There are various propositions for strengthening the centre of government and making it more effective; but what if we move, if anything, in the opposite direction?
Been thinking about this piece a lot the last few days, in it you mention the creation of a Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, well here in Australia we do have that department but I don’t know enough about it to know if it’s different from your cabinet office with the Secretary of PM & Cabinet being different from your Cabinet Secretary or if it’s just a different name for basically the same thing but it might be something worth you investigating
Also in terms of the PMs role, here in Australia the Hawke/Keating Labor Govt is universally regarded, even by its opponents who don’t like the reforms as the most effective reforming Govt in Australia’s history. The first Hawke Cabinet in particular is known as the model of effective cabinet government, where Hawke acted in much the same way you suggest here, as a kind of Chairman of the Board, chairing cabinet meetings, allowing his ministers to plow their own furrow (Blewett creating Medicare as Health Minister or Keating as treasurer modernising the economy for example) while he acted as the arbitrator of disputes.
It pains me to admit this as Keating is my political hero, but it’s basically accepted that when he took over the top job a much more centralised and somewhat dictatorial system was put in place and whether it’s a tired government was ruining out of first rate ministers or whether it was his leadership style, you saw less effective ideas coming from ministers and more of the government being run from the PMs office.
Now there are those who say late period Hawke started to lose his effectiveness and dodged making decisions, so I guess the system can’t be everything, but given your interests in this issue I do think you could do worse things than study the Hawke/Keating Govt for ideas
Gareth Evans cabinet diaries might be a good book to start with
The documentary series, available on YouTube Labor in Power might be useful also
And for an insight into the Keating years, one of the best political books written from the inside would be a vital resource ‘Recollections of a Bleeding Heart - A portrait of Paul Keating PM’ by Don Watson who was Keatings speechwriter and an accomplished author before he took that job
Many thanks for that. Yes, the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is often cited in Britain as a potential model for a reshaped Cabinet Office (I think New Zealand has a similar institution, while in Canada the equivalent is the Privy Council Office). There are some Australia-specific functions like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and the promotion of reconciliation but overall it is a more honest, does-what-it-says-on-the-tin body than our Cabinet Office currently is. (One other difference to consider would be Australia’s federal structure which doesn’t exist in as systematic a way in the UK, although of course we have the devolved assemblies and administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, directly elected mayors and a promise of greater devolution.) I’ll look at those references, thanks for the suggestions.
I always thought recollections of a bleeding heart was one of the best and certainly most honest and insightful political books I’d ever read but when Alistair Campbell (for whatever you may think of him has been in those rooms) says as he did on his podcast recently that he’s never read a book that shows you what it feels like to be in the PMs office on a day to day like that book does I take that as a confirmation my feeling about the book was right
I’ve added it to my list. Ridiculously, I think in Britain we only became more than vaguely aware of Keating after he *touched the Queen’s back* (I can’t imagine HM was unduly worried), though many then developed an interest in his fearsome line in political invective. Insane that he was done and dusted in political terms by his early 50s.
He was elected to parliament when he was about 23 and put himself up for shadow ministry election soon after, then resented Hawke stepping over him for the top job when he was in his 30s, so he was never one to hang around waiting for his chance and was likely always to be done early
If you had known more about him and Hawke you would have been amazed how much of Blair/Brown was just a replay, right down to a Granita like deal…only of course Keating won after talking out Hawke whereas Brown lost, so Keatings action gained legitimacy as being good for the party whereas Browns is still seen as about him
How fascinating. In this country we’re very short-sighted in looking at other political cultures, even semi-comparable ones like Australia. Dublin’s an hour away but knowing almost anything about Irish politics (which admittedly can be impenetrable to outsiders) is very unusual. It’s the US and that’s it.
I like the fact that Bob Hawke set a supposed world record for drinking a yard of ale in 11 seconds when he was at Oxford.
