How the present parliament has seen the least stable Cabinet

That British governments are reshuffled too often, and that ministers spent too little time in one job, has becone a sine qua non of British politics.

There have been 5 Chief Secretary's in the 2005 parliament - more than in any parliament in the last 40 years (NewLabours first parliament, 1997-2001 is the only rival with 4 in 4 years).
4 Trade Secretaries (Thatcher had 4 in 1983-1987, but most parliaments have had 3- - still an average turnover of a new one about every 15th months).
4 Defence Secretaries (only the Falklands Parliament of 1979 has come close with 3, most of had 2).
4 Home Secretaries (the 1987 parliament had 3, but all the others since 1970 have had 2 or, occasionally, just 1)

Of the 10 senior (and for this sort of exercise importantly, reasonably consistent as Cabinet jobs across the period), only Agriculture (hardly a priority post for either party) has had fewer incumbents in the 2005 parliament than any other 1970- parliament.

But comparisons over a longer term don't show a higher turnover. Compare the 13 years from 1979-1992 (Conservative government, bookended by elections and with a change of Prime Minister towards the end) and from 1997-2010 (ditto, aside from obviously being a Labour government) and you'll find remarkably similar turnover rates.

There were 7 Tory defence secretaries, 6 for Labour. 5 Home Secretaries for the Conservatives, 6 for Labour. 6 (Con) and 4 (Lab) in the Foreign Office, 5 and 6 for Education and for Health, 10 and 8 for Trade, 4 and 5 for Agriculture, and 4 and 2 for the Chancellor and 7 and and 10 for his deputy, the Chief Secretary. Only Local Government shows any significant divergence between the two governments - 9 Secretaries of State (for Environment) under the Tories and just 5 for Labour (though the department they headed changed almost as often as they did).

What does all this tell us? It tells us that, apart from this Parliament, turnover in the top jobs of British politics has been reasonably stable since 1970. It tells us that the Trade Secretary post, having been held by both Mandelson and Heseltine potentially the most important post after the traditional great-3-offices-of-state has by far the highest turnover of heads of department. That the defence post hasn't turned into a game of musical chairs under Labour. And that the Environment Secretary post under the Conservatives changed hands much more often that (at least I) imagined.

Spreadsheet at www.mapsstatsandpolitics.talktalk.net/Turnover.xls

Where's the best place to represent to become a Minister?

Over the last 40 years (from Ted Heath's government in 1970, so taking in 22 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour) the South East of England (with 47) is clearly the best place to reach Minister of State rank. At Cabinet rank things are slightly different, with London having more MPs (25) reaching Cabinet than any other region. At both ranks, the top 3 regions, in absolute terms, are London, the South East and the North West. Perhaps not too much of a surprise, as they're the three biggest regions.

Adjusted for size (based on the number of MPs in each region), not much changes. The top 3 regions at Minister of state level are still the South East, North West and London. It's a bit different at Cabinet, where the North East comes out top (until 1997 there'd only been two Cabinet ministers representing the North East, the last 12 years have added a further 9 to that total) and the East of England ties with London, largely due to the 10 year period between 1987 and 1997.

The worst places places at Minister of State level, both in absolute and proportional terms, are Wales and the North East, with only 12 and 9 MoS over that 40 year period, quite a few of the Welsh Ministers having only served in the Welsh Office. At Cabinet level, its the Midlands regions and, again, Wales, which elect fewest Cabinet members: just 8 (Wales and the East Midlands) and 9 (West Midlands).

My full spreadsheet on this is at www.mapsstatsandpolitics.talktalk.net/regions.xls

Why does any of this matter? In one way it reflects the party strengths in different areas of the country: but with the 40 year span and both parties in government for about the same length of time, that should be cancelled out. But if one of the strengths of our governance system is that everyone in Cabinet also has to answer to a set of constituents so they're in touch with real life, where those constituents are does begin to matter.

