In his letter to the Daily Telegraph yesterday, Peter Kilfoyle described David Miliband as a political lightweight. It provoked a reader to email and point out the comparison between Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet of 1988 and the current Cabinet. Put aside your own partisan views and ask yourself how many of today's Cabinet would outrank those in the Cabinet of twenty years ago.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown Margaret Thatcher
Lord President Baroness Ashton Viscount Whitelaw
Lord Chancellor Jack Straw Lord Mackay
Lord Privy Seal Harriet Harman John Wakeham
Chancellor of Exchequer Alistair Darling Nigel Lawson
Chief Secretary to Treasury Yvette Cooper John Major
Foreign Secretary David Miliband Geoffrey Howe
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith Douglas Hurd
Agriculture/ Environment Hilary Benn John MacGregor
Defence Des Browne George Younger
Education Ed Balls Kenneth Baker
Employment James Purnell Norman Fowler
Energy John Hutton Cecil Parkinson
Health Alan Johnson Kenneth Clarke
Duchy of Lancaster Ed Miliband Tony Newton
Norther Ireland Shaun Woodward Tom King
Scotland Des Browne Malcolm Rifkind
Trade John Hutton Lord Young
Transport Ruth Kelly Paul Channon
Wales Paul Murphy Peter Walker
Am a getting old or is this a case of lightweights versus heavyweights? There's always a tendency to think things were so much better in the good old days and 'they don't make 'em like that anymore', but this list seems to prove the point!
39 comments:
I think those considering if David Miliband would make a good Prime Minister should look at his standing as a Foreign Secretary. Definitely Lightweight class.
There is a lot of difference, but Lawson / Darling just screams out. Its like a Brazil / Faroe Islands match.
Iain
It shows the complete dearth of labour ministerial material
JH
Mrs T’s cabinet certainly had more talent, however in a couple of cases the current minister is better than his/her Thatcherite predecessor. Which is a surprise, because the current Conservative and Liberal Democrat front benches outshine Brown’s cabinet in talent and gravitas.
Am a getting old or is this a case of lightweights versus heavyweights?
Some and some. Quite a lot of those on the right hand side were political light-weights as well and some, like, say, Tom King or Malcolm Rifkind, an absolute disaster. On the other hand, everyone on the left-hand side is a light-weight. Maybe a comparison with Harold Wilson's government? Or Attlee's?
Given that Section 28 was passed into law in 1988 then I fear I'd prefer the 2008 version, despite being no fan of Labour.
Interesting point - though you're not actually comparing like with like.
How many of Thatcher's cabinet do we know are heavy-weights based on their performance after 1988? Or to put another way, would we look back on the current Cabinet in the light of their future achievements and consider them much stronger as a Cabinet than they look now?
Major looks stronger than he would have then b/c we know he went on to be PM and win an election. If (hypothetically) Purnell goes on to be a successful PM, he'd look a much weightier member of the cabinet than he does at present.
Etc.
It's not a complete imbalance. Some of Thatcher's cabinet have acquired more gravitas since being appointed to the Tory frontbench, and simply weren't as heavyweight then as they are now a few years have passed. Also, the list on the left is depressingly male.
With the possible exception of Parkinson, I'd say it's a clean sweep to Maggie. Where did it all go so badly wrong ...
I look at the Tory cabinet and see a lot of old white men (PM excepted, obviously).
It's hardly reflective of society (then or now) but certainly reflective of the narrow pool of people the Conservative Party drew upon for members.
I think Cameron's cabinet similarly doesn't chime with the experiences of most people. There are more members from Eton than women for instance.
'Heavyweight' can be a synonym for 'establishment' or 'longevity' not necessarily for 'capability' and this list reeks of the first two.
PhilC, either you are being ignorant or deliberately duplicitous. There are, I believe, only two members of Cameron's shadow cabinet who have been to Eton - himself and Letwin.
Seeing as his Shadow Cabinet contains seven women, your maths are a bit out, wouldn't you say?
So which of the Labour cabinet it more able than the 1988 Conservative Cabinet. Do tell us...
Lots more men in the 'good old days' Iain, that's the difference I see.
Lawson remained a heavy weight until he let the Pound shadow the Mark and laid the foundation for Thatcher fall, housing boom and bust, the ERM disaster to follow under Major.
