www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Commentators

null 17° London Hi 20°C / Lo 15°C

Michael Brown: Cameron will not find it easy to form a new government

He will have only 100 re-elected MPs to choose from for ministerial posts

Lockerbie apart, this has been one of the quietest silly seasons in recent years for domestic politics. Apart from the minor skirmishes caused by Alan Duncan's unfortunate gaffe and the Tory MEP Dan Hannan's foray into the debate on the future of the NHS, party leaders have, sensibly, left us alone to enjoy the recent barbecue weather and England's Ashes glory.

But considering this is the last summer recess before the general election in 255 days' time (assuming it is 6 May 2010), and with another month still to go before the start of the party conference season, for all the complaints about the long recess, the public – if not the media – will surely appreciate this lull before the inevitable political storm.

It is a far cry from the 1996 summer recess, on the eve of the Blair victory, when a hungry Labour opposition was assailing British holiday-makers with Glenda Jackson campaigning on the beaches of Benidorm. John Prescott similarly disturbed the voters of Cleethorpes with frequent visits to play beach cricket in his bid to unnerve me as the soon to be ex-MP. By comparison, however, David Cameron and Gordon Brown are wise this time to give us a break from their utterances and constant photocalls. And few MPs currently have the appetite to be seen anywhere near their constituents – at home or abroad.

This period of quiet reflection should be an opportunity, however, for Mr Cameron to think beyond his forthcoming party conference speech to the day he may actually form his first administration in just eight months' time. In personnel terms, within his first two days in office, he will have to name not only his cabinet, but also the dozens of departmental junior ministers that make up the "payroll" vote.

This task will be the most difficult facing a new Prime Minister since Clement Attlee formed his first government in 1945 – thanks to the massive turnover of MPs likely to occur. The Tory parliamentary party currently totals 196, of which at least 30 Tory MPs are due to stand down at the forthcoming election. There may be even more who are thinking of retiring but who wish to delay the announcement so that their reputations do not get tarnished with those who were forced to resign by the expenses scandal.

So, assuming a Tory victory with an overall working majority, Mr Cameron will be faced with a parliamentary party numbering 350, or thereabouts, of whom only just over 100 will be previously sitting MPs. By comparison, when Margaret Thatcher formed her first government in 1979 her party gained 62 seats from other parties, but she was able to choose widely, from over 250 re-elected MPs from the previous parliament, the 100 or so cabinet and junior ministers.

Of those newly elected MPs (myself included) the high flyers – David Mellor, John Major, Chris Patten, John Patten and William Waldegrave – waited years before they got their first junior ministerial posts and nearly a decade before they made it into the cabinet.

If Mr Cameron retains the size of Gordon Brown's government – 23 cabinet ministers and more than 70 MPs serving as junior ministers (plus 30 Lords ministers) – most current Tory MPs seeking re-election can expect the prime ministerial phone call to serve in the first Cameron administration.

Day one of Mr Cameron's premiership will therefore be his best opportunity to deliver on his campaign pledge to reduce the size of government. We shall see immediately whether, if there is a substantial reduction in the number of junior appointments, the Tory leader really does also mean to reduce the total number of MPs as well.

But another – albeit risky – option is also open to Mr Cameron. Given that, of his most loyal MPs, many will be newly elected for the first time next year, it is not inconceivable that one or two may be destined for immediate promotion. Attlee was faced with a similar situation when forming his 1945 government. He had no hesitation in asking the newly elected MP for Ormskirk, Harold Wilson, to become Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Works.

Wilson made his maiden speech from the Treasury bench speaking for the government, as a minister, on the amenities and facilities for MPs. Within two years he had joined the cabinet at President of the Board of Trade. So who might be destined to repeat Wilson's achievement? Step forward Nicholas Boles, soon to be Tory MP for Grantham and Stamford, and who is now currently working for Mr Cameron's implementation team, preparing for government, in Tory HQ. Mr Boles may already be dreaming of the arrival of a ministerial limousine before he even makes his maiden speech.

mrbrown@talktalk.net

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

God help us
[info]49niner wrote:
Thursday, 27 August 2009 at 04:48 am (UTC)
David Cameron has never held elected office at the highest level, and only a few of his Shadow Cabinet like William Hague and Ken Clarke have any experience at all. By contrast, Attlee had been part of the wartime coalition along with his most senior colleagues.

If elected, we face a Tory government which will be one of the least experienced of modern times. Whereas in the old days, politicians may have sspent time in industry and commerce, many of them now have done nothing else but climb up through the party machine. When it comes to running Great Britain plc they may be found to be out of their depth.