Hence why he was beloved in this country in a way few other politicians have been (80s Australia especially loved a beer and a larrikin, he ticked both 🤣)
So in this system the PM would take on the role that Dubya memorably described as ‘The Decider’ the place where final decisions are made but delivery would rest with the ministers
I like this theory in principle, but I can see a world where the minister is not working to deliver what the PM decided should happen but is instead aiming to deliver his personal preferences (tho I guess you could always sack that minister)
So the PM decides on the direction of travel and the key goals of the Govt
Then delegates delivery to the ministers who’s job it is to deliver on the prime ministers choices
Ava when conflicts between departments arise or priority for one over another option being done first then the PM comes in kind of like a referee, adjudicates the dispute and makes a decision
I think I like this idea as a basic structure for cabinet Govt in a Westminster system, I think I like it a lot, the PM doesn’t deliver, he decides what must be delivered then the ministers bring his plans to fruition
The idea feels right to me in principle but I also think it’s an acceptance that continuing to accrete power at the centre, even if we strengthen and improve the institutional support, will overload the head of government.
Becoming more and more aware of just how right wing you are as I read more of your stuff I’m finding it increasingly irritating how much I continue to enjoy your writing and how often I find myself nodding along with stuff you write
Please stop this, join your modern right wing brethren in making silly arguments in stupid ways so I can climb back on my centre-left high horse please 😀😀😀
Good to see you mention Heath. Forever associated with the miners and the three day week (despite the fact that he actually took the country into the EEC which should have cemented his place in history, he was in many ways the best qualified PM that we have had, having been Chief Whip, MacMillan’s lead on European negotiations and having abolished RPM. He was also, like Starmer, very much a technocrat, with well thought through plans for smaller and better government. The modern local government system is also down to him.
I think the abolition of RPM gets a lot of unwarranted blame for the loss of the 1964 election. But it is true that Alec Home let Heath have free rein at the Board of Trade in 1963-64, partly, I suspect, because it didn’t interest him very much.
The debate on RPM back in 1964 is a good illustration of what happens when you get the balance between regulating for growth and for competition (to quote one of Starmer’s big ideas) wrong.
Been thinking about this piece a lot the last few days, in it you mention the creation of a Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, well here in Australia we do have that department but I don’t know enough about it to know if it’s different from your cabinet office with the Secretary of PM & Cabinet being different from your Cabinet Secretary or if it’s just a different name for basically the same thing but it might be something worth you investigating
Also in terms of the PMs role, here in Australia the Hawke/Keating Labor Govt is universally regarded, even by its opponents who don’t like the reforms as the most effective reforming Govt in Australia’s history. The first Hawke Cabinet in particular is known as the model of effective cabinet government, where Hawke acted in much the same way you suggest here, as a kind of Chairman of the Board, chairing cabinet meetings, allowing his ministers to plow their own furrow (Blewett creating Medicare as Health Minister or Keating as treasurer modernising the economy for example) while he acted as the arbitrator of disputes.
It pains me to admit this as Keating is my political hero, but it’s basically accepted that when he took over the top job a much more centralised and somewhat dictatorial system was put in place and whether it’s a tired government was ruining out of first rate ministers or whether it was his leadership style, you saw less effective ideas coming from ministers and more of the government being run from the PMs office.
Now there are those who say late period Hawke started to lose his effectiveness and dodged making decisions, so I guess the system can’t be everything, but given your interests in this issue I do think you could do worse things than study the Hawke/Keating Govt for ideas
Gareth Evans cabinet diaries might be a good book to start with
The documentary series, available on YouTube Labor in Power might be useful also
And for an insight into the Keating years, one of the best political books written from the inside would be a vital resource ‘Recollections of a Bleeding Heart - A portrait of Paul Keating PM’ by Don Watson who was Keatings speechwriter and an accomplished author before he took that job
Many thanks for that. Yes, the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is often cited in Britain as a potential model for a reshaped Cabinet Office (I think New Zealand has a similar institution, while in Canada the equivalent is the Privy Council Office). There are some Australia-specific functions like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and the promotion of reconciliation but overall it is a more honest, does-what-it-says-on-the-tin body than our Cabinet Office currently is. (One other difference to consider would be Australia’s federal structure which doesn’t exist in as systematic a way in the UK, although of course we have the devolved assemblies and administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, directly elected mayors and a promise of greater devolution.) I’ll look at those references, thanks for the suggestions.