It begs question as to why some regions have had twice as many (per head of population) Ministers of States and Cabinet members as others. Is it a reflection of the government system, or the calibre of members from those regions?

A hung parliament with how many power brokers?

I was struck by the latest opinion poll in the Guardian, not by the Con/Lab/LD results, which were much the same as they've been for some time now, but by the figure for the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

At 5%, (UK-wide), this was up (from 4.4%, so far from statistically significant) on their results in the Scottish Parliament/National Assembly elections and more than double the result they got in the 2005 General Election.

A simple doubling of their vote shares, with the adjustments of the 3 UK-wide parties based on the opinion poll movement, showed the SNP on 25 seats (up from 6 at the 05 election) and Plaid Cymru on 6 (up from 3 at the 05 election).

Which from the same doubling in vote share is a far better performance for the SNP than for Plaid - a reflection of quite how far behind Labour in Wales (every other party including) Plaid come in.

But also shows that, on a slightly smaller swing to the Tories, it won't be just the LibDems that may have a choice to make about supporting a government, but Plaid and the SNP. Will this effect how either Labour or the Conservatives will approach the issues of an independence referendum for Scotland or full powers for the National Assembly in Wales?

In one way, the above isn't a fair comparison, doubling vote share is only a uniform swing if you start from the same point. So, taking Plaid from c12% to c24% is a smaller gain than the SNP from c17% to c34%. But that 10% difference doesn't account for why the Scots can quadruple their seat numbers, and the Welsh only double them (add on that extra 10% or so to Plaid and they reach 10 seats). Move the Plaid gain to a (quite ridiculous) quadrupling of the vote, and they end up with 18 seats, more akin to the gain that their Scottish counterparts make.

So, two conclusions from this. Firstly, that a hung parliament could easily feature the SNP and Plaid Cymru as power brokers, just as much as it does the LibDems or the Northern Irish parties. Secondly, that Plaid have to do so much better than the SNP to make the same sort of breakthrough.

New departments & Prime Ministerial favour

Thatcher merged the Departments of Trade & Industry (one of the few ways in which she followed in the footsteps of Ted Heath, who also merged the two departments only for them to promptly be demerged by Harold Wilson in 1974) and split the DHSS into the Department of Social Security, and the Department of Health.

The winners in these two changes were Cecil Parkinson (a clear Thatcher favourite, all be it one who only enjoyed the re-created DTI for 4 months before being forced to resign) and Ken Clarke (far from a Thatcher favourite) who became head of the newly hived off DoH (leaving the clear Thatcher favourite, John Moore, with the denuded and politically less exciting, DSS).

John Major created the Department of National Heritage (from elements of the Home Office, Environment, and the odd other department) and merged the Department of Employment & of Education. The winners from these changes were clear and both Major favourite's: David Mellor (a friend, given the new Department for National Heritage and then, a la Cecil Parkinson, forced to resign through personal scandal a matter of months later) and Gillian Shepherd (part of the East Anglia mafia that predominated during the Major years who, having been Secretary of State for both Education and for Employment landed the combined ministry).

Tony Blair moved from the DFEE (Employment and Education) and DSS (Social Security) to the DFES (Education & Skills, shedding all but the training part of old Employment department) in favour of the DSS (becoming the DWP).
He also created the Department of Constitutional Affairs which evolved into the Justice department, from the former Lord Chancellor's department.

The winners in this? Alastair Darling (not really a Blair confidante but a respected technocrat) was the first Secretary of State for the enlarged DWP. Charlie Falconer was the first Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, and then for Justice. Whilst a friend of Blairs, his appointment was at the expense of another friend of Blairs, Derry Irvine.

