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?