The Prime Minister addressing the Coalition

Just a quick post to highlight a gem from the YouTube archives - Winston Churchill addressing Coalition ministers in 1941:

I wonder how many leaders today would give a standing speech at a Cabinet table?

Very brief Cabinet Ministers

David Laws's resignation after only 17 days in the Cabinet has prompted quite a few people on Twitter to ask if he was the shortest ever Cabinet Minister. And this is the sort of challenge I can't refuse, especially as some have specifically asked me... My instinctive response is "No" but I've had to look this up a bit. A few examples follow:

My first instinct was the "Short Lived Ministry" begun on February 10th 1746 by the Earl of Bath. This ministry usually doesn't appear in the history books and some make the case that it doesn't even count. What happened was that the existing "Prime Minister" (the title wasn't official in those days) Henry Pelham and George II fell out and so the King turned to Bath to see if he could form an alternative ministry. Bath gave up after two days, after only he and Lord Carteret had "kissed hands" and taken seals as First Lord of the Treasury and Secretary of State for both the Northern & Southern Departments respectively. But quite apart from whether or not this ministry actually counts at all, both had held Cabinet posts before.

One I thought might be the briefest of all turns out to have not officially sat in Cabinet, not that it would have made a difference. Lord Frederick Cavendish was appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland in May 1882. He formally took the oath on May 6th at Dublin Castle. That afternoon he was murdered along with Thomas Henry Burke, the Permanent Under Secretary at the Irish Office, in Phoenix Park. But he was not a Cabinet Minister.

So after all this my best bet is the Earl Temple who served for only four days as both Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. Temple was appointed on December 19th 1783 when William Pitt the Younger formed his first ministry, but resigned two days later with his successors appointed after another couple of days. Historians disagree as to the reasons for his resignation - William Hague, in his biography of Pitt, suggests that it was for a multitude of reasons stemming from the entire political situation in which George III had dismissed the Fox-North Coalition after its flagship proposed legislation, the East India Bill, had failed in the Lords because the King himself had informed the Lords he would regard any peer who voted for the legislation as his enemy. The message was delivered by Temple.

I'm going to go with Temple as the shortest I can find. Whether he should be counted as a two or four day minister, he was certainly in the Cabinet and as far as I am aware he never otherwise served in the Cabinet (he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1782-1783 and 1787-1789 but according to the relevant volume of the Oxford History of England he does not appear to have been in the Cabinet at either time).

Any advances?

There must always be a voice in government singing Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau

The latest piece of news about the reshuffle that I've heard is that the proposal to merge the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into a single "Secretary of State for the Nations" (so those three are and England isn't?!) has been put on hold for the time being. And here's hoping that it stays on hold forever.

Devolution may have reduced some of the workload for the posts, but there is one key role that each holds. They are the voice of the respective nations in government, lobbying for funds, projects and so forth. They are a voice for each at the Cabinet table, ensuring that no part of the United Kingdom is pushed aside to the margins. Under devolution the posts become more, not less, important than before.

A single "Secretary of State for the Nations" would diminish this. It would diminish the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in government and set them against each other. The individual appointed would inevitably face accusations of being biased towards their own patch. None would be well served by this arrangement.

The retention of the three separate posts (and, if necessary, their restoration) must be essential in future reshuffles and changes of government.

All these new names

So far in the reshuffle news I've heard of returns to Cabinet for Peter Mandelson, Nick Brown and Margaret Beckett. So where's the new blood?

So when's the next resignation?

I have just heard the news of Peter Mandelson potentially returning to the Cabinet. (Evening Standard: Mandelson is poised for amazing Cabinet return) Of all the moves that Gordon Brown could have made this is one I don't think anyone could have predicted. Who would have thought he'd want to get back together with him?

Does this mean Gordon Brown is hoping to complete Tony Blair's project and make the Labour Party "learn to love Peter Mandelson"? I am somewhat sceptical of success, though the Prince of Darkness will not be as close to the Prime Minister this time as in the past.

Of course this will mean Peter Mandelson has to resign for the third time in a decade, although for once for political reasons rather than sleaze, but he proved one of the most resignation prone of Blair's ministers. How long will he last this time round?

Is this why Blair can't let any more Ministers go?

Iain Dale has posted a list of all the current Ministers of State, in theory the main source for new Cabinet appointments. And it's not a list to write home about:

Douglas Alexander (definite), Rosie Winterton (were it not for...), Yvette Cooper (too much of a Brown ally), Phil Woolas (erratic), Dawn Primarolo (thick), John Healey (boring but nice), Harriet Harman (thick and past failure), Kim Howells (rent a gob), Ian Pearson (no idea), Hazel Blears (unpopular with colleagues), Tony McNulty (hurt by current scandal), Elliot Morley (a permanent number two), Margaret Hodge (you have to be joking), Stephen Timms (boring and ugly), Stephen Ladyman (no idea), Jane Kennedy (no idea), David Hanson (boring), Adam Ingram (too old), Alun Michael (past failure), Malcolm Wicks (too old), Jacqui Smith (not up to it), Bill Rammell (no idea), Beverley Hughes (would have to be desperate), Richard Caborn (not up to it)

So apart from Douglas Alexander (only one person) who could Blair appoint to fill the current Cabinet vacancy and also replace Clarke, Hewitt and maybe also Prescott?