Brown has been most active in creating and reshuffling departments: DCSF (Children, Schools and Families) was created from the old DfES, gaining children's responsibilies from other departments (eg, Social Services from health) but shedding 16+ education to the DIUS. Ed Balls (a clear Brown favourite) headed DCSF and John Denham (not known to be a clear Brown or Blair favourite) DIUS. The new Department for Energy and Climate Change, was headed by Ed Miliband, another ex-Brown adviser. And of course, most prominently of all, Mandelson became head of the new super-department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

Prime Minister	Cabinet Minister	New department	Favourite?
Thatcher	Parkinson	Trade & Industry	Yes
Thatcher	Clarke	Health	No
Major	Mellor	National Heritage	Yes
Major	Shepherd	Education & Employment	Yes
Blair	Darling	Work & Pensions	No
Blair	Falconer	Constitutional	Yes
Brown	Balls	Children, Schools & Families	Yes
Brown	E Miliband	Climate Change	Yes
Brown	Denham	Innovation, Universities	No
Brown	Mandelson	Business, Innovation & Skills	Yes

Now, you would expect a Cabinet to have many Prime Ministerial favourites in it, but all the favourites above are clearly the Prime Ministers most prominent supporters; and account for 8 out of the 11 new departmentalk bosses - far more than a coincidence.

Non-replaced GOATS and yet another job for Timms

Both Mark Malloch-Brown and Prof Ali Darzi have now left government, from their posts at Health and Foreign respectively. Neither have been replaced. According to the FCO website, there is no minister responsible for Africa (Malloch-Brown's former beat) and the DoH have got round the issue of Prof Darzi's job by pretending he hasn't left.

Were these jobs that didn't need doing? Or have been completed? Or which only existed because of the willingness of an outsider to lend their reputation to the government? It's quite odd to see ministers leave and not be replaced, not least because of the desire of the whips to be able to offer junior posts to backbench MPs.

Stephen Carter has partially been replaced at Culture & BIS with the announcement that Sion Simon (already at Culture) and Stephen Timms (at the Treasury and adding BIS to his roster) will carry on Carter's work. This makes Timms, with 11 appointments in 11 years, the most travelled and reshuffled minister in this (or I'm fairly certain any other ) government, well in excess of John Reid or Mike O'Brien (the other oft-reshuffled ministers in this government).

How long to remain in a Cabinet

Gordon Brown, Jack Straw and Alastair Darling have been in the Cabinet continuously since 1997. But then there's a leap to find the next longest serving member: Hilary Benn who joined the Cabinet in 1993 (and parliament in 1999 - an ascent only matched or beaten by Balls and the two Milibands). Somehow, everyone else from the original Labour 1997 Cabinet, plus everyone who joined in 1998-2002, fell by the wayside.

Looking at the Major Government, early in his career but 12 years after the Conservatives came to office in May 1979, not a single member of that Cabinet had served continuously since 1979. Tom King and John Wakeham (since 1983), Douglas Hurd (since 1984) and John MacGregor and Kenneth Baker (since 1985) were the longest continuously serving (Heseltine, of course, had clocked up 7 years under Thatcher before his high profile departure and then return).

Towards the end of Major's years, in 1997, the number who'd lasted from the start of his premiership in 1990 (conveniently for these purposes, between 6 and 7 years previously), was quite substantial: Lang, Heseltine, Lilley, MacKay, Clarke, Rifkind, Howard, Waldegrave. Why this greater stability under Major than under Thatcher or the Labour era?

Major didn’t have any of the clear-outs and mass sackings that Brown found himself faced with dealing with in June 09 (4 was the largest number of Cabinet level departures under Major) which, again, lessened the opportunity for a quick turnover in Cabinet places.

Is it that Major was weaker/more consensual than either Blair or Thatcher, so didn’t have the clout to sack (and therefore make enemies) as many?

Or that a generational change occurred within the Cabinet from about 89-92 (with some of the older generation such as Wakeham, Lawson, Howe, Thatcher etc leaving), so that there was less need or potential to refresh the Cabinet?

Or that there were fewer people deemed promotion worthy into Cabinet, as the Conservative government came to an end?

Lack of experience for Defence?

A lot of interest has been made in the lowly status of the new Secretary of State for Defence. This is his first job in Cabinet, and therefore bound to be a but junior in Cabinet.