People are rightly very disappointed with New Labour and want to give them a kicking. But in getting rid of Tweedledum we will only get Tweedledee by the looks of it. Those who expect a change of government will bring a change of fortune are being overly optimistic to say the least. Rather be seriously concerned at what is to come, whatever the result of the election. Our political system is bankrupt. God help us!
Amusing...
[info]popskihaynes wrote:
Thursday, 27 August 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC)
To be honest it would be exactly the same if Labour were re-elected as the current headcount of MPs in the PLP stepping down is already around 100-130 plus any losses. In simple terms, whoever forms the Government after the next election will do so with a relatively inexperienced pool of candidates however as Cameron intends to reduce the number of appointments, that is less of a problem for him.

The truth is that regardless of political party, of rather more importance is what I always call the "Assassin's Bullet Test" which simply means that if the current "Leader" was killed, is there an immediate replacement ? In this context and as we know from the events of these past two years, Labour has no replacement for Brown (else they would have already dumped him) but the Conservatives are far better placed with Haig and even David Davis as replacements to Cameron.

In fact and going beyond that, Cameron will have little difficulty filling the top spots and with some quite experienced people and in the junior ranks well, that is where the axe will fall in reducing the size of Government.

But the reality is that getting rid of Labour will spark some hope and regardless of their political affiliations, the British public are fair and would give a Cameron Government the chance to prove itself. As in May 1997, the change will produce the impetus for a fresh start among people and businesses and whilst Governments can set the theme and tone, it is only the wealth creating sector that can drive this economy off the rocks we find ourselves stuck upon.
Re: Amusing...
[info]blathra wrote:
Thursday, 27 August 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
The difference however is that all goodwill and hope may well go out of the window, when the public are faced with the first, second, third and fourth (if he stays that long)Osborne budget.
s
By no fault of their own admittedly, the Tories will start their period in office with massive debts and probably still rising unemployment. This will result in major cuts and the decision is where to make them.

Labour on the other hand in 1997, if they only new it, were about to take over at the beginning of a period of unheard of and ultimately suicidal economic growth.

As far as decision making goes, Osborne and Cameron appeared caught like rabbits in headlghts during last years banking collapse. They showed similar mis-judgement to Labour re the Iraq war. And I have not even mentioned recent questionable manouvres in the EU paliamant, all aimed at pandering to the ominously silent but still large and passionate Anti-European wing of the party.

We shall see.
Re: Amusing...
[info]popskihaynes wrote:
Thursday, 27 August 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC)
I have written on my own and other blogs that from a Conservative point of view, this would be a good election to lose but that is unlikely to happen simply because they are the only game in town.

Labour won't get re-elected, the LibDems have failed to make a breakthrough at Labour's expense and the public know that a Hung Parliament is of no use to them because in the Gordon Brown Government, they have already experienced it.

Of course a Cameron Government will make mistakes but then they all do, one could hardly cite Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Prime Minister having played a faultless game could you ?

As to the EU, I suspect that unlike you, I only wish that changing where we sit and who we sit with in the EU Parliament presaged us exiting both it and the European Courts system totally. But alas it won't, the day has not yet dawned when we shall have a Prime Minister with the foresight and courage to get us out of there. Remember, to be anti-EU is not to be anti-European and its not just some Tories who are anti-EU.
Why not have a coalition?
[info]gliddofglood wrote:
Thursday, 27 August 2009 at 09:04 pm (UTC)
Bearing in mind that no one can now see radical differences between the 3 main political parties in Britain, as they all seem to share the same monetarist ideology, wouldn't it make rather more sense to have a coalition government? This would be more likely to actually represent a majority of the electorate, something the next government is very unlikely to do.

Then you would have plenty of people to choose from. Why is coalition such a dirty word? It's been working happily in Switzerland for decades - and I know which country is the better run.

The turnout at the next election will be miserable - because no one really understands what any of the parties stands for any more - apart from the desire to have power to further the careers of their members.

EDITOR'S CHOICE

EDITOR'S CHOICE


Columnist Comments

john_rentoul

John Rentoul: If Britain is 'broken', who broke it?

We've been here before: the Tories' scare stories are bogus. More to the point, they have no alternative plan

sarah_sands

Sarah Sands: It's better to be a young mum – and cheaper, too

In future, it will be the young women in offices who are confident enough to demand it all

dom_joly

Dom Joly: Such were the joys of my Notting Hill years

Sometimes it's good to look back and remember the good old days


Loading...