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.