He’s not alone in being a defence secretary in his first cabinet job. Of his 18 predecessors, from Peter Thorneycroft to John Hutton, 4 of them have made their Cabinet debut in that position. An average ratio for a cabinet post. Denis Healey and George Robertson took the job after their party had been out of office for some time, and after being a ‘big beast’ on their front bench in opposition.

Ian Gilmour had climbed the ladder in defence, from Parliamentary Secretary at the start of Heath’s government to Secretary of State for the last few months of that government, via the MoS post at Defence. Geoff Hoon by contrast had no experience in the Defence department, and his most senior position prior to his first Cabinet post had been 6 months as a minister of State at the Foreign Office.

So Bob Ainsworth may be very inexperienced for the defence post, but he does have the odd rival to be the least experienced, and Geoff Hoon is probably the victor.

Work Experience?

How much help does a secretary of state’s climb up the ministerial ladder give them when they make it to the Cabinet? Much of it is gaining political skills and administrative skills. But its quite noticeable (perhaps exacerbated by the number of ministers who have sped into Cabinet without the previous tour around the lower reaches of government) how few of the existing Cabinet have served in that department previously.

2 of them, Mandelson and Hain, have been Secretary of State for their present department previously, as well as other posts.
1 of them, Straw, has only ever served as the ministerial heads of department, so hasn’t had the opportunity to gain experience lower down the government.
But of the remaining 16, only 5 have served lower down their present departmet, including the two deputies who were promoted to Cabinet at the last reshuffle:

• Darling, who was Chief Sec in the first NewLabour government in 1997
• Burnham, who’s last job before promotion to the Cabinet was as Minister of State in his present department
• Shaun Woodward, who only a Parliamentary Secretary in Northern Ireland before being leapfrogged into Cabinet
• Bob Ainsworth, Minister of State at Defence before promotion to Sec of State
• Andrew Adonis, Minister of State at Transport before promotion to Sec of State

This is an improvement on the previous position, before the last reshuffle, where only Woodward, Purnell and Darling amongst Cabinet member had served lower down in the department before landing a Cabinet job in it.

The South Eastern grip on the shadow cabinet

Its no surprise that the shadow cabinet represents constituencies within a small geographical area. The leading lights of the Labour party tend to represent constituencies from the North of England and Scotland; until recently the LibDems leading lights tended to come from their strongholds of the Celtic fringes.

But for the Tories, out of 28 (an extraordinary number given that the Cabinet has a maximum capacity in the low 20s) shadow cabinet members from the Commons:

* Only 2 represent North of England constituencies. That they are the shadow Chancellor and shadow Foreign Secretary; and that the next most northerly (English) member is Ken Clarke means that the North is numerically under-represented in the shadow cabinet (by a huge margin) but has 3 of the 4 senior members of it.

* 4 of the 28 (twice as many as the contingent from the North) represent Surrey, a county of 11 constituencies.

* Every one of the standard regions of Great Britain are represented, except Wales and the North East. By contrast, in the (Labour) Cabinet I can't find anyone from the East Midlands, but every other region is represented. And the LibDems don't have anyone from the West Midlands, East Midlands, or North East, all of which regions they only have one (East Mids and North East) or two (West Mids) representatives

* Only one shadow cabinet member represents a London seat - the Conservatives have 21 of the 74 seats, but just the one representative at their top table - by contrast Labour have 2 and the LibDems 4

* 12 of the 28 are from the most populous region, the South East. This makes the Scottish grip on the Cabinet (4 from 20) seem almost weak.

The ultimate hokey-cokey cabinet post?

Most people get just the once chance at any one job in government. It's very unusual (Mandelson with the DTI aside, and Mandelson seems to be an exception to most political rules) for someone to go back to a job a second time.

At Cabinet level, Mandelson has done it, Roy Jenkins with the Home Office has, and I think that's it, post war. There's been the odd time of someone going to back to a job they'd previously done when their party had been out of office but picking up where you left off but for the intervention of the electorate is slightly different.

