It’s hard to see how this reshuffle furthers prime minister’s desire for government to be seen as being about more than Brexit

Theresa May learns that cabinet shake-ups can be a pain with little gain

The former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell once compared reshuffles to childbirth, dentistry and exams, describing them as “further proof that pain has no memory”.

In a 2002 entry in his contemporaneous diaries, he warned of a cabinet shake-up: “Until a new one starts, you forget how awful the process is.”



While Campbell’s decision to compare pregnancy to a trip to the dentist is questionable, his point is one that many prime ministers would understand.

And that pain was clear in Theresa May’s mind on Tuesday morning after her attempt at a new year refresh resulted in newspaper headlines about disarray, shambles and weakness.

“No, prime minister!” hollered the generally supportive Daily Mail after Jeremy Hunt and Justine Greening declined offers to move, leaving the former in position and forcing the latter to quit the government.

Justine Greening says leaving government was 'right thing to do' as reshuffle continues - Politics live Read more

Reshuffles are something of a political Rubik’s cube, with the added complexity of (arguably unnecessary) longstanding conventions.

For example, prime ministers rarely ask ministerial opinions in advance and tend to make something of a drama of the day as they march MPs in line for promotion or sideways moves up Downing Street in front of waiting cameras.

On Monday that ensured watching reporters were only too aware of the ticking clock as Hunt spent 56 minutes persuading May that he ought to stay put, while Greening entered a third hour inside No 10 before her decision to quit forced the prime minister to find a new solution to the puzzle – and quickly.

Throw in a social media mishap and those all-important optics of reshuffle day were lost. For the short term, at least, May had achieved the opposite of her initial aim: instead of asserting her authority she looked weak.



Which raises the question: is the outcome of a reshuffle ever worth the pain?



For May, it is hard to see how this shake-up contributes to her clear desire to make 2018 the year that her government is seen as being about more than Brexit. She wants to get back to some of the priorities she set out on the steps of Downing Street immediately after first becoming prime minister.

Yes, she said “Brexit means Brexit”, but the core aims were focused on domestic policy, and that – advisers say – is what the Conservative leader wants to get back to this year. There won’t be room for legislation, but there will be speeches and announcements, starting this week.

But how could her reshuffle have helped underline this planned focus on housing, school standards, the environment and the NHS?

The unfolding reality is, not much.

After all, most voters are much less interested in who it is at the helm of a department than in what it is that department is seeking to achieve. They don’t care if it is Jeremy Hunt or Justine Greening, or Damian Hinds or Esther McVey, they care about access and quality of treatment at the GP surgery or hospital, the experience of their children in school, or the speed and efficiency with which universal credit is paid, and how much help they get returning to work.



When it comes to these issues, reshuffles are at best a distraction. At worst they result in instability that is simply frustrating for those working in the sector.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Theresa May and her reshuffled cabinet: she’ll likely have forgotten the pain by the time the next shake-up rolls around. Photograph: Getty Images

Take a prisons expert who decried the appointment of yet another justice secretary (the third under May’s leadership). She agreed with a government spokesman who said there was continuity in certain policy areas – such as Michael Gove’s changes to education.

“But the problems are immense – restaffing, overcrowding, safety, suicide, self-harm, probation – and changes at the top don’t help,” she added, arguing that decisions inevitably got delayed and civil servants stopped talking to the sector until they knew the direction of travel.

Similarly, at the Department for Work and Pensions, which has charted a rocky road through universal credit controversies and is now likely to have to face pressure over McVey’s previous statements and time in the department.



May presumably believed that the moves she was planning would signal the government’s domestic focus. Keeping Sajid Javid put, for instance, and emphasising his role in housing was probably a sensible move – even in the face of criticism that it was largely window-dressing.



But what sealed Greening’s fate?

According to insiders, there was a perceived lack of enthusiasm about some Tory changes – perhaps grammar schools – from the minister, and she was seen as almost too willing to listen to teaching unions (although she has faced jeers at conferences).

And yet talking to the sector was surely a positive thing, with Greening trying to reverse years of reputational damage to the Tories among teachers. She was also passionate about technical training and skills, massively important in the wake of the Brexit vote. She is also a gay woman who looked and sounded different than some of her more prototypical Tory colleagues.

On Tuesday, May will try to fix some of those problems in the lower ministerial ranks, boosting a talent pipeline for a future reshuffle, which Iain Duncan Smith suggested could come within nine months.

By then the prime minister will probably have forgotten the pain of 8 January 2018 – just.