I’ve written before about the big cities and their representation in government, but how do the Metropolitan Counties, or City Regions as government nomenclature have them nowadays, fare?
On average, any County (or at least any one predominantly represented by Conservative and Labour politicians) should expect a 130% return of their elected members getting into government over the last 40 years, or to put it another way, a quarter of a county’s MPs should make it into government in any given decade. So, a county with 10 parliamentary constituencies will, on average, have had 13 MPs make it into government. Of course, these are averages – a county like Hampshire, with consistently very few Labour members, has underperformed this mark over the last decade and over-performed it the decade before. County Durham has been the reverse. The Highlands of Scotland, with a long history of electing Liberals/SDP/LibDems/SNP has had next to no representatives in government. So, where we should be looking at around about
30%, how do the Mets fare on this matrix?
A high proportion would suggest that the urban areas of the county have been well-represented; a lower proportion would suggest that they have not had their fair share in government (perhaps indicative, but certainly not proof of, not getting a fair crack of government resources)
South Yorks 106%
Merseyside 100%
Gtr Manchester 96%
West Midlands 93%
West Yorkshire 91%
Tyne & Wear 85%
South Yorkshire and Merseyside (perhaps coincidentally the last two of the Metropolitan Counties to get the European Union Regional Assistance Fund, Objective One) are the best performing on this index but neither come close to the average.
Looking in more detail at the two counties in the middle of this league, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, adjacent counties straddling the Pennines.
Both are dominated by Labour, with 82% (GM) and 91% (WY) of the seats in the present parliament represented by that party, and little chance of that figure dropping below 2/3 in either case in the next election.
Of the present batch of Greater Manchester politicians, 60% of them have been in government, 4 of them at Cabinet level. Half of the total governmental representation from Gtr Manchester over the last 40 years, and 2/3 of the Cabinet representation come from the present set of MPs.
By contrast, over the pennines in West Yorkshire, only a third of the eligible (i.e. Labour – the Lib Dem and the Conservative were elected in 2005 and 2001 respectively) MPs have ever been in government, just a third of the total West Yorks government representation. 3 of them have been (still are) in Cabinet – half the total from the county since 1970.
As their demographics are much the same, it would appear that although over the last 40 years they’ve had a similar ‘shout’ in government but Greater Manchester’s strength has been in recent years, West Yorkshire’s spread out over a far longer period of time.
Whilst over the 40 years the total city region total government representation has been more or less the same; City for City, Manchester versus Leeds, without doubt Leeds has had the more powerful representation. The City of Leeds’ MPs have included Denis Healey, Merlyn Rees and Keith Joseph (as well as one of the fastest rising and longest serving of the present Cabinet, Hilary Benn); the highest ranking City of Manchester MP has been Harold Lever as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (sometimes a key post but hardly a key officer of state) in the Wilson/Callaghan government.
So, what does this tell us? That urban areas have been more poorly represented in government than the rural and sururban areas, that the City of Leeds has been one of the best represented cities at the top of British politics, and that the present crop of Greater Manchester politicians are the most numerously represented in government for many decades.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
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
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
Sunday, October 4, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 10, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
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).
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).
Sunday, July 26, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)