So why has the SoS for Wales post (perhaps the post with the least responsibility in all government) had this retread effect twice, with both Murphy and Hain?

Secretary of State for Wales
July 2009: Paul Murphy
October 2002: Peter Hain
January 2008: Paul Murphy
June 2009: Peter Hain

Last time Hain did this job, he doubled it with the DWP job (replaced by Mr Purnell) but suddenly, in the intervening 18 months the job must have grown in importance and Hain no longer doubles-up.

Presumably, this reshuffle has been made for the same reason that Jim Murphy is in Scotland - to run campaigns for the Labour party. By any stretch of the imagination Hain is a better campaigner than (Paul) Murphy (Paul Murphy wouldn't recognise a campaign if it introduced itself) and Wales has the 2nd highest proportion of Labour seats of any UK region (and it's a bit tricky to justify a full-time Secretary of State for the North East).

Fresh Blood and the Chief Secretary

Prime Ministers normally reshuffle Cabinets and declare that they've brought in fresh blood and new ideas. This one bucked that very clear trend and the average experience of Cabinet rises after the reshuffle. The outgoing Cabinet members have been, on average, in the Commons for 14 years. The incoming, for 16 years. In contrast to the first Brown Cabinet which brought in two people in their first parliament (the Ed's), the least experienced this time is Ben Bradshaw, having been around in Parliament since 1997 (the most experienced newcomer to Cabinet since at least 1986)

The post of Chief Secretary is virtually always filled by a newcomer to the Cabinet. Since 1970, only two people have moved from inside the Cabinet to the Chief Sec post. Liam Byrne becomes only the second such mover after William Waldegrave, in 95 (John Major's and the Conservatives last Chief Secretary).

How many Privy Counsellors can be needed? The devaluing of 'Rt Hon'

The Privy Council (members without other titles gain the prefix 'Rt Hon') is one of the many historic but still faintly functional parts of our constitution.

Excluding those people who have to be, or by convention are, made a member of the Privy Council (Cabinet members, senior Legal and Church appointments, opposition party leaders and the odd other senior opposition member, 'Speakers' of the various legislatures etc), Brown's record of creating members of the Council far outstrips that of his predecessor (which in turn exceeded that of his predecessor as Labour members appear to prefer 'Rt Hon' to 'Sir' in front of their names).

In Brown's (just under) 2 years, 13 MPs have been created a member of the PC without reaching Cabinet. For some of them it appears to have been a post-sacking making up (Ryan, Morley, McGuire for example). For others, maybe those who've hung around just outside the Cabinet for some time, compensation for not even making it to the phalanx of ministers 'invited' or 'entitled' to attend Cabinet.

By contrast, in Blairs (just over) 10 years, 39 MPs were made members, 3 times as many in 5 times as long. A fair few of these were in advance of being promoted to Cabinet (none of Browns 13 have yet), though the remainder were also post sacking making up, or recongition to long serving ministers of state that they were never going to quite make it to Cabinet.

Does any of this matter? Well, in one sense, no. The day-to-day work of the PC is done by the Lord President (usually Leader of the Commons or Lords, now parts of Lord Mandelsons bauble-set) and most members do little. The concept of discussions on 'Privy Council' terms may matter (hence some of the opposition members appointments) but there are any number of examples of being taken into confidence without the honorific title.

So, for the most part, it seems to have become just another part of the Prime Ministerial patronage machine.

Peers in charge & the First Secretary of State

Since the second world war, this is the first Cabinet to have members of the Lords in charge of two spending departments (Mandelson at business, Adonis at Transport).
Lord (Peter) Carrington, Lord (Quentin Hogg) Hailsham, Lord (David) Young have been in a very small minority of peers who have run major departments and this Cabinet is makinga major contributions to their ranks.

