Will Starmer control cabinet numbers?

Since 2007 the size of the cabinet has ballooned to a peak of 37 under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition: it should come down to around 22

There has been a lot of speculation about the way in which Sir Keir Starmer will run his government, especially given how much he has talked about “mission boards” as a mechanism for breaking down boundaries departments to concentrate on his “missions for government”. I wrote a long essay about this a few weeks ago, but I thought it was worth pausing briefly while there is a hiatus in his cabinet-making to address the specific point of the size and function of the cabinet itself.

As I said, cabinets have grown far too large to be functional forums for discussion, and it began with Gordon Brown in June 2007. Sir Tony Blair ended his premiership with a cabinet of 23 members, and the government chief whip “also attended”. This had long been standard practice: the chief whip has been present at cabinet meetings for decades as an observer and a potential source of advice, and occasionally, as in Harold Wilson’s last cabinet (1974-76) and from time to time under Blair, he or she would be counted as a full member. From 1997 to 2005, the attorney general had “also attended” cabinet, but Blair ceased this practice after his third election victory. In general, however, the provisions of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which capped the number of full cabinet ministers who would be paid at 21 plus the lord chancellor, was used as a guide.

Brown changed the game. His first cabinet had only 22 full members, in line with legislation, but there were now five ministers who “also attended”—the government chief whip in the House of Lords, the attorney general, the Foreign Office minister responsible for Africa, Asia and the United Nations, the housing and planning minister and the paymaster general who was also minister for the Olympics—while another, the minister for children, young people and families, attended when her responsibilities were being discussed. That entailed a potential headcount of 28 around the cabinet table, probably already too large to be a proper deliberative body.

Once the “also attending” genie was out of the bottle, there was little impetus for a prime minister to try to put it back in. If cabinet was too large to allow proper discussion, then decisions would be made in cabinet committees or smaller, ad hoc groups, which only increased the premier’s power. Conversely, the status of “also attending” cabinet could be used as an item of patronage to manage colleagues. And so it proved: in 2010, there were 24 cabinet ministers and five “also attending”; after the 2012 reshuffle there were 25 full members, 10 “also attending” and two invited when their responsibilities were under discussion; in 2019, there were 24 full members at 10 “also attending”; and Rishi Sunak’s last cabinet had 23 members and nine “also attending”.

It is generally agreed that cabinet is too large, but there is no agreement, at least not by those with the power to effect change, on the solution. A body of 22 or 23 ministers can just about discuss matters seriously, if members are parsimonious with their contributions, while clearly a body of 37 cannot. Larger bodies are also more prone to leaking, and cabinet confidentiality is now virtually a thing of the past, which further inhibits proper discussion. (I wrote last year in The Spectator that leaking needs to be punished severely and is a cancer in the heart of good government.)

Shadow cabinets, of course, are a slightly different affair. They can contain positions which have no equivalent in government, and they are dealing with less serious matters. Sir Keir Starmer went into this general election with a shadow cabinet of 31, including some offices, like chief whip in the House of Lords and shadow attorney general, which would not be of cabinet rank in government, but also some roles which have no Whitehall equivalent, like “shadow secretary of state for women and equalities”. I was curious—am curious—therefore to see whether Starmer slims down his top team in making the transition from opposition to government.

A colleague who is a member of the shadow cabinet but is not appointed to a cabinet position in government will inevitably be disappointed. That said, Starmer has sometimes shown a degree of ruthlessness in managing his team, and, having just led the Labour Party to an overwhelming parliamentary majority, he will never be as powerful as he is now. He has also had unexpected assistance from the electorate: the shadow culture secretary, Thangam Debbonaire, lost her seat in Bristol Central, while Jon Ashworth, shadow paymaster general, was defeated in Leicester South. That has given Starmer more room to manoeuvre.

Already, however, Starmer has a cabinet of 25. Three, it is true, will “attend” cabinet: the chief whip, Sir Alan Campbell, the chief secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, and the attorney general, Richard Hermer (who will receive a peerage). That is, I would suggest, already too large: there is no need for the attorney general to attend cabinet as a matter of routine, though of course Starmer is a senior lawyer and former director of public prosecutions, which may have influenced his decision. The 22 full members are as one would predict: departmental heads plus the leaders of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Of his shadow cabinet, Lisa Nandy has been shadow international development minister, which ceased to be a separate portfolio in 2021; she has moved across to be culture secretary in place of Debbonaire. Lord Kennedy of Southwark will presumably become government chief whip in the House of Lords, but will not expect to attend cabinet. Emily Thornberry was shadow attorney general but has not been given the substantive post and her fate is unknown; likewise Anneliese Dodds (Labour Party chair), Nick Thomas-Symonds (shadow minister without portfolio) and Ellie Reeves (deputy national campaign coordinator) are unaccounted for. The other members of the shadow cabinet have transferred directly to the offices which they had been shadowing.

When Starmer resumes making ministerial appointments this morning, it will be interesting to see if he grants “also attending” status to any more ministers. If not, while 25 is larger than ideal, it will be the smallest cabinet since Blair left office in 2007. That will represent a welcome development towards efficient and effective governance, and if Campbell and Hermer regard their roles as essentially watching briefs it may be possible to have genuine, constructive discussions on policy.

On the other hand, if Starmer hands another four or five ministers the right to attend cabinet, we will know it is to be merely a continuation of the recent 15-year trend of removing discussion and decision-making from cabinet and performing it elsewhere, and that would be profoundly regrettable. We have already been briefed to expect that major decisions at the heart of government will be taken by a “quad” consisting of Starmer, Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister, Rachel Reeves, chancellor of the Exchequer, and Pat McFadden, Cabinet Office minister. With the prospect of powers also going to “mission boards”, it is in the balance whether we are seeing a further diminution of the constitutionally proper role of cabinet as a committee of the Privy Council to work with the prime minister and advise the sovereign.

Keep your eyes on announcements from Downing Street…