George Younger was both nice and impressive defence secretary and did
much for Scotland without any fanfare.
Gordon has certainly surrounded himself with a high percentage of mediocrity. He did not have to as there is talent within the Labour ranks, perhaps the guy at the top does not want competition from within his boardroom.
The most striking Heavyweight v Lightweight is Thatcher v Brown
Iain - PhilC's last point is the pertinent one:
"'Heavyweight' can be a synonym for 'establishment' or 'longevity' not necessarily for 'capability'"
At first glance I'd agree with you but we should ask ourselves what that instinctive response is about rather than indulge in political nostalgia. Speaking as someone who thinks Mrs T's (and by implication the Tories) worthy achievements were behind them by 1988 perhaps it would be wiser to look at what that group of people achieved rather tha 'oohing & aahing' over the names.
Of course we can't say for sure what the achievements of the current cabinet are in comparison but I'd wager any non-partisan and balanced assesment of what the country was like in the 5/10 years after that Cabinet existed wouldn't yeild quite such a reverential and admiring tone - certainly not from me!!
Iain: definitely deliberately duplicitous.
But my point about 88's old white men (and today's similarly narrow field) remains.
As for comparisons. I think Straw, Harman and Miliband trump their 88 counterparts and I think Johnson, Balls and Darling would credit the 88 cabinet (if not necessarily in the posts they are in at the moment. Ken Clarke in education is very strong for instance).
Another comparison is that Team Thatcher was a strong line-up, but it only had two more years to live....
Yes, let's return to the days of paternalism and a country run by middle-aged men in suits who all went to the same school.
I think the comparison should be more subtle. After all, for some jobs a lightweight may be suitable For others clearly not.
There are degrees of required competence: eg for Chancellor you need soemone of Nigel Lawson?Kenneth Clark stature: ie. a first rater.
But for Transport a good second rater would proabably be accpetable.
On that basis I would consider none of the existing Cabinet to be second rate. Most are third rate if they are lucky.
I put Gorodn Brown as thrid rate in his post>
A Darling: clearly an incompetent. I would rate him as a Third rate Transport Minister and a firth rate Chancellor.
As for Milliband? Untested unknown. By his antics I would suggest third rate - at best.
Douglas Hurd had an amazing ability to get the wrong end of the stick, so he'd fit into Broon's cabinet very well.
Do they make a set of Top Trumps with politicians?
A Cabinet of featherweights is more like it.
However Rifkind seriously fluffed our dealings with the EU and was completely outclassed by the French.
One of the problems (it is not the whole reason for the difference, but is an element) is that the Labour leaders put too much emphasis on internal Labour Party politics. They don't want to promote and encourage talent, because that was a potential threat to themselves.
I believe Blair realised this had been a mistake too late. His position as party leader was far more secure than he felt at the time, but he never had the confidance to promote anyone other than Brown, who he also only left in position due to internal Party politics.
The weakness this had caused in the PLP first showed in the lack of suitable candidate to challenge Brown. Compare that even to Major's Conservative Party, which at least had a few believable candidates for Prime Minster.
philc
No, the Conservative Party had a large proportion of female members. It reflected the Conservative MPs. That is not ideal, but it is not critically important either; there is no reason a white male MP cannot represent black female constituents. It is also the case that the commons overall (what was the contemporary shadow cabinet's make-up?) was not very different, and that a large part of the reason was lack of candidates, more so than any bias in selection.
Remember that the only female on the list was the boss. As well as the first female PM, the first PM who was thought in the party hierarchy (although not widely achknowledged or ever really confirmed) to be gay was Conservatives.
Given that Thatcher had by that point developed a cabinet over 9 years, shouldn't the comparison be between a 1980/1 cabinet and the current one - how many members were heavyweights at that point?
Comparing a relatively new cabinet with a relatively old one, then concluding the latter was more experienced isn't exactly earth-shattering...
With a bit of effort I'm sure I could work it out for myself but let's face it, it's Friday - I was just wondering what did they all do before politics? I suspect (but openly admit to not knowing) that the Thatcher cabinet would have had a lot more real world experience than the current one.
As for the remarks that they were all old white men - surely people should only be in the cabinet if they deserve to be there.
After all we don't live in a society of positive discrimination - do we?
You know Iain this just says it all on just HOW poor Labour are.
John Major was head and shoulders above anybody from Labour never mind Mrs T..