These exceptions to the rule had an MP as their departmental deputy, able to answer questions and make statements, but as a member of the Cabinet, usually one of the nominal posts such as Paymaster-General or Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Ken Clarke, for example, first became a member of the Cabinet in this role, to David Young.

What's slightly extraordinary, this was the case with Mandelson prior to todays reshuffle and the problem is now doubled, is that not only are their departmental deputies not members of the Cabinet, they're not even part of the phalanx of people entitled or invited to attend. Statements on Transport and Business issues will now be made and answered by an MP not around the Cabinet table when they were discussed.

We've also seen today the revival of one of the more meaningless (to the world if not to the holder) titles in government, that of First Secretary of State, which Lord Mandelson now has. Indeed, not content with that honorary title, he's also scooped up that of Lord President, normally destined for Leader of the Lords or the Commons.

Of his 6 predecessors, 3 also held the (also meaningless) post of Deputy Prime Minister (Prescott, Heseltine, and the first post-holder, Rab Butler). 1 was deputy leader of his party (the first G Brown at the top of British politics), leaving Mandelson alongside Barbara Castle and Michael Stewart as non-deputy holders of the First Sec of State title.

Cabinet Reshuffles after Euro-elections

With a major reshuffle promised for after the Euro elections (seems a little odd to do as one newspaper suggested that the reshuffle take place before the Euro's are counted, with the new Cabinet immediately tarnished with defending the results), I thought it would be interesting to see the scale of reshuffles after the previous Euro elections.

	2004	1999	1994	1989	1984
Seats lost	6	33	13	13	15
Vote Share	23	28	28	35	38
Seats	19	29	18	32	45
Vote Position	2	2	2	2	1
Cabinet Members sacked	1	3	4	4	1
Reshuffled	0	2	6	10	1

This table shows the outcome for the governing party of the time of all but the first Euro-elections and the subsequent reshuffle.

It appears that 4 is the maximum casualty rate from a Euro election reshuffle, with Thatchers fall in sight in 89, and Major's panic-strewn (but post leadership election) reshuffle in 94 as hardly enviable comparators for Brown.

NB. Figures in the table won't always add up - as the UK allocation of Euro seats has changed over time, the figures used are like-for-like comparators.

Who does precedent suggest will be the next Home Secretary?

With one of the more likely posts to be reshuffled thought to be the Home Secretary, and with much made of her inexperience, I thought it would be interesting to look at where her predecessors had come from, and their experience before becoming Secretary of State for the Home Department (its old-fashioned title).

In recent times, 2 Home Secretaries apiece have come from the post of Chief Whip (technically outside the Cabinet, Waddington and Smith, neither of whom seem to have made the transfer from backroom to great office all that well), Chancellor of the Exchequer (Maudling and Jenkins, but in both cases after being in opposition) and Northern Ireland (Hurd and Rees)

Surprisingly, the most likely springboard to Home Office is Education - Clarke, Blunkett and Clarke all made that transition.

There's not a ready explanation for this - Education and Home Office subjects are hardly all that similar; Thatcher aside and Education Secretaries haven't moved on to the other top posts - PM, Chancellor or Foreign. You could add to the total of Education Secretaries that bit further, by noting that Jack Straw, with no ministerial experience before getting the post, was his party's Education spokesman before getting the Home Office in opposition and then government. And Ken Baker, Major's first Home Sec, was a long serving Education Secretary before becoming his party chair. But counting those two would be cheating.

So, does this mean that the most unlikely prediction for a move in the next reshuffle is for Ed Balls to get the Home Office?

What do Blackburn, South Shields, and Richmond (Yorks) have in common?

They are the only constituencies in the last 40 years to have had successive MPs serve in the Cabinet (whilst being their MP).

With around about the same number of MPs having served in government over that 40 years as there have been MP in any one parliament (around about the 650 mark) you'd expect on average each constituency to have had one government member.

But that's not the way it appears to have worked, even when you take out those seats never likely to have their MPs in government (Northern Ireland, the Scottish and Welsh nationalist strongholds, the Lib (Dem) seats (though only about a dozen could be said to be perennial seats for these three parties combined).

