X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Please note: Previously subscribers used a 'WebID' to log into the website. Your subscriber number is not the same as the WebID. Please ensure you use the subscriber number when you link your subscription.

Blogs

Cameron should continue to resist knee-jerk reshuffle politics

17 October 2011

10:37 PM

17 October 2011

10:37 PM

When things get rough, especially in the area foreign policy, I have the distinct
feeling David Cameron asks himself the question “What would Tony do?” before he takes a big decision. But in the management of his Cabinet he can’t do that. Blair never had to
deal with coalition politics and did not have the equivalent of the Eurosceptic right to keep on board. Indeed, Blair would famously test a policy’s validity by how much it would annoy the
left of his party.

Liam Fox has gone now, and in the end it became impossible for him to stay. But in this slow political death, David Cameron did not follow Blair’s lead. New Labour reshuffles were a way of
cementing the Blair-Brown duumvirate in power and were a near-annual feature of the political landscape.

[Alt-Text]


There was a moment last week when it looked like Cameron might brazen it out. It would have been interesting to see how the media would have reacted had Fox somehow managed to hang on. The sport of
modern journalism requires the taking of scalps, but politicians have to play ball.

The jury is out on whether David Cameron should have moved more quickly to remove Liam Fox. But his instinct is to trust his ministers and devolve power to government departments. Had the Prime
Minister moved with Blair-like speed it is unlikely that we would have ever known the extent of Werritty’s unofficial network.

Cameron will have learnt a bitter lesson from this crisis and he will be tempted to rethink his approach to Cabinet politics. There are two reasons why I think it unlikely that he will do so.
Firstly, he just does not have the strength in depth in the junior-ministerial talent pool to justify a series of reshuffles during his first term in office. But, more importantly, key members of
the government are personally associated with the reforms they have introduced: Gove at Education, Lansley at Health and Duncan Smith at Work and Pensions are virtually un-moveable.

This was never the case with Liam Fox, who ultimately proved unworthy of the Prime Minister’s loyalty. It is absurd to suggest — as some on the Tory right have tried to do —
that  Liam Fox should still be in post. But in a time of deep uncertainty, Cameron is right not to demand a resignation at the first whiff of grapeshot.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close