I always thought recollections of a bleeding heart was one of the best and certainly most honest and insightful political books I’d ever read but when Alistair Campbell (for whatever you may think of him has been in those rooms) says as he did on his podcast recently that he’s never read a book that shows you what it feels like to be in the PMs office on a day to day like that book does I take that as a confirmation my feeling about the book was right
I’ve added it to my list. Ridiculously, I think in Britain we only became more than vaguely aware of Keating after he *touched the Queen’s back* (I can’t imagine HM was unduly worried), though many then developed an interest in his fearsome line in political invective. Insane that he was done and dusted in political terms by his early 50s.
“The lizard of Oz”!! 😊
He was elected to parliament when he was about 23 and put himself up for shadow ministry election soon after, then resented Hawke stepping over him for the top job when he was in his 30s, so he was never one to hang around waiting for his chance and was likely always to be done early
If you had known more about him and Hawke you would have been amazed how much of Blair/Brown was just a replay, right down to a Granita like deal…only of course Keating won after talking out Hawke whereas Brown lost, so Keatings action gained legitimacy as being good for the party whereas Browns is still seen as about him
How fascinating. In this country we’re very short-sighted in looking at other political cultures, even semi-comparable ones like Australia. Dublin’s an hour away but knowing almost anything about Irish politics (which admittedly can be impenetrable to outsiders) is very unusual. It’s the US and that’s it.
I like the fact that Bob Hawke set a supposed world record for drinking a yard of ale in 11 seconds when he was at Oxford.
Hence why he was beloved in this country in a way few other politicians have been (80s Australia especially loved a beer and a larrikin, he ticked both 🤣)
So in this system the PM would take on the role that Dubya memorably described as ‘The Decider’ the place where final decisions are made but delivery would rest with the ministers
I like this theory in principle, but I can see a world where the minister is not working to deliver what the PM decided should happen but is instead aiming to deliver his personal preferences (tho I guess you could always sack that minister)
So the PM decides on the direction of travel and the key goals of the Govt
Then delegates delivery to the ministers who’s job it is to deliver on the prime ministers choices
Ava when conflicts between departments arise or priority for one over another option being done first then the PM comes in kind of like a referee, adjudicates the dispute and makes a decision
I think I like this idea as a basic structure for cabinet Govt in a Westminster system, I think I like it a lot, the PM doesn’t deliver, he decides what must be delivered then the ministers bring his plans to fruition
The idea feels right to me in principle but I also think it’s an acceptance that continuing to accrete power at the centre, even if we strengthen and improve the institutional support, will overload the head of government.
Becoming more and more aware of just how right wing you are as I read more of your stuff I’m finding it increasingly irritating how much I continue to enjoy your writing and how often I find myself nodding along with stuff you write
Please stop this, join your modern right wing brethren in making silly arguments in stupid ways so I can climb back on my centre-left high horse please 😀😀😀
I’m sorry, I’m such a pain. Hang on… traffic lights are… I don’t know… woke?
That’s more like it 😀
Thanks, maybe I have a future in this field. Perhaps oat milk makes your cat lesbian. It wouldn’t surprise me.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate
Good to see you mention Heath. Forever associated with the miners and the three day week (despite the fact that he actually took the country into the EEC which should have cemented his place in history, he was in many ways the best qualified PM that we have had, having been Chief Whip, MacMillan’s lead on European negotiations and having abolished RPM. He was also, like Starmer, very much a technocrat, with well thought through plans for smaller and better government. The modern local government system is also down to him.
I think the abolition of RPM gets a lot of unwarranted blame for the loss of the 1964 election. But it is true that Alec Home let Heath have free rein at the Board of Trade in 1963-64, partly, I suspect, because it didn’t interest him very much.
The debate on RPM back in 1964 is a good illustration of what happens when you get the balance between regulating for growth and for competition (to quote one of Starmer’s big ideas) wrong.