We keep going on about Stable Government. We're quite wrong you know...

Yesterday I posted about the cabinet posts that change the most often - which since the 2005 General Election has been

1. Transport (8)
2. Chief Secretary (7)
=3. Defence (6)
=3. Scotland (6)
=3. Energy (6)

What's just as interesting is how much less stable government has been during this period than compared to roughly the same period before it.

Comparing the turnover in posts over the period since the 1997 General Election -  a slightly longer period by a few months but the same number of actual elections (2) - reveals that while one might expect the earlier period to have had a marginally higher number of Cabinet Minister turnovers (because it is literally longer) - in fact, the opposite is true.

Cabinet Ministers in Post 1997 - 2005: 64
Cabinet Ministers in Post 2005 - 2012: 104

I have kept the same posts in both posts, making comparisons where necessary ( eg. DTI became BIS, Constitutional Affairs became Justice etc).

Quite an amazing difference

Now, there has been a change of government in the second list so you might expect the second to be higher on that basis, as a whole cabinet had to change in May 2010; but that still only accounts for 22 posts; so the later turnover remains significantly higher.

Other points of interest

Chief Secretary still had one of the highest turnovers of post in the first period I looked at - equal first (with leader of the Commons) at 5 changes
Only one single department has more people in post in the first period than the second. Which? Surprisingly it was Tony Blair's 'biggest priority' - Education.
Home Secretary was still a stable post in the first period - just 3 people in post during the period. It's not the graveyard everyone says it is...

Here's the comparison (click to enlarge)

Blue = 2005-2012

Red = 1997 - 2005

Which Cabinet job moves most often (Come on, I think you know....) (But you don't know second)

I thought I'd do a quick tot up of which cabinet jobs have changed most since the 2005 General Election.

First up here's the count:

Ok - so top is Transport. No surprise there really. A series of cock ups year after year...

But who would have thought second is, no not Home Secretary, but Chief Sec to the Treasury. 

In fact Home Sec doesn't make the top 5 even. So much for it being that tricky job that no one does for long - a rumour that is yet another triumph for the not-very-safe-hands-but-PR-genius that is Theresa May.

In equal third we have Scotland, Defence and Energy (recalling Energy fell under DTI until 2008, so including that Sec of Stale from 2005 until 2008).

All in all - you do have to wonder - is this any way to run a country?

8 Transport heads in 7 years?

7 Chief Secs?

6 Secretary of States for Scotland, Defence and Energy?

                                                     

Nick: If you happen to see Philip Hammond, do show him this

25 years later, still spot on...

Who would you vote for from these two?

Brillant tweet,  this, from Paul Twigger..

and in case you needed any other reasons... have a look here.

How did it ever get so close?

Judging from the reaction on Twitter...

...that Ed Balls / Andrew Neil interview was a corker. Unless you're Ed Balls of course...

...though in fairness these may not be the most objective commentators...

Update:

Like I said...

The Daily Telegraph. Is it turning into The Guardian?

Here are the 5 opinion pieces the Telegraph is currently suggesting it's readers might enjoy.

Number 2 is what you might expect.

The other 4...are the opposite.

What on earth is going on.....?

The May-for-leader push shows the paucity of Tory Talent

(My piece from the New Statesman yesterday)

Last week, Theresa May did a very good thing when she blocked the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US, and it’s been applauded pretty much universally across the British political spectrum. It was also quite a brave thing, as she has now seemingly been sent to Coventry by the US Attorney General.

But really – does that actually qualify her to be the next leader of the Conservative Party? Some Tory backbenchers and media types seem to think so, going so far as to say she has "more than a touch of Margaret Thatcher about her’". Most Staggers readers would think that’s an excellent reason, in itself, to rule her out, but that’s not a sentiment shared by the Tory grassroots. And in the current omnishambles of Tory mismanagement where U-turns and monumental cock-ups habe been the normal daily fare, they are casting around for "a safe pair of hands".

But for a supposedly safe pair of hands, May drops an awful lot of balls. Last time I wrote about this, I questioned just how appropriate it was to call the cack-handed May "faultless" when she

mistakenly cites owning a cat as a reason for avoiding deportation. Or ends up with her diary engagements being left in a Glaswegian Concert Hall. Not someone who unilaterally calls for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped and ends up being publicly contradicted by the Attorney General.

(She) certainly shouldn't end up having to admit to the House of Commons that "we will never know how many people entered the UK who should have been prevented from doing so" -- not when you're meant to be in charge of that very thing.

Since then, it’s not been plain sailing either. There was the Abu Qatada incidentwhen it appeared the Home Secretary wasn’t exactly sure which day of the week it was. The Home Office has ended up paying a reported £100,000 to the former Head of the UK Border Force. There was the border queues fiasco over the summer ....

Yet such is the paucity of talent in the Tories (Gove – doesn’t want it; Boris – not an MP;  Osborne - #pastytax) that May is apparently being seriously considered by many in the party as someone who can sort things out and stop them lurching from one disaster to another.

Someone needs to tell them. She’s not Mrs Thatcher. She’s Nicola Murray.