Barbara Castle and Jack Straw in Blackburn have clocked up 16 years in the Cabinet, over the last 41 years. Leon Brittain and William Hague in Richmond a more modest 8 years and David Clarke (remember him? - Cabinet minister in the Cabinet Office for a year, sacked by Blair at the first opportunity, responsible for the Freedom of Information white paper which ultimately, via many twists, led us to where we are today on MP expenses) and David Miliband in South Shields just 5 years.

Stockport appears to be the opposite of these seats, with none of their MPs over the last few decades having had a government post, though the incumbent Anne Coffey is one of the longest serving (perhaps the longest serving) Parliamentary Private Secretary for, firstly Tony Blair and then Alistair Darling

The culture of South West Surrey

The last Conservative Sec of State for Culture (or National Heritage as it then was) was Virginia Bottomley, the MP for South West Surrey. The man most likely to be the next Conservative MP for South West Surrey is Jeremy Hunt, MP for South West Surrey.

In its relatively short life, it's had 8 Secretaries of State, an average stay of just over 2 years (Tessa Jowell stayed for 6, dragging up everyone elses average). But of them, 4 of them have represented London, 2 of them constituences in Greater Manchester barely 20 miles apart. As Surrey SW can scarely be said to be a long way from London that only leaves Stephen Dorrells brief (less than a year) incumbency to break out of Greaters London and Manchester.

If one of the cases that's always made for the MP-constituency link is how that carries into government and that the perspective politicians get from their constituents serve them well in government, hasn't culture been seen through a remarkably narrow prism?

Why do Welsh Ministers stay in office so much longer than their Westminster and Holyrood colleagues?

Looking at the memberships of the two devolved governments in '99; and Westminster at around the same time, and scrolling forward to the same groups 10 years later (8 for the Scots, as obviously the change in government would have made the exercise irrelevant), there are some stark contrasts between the longevities of the ministerial teams.

For the Scots, over 8 years, just 5 out of the original 22 (22%) ministers were still in office at the end of the 8 years.

For the Welsh, 10 years on, it was 44%. And the 56% who didn't serve the full decade, all departed from the Cabinet in the first 18 months.

In Westminster, we're talking far bigger numbers, both in government and the parliamentary pool they can be drawn from. And there, for the same decade, the figure was 28 out of 108 ministers who were in office in 1999 and still in office 10 years later. 10 of whom (such as Nick Brown, Margaret Beckett, Paul Murphy and John Denham) were not in office for all of that time. So a figure of 26% or 16% depending on how you count these things.

So why does Wales manage such greater stability in government? Smaller gene pool from which to draw potential ministers lessening the push to lose under-performing ministers? Less demanding government and media environment in which to exist? More reluctant 'butcher' in charge of reshuffles? And is there a scrap of evidence that a more stable government base produces better government?

The contrasting fates of Stephen Timms and Tommy McAvoy

The Mandelson reshuffle in October last year contained a surprising,

if barely reported, feature.

Since 1997, when Blair was first elected Prime Minister, and Nick

Brown was in his first incarnation as chief whip (incidentally, I

can't think of anyone else who's had two quite separate stints at

that job, whilst his party's been in government through the time)

Tommy McAvoy the MP for Rutherglen was Comptroller of HM Household,

the 3rd highest position in the whips office.

Few have lasted that long in the whips office, let alone in the same

post. He's the longest serving person in that position by a factor

of more than two since WWII. And then, for no obvious reason on the

surface of things, he was suddenly promoted to the deputy chief's

position. Did Brown (G and N) run out of people to put in that

position? Did they feel McAvoys loyalty warranted some reward

(though its scarely a massive leap)?

McAvoy's longevity in one position is contrasted by the merry-go-

round that Stephen Timms, the member for East Ham, one of the

members elected on the bumper day of by-elections on Euro-election

day 94 that also saw his fellow middle-ranking ministers Gerry

Sutcliffe and Margaret Hodge elected, and Chris Huhne's Eastleigh

seat go LibDem, has seen in his government career.