Mrs. T was enough of a heavyweight to handbag those charlatans/rogues/unelected dictators in the EU. She had more balls than the collective Cabinet.
Have those of the current Cabinet actually descended yet?
With the benefit of hindsight, that Thatcher cabinet does look strong (and doesn't include Heseltine, who was presumably on the back benches post-Westland), but as other posters have said, some of them were relatively inexperienced at the time and we're judging them on their later careers. Was this around the time that Spitting Image did the "...and the vegetables?" "Oh, they'll have the same" sketch?
Yes....but Gordon Brown is not up against Margaret Thatcher, he is up against David Cameron. And Yvette Cooper is not up against John Major, she is up against a man who once wanted to legalise heroin.
Excuse me? very unlike you Paul. That is complete and utter bollocks.
I think comparing the 21st century with the 20th century is pointless. Why look backwards? It's forward thinking that matters.
I made it 14:1 in favour of the 1988 cabinet, with the rest equal. But I suppose some of the positive ratings were with the benefit of hindsight re their future careers.
Even ID might seem a man of sound judgement, despite his current nonsenses over things like the Olympics and Mr Conway, if it turns out that, for instance, that Total Politics supplants the Daily Telegraph in its former role as the centre of all intelligent political comment or he becomes a highly successful Secretary of State for all Sport and Culture (plus West Ham) in the first David Davis Liberty Party Government.
Unfortunately it was Nigel Lawson who panicked into lowering interest rates following the 1987 stock market crash. As a result inflation powered ahead a couple of years later resulting in interest rates of 15%. We then joined the erm but it was at the wrong exchange rate. Our economy got ruined and we are still paying for it this day with a Labour government.
So dont hold Nigel Lawson in such high esteem.
Johnny Norfolk said...
"You know Iain this just says it all on just HOW poor Labour are.
John Major was head and shoulders above anybody from Labour never mind Mrs T.."
As others have said, that is with the benefit of hindsight. In 1988 John Major was seen as one of the lightweights and many people were astounded that he had made it into the cabinet.
The difference here is that by 87 Thatcher had gone mad with power and the legislation that came after that period was by and large insane.
Ironically I believe the late 80s cabinet was considered lightweight at the time - Thatcher being seen as a big chief surrounded by yes-men.
Whilst the current cabinet is woeful, you could look at the 70s Labour cabinet - probably the highest calibre in terms of personnel since the war (Wilson, Callaghan, Jenkins, Foot, Crosland, Benn, Williams, Healey, Owen latterly) - and say they were actually a disastrous government, heavyweight though they may have been as individuals.
Cecil? You're having a laugh aren't you Iain.
After what he did to his secretary, wrapping her up in legal hatred and paying her a pittance to bring up their lovechild.
I recal the interview with his daughter on Women's Hour which revealed he ensured the legal weight of the injunctions were so harsh she couldn't even appear in school photo or be in school plays.
The only way he could be described as a "heavyweight" is if you added either "shit" or "bastard" to qualify the term.
Carl Eve
That's a shit -
"I look at the Tory cabinet and see a lot of old white men (PM excepted, obviously).
It's hardly reflective of society (then or now) but certainly reflective of the narrow pool of people the Conservative Party drew upon for members".
I am an old brown man. In my opinion, the Cameron cabinet in 2010 should have the best set of talents, selected purely on merit. I do not care if all of them are White. I have been voting Conservative for over thirty years, without worrying about Thatcher and Major's cabinets not representing the 'rainbow coalition'.
I cannot help sniggering that 'so what' Balls would have found a place in Thatcher's cabinet. Despite what Brown is doing now, he would have found a place in Thatcher's cabinet as Scottish Secretary and no higher. But the then Scottish Secretary had wide powers next only to the Prime Minister.
Anonymous said...
"the list on the left is depressingly male."
Not depressing at all. It's one of the many reasons why the list on the left is clearly so much better.
I remember when Mrs. Thatcher's Cabinet was announced thinking that there was a dangerously high proportion of lightweights. I think experience showed that I was right; even she was eventually insufficient to compensate.
However, looking at your comparison I agree fully with anonymous of 12:41 p.m. Only two of Thatcher's lightest were flimsier than the current incumbents. The curent Cabinet is outshone and outweighed by both its Tory and LibDem opponents.
Post a Comment