One of the odder things about the wrangle over Britain’s EU membership is that very few people seem at all worried about who exactly is a member of the cabinet. Does that matter? I fear it might because it may just be another symptom of the decay of cabinet government in favour of a more presidential system, one adjusted to the needs of TV like major sports now are.
Are there six cabinet ministers supporting the Brexit campaign, as is routinely asserted? No, there are five: Priti Patel is usually included alongside IDS, Gove, Whittingdale, Grayling and Villiers because she ticks a couple of obvious boxes and attends cabinet, one of seven ministers of state thus favoured.
But Patel is not a member of the cabinet. Nor is Boris Johnson, though the way he is treated you might think he was foreign secretary – the telly factor again; he makes good copy and is very visual. In fact, he lasted a short spell in Michael Howard’s shadow cabinet before being dropped over a bit of sharp practice.
I could go on here. John McDonnell refers on radio to Emily Thornberry as “our secretary of defence” when she is merely the shadow defence secretary. Reporters on TV routinely make the same slip. Even the scholarly Matthew d’Ancona occasionally promotes a middling minister to the cabinet.
This stuff matters because rank denotes a place in the hierarchy of power unless title is an empty shell, in which case we should be told. Power matters.
There was a joke doing the rounds in the 80s that then US president Ronald Reagan had addressed a visitor as “Mr Mayor” only to be told he was actually his cabinet member for housing and urban development. The story happened to be true, but nobody minded too much (including the “mayor”) because Reagan was famously laid back and people quite liked him for it.
I am not for a moment suggesting that David Cameron would not recognise his Northern Ireland secretary (Villiers) or the chap who is currently secretary of state for Wales. But he has a lot on his plate and neither (Stephen Crabb is our man in Cardiff) can often feature on his daily “to do” list.
It happens that Villiers, who has a lot of under-reported worries in her patch, political and economic, has thrown in her lot with the no to Europe camp. Bizarre when you think of it because a Brexit vote would be very serious for the province and for the 26 county republic just across the border.
But we don’t often think of it, do we? A former MEP, Villiers is clever enough but of little political account. She helps make up the numbers, as US cabinet members do.
“Making up the numbers” is rude – and meant to be. It’s part of the problem, which some scholars argue has been growing in Britain’s parliamentary system since the second world war: the decline of cabinet government and the doctrine of collective cabinet responsibility in favour of a more leadership-focused regime.
In healthier times cabinets were put together to balance regions, social classes (always a token Tory member of the working class) and of course the left-right balance of the moment. Gender balance? Alas, no. There was usually one woman on board, a Barbara Castle or a Margaret Thatcher, who had only one woman in her cabinet (Janet Young for just 18 months) over 11 years. When John Major forgot to appoint any (for some reason he decided not to promote Edwina Currie, who was furious) the first gender row occurred.
The current focus isn’t a gender one. Cameron’s cabinet of 21 colleagues includes seven women, among them the home secretary Theresa May, who is rightly ranked No 3 and a serious player who has held down a tough job for six years without major trouble.
In 2010 I thought May was lucky to get the job and and delighted to be proved wrong. She’s also a good sister to other women, not an opportunist, Boris.
The rest? I know who they are, mostly Cameron acolytes without much weight or experience: Liz Truss, Amber Rudd, Villiers, Nicky Morgan, Justine Greening and Tina Stowell, leader of the Lords, a former John Major aide, the only one who came up the hard way.
Let’s not be distracted by gender here. This is about power. Cabinets used to matter more than they do; we all knew where the battle lines were drawn. Thatcher was very powerful, but in the end her cabinet brought here down in 1990. John Major’s EU “bastards” tried and failed. Even’s Blair’s couldn’t. If one member wanted to get him out, most didn’t. By the end most wanted Gordon Brown out but couldn’t do it.
Cameron is safe to go when he chooses even if he loses on 23 June , I suspect. The comforting theory is that most cabinet business is done quicker and better in committee or (informally) on that Blair sofa. So full cabinet can be over in an hour or so, the ritual of cabinet ministers arriving at the big black door done mostly for TV like the Queen in her coach.
But that undermines collective discussion, coherence and responsibility. It bigs up the boss and his unelected No 10 staff at the expense of departmental ministers to whom they may seek to dictate decisions. It’s not healthy and it’s worth monitoring.
If the cabinet is a cypher voters should know. For the record there are 21 cabinet ministers. Any more and they can’t – by law – draw a salary. That must concentrate a few minds.
