. Second, it would create a lot of ticked off members of the shadow Cabinet. But in the long term a Cabinet of 15, which would have to be roughly represenative of the parliamentary party as whole, would be a better recipe for party unity than a policy board made up almost entirely of Cameron's long marchers.
Previous
Naomi Muse
November 27th, 2009 6:22pm Report this commentAgree with your numbers.
Sure Dave's torn on this one but so little time, so much to do.
Michael Booth
November 27th, 2009 6:24pm Report this commentCabinet posts we could do without:
1) Secretary of Stae for Scotland
2) ditto Wales (neither necessary under devolution - if they are necessary why not a Secretary of State for England then?)
3) Minister for the Olympics
4) Minister for Women and Equality
Moraymint
November 27th, 2009 6:50pm Report this commentThere's plenty of research evidence out there to show that once the number of direct reports to a chief executive exceeds 8 - 10 people, the chief executive starts to lose control of the organisation.
Get the state down to a maximum of 10 major departments - it wouldn't be difficult with some willpower and strong leadership - and see how much more effective, efficient and economic the Government would become.
Odds on this happening? You stand more chance of winning the lottery.
Gareth
November 27th, 2009 7:35pm Report this commentMoraymint,
Above a certain threshold perhaps a cabinet behaves more like a classroom - the Ministers being there simply to listen to the Prime Minister and his people. That is how Brown is reported as running his cabinet.
Ted
November 27th, 2009 7:42pm Report this commentChurchill in WWII split the Cabinet into the War Cabinet that he led and the rest into a domestic abinet that generally Attlee led. Why not split the Cabinet into UK/non devolved & England. So the SoS for Transport is in English Matters Cabinet along with SoS for Health, Education and other departments that have only English matters directly under their control, then the UK Cabinet which deals with those areas that apply acrosss the Kingdom.
TGF UKIP
November 27th, 2009 7:50pm Report this commentFloreat Etona
Tankus
November 27th, 2009 8:00pm Report this commentmax 500 MP's too
TrevorsDen
November 27th, 2009 8:13pm Report this commentHalf a dozen 'deputies', each with mini cabinets. The 'deputies' are effectively the cabinet.
Mini Cabinets meet one a week. The PM and deputies meet once a week. Big grand cabinet meets once a month - take it round the country a la Brown, but this is really just a gimmick.
Oh - first lets get elected
Mitch
November 27th, 2009 8:57pm Report this commentGordon populated his with pygmys does that count?
Baldwin
November 27th, 2009 9:50pm Report this commentA cabinet of ten to fifteen seems optimum, beyond which it is likely to become progressively less cohesive.
Labour's approach of sprawling numbers just leads to ineffectiveness.
Verity
November 27th, 2009 10:41pm Report this commentAnother twinky little photo of Dave!
General Zod
November 27th, 2009 11:58pm Report this commentHow many ministers in Maggie's first cabinet?
General Zod
November 27th, 2009 11:59pm Report this comment23 it appears.
Verity
November 28th, 2009 2:38am Report this commentMitch, the use of the word "pygmies" is "racist". I think the Trots/Marxists/Gramscis missed it.
My God! What if that Pygmie was a Muslim? Double jeopardy, given that the socialist illiterates think Islam is a race.
Hysteria
November 28th, 2009 3:41am Report this commentAgain - how many in the cabinet at height of Empire?
strapworld
November 28th, 2009 9:05am Report this commentJust like Blair! As Guido points out Cameron and his team have announced that they are going to create EIGHTEEN, at the last count, QUANGO's, on top of the present one's they will keep.
Just like Blair...create a safety net of quango's between Minister and the people!
Just like Blair..that means no Minister will ever be at fault, ever!
Just like Blair! Do not vote for this party which is masquerading as the Conservatives.
As for slimming down the cabinet. THAT would place Cameron far too close to decisions! Cannot have that.
The cabinet that matters to Cameron will be his inner cabal. No minutes. Just like Blair!!
Rhoda Klapp
November 28th, 2009 9:16am Report this commentSo it's goona be a Policy Board. Not a clique. Definitely not a clique.
Cuffleyburgers
November 28th, 2009 10:29am Report this commentI agree with Moraymint. Maximum 10 posts. The current system is "designed" - or rather emerged over the years - in response to generally short term political imperatives and manoeuvers rather than executive efficiency.
The whole government system is in fact a byword for ineffective management techniques which is the main reason waste is so high, and unintended consequences so endemic.
That's the trouble with student union marxists - they've run anything that actually matters, and then there they are trying to micromanage 60 milion people.
No wonder Brown has tried so hard to reduce the size of the economy to a manageable soze...
James Strachan
November 28th, 2009 11:46am Report this commentRead "Directors and Councils" - a chapter in "Parkinson's Law" where he observes that 21 is the maximum size of a Committee or Cabinet before an inner Cabinet emerges to take the real decisions.
Verity
November 28th, 2009 1:31pm Report this commentEighteen NEW quangoes, when he should be laying about quangoes like an axe murderer? Another segment of Parkinson's Law. Cameron has been promoted miles beyond his ability.
Rhoda Klapp
November 28th, 2009 2:44pm Report this commentWill there be even one conservative in it?
Verity
November 28th, 2009 5:15pm Report this commentThere are nearly 1200 quangoes in Britain. They cost the British economy £170bn a year. Dave plans to add another 18!
A free marketeer this silly man is not. He is an small-thinking over-manager. If he got into power, which he will not, I guarantee that he would create a new, giant quango to oversee all the other quangoes.
General Zod
November 28th, 2009 8:46pm Report this commentYes, Verity and he also intends to do away with plenty of the 1200 as you conveniently fail to mention.
Verity
November 29th, 2009 6:38pm Report this commentGeneral Zod, I did not "fail to mention" that which I do not know.
I have not seen Cameron express any intention at all of decreasing the number of quangoes; and frankly, even if he had, proposing 12 new ones tells us that he, in fact, likes quangoes.
Quangoes are all about control; and so is Dave.
Back to top