Not quite in government at the beginning he had to wait for the

first reshuffle in 98 to get a job. But since then, he has featured

in reshuffles with a remarkable frequency. I think he's been

reshuffled 11 times, once a year. He's usually done jobs in the

Treasury, Trade and Industry (as was) and Work and Pensions (as is).

His done his present job, 3rd down in the Treasury, 3 times now

(Nick Brown aside, you won't find many to do the same job twice).

He's also one of the few members of the government to be demoted, as

he once served in the Cabinet as Chief Secretary, before continuing

a government career outside of Cabinet.

If McAvoy and Timms represent opposing poles in consistency in

government positions, Timms' example perhaps represents the extreme

end of the scale of ministers spending insufficient time in one

post.

Demise of the cities in government

One of the (many) interesting features from the 1979 General Election results programme, replayed on BBC Parliament this Bank Holiday Monday, was the highlighting of Leeds, having the constituency of Merlyn Rees (Home Secretary), Denis Healey (Chancellor) and Keith Joseph (author of the Conservative manifesto in 79, occupied a similar position to that of Oliver Letwin today).

You compare that to today, where I don't think any city has had more than one cabinet member in the last decade, let alone have prominent members from both main parties (Sheffield today, has Blunkett and Clegg, but one has been out of government for some years, and the other may be prominent but not in one of the two main parties).

Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle Edinburgh and Glasgow have had one Cabinet member apiece in the last 10 years (Short, Blunkett, Benn, N Brown, Darling, Dewar) but no prominent opposition members. Manchester and Liverpool, as cities, both a complete sweep of Labour members, haven't provided a Cabinet member between them since 1997. Nor has Bristol (despite the trend to cities becoming Tory free zones over the last 30 years, Bristol has managed a Cabinet member, in Waldegrave) since 1997.

Some of this can be explained by fewer seats in the cities. Birmingham has shed 2 seats, from 12 to 10, from the 70s to today. Manchester almost halved from 8 to 4 and a bit. Liverpool from 8 to 5. Some can be explained by the country becoming more divided, with (outside of extreme swings) fewer Conservative seats in the cities, and Labour seats in the countryside now than 40 years ago. So less chance of senior members of both parties being neighbours as in Leeds.

But that can't explain all of the failure, in greasy-pole terms, of the city seats, nor the lack of liklihood of the Leeds effect of 79 being repeated.

Why the next government won't be the most inexperienced parliamentarians

Assuming the Tories win the next election, their front bench will be the most inexperienced parliamentarians to take up post after an election (there are plenty of reasons to think that those presently shadowing the Cabinet won't form, person-for-person, the next Cabinet. But assumptions have to start from somewhere, and I've started from an assumption of counting those who shadow present cabinet members).

This graph shows the average time served in the Commons by the first Cabinet after a general election every election year since 1970.



Even with Ken Clarke, who alone provides more than one year of the 13-and-a-bit average years that the present opposition front bench have served, they're still one year more inexperienced that the Labour Cabinet after the last General Election.

But, and the reason for the 'won't' in the title, is that Gordon Brown's first Cabinet, was almost a year less experienced (12.96 years in parliament against 13.86 as the Tories will be next year) than Camerons will be in 2010.

Having two Cabinet members (Ball and E Miliband) who'd served in the Commons for only just over 2 years drags down the average from the likes of Straw (28 years in the Commons) Harman (25 years).

This is a drop of more than a full parliament from the start of Blairs government (remarkably close in experience to Thatchers first), and perhaps yet another of the indicators of the growth of the professional politician and the divide between them and those MPs more experienced in the real world. There were barely a handful of MPs from the 79 intake who got beyond the whips office before the 83 election - similar to the number from the 05 intake who'll find themselves in the Cabinet before the 2010 election.