UK GOVERNMENT STRATEGY AND SHUFFLING THE CABINET-PACK – SO WHAT?

IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES IS A MUST

A strategy without implementation is a failed strategy or no strategy at all. Boris Johnson has committed to big promises for transformational change, which must be delivered, and there are many doubters. Implementation of fine words has been a failing for Governments in the past, most recently during the 3 years until withdrawal from the EU. A good example has been in housing, a major social issue, where for some reason successive governments failed to deliver anywhere near the volume required. It would be right to structure Government to assure that delivery of implementation: good leaders, many would say, set a vision, a strategy, and appoint good able people to carry it out. Has Boris Johnson appointed the right ministers?

RESHUFFLE OF CABINET – THE MEDIA RESPONSE

On 13 February Boris Johnson announced a reshuffle of Ministers. The layman cannot judge whether the result is meaningful but relies on those who think they know or think they are in the know. But the thousands of words published by serious media leave us not much the wiser.

The departure of Sajid Javid and the appointment of Rishi Sunak as Chancellor was regarded as a seismic political event. Was it really? Generally, it is common ground that a Chancellor should work as a partner to a Prime Minister delivering policies but also as a challenger, as guardian of the public purse and a brake on over- zealous spending in pursuit of success. The Financial Times of 14 February is scathing of the decision- “compliance trumps competence” and describes Rishi Sunak as “if not under Mr. Johnson’s thumb then at least aligned”. But elsewhere it says “the PM has handed promotions to those who have proved they can run departments without any drama and deliver on the government’s policy agenda”, and an opinion (Camilla Cavendish) in the same paper on 14 February suggests the power grab by Number 10 from Number 11 Downing Street with a view to a relationship more like Cameron/Osborne was perhaps a good idea. The Times did not agree.

On the reshuffle generally, an opinion in The Times of 14 February by Philip Collins- evidently not a Boris Johnson fan-considers that he has appointed the “C Team” who are second-rate people as Ministers and fired the competent ones (contra FT): this he says demonstrates a fundamental weakness which is that any Minister of competence would make Boris Johnson feel threatened and so he appoints “yes” men/women. On the other hand, as well as the FT, other commentators suggest the Treasury needs a good shake up and reining in , having restrained development of poorer regions of the UK through stifling investment criteria, among other things, The suggestion is the Prime Minister’s partnership with the Chancellor had broken down at a time when a single team is needed, including Treasury, pointing in the same direction.

There is a fairly universal view that, Boris Johnson, by having a single advisory team for both his office and the Chancellor’s, has taken the levers of power, and therefore if things go wrong, he will have nobody else to blame but himself. Alternatively, whatever the levers of power, perhaps if the strategy is not delivered the media and the public will blame Boris Johnson any way- so perhaps he is better off being able to influence the money side of things more than if he had not taken this action.

OBSERVATIONS – NO BIG DEAL? – BIG QUESTION IS WHETHER THE NEW CABINET WILL DELIVER

Is the idea that getting a new Chancellor is a massive issue correct? Probably not. Indeed, financial markets rose on the news breaking, anticipating a more expansive budget. Do the public really care if its Sajid Javid or Rishi Sunak in Number 11? Of course, Sajid Javid’s supporters will be disappointed. Many may think that the Prime Minister having too much influence over the Treasury is unbalanced and risky. Another , and perhaps better, view is that, if PM and Chancellor do not get on (such as Theresa May and Philip Hammond or Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) and are adversarial with each other, it is better to divorce early and release the tension, and put such otherwise wasted energy into a positive cooperation. That can work if there is mutual respect, and the clear worry for some is that Rishi Sunak is not sufficiently established to stand his ground to protect the finances when necessary. There is no need to prejudge that. The acid test will be whether policies get implemented and people benefit, while the country thrives economically.

A strength of Boris Johnson, some say, is he is not a micro manager, likes to set strategy and lets delegates get on with the job of implementation. The consistent message at least from Number 10 is focus on delivery. If it is correct that he has a cabinet of second-raters, then the strategy will not be delivered. But if as the FT suggests he has appointed people who can deliver policies, then perhaps he is going in the right direction. Leaders will be judged by the wisdom of their appointments. But he will have to give them responsibility and they must grab it and be accountable. If the executive in Number 10 (Dominic Cummings et al) takes serious decision making all to itself, the outcome will be failure.

In addition, rather than having a continual revolving door of occupancy of ministerial positions, Ministers need to be kept in place to learn their sector and become capable in it. Michael Gove for example made real decisions and progress in Education and the Environment. Of course, if a Minister proves incompetent, they must be quickly replaced; but otherwise, they must be given an ample chance and not disposed of for personal reasons or if they are challenging.

POINTING IN THE SAME DIRECTION

The divided cabinet under Theresa May brought embarrassment and stagnation on delivery. If the strategy is to be implemented, it is vital to have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor and a Cabinet which is decisive, with a common purpose and commitment to real results; including a real sense of Cabinet responsibility. That is there must be rigorous debate and the ability to agree to disagree privately, but it is hoped that the days of leaking confidences and personal agendas can be behind us. Naïve? Perhaps.

To have a PM and Chancellor working in tandem with mutual respect will be ideal. The prime responsibility with that rests with Boris Johnson provided Rishi Sunak stands his corner.

Only time will tell whether this is an administration which gets things done. It is better to be hopeful than throwing brickbats as the UK electorate voted for this Government to be successful in its policies. Some early evidence of achievement of promises is needed. Skills training and big infrastructure for example will take a long time to bear fruit, vital though they are. Building houses and showing real results, which is socially essential, can be achieved in a shortish time frame and would demonstrate that Government is serious on delivery. Maybe the appointment of Liam Booth-Smith, a housing policy expert, as head of the new joint economic unit for Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street indicates a seriousness about housing at last.