At the heart of the reshuffle lie two questions:
Is Whitehall capable of delivering the change Boris Johnson wants to implement?
And, is too much power being accumulated in the hands of No 10?
There all sorts of other observations to be made about the reshuffle such as the ascendancy of the Leave voting Tories and the tolerance of mediocre talents such as Priti Patel and Gavin Williamson but they are of lesser importance than whether Johnson is setting a dangerous precedent with his power grab or creating a new structure of government that could transform the way that power is deployed.
Dominic Cummings has long viewed Whitehall as unfit for purpose.
If you have the energy and time to waste you can read his various blogs on the subject which, ironically for someone interested in efficiency, could do with a decent sub editor.
The reshuffle shows his answer to what he regards as civil service intransigence is to collect yet more power in No 10.
Sajid Javid walked because he refused to comply with Downing Street’s demand that his advisers would report to them.
But it is not just the Treasury that is required be an unquestioning customer of the Cummings’s diktats.
All departmental special advisers have been dragged into his expanding web.This hoarding of power may turn out to be justified if the Government can show improvements in the way it delivers for voters.
But it could come at a costly price.
If you want a job in Johnson’s Cabinet you don’t have to be competent, just compliant.
After the election we were promised a people’s parliament, instead we are getting an increasingly presidential leader who is unwilling to brook any dissent.
The intolerance of any form of opposition is not confined to the Cabinet table.
No 10 has already sought to muzzle political journalists, threaten the BBC and curb the power of the courts.
The Prime Minister may have to learn the hard way that good leaders embrace criticism rather than try to banish it.
It was briefed yesterday that Johnson feared that if Sajid Javid remained in place they would repeat the Tee-bee Gee-bee tensions that defined the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown years.
Veterans of the Blair administration will admit that relations were often fraught but Brown’s willingness to challenge No 10 had its advantages.
Ed Balls likes to point out that were it not for Brown then we may have joined the euro.
He also makes the point that if George Osborne had been more willing to stand up to David Cameron then the EU referendum may never have taken place.
John Maynard Keynes viewed the Treasury as a “bulwark against overwhelming wickedness”.
With a pliant Chancellor in place and a Cabinet of nodding poodles who is there to prevent No 10 from hubris and haughtiness?
Today's agenda:
10am - The new Cabinet meets for the first time.
8pm - Rebecca Long-Bailey rally in Glasgow ahead of Labour leadership hustings in the city on Saturday.
Midnight - Nominations close in the Labour leadership race. Will Emily Thornberry make the cut?
What I am reading:
Philip Collins in the Times (£) on how the reshuffle shows the weakness at the heart of No 10.
